text
stringlengths 4
2.78M
| meta
dict |
|---|---|
---
abstract: 'We have investigated, in the frame work of the transport approach, different aspects of the QGP created in Heavy Ion Collisions at RHIC and LHC energies. The shear viscosity $\eta$ has been calculated by using the Green-Kubo relation at the cascade level. We have compared the numerical results for $\eta$ obtained from the Green-Kubo correlator with the analytical formula in both the Relaxation Time Approximation (RTA) and the Chapman-Enskog approximation (CE). From this comparison we show that in the range of temperature explored in a Heavy Ion collision the RTA underestimates the viscosity by about a factor of 2, while a good agreement is found between the CE approximation and Gree-Kubo relation already at first order of approximation. The agreement with the CE approximation supplies an analytical formula that allows to develop kinetic transport theory at fixed shear viscosity to entropy density ratio, $\eta/s$. We show some results for the build up of anisotropic flows $v_{2}$ in a transport approach at fixed shear viscosity to entropy density ratio, $\eta/s$. We study the impact of a T-dependent $\eta/s(T)$ on the generation of the elliptic flows at both RHIC and LHC. We show that the transport approach provides, in a unified way, a tool able to naturally describe the $v_{2}(p_{T})$ in a wide range of $p_{T}$, including also the description of the rise and fall and saturation of the $v_{2}(p_{T})$ observed at LHC. Finally, we have studied the evolution of the quark-gluon composition of the plasma created in ultra-Relativistic Heavy Ion Collisions (uRHIC’s) employing a Boltzmann-Vlasov transport approach that include: the mean fields dynamics, associated to the quasi-particle model, and the elastic and inelastic collisions for massive quarks and gluons. Following the chemical evolution from an initial gluon dominated plasma we predict a quark dominance close to $T_{C}$ paving the way to an hadronization via quark coalescence.'
address:
- '$^1$ Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Catania, Via S. Sofia 64, I-95125 Catania (Italy)'
- '$^2$ Laboratorio Nazionale del Sud, INFN-LNS, Via S. Sofia 63, I-95125 Catania (Italy)'
author:
- 'Salvatore Plumari$^{1,2}$, Armando Puglisi$^{2}$, Maria Colonna$^{2}$, Francesco Scardina$^{1,2}$ and Vincenzo Greco$^{1,2}$'
bibliography:
- 'iopart-num.bib'
title: Shear viscosity and chemical equilibration of the QGP
---
Introduction
============
The experimental results accumulated in the last decade in the ultra relativistic heavy ion collisions (uRHICs) before at RHIC program at BNL and more recently at the LHC program at CERN has shown that the azimuthal asymmetry in momentum space, namely the elliptic flow $v_{2}$, is the largest ever seen in HIC [@STAR_PHENIX; @ALICE_2011]. The most common approach to study the uRHICs is the viscous Hydrodynamics at second order in gradient expansion according to the Israel-Stewart theory [@Romatschke:2007mq; @Molnar_cascade; @Heinz]. The comparison of the experimental measured $v_{2}$ with hydrodynamical calculations has suggested that in these uRHICs an almost perfect fluid with a very small shear viscosity to entropy density ratio $\eta/s$ has been created [@Romatschke:2007mq; @Heinz]. Similar conclusions has been obtained also by kinetic transport theory [@Xu:2007jv; @Xu:2008av; @greco_cascade] . Both Hydrodynamical and transport approach have shown an agreement on the evaluation of the viscosity with $4\pi \eta/s \sim 1 -3$ very close to the conjectured lower bound limit $\eta/s= 1/4\pi$. In general, both these calculations show that the elliptic flow depends sensitively on the ratio $\eta/s$. Hydrodynamics however has the fundamental problem of a limited range of validity in $\eta/s$ and in the transverse momentum $p_T \le 2 GeV$. At increasing $p_T$ viscous hydrodynamics breaks its validity because the relative deviation of the equilibrium distribution function $\delta f / f_{eq} $ increases with $p_T$ becoming large already at $p_T \geq 3T \sim 1 GeV$. On the other hand the relativistic kinetic transport approach has the advantage to be a 3+1D approach not based on a gradient expansion in viscosity that is valid also for large $\eta/s$ and for out of equilibrium momentum distribution allowing a reliable description also of the intermediate $p_T$ range.
However usually kinetic theory is applied to the study of HIC starting from the microscopic details of the fields and cross sections and it is not discussed directly in terms of viscosity of the system. The search for the QGP properties, however, have shown that the shear viscosity and in particular the viscosity to entropy density ratio $\eta/s$ is a key transport coefficient that could be very close to the conjectured lower bound limit, $\eta/s= 1/4\pi$. This has lead more recently to develop a transport approach at fixed $\eta/s$ [@greco_cascade; @Molnar_cascade; @Plumari_njl] which allows to have a direct link to the viscous hydrodynamic language. First attempts in this direction have been already developed and applied to the study of the QGP dynamics using the simple expression for $\eta$ in the relaxation time approximation. On the other hand such an approach ask for a knowledge of the correct relation between the shear viscosity $\eta$ and temperature, cross section, mass and density.
In this proceeding we discuss different aspect of the matter created in these uRHICs within the Boltzmann-Vlasov transport theory. The kinetic theory at partonic level developed solves the following relativistic equation: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{VlasovNJL}
p^{\mu}\, \partial_{\mu} f(x,p)+M(x)\partial_{\mu} M(x) \partial_{p}^{\mu} f(x,p)=\mathcal{C}(x,p)\end{aligned}$$ where $f(x,p)$ is the distribution function for on-shell particles and $\mathcal{C}(x,p)$ is the Boltzmann-like collision integral. We notice that the Boltzmann-Vlasov transport theory distinguishes between the short range interaction associated to collisions and long range interaction associated to the field interaction, responsible for the change of the Equation of State (EoS) respect to that of a free gas. This last feature allows to unify two main ingredients that are relevant for the formation of collective flows: the Equation of State and the finite mean free path. Furthermore the field interaction in $M(x)$ is associated to a microscopic description in terms of quasi-particles allowing to bridge the microscopic studies of thermodynamic to the dynamics of HIC. This could potentially lead to infer more information on the microscopic structure of the QGP from the rich experimental observable of HIC’s. In these proceedings we will discuss a first issue related with the chemical composition of the QGP, i.e. the relative abundance of quarks and gluons.
The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we discuss the method for calculating the shear viscosity $\eta$ using the Green-Kubo relation and after a brief overview of Chapmann-Enskog and Relaxation Time Approximation we show the comparison between our results using the Green-Kubo relation and these scheme of approximation for isotropic and anisotropic cross section. In Section 3, we use the results obtained in section 2 to introduce a transport approach at fixed shear viscosity to entropy density $\eta/s$ to study the build up of anisotropic flows $v_{2}$ and the effect of a temperature dependent $\eta/s(T)$ on the $v_{2}(p_{T})$. In section 4, we study the evolution of the quark-gluon composition of the plasma created in uRHIC’s employing a Boltzmann-Vlasov transport approach that include: the mean fields dynamics, associated to the quasi-particle model, and the elastic and inelastic collisions for massive quarks and gluons. Finally Section 5 contains summary and conclusions.
Shear viscosity from the Green-Kubo relation
============================================
The transport coefficient like heat-conductivity, bulk and shear viscosity can be related to the correlation functions of the corresponding flux or tensor in thermal equilibrium. The calculation of these coefficients is based on the fluctuation-dissipation theorem [@GK]. Here we are interested to the shear viscosity $\eta$ for which the Green-Kubo formula assumes the following expression [@zubarev]: $$\label{green-kubo-completa}
\eta=\frac{1}{T} \int_{0}^{\infty}dt\int_{V}d^3x\,\langle \pi^{xy}(\textbf{x},t)\pi^{xy}(\textbf{0},t) \rangle$$ where $T$ is the temperature, $\pi^{xy}$ is the $xy$ component of the shear component of the energy momentum tensor while $\langle \,...\,\rangle $ denotes the ensemble average. In this work we determine numerically the correlation function $\langle \pi^{xy}(t)\pi^{xy}(0) \rangle$ solving the ultra-relativistic Boltzmann transport equation.
Our aim here is to solve numerically the full collision integral to evaluate the viscosity through the Gree-Kubo formula and compare it with the results of the RTA and CE approximation scheme. The particle dynamics is simulated via Monte Carlo methods based on the stochastic interpretation of transition [@Xu:2004mz; @greco_cascade]. The shear component of the energy momentum tensor is given by $$\label{pixy_generale}
\pi^{xy}(\textbf{x},t)=T^{xy}(\textbf{x},t)=\int \frac{d^3p}{(2\pi)^3} \frac{p^xp^y}{E}f(\textbf{x},\textbf{p};t)$$ where we notice that at equilibrium the shear stress tensor is given by the energy-momentum tensor. In our calculation the particles are distributed uniformly in the box. Therefore for an homogeneous system the volume averaged shear tensor can be written as $$\pi^{xy}(t)=\frac{1}{V}\sum_{i=1}^{N}\frac{p^x_i p^y_i}{E_i}$$ the sum is over all the particles in the box. In the Green-Kubo formula the calculation of the shear viscosity is reduced to the calculation of the correlation function, for details of the calculation of $\langle \pi^{xy}(t)\pi^{xy}(0) \rangle$ see [@Green-Kubo_2012; @Wesp_2011]. Performing the numerical calculation we obtain that $\langle \pi^{xy}(t)\pi^{xy}(0) \rangle$ is an exponential decreasing function with the time. We use this fact to fit the correlation function with the following expression, as done in several other works [@Wesp_2011; @Fuini_3; @Demir_Bass; @Muronga], $$\begin{aligned}
\langle \pi^{xy}(t)\pi^{xy}(0) \rangle = \langle \pi^{xy}(0)\pi^{xy}(0) \rangle e^{-t/\tau}
\label{corr_fit}\end{aligned}$$ $\tau$ is the so called relaxation time. Substituting Eq.(\[corr\_fit\]) into Eq.(\[green-kubo-completa\]) the formula for the shear viscosity becomes: $$\eta=\frac{V}{T}\langle \pi^{xy}(0)\pi^{xy}(0) \rangle \tau$$ This is the formula that we will use in our calculation to extract the shear viscosity. The relaxation time $\tau$ is calculated performing a fit on the temporal range where the correlation function assume the exponential form. The error on the value of the viscosity comes from the error on the initial value of the correlator and the error on the relaxation time $\tau$ extracted from the fit of the correlation function.
Green-Kubo vs Chapman-Enskog and Relaxation Time Approximation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Before starting with the comparison between our results for $\eta$ using the Green-Kubo relation and the analytical result obtained in the relaxation time approximation and the Chapman-Enskog approach it is useful to show briefly these two methods. The difference between these two methods resides in the different way in which the collision integral is approximated. In the RTA it has been demonstrated that the shear viscosity assumes the following expression [@Gavin:1985ph; @Kapusta_qp]: $$\begin{aligned}
\eta &=& \frac{1}{15T}\,\int_0^{\infty}\,\frac{d^3p_a}{(2\pi)^3}\,
\frac{|p_a|^4}{E_a^2}\,\tau_a(E_a)\,f^{eq}_a\,\,
\label{eta_relax}\end{aligned}$$ where $\tau_a(E_a)$ is the so called relaxation time and it is related to the collision frequency of the particles. The relaxation time can easily be expressed in terms of the total cross-section $\sigma_{tot}$: $$\begin{aligned}
\tau_a^{-1}(E_a)= \rho \, \langle \sigma_{tot} \, v_{rel} \rangle
\label{tau_eq_4}\end{aligned}$$ We notice that in the RTA the interaction appears in the relaxation time only through the total cross-section. However on general physical argument the viscosity is expected to depend also on the momentum transfer that on average the collisions are able to produce. In the literature to take into account this fact the relaxation time is approximated by $\tau^{-1}_{tr}=\langle \rho \, \sigma_{tr} \, v_{rel} \rangle$, i.e. substituting the total with the transport cross section $\sigma_{tr}$. This is not really coming from the RTA as in Eq.s (\[eta\_relax\]) and (\[tau\_eq\_4\]), however we will refer to it as RTA in the following. As we will see such an extension of the RTA can reasonably approximate the correct viscosity only for the case of isotropic cross section, where it is found that $\eta_{RTA}=0.8(T/\sigma_{tr})=1.2(T/\sigma_{tot})$.
The description of the CE approach is more complicate and we use the formalism recently developed in Ref.[@Prakash:2012]. At first order of approximation $[\eta_s]_{CE}^{I}$ can be written for the most general case of relativistic particles colliding with a generic differential cross section $\sigma(s,\Theta)$ as $$\begin{aligned}
[\eta_s]_{CE}^{I} &=& 10 \,T \,\frac{{\hat{h}}^2}{c_{00}}
\label{shear_I}\end{aligned}$$ where $\hat{h} = K_3(z)/K_2(z)$ with $z ={m}/{T}$ and $c_{00} = 16\left( w_2^{(2)} - z^{-1}\,w_1^{(2)} + (3z^2)^{-1}w_0^{(2)} \right)$. The $w_i^{(2)}$ are the so-called relativistic omega integrals which are given by the following integral $$\begin{aligned}
w_{i}^{(2)} &=& \frac{z^3}{K_2(z)^2}\int_{1}^{\infty} dy\, y^i
(y-1)^7 \, K_j(2zy) \, \sigma_{tr}(y)
%\int_{0}^{\pi} d\Theta \, \sin\Theta \, \sigma(s,\Theta) \, (1-\cos^s\Theta)~.
\label{omega_integral}\end{aligned}$$ where $j = \frac{5}{2}+\frac{1}{2}\left( -1\right)^i$ and $y = \sqrt{s}/2M$ while $\sigma_{tr}=\int \, d\Omega \, \sigma(s,\Theta) \, \sin^{2}\Theta$ is the transport cross section.
![\[fig:eta\_sigma\]Shear viscosity $\eta$ for a massless system as a function of the total isotropic cross-section $\sigma$ and for different temperatures. The circles are the results from the Green-Kubo method, while the lines are the results obtained using the Chapman-Enskog approximation to the $16^{th}$ order Eq.(\[Chapman\_16\]).](eta_sigma.ps){width="18pc"}
In the following discusion we compare our results for $\eta$ using the Green-Kubo relation and the analytical result obtained in the relaxation time approximation and the Chapman-Enskog approach. We perform this comparison for two different cases: first for the case of massless particles colliding with an isotropic cross-section $\sigma(s,\Theta)=\sigma_{0}=const$ and second, for a more realistic case, of massless particles colliding with an anisotropic cross-section. For a more general discussion including also the case of massive particles see [@Green-Kubo_2012]. For this simple case of isotropic cross section and massless particle the CE approximation for the shear viscosity is given by the following relation: $$\begin{aligned}
[\eta]^{I}_{CE} = 0.8 \frac{T}{\sigma_{tr}}= 1.2 \frac{T}{\sigma_{tot}}
\label{Chapman_1}\end{aligned}$$ As we can see it is the same result obtained using the RTA with $\tau^{-1}_{tr}=\langle \rho \, \sigma_{tr} \, v_{rel} \rangle$. In the literature there exist also higher order calculation up to the most recent work in Ref. [@Prakash:2012] where the calculation was extended up to the $16^{th}$ order. They higher order approximation converge to the value $$\begin{aligned}
[\eta]^{16^{th}}_{CE} = 0.845 \frac{T}{\sigma_{tr}}= 1.267 \frac{T}{\sigma_{tot}}
\label{Chapman_16}\end{aligned}$$ where however the difference between the $I^0$ and the $16^{th}$ order is about $6 \%$. In Fig.(\[fig:eta\_sigma\]) we show the results obtained using the Green-Kubo formula by full circles compared to the prediction of CE at $16^{th}$ order, Eq.(\[Chapman\_16\]) by lines. The error bars for the Green-Kubo calculation are small and within the symbols. As we can see we have a very good agreement with the analytical results in all the examined range of cross sections and temperatures with a discrepancy of about $2\%$.
![\[fig:eta\_md\] Left: Shear viscosity $\eta$ as a function of the Debye mass $m_{D}$ for three different values of the temperature $T=0.3, 0.4, 0.5 \, GeV$ blue, green and red respectively. The open simbols are the results obtained using the Green-Kubo relation. The solid, dashed and dot dashed lines refer to the RTA approach with $\tau^{-1}=\langle \rho \, \sigma_{tr} \, v_{rel} \rangle$ respectively for $T=0.3, 0.4, 0.5 \, GeV$ . The dotted line is the isotropic limit when $m_D \to \infty$. Right: The same as the left panel but the solid, dashed and dot dashed lines refer to the Chapman-Enskog approximation at firt order.](eta_md_doppio.ps){width="20pc"}
To study the more realistic case of angular dependent cross section,we choose typical elastic pQCD inspired cross section with the infrared singularity regularized by Debye thermal mass $m_D$: $$\frac{d\sigma}{dt} = \frac{9\pi \alpha_s^2}{2}\frac{1}{\left(t-m_D^2\right) ^2}\left(1+\frac{m^2_D}{s}\right)
\label{sigma_md}$$ where $s,t$ are the Mandelstam variables. Such kind of cross sections are those typically used in parton cascade approaches [@Zhang:1999rs; @moln02; @greco_cascade; @Plumari:2010fg; @Xu:2004mz; @Xu:2008av]. The total cross-section corresponding to Eq. (\[sigma\_md\]) is $\sigma_{tot}=9\pi \alpha_s^2/(2 m_{D}^2)$ which is energy and temperature independent if $\alpha_{s}$ and $m_{D}$ are fixed. In Eq.(\[sigma\_md\]) the Debye mass $m_D$ is a parameter that regulates the anisotropy of the scattering cross section. For this case of anisotropic cross section the situation is more complicate and it is not possible to have a simple analytical expression for the viscosity. In the left panel of Fig.(\[fig:eta\_md\]) it is shown the shear viscosity $\eta$ as a function of the Debye mass at fixed total cross-section $\sigma_{tot}=3 \,mb$ and for three different temperatures $T=0.3 \, \rm GeV$, $T=0.4 \, \rm GeV$ and $T=0.5 \, \rm GeV$. On the left panel of Fig.(\[fig:eta\_md\]), we compare the Green-Kubo results (symbols) with the prediction of the modified RTA with $\tau^{-1}=\langle \rho \, \sigma_{tr} \, v_{rel} \rangle$ at first order (lines). It is evident that there is a strong disagreement between the two as soon as $m_D$ is far from the isotropic limit indicated by dotted lines. Therefore, we see in general that even if the total cross section is fixed, non-isotropic cross section strongly enhance the value of the viscosity $\eta$ and such an enhancement is stronger respect to $\eta \propto \sigma_{tr}^{-1}$, i.e. the modified RTA approximation. On the right panel of Fig.(\[fig:eta\_md\]), we compare the Green-Kubo results (symbols) with the prediction of CE at first order (lines). In this case we find a very good agreement between the two, hence the CE already at first order is able to account for the correct value of $\eta$ even if the cross section is so forward-backward peaked to cause an increase of about an order of magnitude respect to isotropic limit. The RTA approximation would severely underestimate the viscosity. We can also see that for $m_D \sim 8-10 T $ the isotropic limit is recovered and both CE and RTA coincide but this is essentially the limit discussed above.
This study and in particular the agreement obtained beetwen the Green-Kubo calculation and the CE approximation supply a way to develop a transport theory with fixed $\eta/s$, as we will see in the next section.
The parton cascade at fixed $\eta/s$
====================================
In this section we introduce a transport approach at fixed $\eta/s$ ratio. The motivation to introduce this approach is twofold: first because it is possible to make a direct comparison to viscous hydrodinamic approach and second, more generally, we have a tool to directly estimate the viscosity of the plasma valid in a wider range of $\eta/s$ and $p_{T}$ respect to hydro. To this end we do not calculate the cross section from a microscopic model but determine the local cross section $\sigma_{tot}$ in order to have the wanted local viscosity. Here we illustrate the procedure considering the reduction of the transport approach in to a cascade where we neglect the field interaction in Eq.(\[VlasovNJL\]). In other words we consider the simplest case of massless gas.
Our approach is a $3 + 1$ dimensional Montecarlo cascade [@greco_cascade] for on-shell partons based on the stochastic interpretation of the collision rate discussed in Ref. [@Xu:2004mz]. In the following discussion we use the pQCD inspired cross section used in the previous section Eq.(\[sigma\_md\]). In the CE approximation for anisotropic cross section it is not possible to express the shear viscosity $\eta$ in an analytical form, because the differential cross section enters in the so called relativistic $\omega$ integrals Eq.(\[omega\_integral\]). For this particular case $\eta$ can be written in the following form: $$[\eta]_{CE}^{I}=g(m_{D},T)\frac{T}{\sigma_{tot}} \nonumber
%\label{sigma_md2}$$ $g(m_{D},T)$ is a function of temperature and the thermal Deby mass. Therefore considering that the entropy density for a massless gas is $s=\rho (4 - \mu/T)$, $\mu$ being the fugacity, we get: $$[\eta]_{CE}^{I}/s=\frac{g(m_{D},T)}{\rho (4 - \mu/T)} \frac{T}{\sigma_{tot}}\label{eq:eta_s}$$ where $\sigma_{tot}$ is the total cross section. In our approach we solve the relativistic Boltzmann equation with the constraint that $\eta/s$ is fixed during the dynamics of the collisions in a way similar to [@Molnar_1] but with an exact local implementation as described in detail in [@greco_cascade]. We can evaluate locally in space and time the strength of the cross section $\sigma_{tot}(\rho,T)$ needed to have $\eta/s$ at the wanted value by mean of the following formula: $$\sigma_{tot}=\frac{g(m_{D},T)}{\rho (4 - \mu/T)} \frac{T}{[\eta]_{CE}^{I}/s} \label{eq:eta_s2}$$ An alternative but equivalent way to look at such procedure is that we implement a total cross section of the form $\sigma_{tot}=K(\rho, T) \sigma_{pQCD} > \sigma_{pQCD}$ where $K$ takes into account the non perturbative effects responsible for that value of viscosity $\eta(T)$. Note that this approach have been shown to recover the viscous hydrodynamics evolution of the bulk system [@Molnar_cascade; @greco_cascade], but implicitly assume that also high $p_T$ particles collide with largely nonperturbative cross section.
Effect of temperature dependent $\eta/s(T)$ on $v_{2}$
------------------------------------------------------
In our calculation the initial condition are longitudinal boost invariant. The initial $dN/d\eta$ have been chosen in order to reproduce the final $dN_{ch}/d\eta(b)$ at mid rapidity observed in the experiments at RHIC and LHC energies. The partons are initially distributed in coordinate space according to the Glauber model while in the momentum space at RHIC (LHC) the partons with $p_T \leq p_0=2 GeV$ ($4 GeV$) are distributed according to a thermalized spectrum with a maximum temperature in the center of the fireball of $T_{0}=2 T_C$ ($T_{0}=3 T_C$) and the transverse profile $T(\vec{r})=T_{0}\big( \rho(\vec{r})/\rho(0) \big)^{1/3}$ while for $p_T > p_0$ we take the spectrum of non-quenched minijets according to standard NLO-pQCD calculations.
![Different temperature dependent parametrizations for $\eta/s$. The orange area take into account the quasi-particle model predictions for $\eta/s$ [@Plumari:qp_model].[]{data-label="Fig:etas_T"}](etas-ene_T2.eps){width="15pc"}
We also start our simulation at the time $t_0 = 0.6 fm/c$ at RHIC and $t_0=0.3 fm/c$ at LHC in agreement with the $t_{0}T \approx 1$ criterium. In order to study the effect of the kinetic freezeout on the generation of the elliptic flow we have performed different calculations: one kind of calculation with a constant $4\pi\eta/s=1$ and $2$ during all the evolution of the system (black and green dashed line of Fig.\[Fig:etas\_T\]) the other (shown by red solid line in Fig.\[Fig:etas\_T\]) with $4\pi\eta/s=1$ in the QGP phase and an increasing $\eta/s$ in the cross over region towards the estimated value for hadronic matter $4 \pi \eta/s = 8$ [@etaS_hadronic]. Such an increase allows for a smooth realistic realization of the kinetic freeze-out.
![Differential elliptic flow $v_2(p_T)$ at mid rapidity for $20\%-30\%$ collision centrality. On the left panel, the orange band indicate RHIC results measured by STAR and the orange points on the right panel are the LHC results measured by the ALICE collaboration, data taken by [@ALICE_2011]. The black and green dashed lines are the calculations with $4\pi \eta/s = 1$ or $2$ respectively during all the evolution of the fireball and without the freeze out condition while the red line is the calculation with the inclusion of the kinetic freeze out and with $4\pi\eta/s=1$ in the QGP phase respectively.[]{data-label="Fig:v2_etasT"}](v2_itemp1_eta2.5_anisotropic.eps){width="20pc"}
In Fig. \[Fig:v2\_etasT\] it is shown the elliptic flow $v_2(p_T)$ at mid rapidity for $20\%-30\%$ centrality for both RHIC Au+Au at $\sqrt{s}=200 GeV$ (left panel) and LHC Pb+Pb at $\sqrt{s}=2.76 TeV$ (rhigh panel). As we can see at RHIC energies, left panel of Fig. \[Fig:v2\_etasT\], the $v_2$ is sensitive to the hadronic phase and the effect of the freeze out is to reduce the $v_{2}$ of about of $25 \%$, from black dashed line to red solid line and the effect of the kinetic f.o. is quantitatively similar to have a constant $4 \pi \eta/s = 2$ during all the evolution of the fireball, green dashed line in Fig. \[Fig:v2\_etasT\]. For the $p_{T}$ range shown we get a good agreement with the experimental data for a minimal viscosity $\eta/s \approx 1/(4\pi)$ once the f.o. condition is included. This result is in agreement with the viscous hydro results, even if we notice that the agreement is good up to $p_{T} \sim 3 \, GeV$ and non ansantz on the non-equilibrium effect is needed. At LHC energies, right panel of Fig. \[Fig:v2\_etasT\], the scenario is different, we have that the $v_2$ is less sensitive to the increase of $\eta/s$ at low temperature in the hadronic phase. The effect of large $\eta/s$ in the hadronic phase is to reduce the $v_2$ by less than $5 \%$ in the low $p_T$ region, from black dashed line to the red solid line in right panel of Fig. \[Fig:v2\_etasT\]. This different behaviour of $v_2$ between RHIC and LHC energies can be explained looking at the life time of the fireball. In fact at RHIC energies the life time of the fireball is smaller than that at LHC energies, $4 - 5 fm/c$ at RHIC against the about $8 -10 fm/c$ at LHC, in agreement with HBT results. Therefore at RHIC the elliptic flow has not enough time to fully develop in the QGP phase. While at LHC we have that the $v_2$ develops almost completely because the fireball spend more time in the QGP phase. Qualitatively these results are similar to those obtained using the formula for $\eta$ in the RTA (see Ref.([@Plumari_Bari])) but quantitatively the results are different because as shown in the previous section the viscosity estimated in the RTA in the range of temperature explored in a HIC differes also for a factor 2 from that obtained in the CE approximation which is the correct one. In general in these results we have a smaller $v_{2}$ respect to the results obtained used the RTA approximation for $\eta$ and this is due to the fact that for fixed $\eta/s$ ratio in the CE approximation we estimate locally a smaller total cross section respect to the RTA case.
As pointed out due to this large life time of the fireball at LHC and the larger initial temperature is interesting to study the effect of a temperature dependence in $\eta/s$. In the QGP phase $\eta/s$ is expected to have a minimum of $\eta/s \approx (4\pi)^{-1}$ close to $T_{C}$ as suggested by lQCD calculation [@lQCD_eta]. While at high temperature quasi-particle models seems to suggest a temperature dependence of the form $\eta/s \sim T^{\alpha}$ with $\alpha \approx 1 - 1.5$ [@Plumari:qp_model]. To analyze this possible scenarios for $\eta/s$ in the QGP phase we have considered another different with a quadratic dependence $4\pi \eta/s=(T/T_0)^2=(\epsilon/\epsilon_0)^{1/2}$ (green line) where $\epsilon_0=1.7 GeV/fm^3$ is the energy density at the beginning of the cross over regions where the $\eta/s$ has its minimum, see blue dashed line in Fig.\[Fig:etas\_T\].
![Differential elliptic flow $v_2(p_T)$ at mid rapidity for different collision centralities. On the left panel, the blue red and green bands indicate RHIC results measured by STAR and while points on the right panel are the LHC results measured by the ALICE collaboration with the same colours of the left panel for the different collision centralities, data taken by [@ALICE_2011]. The solid and dashed lines are calculations with the inclusion of the kinetic freeze out and with $4\pi\eta/s=1$ and $4\pi\eta/s \propto T^2$ in the QGP phase respectively. The different colour are for the different collisions centralities.[]{data-label="Fig:v2_etasT2_b"}](v2_vari_b.eps){width="20pc"}
At RHIC energies the $v_2$ is essentially not sensitive to the dependence of $\eta/s$ on temperature in the QGP phase, see the dashed blu, red and green lines in the left panel of Fig. \[Fig:v2\_etasT2\_b\]. However the effect on average is to decrease the value of $v_2$ but at low $p_T < 1.5 GeV$ the $v_2(p_T)$ appears to be insensitive to $\eta/s(T)$ while a quite mild dependence appears at higher $p_T$ where however the transport approach tends always to overpredicted the elliptic flow observed experimentally. At LHC energies the build-up of $v_2$ is more affected by the $\eta/s$ in the QGP phase and on average it is reduced of about a $20 \%$. In any case still a strong temperature dependence in $\eta/s$ has a small effect on the generation of $v_2$ we found that with a constant or at most linearly dependent on T $\eta/s$ the transport approach can describe the data at both RHIC and LHC at least up to $p_T \sim 2 -3 GeV$. The fact that we can reproduce the $v_{2}(p_{T})$ for different centralities implies that we can reproduce also the breaking of $v_{2}/\epsilon$ scaling as described by core-corona models [@Becattini:2008ya; @Aichelin:2008mi; @Aichelin:2010ed]. In our approach, this fact is taken into account dynamically by the increase of the $\eta/s$ ratio at lower energy density, see Fig. \[Fig:etas\_T\].
Effect of high $p_{T}$ partons on $v_{2}$
-----------------------------------------
In the previous section has been pointed out that in our approach where we fix locally the ratio $\eta/s$ we have that $\sigma_{Tot}=K(\rho,T) \sigma_{pQCD}$ therefore we have large cross section independently of the $p_T$ of the colliding particles. Obviously, this procedure doesn’t permit to recover the pQCD limit for hard collision therefore we extend our previous approach allowing for a $K$ factor that depends on the invariant energy of the collision $K(s)$. We choose this function in such a way that at high energies $K(s) \to 1$ and in this way we get the the connection between the non pertubative interacting bulk and the asymptotic pQCD limit. For $K(s)$ we choose the following exponential form $K(s/\Lambda^2)=1 + \gamma \, e^{-s/\Lambda^2}$, where $\Lambda$ is a scale parameter that fix the energy scale we have a transition to pQCD behaviour. While $\gamma$ plays the same role of $K$ in the old calculations and it is determined again in order to keep fixed locally the $\eta/s$. Therefore we can repeat the same procedure as described in the previous section but now with $\sigma_{Tot}=K(s) \sigma_{pQCD}$. Only for a qualitative discussion in this section we will show the results for the elliptic flow obtained using the relaxation time approximation (RTA) for the shear viscosity [@Plumari_Bari]. Implementation with the CE is in progress.
![Left: $v_2(p_T)$ at mid rapidity for $20\%-30\%$ collision centrality at RHIC. The dashed lines are the calculations with $K=const$ and for $4\pi\eta/s=1$ and $4\pi\eta/s \propto T$ with f.o. respectively for black and blue curves while the solid lines are the same but with $K(s/\Lambda^2)$. Right: $v_2(p_T)$ at mid rapidity and for $20\%-30\%$ collision centrality at LHC with the same legend, data taken from [@ALICE_2011].[]{data-label="Fig:v2_Ks_etas"}](v2_Ks5 "fig:"){width="16pc"} ![Left: $v_2(p_T)$ at mid rapidity for $20\%-30\%$ collision centrality at RHIC. The dashed lines are the calculations with $K=const$ and for $4\pi\eta/s=1$ and $4\pi\eta/s \propto T$ with f.o. respectively for black and blue curves while the solid lines are the same but with $K(s/\Lambda^2)$. Right: $v_2(p_T)$ at mid rapidity and for $20\%-30\%$ collision centrality at LHC with the same legend, data taken from [@ALICE_2011].[]{data-label="Fig:v2_Ks_etas"}](v2_Ks_pT5 "fig:"){width="16pc"}
In the left panel of Fig. \[Fig:v2\_Ks\_etas\] we compare the $v_2(p_T)$ for $20\%-30\%$ collision centrality at RHIC energies with (solid) and without (dashed) the inclusion of an energy dependent $K$ factor and for two T dependences of the $\eta/s$. As we can see $K(s/\Lambda^2)$ does not affect at all the $v_2(p_T)$ for $p_T < 2 GeV$, in other words at RHIC energies the high $p_T$ partons do not affect the generation of the $v_2$ of the bulk. On the other hand, we have a reduction of the $v_2$ for $p_T > 3 GeV$ and in particular the $v_2$ becomes a decreasing function of $p_T$ for $p_T > 3 GeV$ in agreement with what is observed experimentally (orange band). In the right panel of Fig. \[Fig:v2\_Ks\_etas\] we compare in a large range the $v_2(p_T)$ at LHC energies with (solid) and without (dashed) the inclusion of an energy dependent $K$ factor and for two T dependence of the $\eta/s$. We notice that the two sets of experimental data refer to different method of $v_2$ measurements, namely $v_2[2]$ (circle) and $v_2[4]$ (square) and our theorethical results should be compared to $v_2[4]$ because event-by-event fluctuations are not considered in our calculations. As we can see at LHC energies the $v_2$ is sensitive to $K(s/\Lambda^2)$ already at $p_T \approx 1.5 GeV$ quite lower than the RHIC case, in other words the many high $p_T$ partons that we have at LHC energies affect the generation of the $v_2$ of the bulk. In general we observe that the $v_2(p_T)$ becomes more sensitive to the value of the viscosity when we include the function $K(s/\Lambda)$.
We can give the following interpretation for the $v_2(p_T)$: The raise of the $v_2(p_T)$ at low $p_T$ is an effect of a strong interacting fluid where the particles interact mainly non perturbatively with large cross sections and therefore we get a description in agreement with hydrodynamics. For $p_T > 3 - 4 GeV$ the elliptic flows starts to be a decreasing function of $p_T$. This is the region where the disappearance of the non perturbative effect significantly affects the $v_2(p_T)$ making faster and stronger ($\sim 20 - 25 \%$) the fall in the elliptic flow in the range $3 GeV < p_T < 8 GeV$. Finally in our calculation for $p_T > 8 GeV$, where the pQCD limit is almost established, seems to appear the saturation of the $v_2$ similarly to the experimental data and typical of a path-lengh mechanism as in jet quenching models [@Scardina]. In this region an analysis with better statistics is required.
Chemical equilibration of the QGP
=================================
A successful way to account for non-perturbative dynamics of the QGP is a quasi-particle approach, in which the interaction is encoded in the quasi-particle masses [@Plumari:qp_model; @Ruggieri_qpmodel; @Bluhm:2010qf; @LH1998; @PC05; @PKPS96; @Ratti:2011au]. The model is usually completed by introducing a finite bag pressure that can account for further non-perturbative effects. It is well known that, in order to be able to describe the main features of lattice QCD thermodynamics [@Borsanyi:2010cj], in these quasi-particle models a temperature-dependent mass has to be considered. This also implies that the bag constant has to be temperature-dependent, in order to ensure thermodynamic consistency. We notice that if the QGP can be described in terms of finite mass excitations this has a strong impact on the quasiparticle chemical ratio $N_{q+\overline{q}}/N_g$. In fact at equilibrium one has: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{N_{q+\overline{q}}}{N_g}=\frac{d_{q+\overline{q}}}{d_g}
\frac{m_q^2(T)\, K_2(m_q/T)}{m_g^2(T)\, K_2(m_g/T)}\, ,
\label{eq-ratio}\end{aligned}$$ where $K_2$ is the Bessel function and $m_{q,g}(T)$ are the $T-$dependent quark and gluon masses that can be determined by a fit [@Plumari:qp_model] to recent lQCD calculations [@Borsanyi:2010cj]. In Fig.\[eq-ratio\], we show by solid line the equilibrium ratio when the fit to lQCD $\epsilon(T)$ is done assuming $m^2_q/m^2_g=3/2 \cdot (N_c^2-1)/N_c(2N_c+N_f)=4/9$ according to a pQCD scheme [@LH1998; @PC05; @PKPS96].
![\[nqng-qpm\] Quark to gluon ratio at equilibrium as a function of the temperature as predicted by QPM [@Plumari:qp_model]. For the solid line the $m_q/m_g$ ratio is according to pQCD while the dashed line indicate the massless case.](nqng-qpm3.eps)
The motivation to use a transport equation for quasiparticles with a space-time dependent mass resides in the success of quasi particles in describing correctly the behavior of energy density and pressure of the QGP as computed in the lQCD approach. We employ a Boltzmann-Vlasov transport theory to simulate the partonic stage of the HIC. In the last years several codes have been developed based on transport theory at the cascade level [@Zhang:1999bd; @moln02; @Xu:2004mz; @greco_cascade], i.e. including only collisions between massless partons, with quite rare exceptions [@Cassing:2009vt; @Plumari_njl; @Scardina_2012].
In this section we present the results within a transport approach that includes the mean field dynamics associated to the thermal self-energies generating the finite mass $m(T)$ in the quasi-particle model discussed in Ref. [@Plumari:qp_model; @LH1998; @PC05; @PKPS96]. In such a picture the relativistic Boltzmann-Vlasov equation can be written as follows: $$[p^\mu \partial_\mu+ m^*(x) \partial_\mu m^*(x)\partial ^{\mu}_p]f(x,p)=
{\cal C}[f](x,p)
\label{BV-equation}$$ where $\mathcal{C}(x,p)$ is the Boltzmann-like collision integral, main ingredient of the several cascade codes: $${\cal C} \!=\!
\int\limits_2\!\!\! \int\limits_{1^\prime}\!\!\! \int\limits_{2^\prime}\!\!
(f_{1^\prime} f_{2^\prime} -f_1 f_2) \vert{\cal M}_{1^\prime 2^\prime \rightarrow 12} \vert^2
\delta^4 (p_1+p_2-p_1^\prime-p_2^\prime)
\label{coll-integr}$$ where $\int_j= \int_j d^3p_j/(2\pi)^3\, 2E_j $, $f_j$ are the particle distribution functions, while ${\cal M}_{f\rightarrow i}$ denotes the invariant transition matrix for elastic as well as inelastic processes. The elastic processes have been implemented and discussed in several previous works [@Zhang:1999bd; @moln02; @Xu:2004mz; @greco_cascade]. In this section, instead, we will show some results including the inelastic processes between quarks and gluons ($gg \leftrightarrow q\overline{q}$) and to achieve this we have evaluated the matrix element in a pQCD LO order scheme. The tree diagrams contributing to the $gg \leftrightarrow q\overline{q}$ correspond to the $u,t,s-$channels: ${\cal{M}}={\cal{M}}_s+{\cal{M}}_t+{\cal{M}}_u$. For the massless case the cross sections for such processes are the textbook pQCD cross section for jet production in high-energy proton-proton collisions. In our case we have considered a finite mass for both gluons and quarks together with a dressed gluon propagator where for vanishing gluon mass we recover the renowed Combridge cross sections [@Combridge:1978kx]. The details of the calculations are quite similar to the one in [@Biro:1990vj] for finite current strange quark mass. The thermodynamical self-consistency of the QPM requires a self-consitency between the Bag constant and the effective mass of the quasiparticles [@Plumari:qp_model] which leads to a gap-like equation coupled to Eq.(\[BV-equation\]): $$\frac{\partial B}{\partial m_i} =-
\int \frac{d^{\,3} \vec{p}}{(2\pi)^3 } \frac{m_i(x)}{E_i(x)} f_i(x,p) \,
\label{gap-equation}$$ with $i=q,\overline q,g$. Eq.(\[gap-equation\]) allows to evaluate locally the mass in Eq.(\[BV-equation\]) also in non-equilibrium conditions guaranteeing the conservation of the energy-momentum tensor of the fluid.
![\[ratio-time\] Left:Quark to gluon ratio as a function of time (normalized to $\tau_0$) in $Au+Au$ at $\sqrt{s}= 200 \rm AGeV$ (black lines) and for $Pb+Pb$ at $\sqrt{s}= 5.5 \rm ATeV$ (light lines). Dashed lines are for the massless case and the solid for the massive case. Right: Quark to gluon ratio vs $p_T$ at the freeze-out time. The thin solid line represents the full equilibrium raio, Eq. (\[ratio-pt-anal\]); see text for details.](rapp_vs_t_RHIC_LHC_xxx.eps "fig:"){width="16pc"} ![\[ratio-time\] Left:Quark to gluon ratio as a function of time (normalized to $\tau_0$) in $Au+Au$ at $\sqrt{s}= 200 \rm AGeV$ (black lines) and for $Pb+Pb$ at $\sqrt{s}= 5.5 \rm ATeV$ (light lines). Dashed lines are for the massless case and the solid for the massive case. Right: Quark to gluon ratio vs $p_T$ at the freeze-out time. The thin solid line represents the full equilibrium raio, Eq. (\[ratio-pt-anal\]); see text for details.](rapp_vs_pt_RHIC_LHC_xxx.eps "fig:"){width="16pc"}
We have checked that the numerical implementation in a stationary box is able to reproduce correctly both the kinetic and the chemical equilibrium. In particular we have carefully checked that for different temperature we get the correct abbundancy of quarks and gluons as given by Eq.(\[eq-ratio\]). In the following discussion we will show some results for the more realistic case of a HIC.
We have simulated $Au+Au$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}= 200$ AGeV and $Pb+Pb$ at $\sqrt{s}= 5.5 \rm ATeV$ for $0-10\%$ centrality. The initial condition are longitudinal boost invariant with an initial quark to gluon ratio of $N_{q+\overline{q}}/N_{g}=0.25$ with about $75 \%$ of gluon and $25 \%$ of quarks. The initial conditions in the $r$-space are given by the standard Glauber condition while in the $p$-space we use a Boltzmann-Juttner distribution function up to a transverse momentum $p_T=2$ GeV while at larger momenta minijet distributions are implemented, as calculated by pQCD at NLO order [@Greco:2003mm]. At RHIC the initial maximum temperature at the centre of the fireball is $T_0=340$ MeV and the initial time $\tau_0=0.6$ fm/c (corresponding also to the $\tau_0 \cdot T_0 \sim 1$ criterium) as in succesfull hydrodynamical simulations. For $Pb+Pb$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}= 5.5 \, \rm ATeV$ we have $T_0=600$ MeV and $\tau_0\sim 1/T_0=0.3$ fm/c. In Fig.\[ratio-time\] it is shown the time evolution of the ratio $R_{qg}=N_{q+\overline{q}}/N_g$ for both the massless case (dashed lines) and the massive quasi-particle case (solid lines). As we can see in the massless case at RHIC the system reaches very quickly, in less than 1 fm/c, the chemical equilibrium given by $R_{qg} \sim 2$. The difference in the time evolution of the ratio between RHIC and LHC is due to the temperature dependence of the strong coupling $\alpha_{S}(T)$ that we have considered in our model. In fact during the first stages of the fireball evolution at LHC the temperature is larger with respect to the initial stages at RHIC and this means a smaller $\alpha_{S}(T)$ at LHC. However for the final ratio we obtain similar results for RHIC and LHC and this behaviour is consistent with the fact that at the equilibrium this ratio does not depend on the temperature of the system, see dashed line in Fig.(\[nqng-qpm\]).
When the quasi-particle massive case is considered, as we can see the ratio $R_{qg}$ is an increasing function with the time and it reaches $R_{qg} \sim 3.8$ for $Au+Au$. As we can see in Fig.(\[ratio-time\]) for the massive quasi-particle case (solid lines) we have a difference in the time evolution of the ratio $N_{q+\overline{q}}/N_{g}$ between RHIC and LHC and this is consistent, not only with the temperature dependence of $\alpha_{S}(T)$, as in the massless case, but also with the fact that the equilibrium value is strongly $T$ dependent especially close to $T_c$ (see Fig.\[nqng-qpm\]) and the system is sensitive to the different initial temperature between RHIC and LHC. Nonetheless we find that the fireball reaches a value relatively close to the equilibrium at $T \sim T_c$ and eventually it is composed by about $80 \%$ of quark plus anti-quarks. As shown we have that the time evolution of the quark to gluon ratio $N_{q+\overline{q}}/N_{g}$ is qualitatively similar between RHIC and LHC but for LHC it is always smaller than that at RHIC. This difference is due to the fact that at LHC longer part of the lifetime is spent in a $T$-region where the equilibrium $R_{qg}$ is nearly constant. This results into a moderately smaller final ratio.
In the right panel of Fig.\[ratio-time\] the $p_T$ dependence of the quark to gluon ratio is shown for the initial distribution (dotted line) and the freeze-out distributions: massless case (dashed line) and massive case (solid line). Black lines are for $Au+Au$ and light ones fore $Pb+Pb$. We see the large difference between the massless and the massive case and also that the net gluon to quark conversion extends up to quite large $p_T$. As we can see we have that at very low $p_{T}$ this ratio is very close to the equilibrium value for both massive with $N_{q+\overline{q}}/N_{g} \approx 6 - 7$ and massless with $N_{q+\overline{q}}/N_{g} \approx 2$ at the f.o. where the temperature is $T \approx T_{C}$. The decrease of the ratio with $p_T$ can be expected considering that high$-p_T$ particles can more easily elude the equilibration dynamics. However, in the massive case, we note a quite strong dependence below $p_T=2$ GeV that has not to be interpreted as a fast detachment from the chemical equilibrium. In fact the $p_T-$dependence of the ratio can be evaluated analitically at equilibrium and it is given by $$\frac{dN/d^2\,p_T|_{q+\overline{q}}}{dN/d^2\,p_T|_g}=\frac{d_{q+\overline{q}}}{d_g}
\frac{m_{T}^{q} e^
{\gamma[(m_{T}^{q}-\beta_0 p_T)/T]}}{m_{T}^{g} e^
{\gamma[(m_{T}^{g}-\beta_0 p_T)/T]} }
\label{ratio-pt-anal}$$ where $\beta_0$ is the radial flow velocity, $m_{T}^{q}$ and $m_{T}^{g}$ are the transverse masses. In the right panel of Fig.(\[ratio-time\]) with the thin dashed line we plot the function of Eq.(\[ratio-pt-anal\]) rescaled by a factor 0.85 accounting for the lack of full thermalization. The strong $p_T$ dependence obtained in the transport simulation follows very closely the equilibrium behavior at least up to $p_T \sim 1.5$ GeV. This is a well known effect predicted by hydrodynamics and experimentally observed from SPS to LHC energy for hadronic spectra. In conclusion the effect of the mass on the chemical composition of the QGP is substatially both at high $p_{T}$ and low $p_{T}$ region where we have a dominance of quarks also in high $p_{T}$ region. this result represent an important support to the idea of a coalescence of masssive quraks [@Greco:2003xt; @Greco:2003mm; @Fries:2003kq; @Fries:2008hs].
Conclusions
===========
In the frame work of the transport approach we have investigated different aspects of the QGP created in Heavy Ion collisions at RHIC and LHC energies.
We have developed a method to solve numerically the Green-Kubo formula for the shear viscosity for the case of a relativistic Boltzmann gas. In our study we have compared the Chapman-Enskog approximation and the relaxation time approximation with the result from the Green-Kubo correlator that in principle should provide the correct result. We have shown our results only for two physical case: isotropic and non-isotropic cross section for massless, for a more complete study see [@Green-Kubo_2012]. Our work shows that the relaxation time approximation always underestimate the shear viscosity even by more than a factor of 2 and it gives a satisfying prediction only in the unrealistic case of massless isotropic cross section. Instead in the Chapman-Enskog approximation already at first order have shown an agreement at the level of $2\%$ with the numerical calculations of the Green-Kubo correlator for all the physical case considered. The agreement between the CE approximation at first order and the Green-Kubo method also supplies a relatively simple analytical expression for the viscosity that we have used to developed a kinetic transport theory at fixed viscosity with very good precision. This shows that the current used relaxation time approximation for the viscosity can lead to significantly underestimate the $\eta/s$. Therefore previous works [@greco_cascade; @Abreu:2007kv; @Plumari_Bari] in this direction are only approximately valid.
We have investigated within a transport approach at fixed $\eta/s$, in the CE approximation, the effect of a temperature dependent $\eta/s$ at RHIC and LHC energies. An important result is that at LHC a key observables like the elliptic flow is much less contaminated by the hadronic phase allowing a better study of the QGP properties. This result is qualitatively in agreement with the previus work in the RTA. We get for both at RHIC and LHC a good agreement with the data when the ratio $\eta/s \approx 1/(4\pi)$ and in general we observe not a large sensitivity of $v_2$ to the T dependence in $\eta/s$. Furthermore we have seen that at LHC the large ammount of particle with $p_{T} > 4 GeV/c$ interacting nearly perturbatively cannot be neglected. The interplay between perturbative and non-perturbative behaviour seems to have an important effect on the generation of $v_2$ at intermediate $p_T$ and it could explain the rapid raise and fall of $v_{2}(p_{T})$ in $0<p_{T}<8 GeV/c$ shown in the experiments.
Finally, we have studied the evolution of the quark-gluon composition of the plasma created in ultra-Relativistic Heavy Ion Collisions (uRHIC’s) implied by standard quasi-particle approach developed to study the thermodynamics of the QGP. Tis has been realizd employing a Boltzmann-Vlasov transport theory that includes both elastic and inelastic collisions. This study shows that one could expect that the QGP created in uRHIC’s, even if it is initially a Glasma should very quickly evolve into a plasma dominated by quark plus antiquarks close to the cross-over temperature $T_c$. With the quark to gluon ratio can evolve by more than a factor 20 and at freeze-out is anyway almost a factor 2 larger than the one for an equilibrated massless QGP. The results are quite robust and devolpments of the QPM [@Plumari:qp_model; @LH1998; @PC05; @PKPS96] or inclusion of three-body inelastic scatterings may even make the effect larger. The result supplies a theorethical justification of the *massive-quark* coalescence hadronization models able to successfully describe several puzzling observations at RHIC and LHC [@Greco:2003xt; @Greco:2003mm; @Fries:2003kq; @Fries:2008hs].
References {#references .unnumbered}
==========
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'I review recent progress in relating meson spectral function to imaginary time correlation function at finite temperature calculated on isotropic as well as on anisotropic lattices. Special attention is payed for the lattice artifacts present in calculation of meson spectral functions. Results in the case of light quarks as well as heavy quarks are reviewed which indicate in particular that even in the chiral limit meson spectral functions have non-trivial structure and the ground state quarkonia survive up to temperature $1.5T_c$.'
address: |
Nuclear Theory Group, Department of Physics, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York, 11973\
email: [email protected]
author:
- Péter Petreczky
title: Lattice calculations of meson correlators and spectral functions at finite temperature
---
Introduction
============
Spectral functions of mesonic operators play an important role in finite temperature QCD. Many experimental results in high energy heavy ion collisions ( e.g. low invariant mass dilepton enhancement, anomalous $J/\psi$ suppression etc.) can be understood in terms of medium modifications of meson spectral functions [@rapp].
It is commonly believed that lattice QCD is capable only for calculation of static quantities at finite temperatures, such as the transition temperature, equation of state, screening lengths etc. However, it was shown by Asakawa, Hatsuda and Nakahara that using the [*Maximum Entropy Method*]{} one can in principle reconstruct also meson spectral functions. The method was successfully applied at zero temperature [@asakawa01; @cppacs] and later also at finite temperature [@karsch02; @wetzorke02; @karsch03; @datta03; @asakawa02; @umeda2; @wetzorke03]. Though systematic uncertainties in the spectral function calculated on lattice are not yet completely understood, it was shown in Ref. [@karsch02] that precise determination of the imaginary time correlator can alone provide stringent constraints on the spectral function at finite temperature.
In this contribution I am going to review recent results on meson correlators and spectral functions in finite temperature QCD. The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In section 2 I will discuss the relation between the imaginary time correlators and meson spectral functions. In section 3 numerical results for the light quarks will be discussed. Section 4 contains results on charmonia at finite temperature. Finally conclusions are given in section 5.
Meson correlators and spectral function in continuum and lattice QCD
====================================================================
In finite temperature field theory one usually considers two types of real time correlation function of some operator $\hat O$ D\^[>]{}(t,t’)=O(t) O(t’) \_T, D\^[<]{}(t,t’)=O(t’) O(t) \_T, where $\langle ... \rangle_T = \langle ... e^{-\hat{H}/T}
\rangle_T$ denotes the thermal average [@lebellac]. The imaginary time correlation function which can be calculated also by using lattice simulations is defined as simple analytic continuation G()= O(-i ) O(0) . \[rel1\] ( ${\cal T}$ stands for time ordered product). The spectral function can be defined through the Fourier transform of $D^{>(<)}(t)$ as ()== Im D\_R(), where $D_R(\omega)$ is the retarded correlator. Using Eq. (\[rel1\]) and KMS condition on $D^{>(<)}$ [@lebellac] one can easily derive the following integral relation between the imaginary time correlator and the spectral function G()=\_0\^ d () \_0\^ d () K(,) \[rel2\] Using this relation one can in principle reconstruct the spectral function by calculating $G(\tau)$ on lattice. At zero temperature the kernel, $K(\omega,\tau)$ reduces to simple exponential and at large Euclidean times the correlation function picks up the contribution from the lowest lying meson state in $\sigma(\omega)$, i.e $G(\tau)=\exp(-m \tau)$. At finite temperature the analysis of the asymptotic behavior of the correlators is no longer possible as $\tau$ is limited to the interval $[0,~1/T]$ where excited states are equally important as the ground state. Additional complications arise in lattice calculations where correlators are calculated only at finite set of Euclidean times $\tau T=k/N_{\tau}$, $k=0,...,N_{\tau}-1$ with $N_{\tau}$ being the temporal extent of the lattice. In order to reconstruct the spectral functions from this limited information it is necessary to include in the statistical analysis of the numerical results also prior information on the structure of $\sigma(\omega)$ (e.g. such as $\sigma(\omega)>0$ for $\omega>0$). This can be done through the application of the [*Maximum Entropy Method*]{} (MEM) [^1].
In order to study meson properties at finite temperature appropriate choice of the operator $\hat O$ should be made. One possible choice is local meson operator bilinear in quark-antiquark fields (current) [@asakawa01; @cppacs; @karsch02; @wetzorke02] O\_H(,)=Z\_H |q(,) \_H q(,), \_H=1, \_5, \_, \_5 \_ \[pointop\] for scalar, pseudoscalar, vector and axial vector channels correspondingly. The normalization constant $Z_{H}$ relates the current calculated in lattice regularization scheme to current in $\overline{MS}$ scheme with $\mu_{\overline{MS}}=a^{-1}$ (with $a$ being the lattice spacing). We can define then the temporal correlators at finite spatial momentum $\vec{p}$ G\_[H]{}(,)=O\_H(,) O\_H\^(,-) , O(,)=\_ e\^[i ]{} O\_H(,) One can also consider correlators of extended operators defined as [@umeda2; @umeda1] O\_H(,)=\_ () |q(,) q(,+). Here ()=(-b ||\^p) \[triwf\] is the trial wave function which controls the size of the meson source and can be regarded as a physical input to the problem. The use of extended operators makes the reconstruction of the spectral function easier as the correlator is dominated by a single peak in the spectral function [@umeda2]. However, the corresponding spectral function is not related to a physically observable quantity, it can provide information only about the mass and the width of the resonance but not about the corresponding decay constant. This also only works for sharp resonances. At high temperature “mesons” will appear as broad structures in the spectral function and the above method is no longer applicable.
Though the in-medium properties of mesons are encoded primarily in the temporal correlator and the corresponding spectral function, in finite temperature QCD it is customary to study spatial correlators defined as G\_[H]{}=O(z) O\^(0) , O(z)=\_[,x,y]{} O(,x,y,z). Since the lattice extent is not limited in the spatial directions one can study their large distance behavior. At large distances the spatial correlators decay exponentially and the exponential decay governed by the so-called screening mass. The spatial correlators can be related to the spectral function via following relation G\_[H]{}(z)=\_[-]{}\^ d p\_z e\^[i p\_z z]{} \_0\^[1/T]{} G(,0,0,p\_z)=\_[-]{}\^ d p\_z e\^[i p\_z z]{} \_0\^ d In general the screening masses are different from the pole masses, however, from the above equation one can easily see that in the special case when the spectral function is dominated by a single $\delta$-function for small $\omega$ the screening and the pole masses are equal.
![The ratio of the lattice and continuum spectral functions in different channels (left) versus $\omega a$ and the lattice pseudoscalar spectral function versus $\tilde \omega=\omega/T$ for different values of $N_{\tau}$ calculated using Wilson fermions. See Ref. [@karsch03a] for further details.[]{data-label="latspf"}](fSPF.eps "fig:"){width="7cm"} ![The ratio of the lattice and continuum spectral functions in different channels (left) versus $\omega a$ and the lattice pseudoscalar spectral function versus $\tilde \omega=\omega/T$ for different values of $N_{\tau}$ calculated using Wilson fermions. See Ref. [@karsch03a] for further details.[]{data-label="latspf"}](fSPFNt.eps "fig:"){width="7cm"}
The relation between the imaginary time correlator and the spectral function (\[rel2\]) is valid only in the continuum theory. As the correlators are calculated on lattice the question arises whether the spectral representation of the form (\[rel2\]) can be derived also for the lattice correlator. In ref. [@karsch03a] it was shown that this is indeed the case in the free theory and that the cutoff effects present in the correlator at small separations are contained in the spectral function. Because of the asymptotic freedom calculation in the free theory are relevant at high temperature and/or large energies $\omega$. In Fig. \[latspf\] I show the ratio of of the lattice spectral function to the corresponding continuum spectral function versus $a \omega$ as well as the lattice pseudoscalar spectral function versus $\omega/T$ in the free theory. As one can see from the figures the lattice spectral functions start to deviate from the continuum one for $\omega a>0.5$ and in the pseudoscalar and vector channels show a peak like structure around $\omega a \simeq 2$. The lattice spectral functions vanishes for $\omega a > \omega_{max} a \sim 4 N_{\tau}$. As the temporal extent of the lattice $N_{\tau}$ is increased for fixed temperature, i.e. the lattice spacing decreases ($a=1/(N_{\tau} T$)) the peak structure moves to larger value of $\omega/T$ (see Fig. \[latspf\]). Peak structure around $\omega a \simeq 2$ was also observed in the interacting theory [@cppacs]. The main reason for the large cutoff effects in the lattice spectral function is that on lattice the quark dispersion relation gets modified at large momenta, $pa >1$, relative to its continuum counterpart. Cutoff effects in the spectral function can be substantially reduced by using an improved fermion action, the so-called truncated perfect action on hypercube [@biet96] for which the lattice quark dispersion relation is much closer to the continuum even for $pa >1$ [@karsch03a].
Numerical results in the light quark sector
===========================================
Meson correlators and spectral functions for small quark masses were intensively studied during recent years [@karsch02; @wetzorke02; @karsch03; @qcdtaro]. In Refs. [@karsch02; @wetzorke02; @karsch03] spectral functions were studied using non-perturbatively ${\cal O}(a)$ improved Wilson action [@luescher] and isotropic $32^3 \times 16$, $48^3 \times 12$, $64^3 \times 16$ and $64^3 \times 24$ lattices. In these studies quark masses corresponding to the pion masses in the range 400MeV to 1Gev were considered in the confined phase, while in the deconfined phase calculation were performed in the chiral limit and the temperature interval was $0.4T_c-3T_c$ with $T_c$ being the deconfinement temperature. The renormalization factors $Z_{H}$ appearing in Eq. \[pointop\] were determined non-perturbatively in Ref. [@luescher] for the vector and axial vector channels, while for the scalar and pseudoscalar channels they were calculated using tadpole improved perturbation theory.
![The ratio of meson correlators at $1.5T_c$ in different channels to the corresponding correlators in the free theory calculated on $64^3 \times 16$ lattice.[]{data-label="restor"}](ratall_above.eps){width="8cm"}
Asakawa, Hatsuda and Nakahara have studied meson spectral functions using $32^3 \times N_{\tau}$ anisotropic lattices with $a_{\tau}/a_{\sigma}=4$ and $N_{\tau}=96-32$ corresponding to temperatures $0.8T_c-3T_c$ [@asakawa02]. The quark masses used in this study correspond to $m_{\pi}/m_{\rho}=0.7$. Below the deconfinement temperature neither the correlators nor the spectral functions indicate in-medium change of meson properties contrary to existing theoretical predictions [@rapp]. This is likely due to the quenched approximation and large quark masses used in these studies.
![The ratio of meson correlators at $1.5T_c$ and $3T_c$ in the pseudoscalar (left) and vector (right) channels to the corresponding correlators in the free theory calculated on lattice.[]{data-label="corpsvc"}](rat_ps_above.eps "fig:"){width="7cm"} ![The ratio of meson correlators at $1.5T_c$ and $3T_c$ in the pseudoscalar (left) and vector (right) channels to the corresponding correlators in the free theory calculated on lattice.[]{data-label="corpsvc"}](rat_v1234_above.eps "fig:"){width="7cm"}
Before discussing the results on the spectral function above deconfinement let us first look at the correlators. The correlation functions alone can provide some constraints on the spectral functions, for example the analysis of the vector correlation function provides stringent constraint on the thermal dilepton rate [@karsch02]. At high temperature one would expect that the quark propagators should be close to the free ones. Therefore in what follows we will always normalize the meson correlators by the corresponding lattice correlators in the free theory. We will restrict the discussion to the case of zero spatial momentum $\vec{p}=0$. In Fig. \[restor\] I show the meson correlators at $1.5T_c$ in different channels calculated on $64^3 \times 16$ lattice. As one can see from the figure the scalar-pseudoscalar and vector-axial-vector correlators become degenerate except at very small $\tau T$ where lattice artifacts present in the Wilson formulation explicitly break chiral symmetry. This can be viewed as an indication of the $U_A(1)$ symmetry restoration at high temperature. In Fig. \[corpsvc\] I show the vector and pseudoscalar correlators for $1.5T_c$ and $3T_c$ for different values of $N_{\tau}$. From the figure it is evident that the vector correlator stays close to its free value even at $1.5T_c$ while the pseudoscalar correlator is considerably enhanced compared to the corresponding free correlators. Note also that in the vector channel the correlators is $N_{\tau}$ (i.e. lattice spacing) independent, while in the pseudoscalar case there is a small $N_{\tau}$ dependence which is probably due to the perturbative error in calculation of $Z_{PS}$. In Fig. \[spfpsvc\] I show the spectral functions for the pseudoscalar and vector channels. The spectral functions in both channels show a peak like structure at $\omega \simeq (5-6)T$ which is more pronounced in the pseudoscalar case and probably leads to the large enhancement of the pseudoscalar correlator over the free case discussed above. Note that the position of the peak appears to be proportional to the temperature. Spectral function calculated on anisotropic lattice [@asakawa01] are shown in Fig. \[asak\] and exhibit a similar peak like structure, roughly for the same value of $\omega/T$. However, at lower temperature, $T=1.4T_c$ the corresponding structure in the spectral functions appears to be more sharp (see Fig. \[asak\]).
![The spectral functions in the deconfined phase for the pseudoscalar channel (left) and the vector channel (right) reconstructed using MEM on $64^3 \times 16$ lattice.[]{data-label="spfpsvc"}](ps_above.eps "fig:"){width="7cm"} ![The spectral functions in the deconfined phase for the pseudoscalar channel (left) and the vector channel (right) reconstructed using MEM on $64^3 \times 16$ lattice.[]{data-label="spfpsvc"}](v1234_above.eps "fig:"){width="7cm"}
![The spectral functions $\rho(\omega)=\sigma(\omega)/\omega^2$ in different channels calculated at $1.4T_c$ (left) and at $1.9T_c$ (right) using anisotropic lattices [@asakawa01] Note that normalization of the spectral functions is different from the case on isotropic lattices.[]{data-label="asak"}](asak1.eps "fig:"){width="7cm"} ![The spectral functions $\rho(\omega)=\sigma(\omega)/\omega^2$ in different channels calculated at $1.4T_c$ (left) and at $1.9T_c$ (right) using anisotropic lattices [@asakawa01] Note that normalization of the spectral functions is different from the case on isotropic lattices.[]{data-label="asak"}](asak2.eps "fig:"){width="7cm"}
Meson correlators in the spatial directions and the corresponding screening masses have been studied since long time both in full and quenched QCD [@de86; @de87; @born91; @bern92; @gupta00; @laermann; @gupta-over; @gavai03; @prog]. However, reliable determination of the screening masses is available only in quenched approximation [@laermann; @gavai03; @prog] as lattices with temporal extent $N_{\tau}\ge 8$ are needed in such analysis [@gavai03]. The most recent results for the screening masses are summarized in Fig. \[spat1\]. The screening masses are close to their asymptotic ($T \rightarrow \infty $) value $2\pi T$ already at temperature for $T=1.5T_c$. This could lead to the conclusion that there is an almost free quark propagation in spatial directions in the deconfined phase at temperatures as low as $1.5T_c$. However, a closer look on the spatial correlators in Fig. \[spat1\] reveals that this is not the case even at $3T_c$. The correlators calculated by using lattice simulations are several times larger than the corresponding free ones. This is not unexpected since it is well known that the physics at distances $z>1/(g^2 T)$ is non-perturbative even at very high temperature [@linde]. In Fig. \[spat2\] I show the vector and pseudoscalar spatial correlators at short distances together with the temporal one. As one can see from the figures at small separations temporal and spatial correlators show very similar behavior.
![The screening masses (left) and spatial correlators (right) for vector and pseudoscalar channels at $T>T_c$. The screening masses have been calculated in quenched QCD using improved Wilson fermions [@laermann; @prog] and Kogut-Susskid fermions [@gavai03].[]{data-label="spat1"}](meson_scmass.eps "fig:"){width="7cm"} ![The screening masses (left) and spatial correlators (right) for vector and pseudoscalar channels at $T>T_c$. The screening masses have been calculated in quenched QCD using improved Wilson fermions [@laermann; @prog] and Kogut-Susskid fermions [@gavai03].[]{data-label="spat1"}](rat_spat.eps "fig:"){width="7cm"}
![ The ratio of spatial and temporal correlators in the deconfined phase to the corresponding free correlators for the pseudoscalar (left) and vector (right) channels. []{data-label="spat2"}](rat_tz_ps.eps "fig:"){width="7cm"} ![ The ratio of spatial and temporal correlators in the deconfined phase to the corresponding free correlators for the pseudoscalar (left) and vector (right) channels. []{data-label="spat2"}](rat_tz_v1234.eps "fig:"){width="7cm"}
Heavy quarkonia correlators and spectral functions
==================================================
Heavy quarkonia correlators and spectral functions were studied in Refs. [@umeda2; @umeda1] using anisotropic lattices and extended operators as well as on isotropic lattices and point correlators [@datta03]. In Ref. [@datta03] pseudoscalar, vector, scalar and axial vector channels were considered which correspond to $^1 S_0$ ($\eta_c$), $^3 S_1$ ($J/\psi$), $^3P_0$ ($\chi_{c0}$) and $^3P_1$ ($\chi_{c1}$) charmonia states respectively. As in the light quark sector some statements about in-medium properties of charmonia can be made just by analyzing the behavior of the correlators.
![The ratio of charmonia correlators to the corresponding free meson correlators in pseudoscalar and vector channels (left) as well as for scalar and axial vector (right) channels .[]{data-label="heavycor"}](psvc.eps "fig:"){width="7cm"} ![The ratio of charmonia correlators to the corresponding free meson correlators in pseudoscalar and vector channels (left) as well as for scalar and axial vector (right) channels .[]{data-label="heavycor"}](scax.eps "fig:"){width="7cm"}
In Fig. \[heavycor\] I show the ratio of different quarkonia correlators to the corresponding free correlators. As one can see from the figures the correlators in the pseudoscalar and vector channels show very little change across $T_c$ while in the case of the scalar and axial vector channels larger changes in the correlators are visible. This implies that the ground state charmonia ($^1 S_0$ and $^3 S_1$) are very likely to survive in the deconfined phase. The spectral function reconstructed using MEM are shown in Fig. \[heavyspf\] which shows indeed the the ground state peak survives in the deconfined phase while the excited $^3P_0$ state is dissociated already at $T=1.25T_c$. Spectral functions were also reconstructed for $1.5T_c$ and and show again that the ground state charmonia survive while the excited P-states are dissociated.
![Spectral function in the pseudoscalar (left) and axial vector channels (right) reconstructed using MEM. []{data-label="heavyspf"}](ps_heavy.eps "fig:"){width="7cm"} ![Spectral function in the pseudoscalar (left) and axial vector channels (right) reconstructed using MEM. []{data-label="heavyspf"}](ax_heavy.eps "fig:"){width="7cm"}
Ground state charmonia ( $^1 S_0$, $^3 S_1$ states) spectral functions were also studied in Ref. [@umeda2] using extended operators. The results for the vector channel are shown in Fig. \[umedafig1\]. The $J/\psi$ mass (the peak position) changes very little across $T_c$ while the corresponding peak in the spectral function gets broader above $T_c$. This broadening of the ground state peak is also visible in calculations with local operators. However, such broadening is not necessarily a physical effect and may come from the fact that less data points $N_{\tau}$ are available at higher temperature [@asakawa01] and also the temporal extent of the lattice in physical units become smaller [@umeda2]. The authors of Ref. [@umeda2] have found that the width of the peak in the spectral function also depends on the trial wave function $\phi(y)$ used in constructing the extended operator (see Fig. \[umedafig1\]), the peak is broader for larger value of $b$ in the trial wave function $\phi(\vec{y})$. Therefore MEM cannot yet provide a reliable estimate of the width of the $J/\psi$ in the plasma. To overcome this difficulty $\chi^2$ -fits to the Breit-Wigner form of the spectral function was used [@umeda2]. This led to a first hints for a non-zero widths of charmonium states above $T_c$.
![ The $J/\psi$ spectral function reconstructed from the correlation function of extended operators using MEM [@umeda2] for $0.9T_c$ and $1.1T_c$ and different input wave functions (different values of $b$). []{data-label="umedafig1"}](umeda_proc.eps){width="10cm"}
The existence of ground state charmonia at $1.5T_c$ is in sharp disagreement with predictions of potential models based on color screening [@mehr; @digal01]. A possible reason for this discrepancy is an oversimplified picture of color screening used in these studies. In fact recent analysis of the free energy of quark-antiquark pair suggest quite complicated medium dependence of inter-quark forces [@okacz02; @okacz03; @digal03].
Conclusions
===========
In this paper recent results on meson spectral functions and correlators calculated on lattice were discussed. Though systematic uncertainties are present in the spectral functions the results appear to be very interesting and even intriguing to some extent. The presence of the peak like structures in the meson spectral functions well above deconfinement temperature is, too large extent, unexpected. These peak structures seems to be present in the spectral functions calculated on isotropic lattices [@karsch02; @wetzorke02; @datta03] as well as on anisotropic lattices [@asakawa02; @umeda2] and is some case their presence is supported by direct inspection of the corresponding correlation functions (c.f. Fig. \[corpsvc\] (left) and Fig. \[heavycor\]). In the case of heavy quarkonia the interpretation of the peaks in the spectral function is clear, they correspond to the quarkonia states which survive in the deconfined phase up to temperatures $1.5T_c$. We have seen that the position of these peaks does not change considerably compared to the zero temperature case. The interpretation of peak-like structures in the light quark sector is less evident as the position of these peaks seems to be proportional to the temperature. Certainly much more work is needed in order to be able to interpret the present findings in physical terms as well as for the detailed understanding of the systematic uncertainties involved in extraction of the spectral functions from lattice correlators.
Many results presented in the manuscript were obtained by S. Datta, F. Karsch, E. Laermann, S. Stickan and I. Wetzorke and myself. I would like to thank my colleagues for the collaboration. I would like to thank S. Stickan and F. Karsch for careful reading of the manuscript. Finally e-mail correspondence from T. Yamazaki, M. Asakawa and T. Umeda regarding their results is gratefully acknowledged.
[99]{} Rapp R, Wambach J 2000, [*Adv. Nucl. Phys.* ]{} [**25**]{} 1; Rapp R, Grandchamp L, hep-ph/0305143 Nakahara Y, Asakawa M and Hatsuda T 1999, 091503 Asakawa M, Hatsuda T, Nakahara Y 2001, [*Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**46**]{} 459 CP-PACS Collaboration, Yamazaki T 2001, 014501 Karsch F et al 2002, 147 Wetzorke I et al 2002, [*Nucl. Phys. B (Proc. Suppl.)*]{} [**106**]{} 513 Karsch F et al 2003, [**A715**]{} 701c Datta S et al 2003, [*Nucl. Phys. B (Proc. Suppl.)* ]{} [**119**]{} 487 (hep-lat/0208012) Asakawa Y, Hatsuda T, Nakahara Y, hep-lat/0208059 Umeda T, Nomura K, Matsufuru H, hep-lat/0211003 Wetzorke I, hep-lat/0305012 Le Bellac M 1996, [*Thermal Field Theory*]{} ( Cambridge University Press ) Lepage G P et al 2002, [*Nucl. Phys. B ( Proc. Suppl.)*]{} [**106**]{} 12 Gupta S, hep-lat/0301006 Umeda T et al 2001, [*Int. J. Mod. Phys.* ]{} [**A16**]{} 2215 Karsch F et al, hep-lat/0303017 Bietenholz W et al 1997, [*Nucl. Phys. B (Proc. Suppl.)*]{} [**53**]{} 921 QCD-TARO Collaboration, de Forcrand Ph et al 2001, 054501 Lüscher M et al 1997, 344 DeGrand T A, DeTar C E 1986, 2469 DeTar C E, Kogut J B 1987, 2828 Born K D et al 1991, 302 Bernard C et al 1992, 2125 Laermann E, Schmidt P 2001, [*Eur. Phys. J.*]{} [**C20**]{} 541 Gavai R V, Gupta S 2000, 2068 Gavai R V, Gupta S 2002, 094504 Gavai R, Gupta S 2003, 034501 F Karsch et al, work in progress Linde A 1980, 289 Karsch F, Mehr M T, Satz H 1988, 617 Digal S, Petreczky P, Satz H (2001), 094015 Kaczmarek 0 et al 2002, 41 Zantow F et al, hep-lat/0301015 Digal S, Fortunato S, Petreczky P, hep-lat/0304017
[^1]: Other methods of introducing prior information into the statistical analysis have been also discussed in Ref. [@lepage] for the zero temperature case and in Ref. [@gupta-v] for finite temperature QCD.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
Combining the GW observations of merging systems of binary neutron stars and quasi-universal relations, we set constraints on the maximum mass that can be attained by nonrotating stellar models of neutron stars. More specifically, exploiting the recent observation of the GW event GW 170817 and drawing from basic arguments on kilonova modeling of GRB 170817A, together with the quasi-universal relation between the maximum mass of nonrotating stellar models $M_{\rm TOV}$ and the maximum mass supported through uniform rotation $M_{\rm
max}=\left(1.20^{+0.02}_{-0.05}\right) M_{\rm TOV}$ we set limits for the maximum mass to be $ 2.01^{+0.04}_{-0.04}\leq
M_{\rm TOV}/M_{\odot}\lesssim 2.16^{+0.17}_{-0.15}$, where the lower limit in this range comes from pulsar observations. Our estimate, which follows a very simple line of arguments and does not rely on the modeling of the electromagnetic signal in terms of numerical simulations, can be further refined as new detections become available. We briefly discuss the impact that our conclusions have on the equation of state of nuclear matter.
author:
- 'Luciano Rezzolla, Elias R. Most, and Lukas R. Weih'
bibliography:
- 'aeireferences.bib'
title: 'Using gravitational-wave observations and quasi-universal relations to constrain the maximum mass of neutron stars'
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
A long-awaited event took place on 2017 August 17: the Advanced LIGO and Virgo network of GW detectors have recorded the signal from the inspiral and merger of a binary neutron-star (BNS) system [@Abbott2017_etal]. The correlated electromagnetic signals that have been recorded by $\sim 70$ astronomical observatories and satellites have provided the striking confirmation that such mergers can be associated directly with the observation of short gamma-ray bursts (SGRBs). This event has a double significance. First, it effectively marks the birth of multi-messenger GW astronomy. Second, it provides important clues to solve the long-standing puzzle of the origin of SGRBs [@Eichler89; @Narayan92; @Rezzolla:2011; @Berger2013b]. Numerical simulations in full general relativity of merging BNSs have also played an important role in determining the solution of this puzzle, and significant progress has been made over the last decade to accurately simulate the late-inspiral, merger, and post-merger dynamics of BNSs (see, [e.g., ]{} @Baiotti2016 [@Paschalidis2016] for recent reviews).
Indeed, it is through the detailed analysis of the results of these simulations that a number of recent suggestions have been made on how to use the GW signal from merging BNSs to deduce the properties of the system and, in particular, the equation of state (EOS) of nuclear matter.
For instance, the changes in the phase evolution of the GW signal during the inspiral, which depends on the tidal deformability of stellar matter will leave a characteristic imprint on the GW signal [@Read2013; @Bernuzzi2014; @Hinderer2016; @Hotokezaka2016] or in the post-merger phase. This imprint, such as the one associated with the GW frequency at maximum amplitude [@Read2013; @Bernuzzi2014; @Takami2015], can even be quasi-universal in the sense that it depends only weakly on the EOS. Similar considerations also apply for the post-merger signal, where the GW spectrum exhibits characteristic frequencies [@Bauswein2011; @Takami2014], some of which have been shown to have a quasi-universal behavior [@Bernuzzi2014; @Takami2014; @Takami2015; @Rezzolla2016; @Maione2017].
Much more subtle, however, has been the task of determining the precise fate of the binary merger product (BMP), as this depends on a number of macroscopical factors, such as the total mass and mass ratio of the BNS system of the angular-velocity profile [@Hanauske2016], but also of microphysical ones, such as the efficiency of energy transport via neutrinos [@Palenzuela2015; @Sekiguchi2016; @Bovard2017] and the redistribution of angular momentum via magnetic fields [@Siegel2014; @Palenzuela2015; @Endrizzi2016]. While attempts have been made to determine the mass of the binary that would lead to a prompt collapse, [i.e., ]{}to a black hole within few milliseconds after merger, (see, [e.g., ]{} @Baiotti08 [@Bauswein2013]), or to determine the lifetime of the merged object (see, [e.g., ]{} @Lasky2013 [@Ravi2014; @Piro2017]), the picture on the fate of the post-merger object is still rather uncertain. What makes such a picture complicated is the multiplicity of stable, unstable, and metastable equilibria in which the merged object can find itself. The importance of clarifying this picture, however, is that understanding the ability of the merged object to sustain itself against gravitational collapse is directly related to the maximum mass that can be sustained against gravity, which depends on the underlying EOS.
In this Letter, we combine the recent GW observation of the merging system of BNSs via the event GW 170817 [@Abbott2017_etal] with the existence of quasi-universal relations regulating the equilibria of rotating and nonrotating compact stars to set constraints on the maximum mass that can be sustained by nonrotating stellar models of neutron stars. More specifically, after defining the maximum mass of nonrotating models, $M_{_{\rm TOV}}$, and recalling that the maximum mass that can be supported through uniform rotation is $M_{\rm max}=\left(1.20^{+0.02}_{-0.02}\right)M_{\rm TOV}$ independently of the EOS [@Breu2016], we deduce that when the merged object collapses it has a core that is uniformly rotating and close to the maximum mass of uniformly rotating configurations. Then our range reduces considerably and sets the following constraint for the maximum mass $2.01^{+0.04}_{-0.04}\leq M_{\rm TOV}/M_{\odot}\lesssim
2.16^{+0.17}_{-0.15}$. Our estimate, which is compatible with that recently suggested by other authors [@Alsing2017; @Margalit2017; @Shibata2017c; @Ruiz2017], follows a straightforward set of considerations and does not rely on the modeling of the electromagnetic signal via numerical-relativity simulations (as done, [e.g., ]{} by @Bovard2017 or [@Shibata2017c]) but only on basic arguments inferred from kilonova modeling [@Cowperthwaite2017], can be further refined as new observations are carried out.
The basic picture {#sec:basic_picture}
=================
![Schematic diagram of the different types of equilibrium models for neutron stars. The golden cross marks the initial position of the BMP and the dashed lines its possible trajectories in the $(M,\rho_c)$ plane before it collapses to a black hole.[]{data-label="fig:cartoon"}](./fig1.pdf){width="1.0\columnwidth"}
To illustrate the multiplicity of states that the merger of a BNS system can lead to, we show in Fig. \[fig:cartoon\] a schematic diagram reporting the (gravitational) mass $M_{\rm g}$ versus the central rest-mass density $\rho_{c}$ and thus comprising all possible stable and unstable equilibrium states for the BMP. More specifically, shown with two solid black lines are the sequences of nonrotating (bottom) neutron stars and the neutron stars spinning at the mass-shedding limit. The vertical thin black line marks the turning points of sequences with constant angular momentum and has been shown to be a good approximation to the neutral-stability line for uniformly as well as differentially rotating neutron stars [@Takami:2011; @Weih2017]. Models on the low-density side of this line are dynamically stable, while the ones on the high-density side are unstable against gravitational collapse to a black hole. Neutron stars with masses exceeding the maximum mass of nonrotating configurations, $M_{_{\rm TOV}}$, but not the maximum mass of uniformly rotating neutron stars, $M_{\rm max}$, are referred to as *supramassive* (SMNS), while the ones with mass higher than $M_{\rm max}$ are called *hypermassive* (HMNS; dark-red shaded area in Fig. \[fig:cartoon\]). The latter configurations can only be supported by differential rotation. SMNSs, on the other hand, can be either uniformly or differentially rotating. The uniformly rotating models, however, are confined to the region between the nonrotating and mass-shedding limit (green area). Outside this region, only differentially rotating SMNSs are possible (medium-red area). Finally, models with mass below $M_{_{\rm TOV}}$ can be rotating either differentially (light-red area) or uniformly (light-green area).
Also reported as dashed lines are two “trajectories” that the BMP produced in GW 170807 (golden cross), could have followed and that we have indicated as ${\rm (1)}$ and ${\rm (2)}$, respectively. Both trajectories end on the neutral-stability line because we hereafter make the working assumption that the BMP produced in GW 170817 has indeed collapsed to a black hole as is necessary for most models of SGRB emission from BNS mergers, see, [e.g., ]{} @Rezzolla:2011 [@Murguia-Berthier2017], and is also expected to occur for most commonly used EOSs given the total mass of the system [@Abbott2017d_etal].
In the first scenario ${\rm (1)}$, the BMP spins down and redistributes its angular momentum due, for instance, to magnetic braking or the development of a magnetorotational instability (see @Baiotti2016 for a review). It does so moving on a line of almost constant baryon mass until it eventually enters the dark-green shaded region on the stable side of the neutral-stability line. It can then further lose gravitational mass by spinning down until it eventually crossed the neutral-stability line as a uniformly rotating SMNS and collapses. In the second scenario ${\rm (2)}$, instead, the BMP passes the neutral-stability line much more rapidly and before it can redistribute its angular momentum, thus collapses as a differentially rotating HMNS. This scenario, however, is unlikely when considering the blue-kilonova signal that has been observed [@Cowperthwaite2017] in the electromagnetic counterpart of GW 170817. To produce such a signal, in fact, ejected material with very high electron fraction $Y_e>0.25$ must be produced, which, however, most likely originate from the hot polar region of the BMP [@Bovard2017; @Metzger2017; @Metzger2017b]. Hence, the observation of such a signal inevitably requires the BMP to be sufficiently long-lived. In particular, its lifetime should be much longer than the timescale for reaching uniform rotation via magnetic braking.
These considerations make the scenario $\rm (1)$ the most likely one. At the same time, the BMP cannot have survived for very long if an SGRB was observed only $\simeq 1\,{\rm s}$ after the merger, thus constraining the mass of the BMP to be very close to $M_{\rm max}$ when passing the neutral-stability line. This conclusion becomes inevitable when considering the timescales associated with the spinning down of a uniformly rotating neutron star. Magnetic-dipole emission, in fact, is not sufficiently efficient and would act on much longer timescales (see, [e.g., ]{} @Zhang2001). Spin-down (and hence loss of gravitational mass) via the GW emission driven by an ellipticity in the BMP is of course possible, but would require unrealistic deformations to be efficient over only $1\,{\rm s}$. We reach this conclusion by estimating the ellipticity $\varepsilon$ required to produce such a loss by considering the typical timescale of GW emission to be [@Usov1992] $$\begin{aligned}
\tau_\mathrm{GW}=\frac{E_\mathrm{kin}}{L_\mathrm{GW}}\,,
\label{eqn:tau_gw}\end{aligned}$$ where $E_\mathrm{kin}=I\Omega^2/2$ and $$\begin{aligned}
L_\mathrm{GW}=\frac{32}{5}\frac{GI^2\Omega^6}{c^5}\varepsilon^2\,,
\label{eqn:L_GW}\end{aligned}$$ where $I$ is the moment of inertia, $\Omega$ is the rotational frequency, $G$ is Newton’s constant, and $c$ is the speed of light. Using typical values of $I\approx 10^{45}\mathrm{g}\,\mathrm{cm}^2$, we find that $$\begin{aligned}
\varepsilon\gtrsim 3\times 10^{-2}\ \left(\frac{10^4\,
\mathrm{s}^{-1}}{\Omega}\right)^{2}\left(
\frac{1\ \mathrm{s}}{\tau_{\mathrm{GW}}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\,,
\label{eqn:tau_numerical}\end{aligned}$$ where we have intentionally underestimated the rotational frequency $\Omega$ of the remnant. Such high ellipticities are very unlikely even $30\,{\rm ms}$ after the merger since the BMP becomes essentially axisymmetric on timescales $\lesssim 50\,{\rm ms}$ [@Hanauske2016]. In summary, it is unlikely that the BMP has crossed the stability line as a differentially rotating object, as this would have happened on a timescale of tens of milliseconds. At the same time, it must have crossed the stable region for uniform rotation very rapidly, or it would have survived for timescales of the order of thousands of seconds. Hence, we conclude that it must have collapsed very close if not at the mass-shedding $M_{\rm max}$, which is what we will assume hereafter.
Quasi-universal relations {#sec:quasi_universal}
=========================
A way to exploit the information from GW observations to set constraints on the maximum mass of nonrotating stellar configurations (and hence on the EOS) has recently been suggested by the work of @Breu2016. In that study, and inspired by the findings of @Yagi2013a, it was proposed that universal relations can be valid also away from regions of the space of stable solutions.
In particular, @Breu2016 have shown that a universal relation is exhibited also by equilibrium solutions of rotating relativistic stars that are not stable. For this, uniformly rotating configurations on the turning-point line, [i.e., ]{}whose mass is an extremum along a sequence of constant angular momentum, have been considered. Such configurations are unstable since they are found at larger central rest-mass densities than those on the neutral-stability line and are therefore marginally stable [@Takami:2011]. In this way, it was possible to show that this relation holds not only for the maximum value of the angular momentum, but also for any rotation rate. The importance of this universal relation is that it allows one to compute the maximum mass sustainable through rapid uniform rotation, finding that, for any EOS, it is about 20% larger than the maximum mass supported by the corresponding nonrotating configuration, [i.e., ]{}$M_{\rm max}\simeq
\left(1.20^{+0.02}_{-0.02}\right)M_{_{\rm TOV}}$, for all the EOSs considered. The existence of such a universal relation has been confirmed by several other authors and shown to apply also for other theories of gravity, see [e.g., ]{}[@Staykov2016; @Minamitsuji2016; @Yagi2017].
Additionally, we show a quasi-universal relation for the conversion between gravitational mass and baryon mass, $M_{\rm b}$. In Fig. \[fig:universal\_eta\] the conversion factor $M_{\rm b}/M$ is shown for the sequence of uniformly rotating neutron stars spinning at the mass-shedding limit. Interestingly, the value for the configuration with maximum mass is only weakly dependent on the underlying EOS, and we find $$\eta:=\frac{M_{\rm b}}{M_{\rm max}}\simeq 1.171\,,
\label{eq:eta}$$ with a standard deviation of $\sigma=6.8\times 10^{-3}$. A similar universal relation for the conversion between baryon and gravitational mass has been proposed in @Timmes1996 and @Breu2016. We have used the estimate here, as it refers specifically to models that are on the mass-shedding limit and have the maximum mass. This is presently the most accurate estimate possible for $M_{\rm
b}/M$ at the mass-shedding limit and represents a considerable improvement over the relation derived by @Timmes1996, [i.e., ]{}$M_{\rm
b}/M =1+0.075\,M$, which is shown as dashed lines in Fig. \[fig:universal\_eta\]. We note that this relation is often employed, [e.g., ]{}by @Piro2017, but it systematically overestimates the relation between the two masses by $10-25\%$.
![Conversion factor between baryon and gravitational mass $M_{\rm b}/M$ of uniformly rotating configurations at the mass-shedding limit shown as a function of the normalized gravitational mass at the mass-shedding limit for different EOSs. The points of maximum mass are marked with dots. The red shaded areas show the $1\sigma$ and $2\sigma$ intervals and the horizontal red line marks the mean value of $M_0/M$ for the configuration with maximum mass, $\eta=1.171$. Also shown is the comparison to the relation derived in @Timmes1996 as dashed lines; note that such a relation overestimates the baryon mass.[]{data-label="fig:universal_eta"}](./fig2.pdf){width="1.0\columnwidth"}
Maximum-mass constraints
========================
We can now use these universal relations to derive a simple mass constraint on the EOS, making just very basic assumptions on the mass distribution of the remnant.
As a simple parametrization, we assume that the system can be described by the amount of ejected baryon mass $M_\mathrm{ej}$ from the inner core of the remnant, the initial baryon mass $M_\mathrm{b}$ of the merger remnant and the baryon mass in the uniformly rotating core $M_\mathrm{core}=\xi
M_\mathrm{b}$. Now we can invoke simple baryon mass conservation to concluded that $M_\mathrm{core}\left(t=0\right)=
M_\mathrm{core}\left(t\right)+M_\mathrm{ej}$. As we have detailed in the previous sections, we assume that the remnant attains uniform rotation in the vicinity of the Keplerian limit, [e.g., ]{}$M_\mathrm{core}\equiv M_\mathrm{core}\left(
t_{\mathrm{collapse}}\right)=M_\mathrm{b,max}$, where $M_\mathrm{b,max}=\eta M_\mathrm{max}$ is the baryon mass at the mass-shedding limit. Making the simplifying assumption and solving for $M_\mathrm{max}$ we find $$\begin{aligned}
M_\mathrm{max}=\eta^{-1}\left(\xi M_\mathrm{b}- \
M_\mathrm{ej}\right)\,.
\label{eqn:Mmax}\end{aligned}$$ Combining this with the result from [@Breu2016] we infer $$\begin{aligned}
M_\mathrm{TOV}=\chi^{-1}M_\mathrm{max}=\chi^{-1}\left(\xi
M_\mathrm{g}-\eta^{-1}\ M_\mathrm{ej}\right)\,,
\label{eqn:MTOV}\end{aligned}$$ where $\chi=1.20^{+0.02}_{-0.02}$ [@Breu2016] and $M_\mathrm{g}=\eta^{-1} M_{\mathrm{b}}=2.74^{+0.04}_{-0.01}$, which is consistent with low-spin priors [@Abbott2017_etal].
The assumption that the core collapses exactly at the maximum mass-shedding limit, [i.e., ]{}$\chi\simeq 1.2$, brings in an error that needs to be accounted for, by considering a lower value for $\chi$ (Equation (12) in [@Breu2016]). We thus set the lower bound to $\chi=1.15$, corresponding to a star close to, but not at the maximum mass-shedding limit.
@Hanauske2016 have found that the mass fraction of the core after dynamical mass ejection is roughly $\xi=0.95^{+0.06}_{-0.06}$ \[see table II in [@Hanauske2016]\]. The mass of the ejecta from the core is harder to estimate but, using standard kilonova models [@Metzger2017b; @Shibata2017c], it is reasonable to associate them with the blue ejecta $M^{\mathrm{blue}}_{\mathrm{ej}}=0.014^{+0.010}_{-0.010}$ [@Cowperthwaite2017; @Drout2017], where we have assumed a conservative kilonova model dependent error that we use as $2\sigma$ for assigning a Gaussian probability distribution to the blue ejecta.
![Maximum-mass constraints $M_\mathrm{TOV}$ (blue lines) as a function of the observed gravitational mass of the BMP $M_{\rm g}$ and of the inferred *blue* ejected mass $M_\mathrm{ej}$ as obtained from . The dashed lines refer to conservative error estimates of the disk mass of the merger product [@Hanauske2016]. Shown in red is the 90% credibility interval of $M_\mathrm{g}$ [@Abbott2017_etal], with the red line denoting the most probable value from GW 170817. The transparency of this area reflects the probability distribution of $M_\mathrm{ej}$.[]{data-label="fig:mass_constraints"}](./fig3.pdf){width="1.0\columnwidth"}
The resulting fit for $M_\mathrm{TOV}$ is shown in Fig. \[fig:mass\_constraints\], where the dashed lines refer to errors in $\xi$ and the red shaded region is modeled with a Gaussian distribution taking into account the errors of $M_\mathrm{ej}$. This region is framed by the 90% credibility levels of the binary mass [@Abbott2017_etal].
In summary, collecting all available information, we conclude that the maximum mass that can be supported against gravity by a compact nonrotating star is in the range $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:MTOVmax}
2.01^{+0.04}_{+0.04}<M_{\rm TOV}/M_{\odot}<2.16^{+0.17}_{-0.15}\,,\end{aligned}$$ where the lower limit in the range is actually derived from accurate observations of massive pulsars in binary systems [@Antoniadis2013].
The error corresponds to twice the standard deviation ($\sim 90\%$ confidence) computed with standard error propagation, where the asymmetric errors in $M_\mathrm{g}$ and $\chi$ are taken into account by computing the standard deviation for the upper and lower limit separately. Clearly, values close to the upper and lower limits are unlikely, given the fact that not all the values of $M_\mathrm{g}$ and $M_\mathrm{ej}$ are equally likely (compare to the red shaded area).
Note the interesting general trend shown by the maximum mass in Fig. \[fig:mass\_constraints\]: the estimates for $M_\mathrm{TOV}$ grow systematically with increasingly massive binary systems and with decreasing ejected masses (compare to the shading from light to dark blue). Hence, future detections of merging binary systems with masses smaller than that of GW 170817 will help set even tighter constraints on the maximum mass $M_\mathrm{TOV}$.
Conclusions
===========
We have combined the recent GW observations of merging systems of binary neutron stars via the event GW 170817 with a quasi-universal relation between the maximum mass of nonrotating stellar models $M_{\rm TOV}$ and the maximum mass that can be supported through uniform rotation to set new and tighter constraints on $M_{\rm TOV}$.
Our estimate follows a simple line of arguments and is based on a single and reasonable assumption that the product of the merger measured with GW170817 has collapsed to a rotating black hole when it had reached a mass close to the maximum mass for SMNS models. In this way, we can exploit quasi-universal relations to deduce that the maximum mass for nonrotating stellar configurations should be in the range $
2.012.01^{+0.04}_{-0.04}\leq M_{\rm TOV}/M_{\odot}\lesssim
2.16^{+0.17}_{-0.15}$. We note that it is, in principle, possible to constrain the lower limit for $M_{\rm TOV}$ also with a quasi-universal relation on the maximum mass of a neutron star in differential rotation [@Weih2017].
A few remarks before concluding. First, a much more conservative upper limit $M_{\rm TOV}$ can be set uniquely assuming that the maximum nonrotating mass $M_{\rm TOV}$ cannot be smaller than the mass in the uniformly rotating core $M_\mathrm{core}$. Taking into account the amount of mass ejected and the conversion between baryon and gravitational mass, this yields $M_{\rm TOV}/M_{\odot}\lesssim 2.59$. Second, our predictions are compatible with those recently presented by @Shibata2017c [@Margalit2017], sharing a number of similar considerations with the latter. However, differently from these other works, we have not employed a simple correlation between the maximum mass-shedding mass and the maximum nonrotating mass, or fitting formulas stemming from numerical simulations whose error budget is uncertain [@Bauswein2013], nor have we relied on direct comparisons with numerical-relativity simulations for the electromagnetic emission. Rather, using basic arguments from kilonova modeling [@Cowperthwaite2017], we have exploited the power of universal relations for the maximum mass that are valid for any value of the specific angular momentum [@Breu2016]. Third, the results presented here already have a direct impact on some of the EOSs describing matter at nuclear densities (see, [e.g., ]{} @Oertel2017 for a recent review). For instance, a popular EOS routinely employed in numerical-relativity calculations such as the DD2 EOS [@Typel2010], violates the constraint since it has $M_{\rm
TOV}=2.419\,M_{\odot}$; at the same time, EOSs with hyperons, [e.g., ]{}BHB$\Lambda\Phi$ [@Banik2014] and DD2Y [@Marques2017], have maximum masses $\lesssim 2.1\,M_{\odot}$ and therefore seem favoured [@Richers2017]. Finally, we note that the procedure outlined here and the use of stacking techniques, as those developed in the analysis of the GW signal of BNSs [@DelPozzo2013; @Agathos2015; @Clark2016; @Bose2017], can be employed in the future as the results of new detections become available to set new and tighter constraints on the maximum mass. New observations, in fact, will set sharper boundaries in the probability distributions presented in Fig. \[fig:mass\_constraints\], thus tightening the estimates for the maximum mass.
It is a pleasure to thank the referee for useful suggestions and Luke Bovard and Enping Zhou for discussions. Support comes in part from “NewCompStar”, COST Action MP1304; LOEWE-Program in HIC for FAIR; European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme (Grant 671698) (call FETHPC-1-2014, project ExaHyPE), the ERC Synergy Grant “BlackHoleCam: Imaging the Event Horizon of Black Holes” (Grant No. 610058).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Can attention- or gradient-based visualization techniques be used to infer token-level labels for binary sequence tagging problems, using networks trained only on sentence-level labels? We construct a neural network architecture based on soft attention, train it as a binary sentence classifier and evaluate against token-level annotation on four different datasets. Inferring token labels from a network provides a method for quantitatively evaluating what the model is learning, along with generating useful feedback in assistance systems. Our results indicate that attention-based methods are able to predict token-level labels more accurately, compared to gradient-based methods, sometimes even rivaling the supervised oracle network.'
author:
- |
Marek Rei\
The ALTA Institute\
Computer Laboratory\
University of Cambridge\
United Kingdom\
[[email protected]]{}\
Anders S[ø]{}gaard\
CoAStaL DIKU\
Department of Computer Science\
University of Copenhagen\
Denmark\
[[email protected]]{}\
bibliography:
- 'interpsent.bib'
title: |
Zero-shot Sequence Labeling:\
Transferring Knowledge from Sentences to Tokens
---
Introduction
============
Sequence labeling is a structured prediction task where systems need to assign the correct label to every token in the input sequence. Many NLP tasks, including part-of-speech tagging, named entity recognition, chunking, and error detection, are often formulated as variations of sequence labeling. Recent state-of-the-art models make use of bidirectional LSTM architectures [@Irsoy2014a], character-based representations [@Lample2016], and additional external features [@Peters2017]. Optimization of these models requires appropriate training data where individual tokens are manually labeled, which can be time-consuming and expensive to obtain for each different task, domain and target language.
In this paper, we investigate the task of performing sequence labeling without having access to any training data with token-level annotation. Instead of training the model directly to predict the label for each token, the model is optimized using a sentence-level objective and a modified version of the attention mechanism is then used to infer labels for individual words.
While this approach is not expected to outperform a fully supervised sequence labeling method, it opens possibilities for making use of text classification datasets where collecting token-level annotation is not possible or cost-effective.
Inferring token-level labels from a text classification network also provides a method for analyzing and interpreting the model. Previous work has used attention weights to visualize the focus of neural models in the input data. However, these analyses have largely been qualitative examinations, looking at only a few examples from the datasets. By formulating the task as a zero-shot labeling problem, we can provide quantitative evaluations of what the model is learning and where it is focusing. This will allow us to measure whether the features that the model is learning actually match our intuition, provide informative feedback to end-users, and guide our development of future model architectures.
Network Architecture {#sec:arch}
====================
The main system takes as input a sentence, separated into tokens, and outputs a binary prediction as the label of the sentence. We use a bidirectional LSTM [@Hochreiter1997] architecture for sentence classification, with dynamic attention over words for constructing the sentence representations. Related architectures have been successful for machine translation [@Bahdanau2015], sentence summarization [@Rush2014], entailment detection [@Rockt2015], and error correction [@Ji2017]. In this work, we modify the attention mechanism and training objective in order to make the resulting network suitable for also inferring binary token labels, while still performing well as a sentence classifier.
Figure \[fig:network\] contains a diagram of the network architecture. The tokens are first mapped to a sequence of word representations $[w_1, w_2, w_3, ..., w_N]$, which are constructed as a combination of regular word embeddings and character-based representations, following . These word representations are given as input to a bidirectional LSTM which iteratively passes through the sentence in both directions. Hidden representations from each direction are concatenated at every token position, resulting in vectors $h_i$ that are focused on a specific word but take into account the context on both sides of that word. We also include a transformation with $tanh$ activation, which helps map the information from both directions into a joint feature-space:
{width="0.9\linewidth"}
$$\overrightarrow{h_i} = LSTM(w_i, \overrightarrow{h_{i-1}}) \\$$
$$\overleftarrow{h_i} = LSTM(w_i, \overleftarrow{h_{i+1}})$$
$$\begin{aligned}[c]
\widetilde{h_i} = [\overrightarrow{h_i};\overleftarrow{h_i}] & & & & h_i = tanh(W_h \widetilde{h_i} + b_h)\\
\end{aligned}
\label{eq:h}$$
where $W_h$ is a parameter matrix and $b_h$ is a parameter vector, optimized during training.
Next, we include an attention mechanism that allows the network to dynamically control how much each word position contributes to the combined representation. In most attention-based systems, the attention amount is calculated in reference to some external information. For example, in machine translation the attention values are found based on a representation of the output that has already been generated [@Bahdanau2015]; in question answering, the attention weights are calculated in reference to the input question [@Hermann2015]. In our task there is no external information to be used, therefore we predict the attention values directly based on $h_i$, by passing it through a separate feedforward layer:
$$e_i = tanh(W_e h_i + b_e)$$
$$\widetilde{e_i} = W_{\widetilde{e}} e_i + b_{\widetilde{e}}$$
where $W_{\widetilde{e}}$, $b_{\widetilde{e}}$, $W_e$ and $b_e$ are trainable parameters and $\widetilde{e_i}$ results in a single scalar value. This method is equivalent to calculating the attention weights in reference to a fixed weight vector, which is optimized during training. proposed an architecture for dialogue act detection where the attention values are found based on a separate set of word embeddings. We found that the method described above was consistently equivalent or better in development experiments, while requiring a smaller number of parameters.
The values of $\widetilde{e_i}$ are unrestricted and should be normalized before using them for attention, to avoid sentences of different length having representations of different magnitude. The common approach is to use an exponential function to transform the value, and then normalize by the sum of all values in the sentence:
$$a_i = \frac{exp(\widetilde{e_i})}{\sum_{k=1}^N exp(\widetilde{e_k})}
\label{eq:exp}$$
The value $a_i$ is now in a range $0 \leq a_i \leq 1$ and higher values indicate that the word at position $i$ is more important for predicting the sentence class. The network learns to predict informative values for $a_i$ based only on the sentence objective, without receiving token-level supervision. Therefore, we can use these attention values at each token in order to infer an unsupervised sequence labeling output.
The method in Equation \[eq:exp\] is well-suited for applications such as machine translation – the exponential function encourages the attention to prioritize only one word in the sentence, resulting in a word-word alignment. However, the same function is less suitable for our task of unsupervised sequence labeling, as there is no reason to assume that exactly one word has a positive label. An input sentence can contain more than one tagged token, or it can contain no tokens of interest, and this should be reflected in the predictions.
Instead of the exponential function, we make use of the logistic function $\sigma$ for calculating soft attention weights:
$$\begin{aligned}[c]
\widetilde{a_i} = \sigma(\widetilde{e_i}) & & & & a_i = \frac{\widetilde{a_i}}{\sum_{k=1}^N \widetilde{a_k}}\\
\end{aligned}$$
where each $\widetilde{a_i}$ has an individual value in the range $0 \leq \widetilde{a_i} \leq 1$ and $a_i$ is normalized to sum up to $1$ over all values in the sentence. The normalized weights $a_i$ are used for combining the context-conditioned hidden representations from Equation \[eq:h\] into a single sentence representation:
$$c = \sum_{i=1}^{N} a_i h_i$$
In addition, we can use the pre-normalization value $\widetilde{a_i}$ as a score for sequence labeling, with a natural decision boundary of $0.5$ – higher values indicate that the token at position $i$ is important and should be labeled positive, whereas lower values suggest the token is largely ignored for sentence classification and can receive a negative label. Attention weights with sigmoid activation have been shown to also improve performance on classification tasks [@Shen2016], which indicates that this architecture has the benefit of being both accurate and interpretable on the token level.
Finally, we pass the sentence representation $c$ through a feedforward layer and predict a binary label for the overall sentence:
$$d = tanh(W_d c + b_d)$$
$$y = \sigma(W_y d + b_y)$$
where $d$ is a sentence vector and $y$ is a single value between $0 \leq y \leq 1$, with values higher than $0.5$ indicating a positive class and lower values indicating a negative prediction.
In order to optimize the model, we use several different loss functions. The first is the squared loss which optimizes the sentence-level score prediction to match the gold label in the annotation:
$$L_1 = \sum_j (y^{(j)} - \widetilde{y}^{(j)})^2
\label{eq:l1}$$
where $y^{(j)}$ is the predicted score for the $j$-th sentence, and $\widetilde{y}^{(j)}$ is the true binary label $(0, 1)$ for the $j$-th sentence.
In addition, we want to encourage the model to learn high-quality token-level labels as part of the attention weights. While the model does not have access to token-level annotation during training, there are two constraints that we can take advantage of:
1. Only some, but not all, tokens in the sentence can have a positive label.
2. There are positive tokens in a sentence only if the overall sentence is positive.
We can then construct loss functions that encourage the model to optimize for these constraints:
$$L_2 = \sum_j (min_i(\widetilde{a_i}) - 0)^2
\label{eq:min}$$
$$L_3 = \sum_j (max_i(\widetilde{a_i}) - \widetilde{y}^{(j)})^2
\label{eq:max}$$
where $min_i(\widetilde{a_i})$ is the minimum value of all the attention weights in the sentence and $max_i(\widetilde{a_i})$ is the corresponding maximum value. Equation \[eq:min\] optimizes the minimum unnormalized attention weight in a sentence to be 0, satisfying the constraint that all tokens in a sentence should not have a positive token-level label. Equation \[eq:max\] then optimizes for the maximum unnormalized attention weight in a sentence to be equal to the gold label for that sentence, which is either $0$ or $1$, incentivizing the network to only assign large attention weights to tokens in positive sentences. These objectives do not provide the model with additional information, but serve to push the attention scores to a range that is suitable for binary classification.
We combine all of these loss objectives together for the main optimization function:
$$L = L_1 + \gamma (L_2 + L_3)$$
where $\gamma$ is used to control the importance of the auxiliary objectives.
Alternative Methods
===================
We compare the attention-based system for inferring sequence labeling with 3 alternative methods.
Labeling Through Backpropagation {#sec:backprop}
--------------------------------
We experiment with an alternative method for inducing token-level labels, based on visualization methods using gradient analysis. Research in computer vision has shown that interpretable visualizations of convolutional networks can be obtained by analyzing the gradient after a single backpropagation pass through the network [@Zeiler2014]. extended this approach to natural language processing, in order to find and visualize the most important sentences in a text. Recent work has also used the gradient-based approach for visualizing the decisions of text classification models on the token level [@Li2016; @Alikaniotis2016]. In this section we propose an adaptation that can be used for sequence labeling tasks.
We first perform a forward pass through the network and calculate the predicted sentence-level score $y$. Next, we define a pseudo-label $y^* = 0$, regardless of the true label of the sentence. We then calculate the gradient of the word representation $w_i$ with respect to the loss function using this pseudo-label:
$$g_i = \frac{\partial L_1}{\partial w_i} \Bigr|_{\substack{(y^*,y)}}$$
where $L_1$ is the squared loss function from Equation \[eq:l1\]. The magnitude of $g_i$, $|g_i|$ can now be used as an indicator of how important that word is for the positive class. The intuition behind this approach is that the magnitude of the gradient indicates which individual words need to be changed the most in order to make the overall label of the sentence negative. These are the words that are contributing most towards the positive class and should be labeled as such individually.
An obstacle in using this score for sequence labeling comes from the fact that there is no natural decision boundary between the two classes. The magnitude of the gradient is not constrained to a specific range and can vary quite a bit depending on the sentence length and the predicted sentence-level score. In order to map this magnitude to a decision, we analyze the distribution of magnitudes in a sentence. Intuitively, we want to detect outliers – scores that are larger than expected. Therefore, we map all the magnitudes in a sentence to a Gaussian distribution and set the decision boundary at $1.5$ standard deviations. Any word that has a gradient magnitude higher than that will be tagged with a positive class for sequence labeling. If all the magnitudes in a sentence are very similar, none of them will cross this threshold and therefore all words will be labeled as negative.
We calculate the gradient magnitude using the same network architecture as described in Section \[sec:arch\], at word representation $w_i$ after the character-based features have been included. The attention-based architecture is not necessary for this method, therefore we also report results using a more traditional bidirectional LSTM, concatenating the last hidden states from both directions and using the result as a sentence representation for the main objective.
Relative Frequency Baseline {#sec:relfreq}
---------------------------
The system for producing token-level predictions based on sentence-level training data does not necessarily need to be a neural network. As the initial experiment, we trained a Naive Bayes classifier with n-gram features on the annotated sentences and then used it to predict a label only based on a window around the target word. However, this did not produce reliable results – since the classifier is trained on full sentences, the distribution of features is very different and does not apply to a window of only a few words.
Instead, we calculate the relative frequency of a feature occurring in a positive sentence, normalized by the overall frequency of the feature, and calculate the geometric average over all features that contain a specific word:
$$r_k = \frac{c(X_k=1, Y=1)}{\sum_{z \in (0,1)} c(X_k=1, Y=z)} $$
$$score_i = \sqrt[\leftroot{-2}\uproot{4}|F_i|]{ \prod_{k \in F_i} r_k }$$
where $c(X_k=1, Y=1)$ is the number of times feature $k$ is present in a sentence with a positive label, $F_i$ is the set of n-gram features present in the sentence that involve the $i$-th word in the sentence, and $score_i$ is the token-level score for the $i$-th token in the sentence. We used unigram, bigram and trigram features, with extra special tokens to mark the beginning and end of a sentence.
This method will assign a high score to tokens or token sequences that appear more often in sentences which receive a positive label. While it is not able to capture long-distance context, it can memorize important keywords from the training data, such as modal verbs for uncertainty detection or common spelling errors for grammatical error detection.
Supervised Sequence Labeling {#sec:supervised}
----------------------------
Finally, we also report the performance of a supervised sequence labeling model on the same tasks. This serves as an indicator of an upper bound for a given dataset – how well the system is able to detect relevant tokens when directly optimized for sequence labeling and provided with token-level annotation.
We construct a bidirectional LSTM tagger, following the architectures from , and . Character-based representations are concatenated with word embeddings, passed through a bidirectional LSTM, and the hidden states from both direction are concatenated. Based on this, a probability distribution over the possible labels is predicted and the most probable label is chosen for each word. While used a CRF on top of the network, we exclude it here as the token-level scores coming from that network do not necessarily reflect the individual labels, since the best label sequence is chosen globally based on the combined sentence-level score. The supervised model is optimized by minimizing cross-entropy, training directly on the token-level annotation.
--------------- ------------ ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ------------ ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------
Sent $F_1$ MAP P R $F_1$ Sent $F_1$ MAP P R $F_1$
Supervised - 96.54 78.92 79.41 79.08 - 59.13 49.15 26.96 34.76
Relative freq - 81.78 15.94 **79.98** 26.59 - 37.75 14.37 **86.36** 24.63
84.42 77.90 7.16 66.64 12.92 85.10 46.12 **29.49** 16.07 20.80
**84.94** 80.38 9.13 71.42 16.18 **85.14** 44.52 27.62 17.81 21.65
**84.94** **87.86** **77.48** 69.54 **73.26** **85.14** **47.79** 28.04 29.91 **28.27**
--------------- ------------ ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ------------ ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------
Datasets
========
We evaluate the performance of zero-shot sequence labeling on 3 different datasets. In each experiment, the models are trained using only sentence-level annotation and then evaluated based on token-level annotation.
CoNLL 2010 Uncertainty Detection
--------------------------------
The CoNLL 2010 shared task [@Farkas2010] investigated the detection of uncertainty in natural language texts. The use of uncertain language (also known as hedging) is a common tool in scientific writing, allowing scientists to guide research beyond the evidence without overstating what follows from their work. showed that 19.44% of sentences in the biomedical papers of the BioScope corpus contain hedge cues. Automatic detection of these cues is important for downstream tasks such as information extraction and literature curation, as typically only definite information should be extracted and curated.
The dataset is annotated for both hedge cues (keywords indicating uncertainty) and scopes (the area of the sentence where the uncertainty applies). The cues are not limited to single tokens, and can also consist of several disjoint tokens (for example, *“either ... or ...”*). An example sentence from the dataset, with bold font indicating the hedge cue and curly brackets marking the scope of uncertainty:
Although IL-1 has been reported to contribute to Th17 differentiation in mouse and man, it remains to be determined {**whether** therapeutic targeting of IL-1 will substantially affect IL-17 in RA}.
The first subtask in CoNLL 2010 was to detect any uncertainty in a sentence by predicting a binary label. The second subtask required the detection of all the individual cue tokens and the resolution of their scope. In our experiments, we train the system to detect sentence-level uncertainty, use the architecture to infer the token-level labeling and evaluate the latter on the task of detecting uncertainty cues. Since the cues are defined as keywords that indicate uncertainty, we would expect the network to detect and prioritize attention on these tokens. We use the train/test data from the second task, which contains the token-level annotation needed for evaluation, and randomly separate 10% of the training data for development.
FCE Error Detection
-------------------
Error detection is the task of identifying tokens which need to be edited in order to produce a grammatically correct sentence. The task has numerous applications for writing improvement and assessment, and recent work has focused on error detection as a supervised sequence labeling task [@Rei2016; @Kaneko2017; @Rei2017].
Error detection can also be performed on the sentence level – detecting whether the sentence needs to be edited or not. described a practical tutoring system that provides sentence-level feedback to language learners. The 2016 shared task on Automated Evaluation of Scientific Writing [@Daudaravicius2016] also required participants to return binary predictions on whether the input sentence needs to be corrected.
We evaluate our system on the First Certificate in English (FCE, ) dataset, containing error-annotated short essays written by language learners. While the original corpus is focused on aligned corrections, converted the dataset to a sequence labeling format, which we make use of here. An example from the dataset, with bold font indicating tokens that have been annotated as incorrect given the context:
When the show started the person who was acting **it** was not Danny Brook and **he seemed not** to be an actor.
We train the network as a sentence-level error detection system, returning a binary label and a confidence score, and also evaluate how accurately it is able to recover the locations of individual errors on the token level.
SemEval Sentiment Detection in Twitter
--------------------------------------
SemEval has been running a series of popular shared tasks on sentiment analysis in text from social media [@Nakov2013; @Rosenthal2014; @Rosenthal2015]. The competitions have included various subtasks, of which we are interested in two: Task A required the polarity detection of individual phrases in a tweet, and Task B required sentiment detection of the tweet as a whole. A single tweet could contain both positive and negative phrases, regardless of its overall polarity, and was therefore separately annotated on the tweet level.
In the following example from the dataset, negative phrases are indicated with a bold font and positive phrases are marked with italics, whereas the overall sentiment of the tweet is annotated as negative:
They may *have* a *SuperBowl* in Dallas, but Dallas **ain’t winning** a SuperBowl. **Not with that** quarterback and owner. @S4NYC @RasmussenPoll
Sentiment analysis is a three-way task, as the system needs to differentiate between positive, negative and neutral sentences. Our system relies on a binary signal, therefore we convert this dataset into two binary tasks – one aims to detect positive sentiment, the other focuses on negative sentiment. We train the system as a sentiment classifier, using the tweet-level annotation, and then evaluate the system on recovering the individual positive or negative tokens. We use the train/dev/test splits of the original SemEval 2013 Twitter dataset, which contains phrase-level sentiment annotation.
--------------- ------------ ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ------------ ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------
Sent $F_1$ MAP P R $F_1$ Sent $F_1$ MAP P R $F_1$
Supervised - 67.70 31.79 44.66 37.02 - 67.41 36.27 50.71 42.24
Relative freq - 44.15 17.39 15.67 16.48 - 47.64 13.39 **54.69** 21.51
53.65 43.02 8.33 28.41 12.88 70.83 49.06 17.66 35.06 23.48
**55.83** 50.96 11.55 **31.54** 16.90 **71.26** 53.89 23.45 34.53 27.92
**55.83** **54.37** **29.41** 14.40 **19.23** **71.26** **56.45** **37.19** 25.96 **30.45**
--------------- ------------ ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ------------ ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------
Implementation Details
======================
During pre-processing, tokens are lowercased while the character-level component still retains access to the capitalization information. Word embeddings were set to size 300, pre-loaded from publicly available Glove [@Pennington] embeddings and fine-tuned during training. Character embeddings were set to size 100. The recurrent layers in the character-level component have hidden layers of size $100$; the hidden layers $\overrightarrow{h_i}$ and $\overleftarrow{h_i}$ are size 300. The hidden combined representation $h_i$ was set to size 200, and the attention weight layer $e_i$ was set to size 100. Parameter $\gamma$ was set to $0.01$ based on development experiments.
The model was implemented using Tensorflow [@Abadi2016]. The network weights were randomly initialized using the uniform Glorot initialization method [@Glorot2010] and optimization was performed using AdaDelta [@Zeiler2012] with learning rate $1.0$. Dropout [@Srivastava2014a] with probability $0.5$ was applied to word representations $w_i$ and the composed representations $h_i$ after the LSTMs. The training was performed in batches of 32 sentences. Sentence-level performance was observed on the development data and the training was stopped if performance did not improve for 7 epochs. The best overall model on the development set was then used to report performance on the test data, both for sentence classification and sequence labeling. In order to avoid random outliers, we performed each experiment with 5 random seeds and report here the averaged results.
The code used for performing these experiments is made available online.[^1]
{width="1.0\linewidth"}
Evaluation
==========
Results for the experiments are presented in Tables \[tab:results1\] and \[tab:results2\]. We first report the sentence-level F-measure in order to evaluate the performance on the general text classification objective. Next, we report the Mean Average Precision (MAP) at returning the active/positive tokens. This measure rewards systems that assign higher scores to positive tokens as opposed to negative ones, evaluating this as a ranking problem. It disregards a specific classification threshold and therefore provides a more fair evaluation towards systems that could be improved simply by choosing a different decision boundary. Finally, we also report token-level precision, recall and F-measure for evaluating the accuracy of this model as a sequence labeler.[^2]
We report five different system configurations: **Relative freq** is the n-gram based approach described in Section \[sec:relfreq\]. **Supervised** is the fully supervised sequence labeling system described in Section \[sec:supervised\]. **** is using the last hidden states from the word-level LSTMs for constructing a sentence representation, and the backpropagation-based method from Section \[sec:backprop\] for inducing token labels. **** is using the attention-based network architecture together with the backpropagation-based labeling method. **** is the method described in Section \[sec:arch\], using soft attention weights for sequence labeling and additional objectives for optimizing the network.
The method using attention weights achieves the best performance on all datasets, compared to other methods not using token-level supervision. On the CoNLL 2010 uncertainty detection dataset the system reaches 73.26% F-score, which is 93% of the supervised upper bound. The alternative methods using backpropagation and relative frequency achieve high recall values, but comparatively lower precision. On the FCE dataset, the F-score is considerably lower at 28.27% – this is due to the difficulty of the task and the supervised system also achieves only 34.76%. The attention-based system outperforms the alternatives on both of the SemEval evaluations. The task of detecting sentiment on the token level is quite difficult overall as many annotations are context-specific and require prior knowledge. For example, in order to correctly label the phrase *“have Superbowl”* as positive, the system will need to understand that organizing the Superbowl is a positive event for the city.
Performance on the sentence-level classification task is similar for the different architectures on the CoNLL 2010 and FCE datasets, whereas the composition method based on attention obtains an advantage on the SemEval datasets. Since the latter architecture achieves competitive performance and also allows for attention-based token labeling, it appears to be the better choice. Analysis of the token-level MAP scores shows that the attention-based sequence labeling model achieves the best performance even when ignoring classification thresholds and evaluating the task through ranking.
Figure \[fig:examples\] contains example outputs from the attention-based models, trained on each of the four datasets. In the first example, the uncertainty detector correctly picks up *“would appreciate if”* and *“possible”*, and the error detection model focuses most on the misspelling *“Definetely”*. Both the positive and negative sentiment models have assigned a high weight to the word *“disappointing”*, which is something we observed in other examples as well. The system will learn to focus on phrases that help it detect positive sentiment, but the presence of negative sentiment provides implicit evidence that the overall label is likely not positive. This is a by-product of the 3-way classification task and future work could investigate methods for extending zero-shot classification to better match this requirement.
In the second example, the system correctly labels the phrase *“what would be suitable?”* as uncertain, and part of the phrase *“I’m not really sure”* as negative. It also labels *“specifying”* as an error, possibly expecting a comma before it. In the third example, the error detection model labels *“Internet”* for the missing determiner, but also captures a more difficult error in *“depended”*, which is an incorrect form of the word given the context.
Conclusion
==========
We investigated the task of performing sequence labeling without having access to any training data with token-level annotation. The proposed model is optimized as a sentence classifier and an attention mechanism is used for both composing the sentence representations and inferring individual token labels. Several alternative models were compared on three tasks – uncertainty detection, error detection and sentiment detection.
Experiments showed that the zero-shot labeling system based on attention weights achieved the best performance on all tasks. The model is able to automatically focus on the most salient areas of the sentence, and additional objective functions along with the soft attention mechanism encourage it to also perform well as a sequence labeler. The zero-shot labeling task can provide a quantitative evaluation of what the model is learning, along with offering a low-cost method for creating sequence labelers for new tasks, domains and languages.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
We would like to thank the NVIDIA Corporation for the donation of the Titan GPU that was used for this research. Anders S[ø]{}gaard was partially funded by the ERC Starting Grant LOWLANDS No. 313695.
[^1]: http://www.marekrei.com/projects/mltagger
[^2]: The CoNLL 2010 shared task on uncertainty detection comes with an official scorer which requires additional steps and the detection of both cues and scopes, whereas the binary labels from the zero-shot systems are not directly applicable to this format. Similarly, error detection is commonly evaluated using $F_{0.5}$, which is motivated by end-user experience, but in this case we wish to specifically measure the tagging accuracy. Therefore we use the regular $F_1$ score as the main evaluation metric for both of these tasks.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Bresinsky defined a class of monomial curves in $\mathbb{A}^{4}$ with the property that the minimal number of generators or the first Betti number of the defining ideal is unbounded above. We prove that the same behaviour of unboundedness is true for all the Betti numbers and construct an explicit minimal free resolution for the defining ideal of this class of curves.'
address:
- 'Discipline of Mathematics, IIT Gandhinagar, Palaj, Gandhinagar, Gujarat 382355, INDIA.'
- 'Discipline of Mathematics, IIT Gandhinagar, Palaj, Gandhinagar, Gujarat 382355, INDIA.'
- 'Discipline of Mathematics, IIT Gandhinagar, Palaj, Gandhinagar, Gujarat 382355, INDIA.'
author:
- Ranjana Mehta
- Joydip Saha
- Indranath Sengupta
date:
-
-
title: 'Betti numbers of Bresinsky’s curves in $\mathbb{A}^{4}$'
---
Bresinsky’s Examples
====================
Let $r\geq 3$ and $n_{1}, \ldots, n_{r}$ be positive integers with $\gcd (n_1,\ldots,\, n_r)=1$. Let us assume that the numbers $n_{1}, \ldots, n_{r}$ generate the numerical semigroup $$\Gamma(n_1,\ldots, n_r) = \lbrace\sum_{j=1}^{r}z_{j}n_{j}\mid z_{j}\quad \text{nonnegative \, integers}\rbrace$$ minimally, that is if $n_i=\sum_{j=1}^{r}z_{j}n_{j}$ for some non-negative integers $z_{j}$, then $z_{j}=0$ for all $j\neq i$ and $z_{i}=1$. Let $\eta:k[x_1,\,\ldots,\, x_r]\rightarrow k[t]$ be the mapping defined by $\eta(x_i)=t^{n_i},\,1\leq i\leq r$, where $k$ is a field. Let $\frak{p}(n_1,\ldots, n_r) = \ker (\eta)$. Let $\beta_{i}(\frak{p}(n_1,\ldots, n_r))$ denote the $i$-th Betti number of the ideal $\frak{p}(n_1,\ldots, n_r)$. Therefore, $\beta_{1}(\frak{p}(n_1,\ldots, n_r))$ denotes the minimal number of generators $\frak{p}(n_1,\ldots, n_r)$. For a given $r\geq 3$, let $\beta_{i}(r) = { \sup}(\beta_{i}(\frak{p}(n_1,\ldots, n_r)))$, where $\sup$ is taken over all the sequences of positive integers $n_1,\ldots, n_r$. Herzog [@herzog] proved that $\beta_{1}(3)$ is $3$ and it follows easily that $\beta_{2}(3)$ is a finite integer as well. Bresinsky in [@bre], [@bre1], [@bre2], [@bre3], [@brehoa], extensively studied relations among the generators $n_1,\ldots, n_r$ of the numerical semigroup defined by these integers. It was proved in [@bre1] and [@bre2] respectively that, for $r=4$ and for certain cases in $r=5$, the symmetry condition on the semigroup generated by $n_1,\ldots, n_r$ imposes an upper bound on the first Betti number $\beta_{1}(\frak{p}(n_1,\ldots, n_r))$. This remains an open question in general whether symmetry condition on the numerical semigroup generated by $n_1,\ldots, n_r$ imposes an upper bound on $\beta_{1}(\frak{p}(n_1,\ldots, n_r))$. Bresinsky [@bre] constructed a class of monomial curves in $\mathbb{A}^{4}$ to prove that $\beta_{1}(4)=\infty$. He used this observation to prove that $\beta_{1}(r)=\infty$, for every $r\geq 4$. Our aim in this article is to prove in Theorem \[mainthm\] that for Bresinsky’s examples $\beta_{i}(4) = \infty$, for every $1\leq i\leq 3$ and also describe all the syzygies explicitly in \[second\] and \[secondsyzygy\]. A similar study has been carried out by J. Herzog and D.I. Stamate in [@herstamate] and [@stamate]. However, the objective and approach in our study are quite different. The main theorem and underlying objective of our work can be found after the description of Bresinsky’s examples.
Let us recall Bresinsky’s example of monomial curves in $\mathbb{A}^{4}$, as defined in [@bre]. Let $q_2\geq 4$ be even. $q_{1} = q_{2}+1,\, d_1=q_{2}-1$. Set $n_{1}=q_{1}q_{2},\, n_{2}=q_{1}d_{1},\, n_{3}=q_{1}q_{2}+d_{1},\,
n_{4}=q_{2}d_{1}$. It is clear that $\gcd (n_1,\, n_2,\, n_3,\, n_4)=1$. For the rest of the article let us use the shorthand $\mathbf{\underline{n}}$ to denote Bresinsky’s sequence of integers defined above. Bresinsky [@bre] proved that the set $A= A_{1}\cup A_{2}\cup \{g_1, g_2\}$ generates the ideal $\mathfrak{p}(n_1,\ldots, n_4)$, where $A_{1}=\{f_{\mu}| f_{\mu}=x_{1}^{\mu-1} x_{3}^{{q_2}-
\mu}-x_{2}^{{q_2}-\mu}x_{4}^{\mu+1},\quad 1\leq\mu\leq q_{2}\}$, $A_{2}=\{f| f=x_{1}^{\nu_{1}} x_{4}^{\nu_{4}}-x_{2}^{\mu_{2}}x_{3}^{\mu_{3}},\, \nu_{1},\ \mu_{3}< d_{1}\}$ and $g_{1}=x_{1}^{d_{1}}-{x_{2}}^{q_{2}}$, $g_{2}=x_{3}x_{4}-x_{2}x_{1}$. Let us first state the main theorems proved in this paper:
\[mainthm\] Let $S=A_{1}\cup A_{2}^{'}\cup \{g_1, g_2\}$, where $A_{2}'=\{h_{m}\mid x_{1}^{m}x_{4}^{(q_{1}-m)}-x_{2}^{(q_{2}-m)}x_{3}^{m}, 1\leq m\leq q_{2}-2\}$.
(i) $S$ is a minimal generating set for the ideal $\mathfrak{p}(\mathbf{\underline{n}})$;
(ii) $S$ is a Gröbner basis for $\mathfrak{p}(\mathbf{\underline{n}})$ with respect to the lexicographic monomial order induced by $x_{3}>x_{2}>x_{1}>x_{4}$ on $k[x_{1}, \ldots , x_{4}]$;
(iii) $\beta_{1}(\mathfrak{p}(\mathbf{\underline{n}})) = \mid S \mid = 2q_{2}$;
(iv) $\beta_{2}(\mathfrak{p}(\mathbf{\underline{n}}))= 4(q_{2}-1)$;
(v) $\beta_{3}(\mathfrak{p}(\mathbf{\underline{n}}))= 2q_{2}-3$.
(vi) A minimal free resolution for the ideal $\mathfrak{p}(\mathbf{\underline{n}})$ over the polynomial ring $R = K[x_{1}, x_{2}, x_{3}, x_{4}]$ is $$0\longrightarrow R^{2q_{2}-3} \stackrel{P}{\longrightarrow} R^{4(q_{2} - 1)} \stackrel{N}{\longrightarrow} R^{2q_{2}} \longrightarrow R \longrightarrow R/\mathfrak{p}(\mathbf{\underline{n}})\longrightarrow 0,$$ where $$P=\left[\boldsymbol{\delta}_{1}\ldots \boldsymbol{\delta}_{q_{2}-2}\mid \boldsymbol{\xi}\mid \boldsymbol{\zeta}\mid \boldsymbol{\eta}\mid \boldsymbol{\kappa}_{1}\ldots \boldsymbol{\kappa}_{q_{2}-4} \right]_{4(q_{2}-1)\times 2q_{2}-3}$$ $$N=\left[\boldsymbol{\beta}_{1}\ldots \boldsymbol{\beta}_{q_{2}-1} \mid \boldsymbol{\gamma}^{'}_{1}\ldots\boldsymbol{\gamma}^{'}_{q_{2}-3}\mid \boldsymbol{\alpha}^{'}\mid \boldsymbol{\beta}^{'}_{2}\ldots \boldsymbol{\beta}^{'}_{q_{2}-2}\mid\boldsymbol{\alpha}_{1}\ldots \boldsymbol{\alpha}_{q_{2}-1} \mid -\boldsymbol{\gamma}\mid \boldsymbol{\beta}^{'}\mid \boldsymbol{\gamma}^{'} \right]_{2q_{2}\times 4(q_{2}-1)}.$$
The proof of the theorem is divided into various lemmas, theorems and corollaries in sections 2, 3 and 4. We first prove that a special subset of binomials form a minimal generating set as well as a Gröbner basis for the ideal $\mathfrak{p}(\mathbf{\underline{n}})$ with respect to a suitable monomial order; see parts (i) and (ii) of Theorem \[mainthm\]. We then compute the syzygy modules using this Gröbner basis explicitly and minimally in \[second\] and \[secondsyzygy\]. We have not only computed all the total Betti numbers but also have written a minimal free resolution explicitly; see parts (iii) - (vi) in Theorem \[mainthm\] and \[minres\]. However, in order to determine the minimality of the first syzygy module, we have used the second Betti number for these ideals calculated in [@stamate]. It should be mentioned here that a minimal generating set of binomials for $\mathfrak{p}(\mathbf{\underline{n}})$ has also been calculated in [@herstamate]. The authors have also computed a minimal standard basis in [@herstamate] and that has been used to calculate the Betti numbers in [@stamate]. While the description of the tangent cone in [@herstamate] has been used to compute the Betti numbers in [@stamate], we on the other hand have imitated Bresinsky’s approach and studied the generators of the ideal $\mathfrak{p}(\mathbf{\underline{n}})$ and its syzygies, leading to a complete description of a minimal free resolution of the defining ideal.
This work grew out in an attempt to understand and generalize Bresinsky’s construction of the numerical semigroups in arbitrary embedding dimension. What is certainly interesting is that $n_{1}+n_{2} = n_{3}+n_{4}$, for the sequence of integers $\mathbf{\underline{n}} = (n_{1}, n_{2}, n_{3}, n_{4})$ given by Bresinsky. We have initiated a study of numerical semigroups defined by a sequence of integers formed by concatenation of two arithmetic sequences and we believe that such semigroups with correct conditions would finally give us a good model of numerical semigroups in arbitrary embedding dimension with unbounded Betti numbers; see [@mss1], [@mss3].
The first and the second Betti numbers
======================================
A minimal generating set for the ideal $\mathfrak{p}(\mathbf{\underline{n}})$ has also been constructed in [@herstamate]. Our construction differs from that in [@herstamate] in one binomial. The main idea is to identify the set $A_{2}'\subset A_{2}$, defined in the statement of \[mainthm\], in order to extract a minimal generating set out of the generating set constructed by Bresinsky [@bre]. One can show that set $S=A_{1}\cup\{g_{1},g_{2}\}\cup A_{2}^{'}$ is a minimal generating for the ideal $\mathfrak{p}(\mathbf{\underline{n}})$. Therefore, $\beta_{1}(\mathfrak{p}(\mathbf{\underline{n}})) = \mid S\mid =2q_{2}$.
What is really interesting is that the set $S$, minimaly generating the ideal $\mathfrak{p}(\mathbf{\underline{n}})$ is also a Gröbner basis. Therefore, the Schreyer tuples generate the syzygy module. The following theorem proves these facts and finally we calculate the second Betti number by extracting a minimal generating set for the syzygy module.
\[gbasis\] Consider the lexicographic monomial order induced by $x_{3}> x_{2}>x_{1}>x_{4}$ in $k[x_{1},x_{2},x_{3},x_{4}]$. Then,
(i) The set $S$ forms Gröbner basis for the ideal $\mathfrak{p}(\mathbf{\underline{n}})$ with respect to the above monomial order.
(ii) Let $\mathbb{D}$ denote the set of all Schreyer tuples obtained from the Gröbner basis $S$, which generate the first syzygy module (see Theorem 1.43 [@dl]). Then each entry in the elements of $\mathbb{D}$ is either a non-constant polynomial or zero.
We first order the set $S=A_{1}\cup\{g_{1},g_{2}\}\cup A_{2}^{'}$ as follows: $$(f_{1},\ldots,f_{q_{2}},g_{1},g_{2},h_{1},\ldots,h_{q_{2}-2}).$$ Let $f,g\in S$. We consider the $S$-polynomials $S(f,g)$ and divide the proof into cases based on the sets $f$ and $g$ belonging to.
**Case 1.** $\mathbf{f,g\in A_{1}}$.
**1(a).** $f=f_{\mu},\, g=f_{\mu+1}$ where, $1\leq \mu \leq q_{2}-1$. We have $$\begin{aligned}
S(f_{\mu},f_{\mu+1}) & = x_{1}\cdot f_{\mu}-x_{3}\cdot f_{\mu+1}\\
{} & = (x_{2}^{q_{2}-1-\mu}x_{4}^{\mu+1})\cdot g_{2}\longrightarrow_{S} 0.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, the set $$\mathbb{T}_{1}=\{\boldsymbol{\beta}_{\mu}=(\beta_{(\mu, 1)},\cdots, \beta_{(\mu, 2q_{2})})\mid 1\leq \mu\leq q_{2}-1\}$$ gives the Schreyer tuples, where $$\begin{aligned}
\beta_{(\mu, \mu)} & = & -x_{1};\\
\beta_{(\mu, \mu+1)} & = & x_{3};\\
\beta_{(\mu, q_{2}+2)} & = & x_{2}^{q_{2}-(\mu+1)}x_{4}^{\mu+1};\\
\beta_{(\mu, i)} & = & 0,\, \text{for}\, i\notin\{ \mu,\mu+1,q_{2}+2\}.\end{aligned}$$
**1(b).** $f=f_{\mu},\, g=f_{\mu '} $ where, $ \mu ' > \mu+1$. We have $$\begin{aligned}
S(f_{\mu},f_{\mu '})&={x_{1}}^{\mu ' -\mu}\cdot f_{\mu}-x_{3}^{\mu '-\mu}\cdot f_{\mu '}\\
&=x_{2}^{q_{2}-\mu '}x_{4}^{\mu+1}((x_{3}x_{4})^{\mu '-\mu-1}+(x_{3}x_{4})^{\mu '-\mu-2}(x_{1}x_{2})+\cdots +(x_{1}x_{2})^{\mu '-\mu-1})\cdot g_{2}\\
{} & \longrightarrow_{S} 0 \end{aligned}$$ Therefore, the set $$\mathbb{T}_{2}=\{\boldsymbol{\gamma}_{\mu \mu '}=(\gamma_{(\mu\mu ', 1)},\ldots , \gamma_{(\mu\mu ', i)}, \ldots , \gamma_{(\mu\mu ', 2q_{2})})| 1\leq \mu\leq q_{2}-2, \, \mu+2 \leq \mu ' \leq q_{2}\}$$ gives the Schreyer tuples, where $$\begin{aligned}
\gamma_{(\mu\mu ',\mu )}& = & -{x_{1}}^{(\mu '- \mu)};\\
\gamma_{(\mu\mu ',\mu ' )} & = & {x_{3}}^{(\mu '- \mu)};\\
\gamma_{(\mu\mu ',q_{2}+2)}& = & x_{2}^{q_{2}-\mu '}x_{4}^{\mu+1}((x_{3}x_{4})^{\mu '-\mu-1}+(x_{3}x_{4})^{\mu '-\mu-2}(x_{1}x_{2})+\cdots +(x_{1}x_{2})^{\mu '-\mu-1});\\
\gamma_{(\mu\mu ',i)}& = & 0 \quad \text{for}\quad i\notin\{\mu, \mu ', (q_{2}+2)\}.\end{aligned}$$
**Case 2.** $\mathbf{f\in A_{1},\, g\in\{g_{1},g_{2}\}}$
**2(a).** Let $f=f_{\mu},\, g=g_{1}$, where $1\leq \mu \leq q_{2}$. We have $$\begin{aligned}
S(f_{\mu},\, g_{1})&=x_{2}^{q_{2}}\cdot f_{\mu}+x_{1}^{\mu-1}x_{3}^{q_{2}-\mu}\cdot g_{1}\\
&=x_{1}^{q_{2}-1}\cdot f_{\mu}+x_{2}^{q_{2}-\mu}x_{4}^{\mu+1}\cdot g_{1}\quad \longrightarrow_{S} 0\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, the set $$\mathbb{T}_{3}=\{\boldsymbol{\gamma}_{\mu}: \gamma_{\mu}=(\gamma_{(\mu, 1)},\ldots,\gamma_{(\mu,i)},\ldots, \gamma_{(\mu,2q_{2})})\mid 1\leq \mu\leq q_{2}-1\}$$ gives us the Schreyer tuples, where $$\begin{aligned}
\gamma_{(\mu,\mu)}& = & x_{1}^{q_{2}-1}-x_{2}^{q_{2}};\\
\gamma_{(\mu, q_{2}+1)} & = & x_{2}^{q_{2}-\mu}x_{4}^{\mu+1}-x_{1}^{\mu-1}x_{3}^{q_{2}-\mu};\\
\gamma_(\mu,i) & = & 0,\quad \text{for}\quad i\notin \{ \mu, (q_{2}+1)\},\, 1\leq i\leq 2q_{2}.\end{aligned}$$
**2(b).** Let $f=f_{\mu},\, g=g_{2}$, where $1\leq \mu \leq q_{2}-1$. We have $$\begin{aligned}
S(f_{\mu},\, g_{2})&= x_{4}\cdot f_{\mu}-x_{1}^{\mu-1}x_{3}^{q_{2}-(\mu+1)}\cdot g_{2}\\
&=x_{2}\cdot f_{\mu+1} \quad \longrightarrow_{S} 0\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, the set $$\mathbb{T}_{4}=\{\boldsymbol{\alpha}_{\mu}=(\alpha_{(\mu, 1)},\ldots,\alpha_{(\mu,i)},\ldots, \alpha_{(\mu,2q_{2})})\mid 1\leq \mu \leq q_{2}-1\}$$ gives the Schreyer tuples, where $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha_{(\mu,\mu)}& = & -x_{4};\\
\alpha_{(\mu,\mu +1)} & = & x_{2};\\
\alpha_{(\mu, q_{2}+2)} & = & x_{1}^{\mu-1}x_{3}^{q_{2}-(\mu+1)};\\
\alpha_{(\mu,i)} & = & 0,\quad \text{for}\quad i\notin \{\mu,\, \mu+1,\, (q_{2}+2)\},\, 1\leq i\leq 2q_{2}. \end{aligned}$$
**2(c).** Let $f=f_{q_{2}},\, g=g_{2}$. We have $$\begin{aligned}
S(f_{q_{2}}, g_{2})&=x_{3}x_{4}\cdot f_{q_{2}}-x_{1}^{q_{2}-1}\cdot g_{2}\\
&=x_{1}x_{2}\cdot f_{q_{2}}-{x_{4}^{q_{2}+1}}\cdot g_{2} \quad \longrightarrow_{S} 0\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, the set $$\mathbb{T}_{5}=\{\boldsymbol{\alpha}=(\alpha_{1},\ldots,\alpha_{i},\ldots, \alpha _{ 2q_{2}})\}$$ gives the Schreyer tuples, where $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha_{q_{2}} & = & x_{1}x_{2}-x_{3}x_{4};\\
\alpha_{(q_{2}+2)} & = & x_{1}^{q_{2}-1}-x_{4}^{q_{2}+1};\\
\alpha_{i} & = & 0,\quad \text{for}\quad i\notin \{q_{2},\,(q_{2}+2)\},\, 1\leq i\leq 2q_{2}.\end{aligned}$$
**Case 3.** Let $\mathbf{f=g_{1}, g=g_{2}}$. We have $$\begin{aligned}
S(g_{1},g_{2})&=-x_{3}x_{4}\cdot g_{1}-x_{2}^{q_{2}}\cdot g_{2}\\
&=-x_{1}x_{2}\cdot g_{1}-x_{1}^{q_{2}-1}\cdot g_{2} \quad \longrightarrow_{S} 0\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, the set $$\mathbb{T}_{6}=\{\boldsymbol{\beta}=(\beta_{1},\ldots,\beta_{i},\ldots, \beta_{ 2q_{2}})\}$$ gives the Schreyer tuples, where $$\begin{aligned}
\beta_{q_{2}+1} & = & x_{3}x_{4}-x_{1}x_{2};\\
\beta_{q_{2}+2} & = & x_{2}^{q_{2}}-x_{1}^{q_{2}-1};\\
\beta_{i} & = & 0,\quad \text{for}\quad i\notin \{(q_{2}+1),\, (q_{2}+2)\},\, 1\leq i\leq 2q_{2}.\end{aligned}$$
**Case 4.** $\mathbf{f\in \{g_{1},g_{2}\}, g\in A_{2}^{'}}$.
**4(a).** Let $f=g_{1},\, g=h_{1}$. We have $$\begin{aligned}
S(g_{1},\, h_{1})&=-x_{3}\cdot g_{1}+x_{2}\cdot h_{1}\\
&=-x_{1}\cdot f_{q_{2}-1}\quad \longrightarrow_{S} 0\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, the set $$\mathbb{T}_{7}=
\{\boldsymbol{\gamma}=(\gamma_{1},\ldots,\gamma_{i},\ldots, \gamma_{2q_{2}})\}$$ gives us the Schreyer tuples, where $$\begin{aligned}
\gamma_{q_{2}-1} & = & -x_{1};\\
\gamma_{q_{2}+1} & = & x_{3};\\
\gamma_{q_{2}+3} & = & -x_{2};\\
\gamma_{i} & = & 0,\quad \text{for}\quad i\notin \{(q_{2}-1),\, (q_{2}+1),\,(q_{2}+3)\}.\end{aligned}$$
**4(b).** Let $f=g_{1}, g=h_{m}$, with $1< m\leq (q_{2}-2)$. We have $$\begin{aligned}
S(g_{1}, h_{m})&=-{x_{3}}^{m}\cdot g_{1}+{x_{2}}^{m}\cdot h_{m}\\
&=-{x_{1}}^{m}\cdot f_{q_{2}-m}\quad \longrightarrow_{S} 0\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, the set $$\mathbb{T}_{8}=\{\boldsymbol{\alpha}'_{m}=(\alpha'_{(m,1)},\ldots,\alpha'_{(m,i)},\ldots, \alpha'_{(m,2q_{2})}|1< m\leq q_{2}-2\}$$ gives us the Schreyer tuples, where $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha'_{(m,q_{2}-m)} & = & -x_{1}^{m};\\
\alpha'_{(m,q_{2}+2)} & = & x_{3}^{m};\\
\alpha'_{(m,q_{2}+2+m)} & = & -x_{2}^{m};\\
\alpha'_{(m,i)} & = & 0,\quad \text{for}\quad i\notin \{q_{2}-m, q_{2}+1, q_{2}+2+m\}.\end{aligned}$$
**4(c).** Let $f=g_{2}, g=h_{1}$. We have $$\begin{aligned}
S(g_{2},h_{1})&=x_{2}^{q_{2}-1}\cdot g_{2}+x_{4}\cdot h_{1}\\
&=x_{1}\cdot g_{1}-x_{1}\cdot f_{q_{2}} \quad \longrightarrow_{S} 0\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, the set $$\mathbb{T}_{9}=\{\boldsymbol{\alpha}'=(\alpha'_{1},\ldots, \alpha'_{i},\ldots , \alpha'_{2q_{2}})\}$$ gives us the Schreyer tuples, where $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha'_{q_{2}} & = & -x_{1};\\
\alpha'_{(q_{2}+1)} & = & x_{1};\\
\alpha'_{(q_{2}+2)} & = & -x_{2}^{(q_{2}-1)};\\
\alpha'_{(q_{2}+3)} & = & -x_{4};\\
\alpha'_{i} & = & 0, \quad \text{for}\quad i\notin \{ q_{2},\,q_{2}+1,\,q_{2}+2,\,q_{2}+3\}.\end{aligned}$$
**4(d).** Let $f=g_{2}, g=h_{m},$ where $1< m \leq q_{2}-2.$ We have $$\begin{aligned}
S(g_{2},h_{m})&=x_{2}^{q_{2}-m}x_{3}^{m-1}\cdot g_{2}-x_{4}\cdot h_{m}\\
&=-x_{1}\cdot h_{m-1} \quad \longrightarrow_{S} 0\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, the set $$\mathbb{T}_{10}= \{\boldsymbol{\beta}'_{m}=(\beta'_{(m,1)},\ldots,\beta'_{(m,i)},\ldots, \beta'_{(m,2q_{2})})|1< m\leq q_{2}-2)\}$$ gives us the Schreyer tuples, where $$\begin{aligned}
\beta'_{(m,q_{2}+2)} & = & x_{2}^{q_{2}-m}x_{3}^{m-1};\\
\beta'_{(m,q_{2}+m+1)} & = & -x_{1};\\
\beta'_{(m,q_{2}+2+m)} & = & x_{4};\\
\beta'_{(m,i)} & = & 0,\quad \text{for}\quad i\notin \{(q_{2}+2), (q_{2}+m+1), (q_{2}+2+m)\}.\end{aligned}$$
**Case 5.** $\mathbf{f, g\in A_{2}^{'}}$
**5(a)** Let $f=h_{m}$ and $g=h_{m+1},$ where $1\leq m \leq q_{2}-3$. We have $$\begin{aligned}
S(h_{m},h_{m+1})&= -x_{3}\cdot h_{m}+x_{2}\cdot h_{m+1}\\
&=x_{1}^{m}x_{4}^{q_{2}-m}\cdot g_{2}\quad \longrightarrow_{S} 0\end{aligned}$$ Therefore the set $$\mathbb{T}_{11}=\{{\boldsymbol{\gamma}'_{m}}=(\gamma'_{(m, 1)},\ldots,\gamma'_{(m,i)},\ldots, \gamma'_{(m, 2q_{2})})\mid 1\leq m\leq q_{2}-3\}$$ gives us the Schreyer tuples, where $$\begin{aligned}
\gamma'_{(m, q_{2}+2)} & = & -x_{1}^{m}x_{4}^{q_{2}-m};\\
\gamma'_{(m,q_{2}+2+m)} & = & x_{3};\\
\gamma'_{(m ,q_{2}+3+m)} & = & -x_{2};\\
\gamma'_{(m, i)} & = & 0,\quad \text{for}\quad i\notin \{q_{2}+2, q_{2}+m+2,q_{2}+m+3\}.\end{aligned}$$
**5(b).** Let $f=h_{m}$ and $g=h_{m'}$ where $m'> m+1.$ We have $$\begin{aligned}
S(h_{m}, h_{m'})&=-x_{2}^{m'-m}\cdot h_{m}+x_{3}^{m'-m}\cdot h_{m'}\\
&=x_{1}^{m}x_{4}^{q_{2}+1-m'}((x_{3}x_{4})^{m'-m-1}+(x_{3}x_{4})^{m'-m-2}(x_{1}x_{2})+\cdots+(x_{1}x_{2})^{m-m'-1})\cdot g_{2}\\
{} & \longrightarrow_{S} 0 \end{aligned}$$ Therefore, the set $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{T}_{12}=\{{\boldsymbol{\alpha}'_{m m'}}=(\alpha'_{(m m', 1)},\ldots,\alpha'_{(m m',i)},\ldots, \alpha'_{(m m', 2q_{2})})\mid & 1\leq m\leq q_{2}-4,\\
& m+2\leq m'\leq q_{2}-2\}\end{aligned}$$ gives the Schreyer tuples, where $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha'_{(mm',m )} & = & x_{3}^{m'-m};\\
\alpha'_{(mm', m')} & = & -x_{2}^{m'-m};\\
\alpha'_{(mm',q_{2}+2)} & = & x_{1}^{m}x_{4}^{q_{2}+1-m'}((x_{3}x_{4})^{m'-m-1}+(x_{3}x_{4})^{m'-m-2}(x_{1}x_{2})+\cdots+(x_{1}x_{2})^{m-m'-1});\\
\alpha'_{(mm', i)} & = & 0,\quad \text{for}\quad i\notin \{ m,\, m',\, q_{2}+2\}.\end{aligned}$$
**Case 6.** $\mathbf{f\in A}$ and $\mathbf{g\in A_{2}^{'}}$
**6(a).** Let $f=f_{1},\, g=h_{q_{2}-2}.$ We have $$\begin{aligned}
S(f_{1}, h_{q_{2}-2})&= x_{2}^{2}\cdot f_{1}+x_{3}\cdot h_{q_{2}-2}\\
&=x_{1}^{q_{2}-2}x_{4}^{2}\cdot g_{2}+x_{2}x_{4}^{2}\cdot g_{1}\quad \longrightarrow_{S} 0\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, the set $$\mathbb{T}_{13}=\{\boldsymbol{\beta}'=(\beta'_{1},\ldots,\beta'_{i},\ldots, \beta'_{ 2q_{2}})\}$$ gives the Schreyer tuples, where $$\begin{aligned}
\beta'_{1} & = & -x_{2}^{2};\\
\beta'_{(q_{2}+1)} & = & x_{2}x_{4}^{2};\\
\beta'_{(q_{2}+2)} & = & x_{1}^{q_{2}-2}x_{4}^{2};\\
\beta'_{2q_{2}} & = & -x_{3};\\
\beta'_{i} & = & 0,\quad \text{for}\quad i\notin \{ 1,\, (q_{2}+1),\, (q_{2}+2),\,2q_{2}\},\, 1\leq i\leq 2q_{2}.\end{aligned}$$
**6(b).** Let $f=f_{2},\, g=h_{q_{2}-2}.$ We have $$\begin{aligned}
S(f_{2}, h_{q_{2}-2})&= x_{2}^{2}\cdot f_{2}+x_{1}\cdot h_{q_{2}-2}\\
&=x_{4}^{3}\cdot g_{1}\quad \longrightarrow_{S} 0\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, the set $$\mathbb{T}_{14}=\{\boldsymbol{\gamma}'=(\gamma'_{1},\ldots,\gamma'_{i},\ldots, \gamma'_{ 2q_{2}})\}$$ gives the Schreyer tuples, where $$\begin{aligned}
\gamma'_{2} & = & -x_{2}^{2};\\
\gamma'_{(q_{2}+1)} & = & x_{4}^{3};\\
\gamma'_{(2q_{2})} & = & -x_{1};\\
\gamma'_{i} & = & 0,\quad \text{for}\quad i\notin \{ 2,\,(q_{2}+1),\, (2q_{2})\},\, 1\leq i\leq 2q_{2}.\end{aligned}$$
**6(c).** Let $f=f_{\mu}$ and $g=h_{m},\, (\mu,m)\neq(1,\, q_{2}-2)$ and $(\mu,m)\neq(2,\, q_{2}-2)$.
**(i)** $\mu + m < q_{2}.$ We have $$\begin{aligned}
S(f_{\mu}, h_{m})&= x_{2}^{q_{2}-m}\cdot f_{\mu}+x_{1}^{\mu-1}x_{3}^{q_{2}-\mu-m}\cdot h_{m}\\
&=x_{4}^{q_{2}+1-m}\cdot f_{\mu+m}-x_{2}^{q_{2}-\mu-m}x_{4}^{\mu+1}\cdot (f_{q_{2}}-g_{1})\quad \longrightarrow_{S} 0\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, the set $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{T}_{15}=\{{\boldsymbol{\beta}'_{\mu m}}=(\beta'_{(\mu m, 1)},\ldots,\beta'_{(\mu m,i)},\ldots, \beta'_{(\mu m, 2q_{2})})\mid & 1\leq \mu \leq q_{2}-1,\\
& 1\leq m< q_{2}-\mu \}
\end{aligned}$$ gives the Schreyer tuples, where $$\begin{aligned}
\beta'_{(\mu m, \mu)} & = & -x_{2}^{q_{2}-m};\\
\beta'_{(\mu m, \mu +m)} & = & x_{4}^{q_{2}+1-m};\\
\beta'_{(\mu m ,q_{2})} & = & -x_{2}^{q_{2}-m-\mu}x_{4}^{\mu+1};\\
\beta'_{(\mu m ,q_{2}+1)} & = & x_{2}^{q_{2}-m-\mu}x_{4}^{\mu+1};\\
\beta'_{(\mu m ,q_{2}+2+m)} & = & -x_{1}^{\mu-1}x_{3}^{q_{2}-\mu-m};\\
\beta'_{(m, i)} & = & 0,\quad \text{for}\quad i\notin
\{ \mu, \, \mu+m ,\, q_{2},\, (q_{2}+1), \, (q_{2}+2+m)\}.\end{aligned}$$
**(ii)** Let $ \mu + m=q_{2}.$ We have $$\begin{aligned}
S(f_{\mu}, h_{m})&= x_{2}^{q_{2}-m}\cdot f_{\mu}+x_{1}^{\mu-1}\cdot h_{m}\\
&=x_{4}^{\mu+1}\cdot g_{1}\quad \longrightarrow_{S} 0\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, the set $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{T}_{16}=\{{\boldsymbol{\gamma}'_{\mu m}}=(\gamma'_{(\mu m, 1)},\ldots,\gamma'_{(\mu m,i)},\ldots, \gamma'_{(\mu m, 2q_{2})})\mid 1\leq & \mu \leq q_{2}-1,\\
& m = q_{2}-\mu \}\end{aligned}$$ gives us the Schreyer tuples, where $$\begin{aligned}
\gamma'_{(\mu m, \mu)} & = & -x_{2}^{q_{2}-m};\\
\gamma'_{(\mu m ,q_{2}+1)}& = & x_{4}^{\mu+1};\\
\gamma'_{(\mu m ,2q_{2}+2-\mu)}& = & -x_{1}^{\mu-1};\\
\gamma'_{(\mu m, i)} & = & 0,\quad \text{for}\quad
i\notin \{ \mu,\, (q_{2}+1), \, (2q_{2}+2-\mu)\}.\end{aligned}$$
**(iii)** Let $\mu+m > q_{2}.$ We have $$\begin{aligned}
S(f_{\mu}, h_{m})&= x_{2}^{q_{2}-m}x_{3}^{\mu+m-q_{2}}\cdot f_{\mu}+x_{1}^{\mu-1}\cdot h_{m}\\
&=x_{4}^{\mu +1}\cdot h_{\mu+m-q_{2}}+x_{1}^{\mu+m-q_{2}}x_{4}^{q_{2}+1-m}\cdot f_{q_{2}}\quad \longrightarrow_{S} 0\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, the set $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{T}_{17}=\{{\boldsymbol{\alpha}''_{\mu m}}=(\alpha''_{(\mu m, 1)},\ldots,\alpha''_{(\mu m,i)},\ldots, \alpha''_{(\mu m, 2q_{2})})\mid & 1\leq \mu \leq q_{2}-1,\\
& 1\leq m< q_{2}-\mu \}\end{aligned}$$ gives us the Schreyer tuples, where $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha''_{(\mu m, \mu)} & = & -x_{2}^{q_{2}-m}x_{3}^{\mu+m-q_{2}};\\
\alpha''_{(\mu m ,q_{2})} & = & x_{1}^{\mu+m-q{2}}x_{4}^{q_{2}+1-m};\\
\alpha''_{(\mu m ,\mu+m+2)} & = & x_{4}^{\mu+1};\\
\alpha''_{(\mu m ,q_{2}+2+m)} & = & -x_{1}^{\mu-1};\\
\alpha''_{(m, i)} & = & 0,\quad \text{for}\quad i\notin \{ \mu ,\, q_{2},\, (q_{2}+2+m), \, (\mu+m+2)\}.\end{aligned}$$
The set $\mathbb{D}=\cup_{i=1}^{17}\mathbb{T}_{i}$ gives us all the Schreyer tuples which form the generating set for the first syzygy module $\mathrm{Syz}(\mathfrak{p}(\mathbf{\underline{n}}))$.
\[second\] Let $\mathbb{T}= \mathbb{T}_{1}\cup \mathbb{T}_{4}\cup\mathbb{T}_{7}\cup\mathbb{T}_{9}\cup \mathbb{T}_{10}\cup\mathbb{T}_{11}\cup \mathbb{T}_{13}\cup\mathbb{T}_{14}$. Let $M_{1}$ denote the first syzygy module $\mathrm{Syz}(\mathfrak{p}(\mathbf{\underline{n}}))$. Then, the set $\mathbb{\overline{T}}\subset M_{1}/\mathfrak{m}M_{1}$ is linearly independent over the field $R/\mathfrak{m}=k$, where $\mathfrak{m} = \langle x_{1}, x_{2}, x_{3}, x_{4}\rangle$. The set $\mathbb{T}$ is a minimal generating set for the first syzygy module and $\beta_{2}(\mathfrak{p}(\mathbf{\underline{n}}))= 4(q_{2}-1)$.
The module $M_{1}$ is generated by $\mathbb{D}$, therefore $\mathfrak{m}M_{1}$ must be generated by $L=x_{1}\mathbb{D}\cup x_{2}\mathbb{D}\cup x_{3}\mathbb{D}\cup x_{4}\mathbb{D}$. It follows from the construction of $\mathbb{D}$ that each coordinate of elements of $L$ is either zero or a monomial of total degree greater than one. Now, to show that $\overline{\mathbb{T}}$ is linearly independent in the vector space $M_{1}/\mathfrak{m}M_{1}$ over the field $R/\mathfrak{m}=k$, we consider the element $\mathbf{v}\in \mathfrak{m}M_{1}$ given by $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{v} & = \sum_{\mu=1}^{q_{2}-1}a_{\mu}\boldsymbol{\beta}_{\mu}+\sum_{m=1}^{q_{2}-3}b_{m}\boldsymbol{\gamma}'_{m}+c_{1}\boldsymbol{\alpha'}+
\sum_{m=2}^{q_{2}-2}c_{m}\boldsymbol{\beta}'_{m}\\
{} & \quad\quad +\sum_{\mu=1}^{q_{2}-1}d_{\mu}\boldsymbol{\alpha_{\mu}}-l_{1}\boldsymbol{\gamma}+l_{2}\boldsymbol{\beta}'+l_{3}\boldsymbol{\gamma}' \end{aligned}$$ where $a_{\mu}, b_{m},c_{m},d_{\mu},l_{m}\in k$. The linear part in the first coordinate $v_{1}$ is $a_{1}(-x_{1})+d_{1}(-x_{4})$. Each coordinate of elements of $L$ being a monomial of total degree greater than one or zero, we have $a_{1}(-x_{1})+d_{1}(-x_{4})=0$, that is $a_{1}=d_{1}=0$. Now, the linear part in the $i$-th coordinate $v_{i}$, for $1<i< q_{2}-1$ is $a_{i-1}(x_{3})+a_{i}(-x_{1})+d_{i-1}(x_{2})+d_{i}(-x_{4})$. Therefore by the same argument we must have $a_{i}=d_{i}=0$, for $1\leq i< q_{2}-1$. Similarly, the linear part in $v_{q_{2}+1}$ is $c_{1}(x_{1})+l_{1}(-x_{3})$. Therefore, for similar reasons we must have $c_{1}=l_{1}=0$. We now compute linear part in $v_{q_{2}-1}$ and obtain $a_{q_{2}-1}(-x_{1})+d_{q_{2}-1}(-x_{4})$. Equating this to zero we obtain $a_{q_{2}-1}=d_{q_{2}-1}=0$. It turns out that, $\mathbf{v}=\sum_{m=1}^{q_{2}-3}b_{m}\boldsymbol{\gamma}'_{m}+\sum_{m=2}^{q_{2}-2}c_{m}\boldsymbol{\beta}'_{m}+l_{2}\boldsymbol{\beta'}+l_{3}\boldsymbol{\gamma'}$.
We now compute the linear part in $v_{q_{2}+3}$ and obtain $b_{1}x_{3}+c_{2}(-x_{1})$. Equating this to zero we get $b_{1}=c_{2}=0$. The linear part in $v_{q_{2}+2+i}$, for $1<i\leq q_{2}-3$, is $\, b_{i-1}(-x_{2})+b_{i}x_{3}+c_{i}x_{4}+c_{i+1}(-x_{1})$. Therefore, $b_{i}=c_{i}=0$, for $1<i<q_{2}-2$. Finally computing the linear part in $v_{2q_{2}}$ and equating that to zero we obtain $$b_{q_{2}-3}(-x_{2})+c_{q_{2}-2}x_{4}+l_{2}(-x_{3})+l_{3}(-x_{1})=0.$$ Therefore, $b_{q_{2}-3}=c_{q_{2}-2}=l_{2}=l_{3}=0$. This proves that the set $\overline{\mathbb{T}}\subset M_{1}/\mathfrak{m}M_{1}$ is linearly independent. Therefore, $\mathbb{T}$ is a part of a minimal generating set for the first syzygies module, and cardinality of $\mathbb{T}$ is $$(q_{2}-1)+(q_{2}-3)+(q_{2}-2)+(q_{2}-1)+3=4(q_{2}-1).$$ By Theorem 8.1 [@stamate], the second betti number in the resolution of $R/\mathfrak{p}(\mathbf{\underline{n}})$ is $4(q_{2}-1)$, hence $\mathbb{T}$ is a minimal generating set for first syzygy module. Therefore, $\beta_{2}(\mathfrak{p}(\mathbf{\underline{n}}))= \mid \mathbb{T} \mid = 4(q_{2}-1)$.
\[third\] $\beta_{3}(\mathfrak{p}(\mathbf{\underline{n}}))= 2q_{2}-3$.
We know that $R/\mathfrak{p}(\mathbf{\underline{n}})\cong k[t^{n_{1}},t^{n_{2}},t^{n_{3}},t^{n_{4}}]$ is a one dimensional integral domain and therefore $\mathrm{depth}(R/\mathfrak{p}(\mathbf{\underline{n}}))=1$. By the Auslander Buchsbaum theorem, $\mathrm{projdim}_{R}(R/\mathfrak{p}(\mathbf{\underline{n}}))=3$ and we have $$1-2q_{2}+\beta_{2}(\mathfrak{p}(\mathbf{\underline{n}}))-\beta_{3}(\mathfrak{p}(\mathbf{\underline{n}}))=0.$$ Therefore, by \[second\], we have $\beta_{3}(\mathfrak{p}(\mathbf{\underline{n}}))= 2q_{2}-3$.
The second syzygy and a minimal free resolution
===============================================
Let us order the generating vectors of second syzygy, and consider the matrix $$N=\left[\boldsymbol{\beta}_{1}\ldots \boldsymbol{\beta}_{q_{2}-1} \mid \boldsymbol{\gamma}^{'}_{1}\ldots\boldsymbol{\gamma}^{'}_{q_{2}-3}\mid \boldsymbol{\alpha}^{'}\mid \boldsymbol{\beta}^{'}_{2}\ldots \boldsymbol{\beta}^{'}_{q_{2}-2}\mid\boldsymbol{\alpha}_{1}\ldots \boldsymbol{\alpha}_{q_{2}-1} \mid -\boldsymbol{\gamma}\mid \boldsymbol{\beta}^{'}\mid \boldsymbol{\gamma}^{'} \right]_{2q_{2}\times 4(q_{2}-1)}$$
We consider the following sets of vectors:
1. $\mathbb{H}_{1}=\{\boldsymbol{\delta}_{\mu}=(\delta_{(\mu,1)},\ldots \delta_{(\mu,4(q_{2}-1))})\mid 1\leq \mu\leq q_{2}-2\} $, where $$\begin{aligned}
\delta_{(\mu,\mu)} & = & x_{4};\\
\delta_{(\mu,\mu+1)} & = &-x_{2};\\
\delta_{(\mu,(3q_{2}-6+\mu))} & = & -x_{1};\\
\delta_{(\mu,(3q_{2}-5+\mu))} & = & x_{3};\\
\delta_{(\mu,i)} & = & 0, \quad \text{for}\quad i\notin \{\mu,\mu+1,(3q_{2}-6+\mu),(3q_{2}-5+\mu)\}.\end{aligned}$$
2. $\mathbb{H}_{2}=\{\boldsymbol{\xi}=(\xi_{1},\ldots,\xi_{4(q_{2}-1)})\}$, where $$\begin{aligned}
\xi_{1} & = & x_{2}^{2};\\
\xi_{2q_{2}-3} & = & x_{2}x_{4}^{2};\\
\xi_{4q_{2}-7} & = & x_{1}x_{4}^{2};\\
\xi_{4q_{2}-6} & = & x_{4}^{3};\\
\xi_{4q_{2}-5} & = & -x_{1};\\
\xi_{4q_{2}-4} & = & x_{3};\\
\xi_{i} & = & 0, \quad \text{for}\quad i\notin \{1,(2q_{2}-3),(4q_{2}-7),(4q_{2}-6),(4q_{2}-5),(4q_{2}-4)\}.\end{aligned}$$
3. $\mathbb{H}_{3}=\{\boldsymbol{\zeta}=(\zeta_{1},\ldots,\zeta_{4(q_{2}-1)})\}$, where $$\begin{aligned}
\zeta_{q_{2}-1} & = & x_{1};\\
\zeta_{q_{2}} & = & x_{4};\\
\zeta_{2q_{2}-3} & = & x_{3};\\
\zeta_{2q_{2}-2} & = & x_{2};\\
\zeta_{4q_{2}-6} & = & x_{1};\\
\zeta_{i} & = & 0, \quad \text{for}\quad i\notin \{(q_{2}-1),q_{2},(2q_{2}-3),(2q_{2}-2),(4q_{2}-6)\}.\end{aligned}$$
4. $\mathbb{H}_{3}=\{\boldsymbol{\eta}=(\eta_{1},\ldots,\eta_{4(q_{2}-1)})\}$, where $$\begin{aligned}
\eta_{2q_{2}-4} & = & -x_{1};\\
\eta_{3q_{2}-6} & = & -x_{3};\\
\eta_{3q_{2}-5} & = & x_{2}^{2};\\
\eta_{4q_{2}-5} & = & -x_{4};\\
\eta_{4q_{2}-4} & = & x_{2};\\
\eta_{i} & = & 0, \quad \text{for}\quad i\notin \{(2q_{2}-4),(3q_{2}-6),(3q_{2}-5),(4q_{2}-5),(4q_{2}-4)\}.\end{aligned}$$
5. $\mathbb{H}_{4}=\{\boldsymbol{\kappa}_{\mu}=(\kappa_{(\mu,1)},\ldots,\kappa_{(\mu,4(q_{2}-1))})\mid 1\leq \mu\leq q_{2}-4\}$, where $$\begin{aligned}
\eta_{(\mu,(q_{2}-1+\mu))} & = & -x_{1};\\
\eta_{(\mu,q_{2}+\mu)} & = & x_{4};\\
\eta_{(\mu,(2q_{2}-3+\mu))} & = & -x_{3};\\
\eta_{(\mu,(2q_{2}-2+\mu))} & = & x_{2};\\
\eta_{(\mu,i)} & = & 0, \quad \text{for}\quad i\notin \{(q_{2}-1+\mu),(q_{2}+\mu),(2q_{2}-3+\mu),(2q_{2}-2+\mu)\}.\end{aligned}$$
\[secondsyzygy\] The set $\mathbb{H}=\mathbb{H}_{1}\cup\mathbb{H}_{2}\cup\mathbb{H}_{3}\cup\mathbb{H}_{4}$ is a minimal generating set of the second syzygy module of $\mathfrak{p}(\mathbf{\underline{n}})$.
Let us define the matrix, $$P=\left[\boldsymbol{\delta}_{1}\ldots \boldsymbol{\delta}_{q_{2}-2}\mid \boldsymbol{\xi}\mid \boldsymbol{\zeta}\mid \boldsymbol{\eta}\mid \boldsymbol{\kappa}_{1}\ldots \boldsymbol{\kappa}_{q_{2}-4} \right]_{4(q_{2}-1)\times (2q_{2}-3)}.$$
The matrix $$N=\left[\boldsymbol{\beta}_{1}\ldots \boldsymbol{\beta}_{q_{2}-1} \mid \boldsymbol{\gamma}^{'}_{1}\ldots\boldsymbol{\gamma}^{'}_{q_{2}-3}\mid \boldsymbol{\alpha}^{'}\mid \boldsymbol{\beta}^{'}_{2}\ldots \boldsymbol{\beta}^{'}_{q_{2}-2}\mid\boldsymbol{\alpha}_{1}\ldots \boldsymbol{\alpha}_{q_{2}-1} \mid -\boldsymbol{\gamma}\mid \boldsymbol{\beta}^{'}\mid \boldsymbol{\gamma}^{'} \right]_{2q_{2}\times 4(q_{2}-1)}$$ is the one which has been defined at the beginning of this section. It is easy to check that $N\cdot P=0$. Therefore, elements of $\mathbb{H}$ are elements of the second syzygy module. Let $ M_{2}$ denote the second syzygy module of $\mathfrak{p}(\mathbf{\underline{n}})$. We claim that, $\overline{\mathbb{H}}\subset M_{2}/\mathfrak{m}M_{2}$ is a linearly independent set, where $\mathfrak{m}=\langle x_{1},x_{2},x_{3},x_{4}\rangle$. We proceed in the same way as in \[second\], considering the expression $$\sum_{\mu=1}^{q_{2}-2}p_{\mu}\boldsymbol{\delta}_{\mu}+q\boldsymbol{\xi}+w \boldsymbol{\zeta}+s\boldsymbol{\eta}+\sum_{j=1}^{q_{2}-4}t_{j}\boldsymbol{\kappa}_{j}=\mathbf{u}\,(\mathrm{say}),$$ where $p_{\mu},q,w,s,t_{j}\in k$ for $1\leq \mu\leq q_{2}-2$, $ 1\leq j\leq q_{2}-4$ and we compute linear terms in each coordinate of $\mathbf{u}$. If we compute the linear terms in $u_{1}$ we get $p_{1}x_{4}$, hence $p_{1}=0$. Next we compute the linear terms in $u_{2}$ and we get $-p_{1}x_{2}+p_{2}x_{4}$. We have $-p_{1}x_{2}+p_{2}x_{4}=0$, hence $p_{2}=0$. Proceeding like this, we observe that all the coefficients are zero and therefore $\mathbb{H}$ is a part of minimal generating set of $M_{2}$. Since the third betti number is $2q_{2}-3$ and $\mid\mathbb{H}\mid =2q_{2}-3$, we conclude that $\mathbb{H}$ is a minimal generating set of the second syzygy module.
\[minres\] A minimal free resolution for the ideal $\mathfrak{p}(\mathbf{\underline{n}})$ in the polynomial ring $R = K[x_{1}, x_{2}, x_{3}, x_{4}]$ is $$0\longrightarrow R^{2q_{2}-3} \stackrel{P}{\longrightarrow} R^{4(q_{2} - 1)} \stackrel{N}{\longrightarrow} R^{2q_{2}} \longrightarrow R \longrightarrow R/\mathfrak{p}(\mathbf{\underline{n}})\longrightarrow 0,$$ where $$P=\left[\boldsymbol{\delta}_{1}\ldots \boldsymbol{\delta}_{q_{2}-2}\mid \boldsymbol{\xi}\mid \boldsymbol{\zeta}\mid \boldsymbol{\eta}\mid \boldsymbol{\kappa}_{1}\ldots \boldsymbol{\kappa}_{q_{2}-4} \right]_{4(q_{2}-1)\times (2q_{2}-3)}$$ $$N=\left[\boldsymbol{\beta}_{1}\ldots \boldsymbol{\beta}_{q_{2}-1} \mid \boldsymbol{\gamma}^{'}_{1}\ldots\boldsymbol{\gamma}^{'}_{q_{2}-3}\mid \boldsymbol{\alpha}^{'}\mid \boldsymbol{\beta}^{'}_{2}\ldots \boldsymbol{\beta}^{'}_{q_{2}-2}\mid\boldsymbol{\alpha}_{1}\ldots \boldsymbol{\alpha}_{q_{2}-1} \mid -\boldsymbol{\gamma}\mid \boldsymbol{\beta}^{'}\mid \boldsymbol{\gamma}^{'} \right]_{2q_{2}\times 4(q_{2}-1)}.$$
Acknowledgement {#acknowledgement .unnumbered}
===============
The third author thanks IIT Gandhinagar for the funding through the research project IP/IITGN/MATH/IS/201415-13. The second author thanks SERB, Government of India for the post-doctoral fellowship, under the research project EMR/2015/000776.
[A]{} H. Bresinsky, *On Prime Ideals with Generic Zero $x_i=t^{n_{i}}$*, Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society, Vol.47, No.2, (329-332) February 1975.
H. Bresinsky, *Symmetric semigroups of integers generated by $4$ elements*, Manuscripta Math. 17, (205-219)1975.
H. Bresinsky, *Monomial Gorenstein Ideals*, Manuscripta Math. 29, (159-181)1979.
H. Bresinsky, *Binomial generating sets for monomial curves with applications in $\mathbb{A}^{4}$*, Rend. Sem. Mat. Univers. Politecn. Torino, Vol. $46^{\circ}$, (3) (353-370) 1988.
H. Bresinsky and L. T. Hoa, *Minimal generating sets for a family of monomial curves in $\mathbb{A}^{4}$*, Commutative algebra and algebraic geometry (Ferrara), Lecture Notes in Pure and Appl. Math. 206 (Dekker, New York, 1999) 5–14.
W. Decker; G.-M. Greuel; G. Pfister; H. Sch[ö]{}nemann: — [A]{} computer algebra system for polynomial computations. (2014).
W. Decker and C. Lossen, *Computing in Algebraic Geometry A Quick Start using SINGULAR*, Hindustan Book Agency, October 2005.
J. Herzog, *Generators and relations of abelian semigroups and semigroup rings*, Manuscripta Mathematica, Vol. 2, No. 3, (1970), 175-193.
J. Herzog and D.I. Stamate, *On the defining equations of the tangent cone of a numerical semigroup ring*, Journal of Algebra, Volume 418, 15 November 2014, Pages 8-28.
R. Mehta, J. Saha, I. Sengupta, *Numerical Semigroups generated by concatenation of two arithmetic sequences*, arXiv:1802.02564\[math.AC\]; May 2018.
R. Mehta, J. Saha, I. Sengupta, *Symmetric Numerical Semigroups formed by concatenation of two arithmetic sequences*, arXiv:1805.08972v1\[math.AC\]; May 2018.
D.I. Stamate, *Betti numbers for numerical semigroup rings*, arXiv:1801.00153$\text{v}_{1}$.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We study how runaway stellar collisions in high-redshift, metal-poor star clusters form very massive stars (VMSs) that can directly collapse to intermediate-mass black holes (IMBHs). We follow the evolution of a pair of neighbouring high-redshift mini-haloes with high-resolution, cosmological hydrodynamical zoom-in simulations using the adaptive mesh refinement code [RAMSES]{} combined with the non-equilibrium chemistry package [KROME]{}. The first collapsing mini-halo is assumed to enrich the central nuclear star cluster (NSC) of the other to a critical metallicity, sufficient for Population II (Pop. II) star formation at redshift $z\approx27$. Using the spatial configuration of the flattened, asymmetrical gas cloud forming in the core of the metal enriched halo, we set the initial conditions for simulations of an initially non-spherical star cluster with the direct summation code [NBODY6]{} which are compared to about 2000 [NBODY6]{} simulations of spherical star clusters for a wide range of star cluster parameters. The final mass of the VMS that forms depends strongly on the initial mass and initial central density of the NSC. For the initial central densities suggested by our [RAMSES]{} simulations, VMSs with mass $>400$ M $_{\odot}$ can form in clusters with stellar masses of $\approx10^4$ M$_{\odot}$, and this can increase to well over 1000 M$_{\odot}$ for more massive and denser clusters. The high probability we find for forming a VMS in these mini-haloes at such an early cosmic time makes collisional runaway of Pop. II star clusters a promising channel for producing large numbers of high-redshift IMBHs that may act as the seeds of supermassive black holes.'
author:
- |
Harley Katz$^{1}$[^1], Debora Sijacki$^{1}$ and Martin G. Haehnelt$^{1}$\
$^1$Institute of Astronomy and Kavli Institute for Cosmology, University of Cambridge, Madingly Road, Cambridge, CB3 0HA\
bibliography:
- './HkDsMH\_2015.bib'
title: Seeding High Redshift QSOs by Collisional Runaway in Primordial Star Clusters
---
galaxies: high-redshift – quasars: supermassive black holes – galaxies: star clusters: general.
Introduction
============
The most simple path to a black hole is the death of a massive star of mass M $>8$ M$_{\odot}$; however, these stellar mass black holes cannot accrete matter fast enough to produce the population of observed supermassive black holes (SMBHs) at high redshift if growth is limited to the Eddington rate [@Volonteri2003; @Volonteri2005; @Haiman2006; @Lodato2006]. The problem would be somewhat alleviated if Population III (Pop. III) stars were hundreds of solar masses as early simulations predicted [@Bromm2001]. Direct collapse of these stars into black holes of a similar mass could then provide a promising route to an SMBH if the resulting black hole remnants could be fed continuously. Recent, higher resolution simulations predict, however, that the masses of Pop. III stars are significantly lower due to fragmentation which forms a small stellar association rather than an individual star. This casts doubt on the possibility that Pop. III stars produce massive black hole seeds [@Greif2011]. Even if Pop. III stars can reach masses of $\approx1000$ M$_{\odot}$ (see e.g. @Hirano2014), there are still major issues regarding the accretion once the black hole forms which are mainly due to radiative feedback [@Johnson2007; @Park2011].
A different route to massive black hole seeds is the direct collapse of massive gaseous cores in the centres of atomic cooling haloes with T$_{\text{vir}}\gtrsim10,000$ K at high redshift. In primordial galaxies that remain free from molecular hydrogen and metals, the gas cools very inefficiently at lower temperatures than the atomic cooling limit and matter will continue to accrete on to the central object at a high rate. Simulations indicate that the gas may then directly collapse into a black hole of $\approx10^4-10^6$ M$_{\odot}$ [@Loeb1994; @Eisenstein1995; @Begelman2006; @Regan2009; @Choi2013]. This mechanism struggles, however, if the gas can efficiently fragment and cool and it is essential that the halo remains free from metal, dust, and H$_2$ contamination.
Simulations of the direct collapse scenario therefore invoke a strong, uniform, Lyman-Werner (LW) background to dissociate H$_2$ [@WG2011b]. The most likely environment to find such a strong LW background is in the vicinity of a much larger host galaxy which has already undergone significant Pop. II or Pop. III star formation. There is some debate about the amplitude of the LW background required to suppress fragmentation (see e.g. @Shang2010 [@WG2011; @Sugimura2014; @Latif2014c; @Latif2014b; @Regan2014]) especially in the presence of cosmic ray and X-ray radiation [@Inayoshi2011; @Inayoshi2014]. Recently, [@Regan2014] have shown that if the LW background is not uniform, the critical value needed to dissociate the H$_2$ is much higher than that for a uniform background. [@Latif2014] suggest that when modelling the radiation spectra of Pop. II stars correctly and including the impact of X-ray ionization, the number density of direct collapse black holes decreases below that required to grow observed high-redshift SMBHs. X-ray feedback from the initial gas accretion on the black hole may further limit how massive such an object can grow in a short period of time [@Akyutalp2014]. Thus, it appears prudent to explore other mechanisms for forming massive black hole seeds at high redshift.
In this work, we study how stellar collisions in high-redshift, dense star clusters lead to the runaway growth of a single star. As stars collide, the mass and radius increase which boosts the probability for future collisions. This process becomes remarkably unstable, and analytic work, as well as simulations, demonstrates that, under the right conditions, runaway stellar collisions can produce a very massive star (VMS) that may collapse to an intermediate-mass black hole (IMBH) of $\approx1000$ M$_{\odot}$ [@Begelman1978; @PZ2004; @Freitag2006]. For this reason, high-redshift nuclear star clusters (NSCs) are very promising candidates for the formation of IMBHs [@Omukai2008]. [@Devecchi2009] used analytical models to demonstrate how a population of IMBHs might form in clusters at the centres of high-redshift galaxies. Runaway collisions in Pop. II star clusters may therefore be key for explaining the presence of black holes over the entire observed mass range.
Here, we use a combination of hydrodynamic simulations and direct summation, $N$-body simulations to model collisional runaway in dense stellar clusters at high redshift. In Part I (Section 2), we begin with self-consistent cosmological simulations performed with the [RAMSES]{} code and identify dense baryonic clumps in protogalaxies for which we can determine detailed chemo-thermodynamical properties. In Part II (Section 3), we extract the clumps from the cosmological simulations and populate them with stars, varying the stellar initial mass function (IMF) as well as a range of other parameters, and use this as the initial conditions for direct $N$-body simulations performed with [NBODY6]{}. Our model is nearly self-consistent, barring the ability to resolve the formation of individual stars within the cosmological framework, which is only now becoming possible [@Safranek2014].
Part I: Cosmological Hydrodynamic Simulations
=============================================
Set-up of the cosmological simulations
--------------------------------------
### Hydrodynamic, gravity, and chemistry solver {#HydroChem}
We use the publicly available adaptive mesh refinement (AMR) code [RAMSES]{} [@Teyssier2002] to follow the detailed hydrodynamics of the first collapsing objects at high redshift. We have replaced the default cooling module in [RAMSES]{} with the non-equilibrium chemistry solver [KROME]{}[^2]$^,$[^3] [@Grassi2014]. [KROME]{} uses the high-order [DLSODES]{} solver to solve the rate equations for the chemistry network. We follow the detailed abundances of 12 species: H, e$^-$, H$^+$, H$^-$, He, He$^+$, He$^{++}$, H$_2$, H$_{2}^+$, D, D$^+$, and HD for the reactions listed in the KROME react\_primordial\_photoH2 network. Cooling due to metals via line transitions is included at $T<10^4$ K for O I, C II, Si II, and Fe II. The abundances of these species are pinned to the hydrogen density in each cell assuming a metallicity which can change throughout the simulation. This is further described in Section 2.2.1. We emphasize that we do not assume an amplified LW background that would dissociate H$_2$ molecules and thus prevent cooling below $\approx10^4$ K and inhibit gas fragmentation.
### Optimizing resolution and refinement {#Res}
For the purpose of our work, it is important to choose a large enough cosmological box to have a sufficiently massive halo forming within. At the same time, we need to choose the maximum level of refinement of the simulation such that we can resolve high enough densities for star formation to occur while at the same time making sure that no numerical fragmentation happens. [@Lada2010] suggest that star formation can begin to occur at volume number densities $n\gtrsim10^4$ cm$^{-3}$. [@Ceverino2010] argue that the Jeans length, $\lambda_j$, must be resolved by at least $N_j=7$ cells at the maximum level of refinement, lmax, to prevent numerical fragmentation. Note that this is higher than the often used value of $N_j=4$ cells suggested by [@Truelove1997]. To study the properties of the birth clouds of NSCs that form in our simulations, we must evolve the simulations past the point of first collapse which makes these simulations susceptible to numerical fragmentation [@Robertson2008; @Ceverino2010; @Prieto2013]. In order to prevent this, we implement an artificial temperature floor based on the Jeans criteria at the maximum level of refinement,
$$\label{Tfloor}
\text{T}_{\text{floor}}=\frac{G N_{j}^2 \mu m_{\text p} \rho L^2}{\pi \gamma k_{\text b} 2^{2l_{\text{max}}}}.$$
Here, $L$ is the physical length of the box at the redshift of interest, $\gamma$ is the adiabatic index, $N_j$ is the number cells we wish to resolve the Jeans length with, $\mu$ is the mean molecular weight, $\rho$ is the mass density of the cell, $k_{\text b}$ is the Boltzmann constant, and $l_{\text{max}}$ is the maximum level of refinement. We set $N_j=8$, double the number suggested by [@Truelove1997] and slightly larger than the value suggested by [@Ceverino2010]. The minimum temperature of our simulation is governed by the physical temperature floor set by the cosmic microwave background (CMB) temperature at a given redshift. Thus, as long as T$_{\text{floor}}\lesssim2.725(1+z)$ K, we will continue to accurately resolve the chemical and hydrodynamical properties of the gas. Inserting T$_{\text{floor}}\lesssim2.725(1+z)$ K, $N_j=8$, $n=10^4$ cm$^{-3}$, and $\mu=1.22$ into equation (1), we see that we can safely resolve this density, choosing $L=500$ comoving kpc $h^{-1}$ at $z=30$ with $l_{\text{max}}=19$. For these values, T$_{\text{floor}}=4.9$ K which is far below the temperature, T$_{\text{CMB}}=84.5$ K, we expect the gas to cool to. At coarser levels $<l_{\text{max}}$, we refine in order to resolve the Jeans length by 16 cells, double our choice of $N_j$. In addition to these criteria, we have also implemented refinement criteria when the number of dark matter particles per cell becomes greater than 64 as well as when the baryons in the cell reach the equivalent scaled mass.
We emphasize that our choice of $N_j$ is unlikely to be sufficient to resolve the turbulent properties of the gas on the scales that we simulate. [@Federrath2011] and [@Turk2012] demonstrate that in order to capture these properties in simulations, the Jeans length must be resolved by more than $\approx32$ cells especially in the presence of magnetic fields. As this is not the aim of our work and we only look to model the general structure and mass of the birth cloud of a high-redshift primordial star cluster, our choice of resolution should be sufficient.
### Initial Conditions {#ICs}
We use the software package [MUSIC]{} [@Hahn2011] to construct initial conditions for a collisionless (dark-matter-only) simulation using second-order Lagrangian perturbations on a uniform grid at $z=150$ with $256^3$ particles in a 500 kpc $h^{-1}$ comoving box. For the cosmological parameters, we assume the most recent values from [@Plank2013] ($h=0.6711$, $\Omega_m=0.3175$, $\Omega_{\Lambda}=0.6825$, $\sigma_8=0.8344$). The transfer function used to generate the initial conditions was created using [CAMB]{} [@Lewis2000]. We use the [ROCKSTAR]{} halo finder [@Behroozi2013] to identify the most massive halo in our simulation at $z=20$ which has a mass of $M_{\text{vir}}=2.48\times10^7$ M$_{\odot}$. We define a cubic Lagrange region of side 127 comoving kpc to encompass all of the particles at $z=20$ within a region much larger than the virial radius of the halo. Multiple dark-matter-only simulations were run until an atomic cooling halo with $T_{\text{vir}}\gtrsim10^4$ K was identified at this redshift. An object of this mass is slightly overmassive for our choice of box size and represents an rms fluctuation of $>4{\sigma}$ indicating that it is a rare halo. Such rare haloes are likely to be incorporated into the most massive galaxies at lower redshifts and are thus likely sites to host SMBHs at $z\gtrsim6$ [@Sijacki2009; @Costa2014].
Baryons are introduced into the initial conditions using the local Lagrangian approximation at level 8 on the base grid, and both the dark matter and the baryons are initially placed at level 11 in the refinement region which gives an effective dark matter resolution of $2048^3$ particles corresponding to particles of mass $m_{dm}=1.08$ M$_{\odot} h^{-1}$. The initial level of the refined region was determined so that the mass of the dark mater particle does not subject the refined cells to $N$-body heating which can occur when the mass of the dark matter particle is much greater than the mass of the cells. Various initial resolutions were tested and it was found that level 11 provides an efficient compromise between particle number and $N$-body heating effects which were found to be negligible at this level.
Although the high-resolution dark matter particles are unlikely to cause spurious heating, it is possible that low-resolution dark matter particles may infiltrate the refinement region and cause heating due to their much greater masses. We have checked throughout our simulation for contamination of low-resolution dark matter particles and found none of these particles within the virial radius of the haloes. The maximum level of refinement of our simulation was defined in Section 2.1.2 to be $l_{\text{max}}=19$ so that the artificial temperature floor remains less than T$_{\text{CMB}}$ at the redshifts of interest. This gives us a resolution of $0.95$ comoving pc $h^{-1}$, corresponding to a physical resolution of $0.046$ pc at $z=30$.
### Identifying the birth clouds of nuclear star clusters
We use the clump finder implemented in [RAMSES]{} to identify gravitationally contracting, bound clumps within the simulations. The clump finder is sensitive to a density threshold, a mass threshold, and a relevance threshold[^4]. To identify a clump, we set the minimum density to be $(1+z)^3$ cm$^{-3}$ which corresponds to $3\times10^4$ cm$^{-3}$ at $z=30$, and the relevance threshold to 1.5. We do not put a constraint on the minimum mass. We choose the density criteria slightly higher than the density we wish to resolve in order to minimize the chance of identifying spurious clumps at the density of interest. This algorithm is used only to identify the location of clumps within the simulation. In order to calculate clump properties, we perform a secondary analysis where we define the outer edge of the clump to be the radius where the average density drops below $n=10^4$ cm$^{-3}$. We only consider clumps with $N>N_{j}^3=512$ cells which are all at the highest level of refinement. For $l_{\text{max}}=19$, the minimum volume of a clump is then 0.05 pc$^3$ at $z=30$ which, assuming a spherical structure, sets a minimum radius of the clump to be $R_{\text{clump}}>0.23$ pc. The Arches cluster, the densest known star cluster in the local Universe with a central density of $\approx10^5$ M$_{\odot}$ pc$^{-3}$, has an inner core radius of $\approx0.2$ pc which is just about resolved by our simulation [@Espinoza2009]. This suggests that the full radius of high-density clusters will likely be sufficiently resolved out to their outer radii by our simulations.
### When to end the simulation? {#when2end}
We end the simulation when high-mass stars are likely to form as these eventually disrupt the cluster by supernova feedback. We apply the following criteria to determine when a clump is populated with high-mass stars. For a given stellar IMF, $dN/dM=\xi(M)$, the total number of stars above a certain threshold mass, $M_{\text{thresh}}$, is given by $N_*(>M_{\text{thresh}})=\int^{M_{\text{max}}}_{M_{\text{thresh}}}\xi(M)dM$. The main-sequence lifetime of stars as a function of their mass begins to flatten for stars with $M\gtrsim40$ $M_{\odot}$. For a metallicity of $Z=10^{-4}Z_{\odot}$, this corresponds to a main-sequence lifetime of $\approx5$ Myr. Thus, we set $M_{\text{thresh}}=40$ M$_{\odot}$. We can then compute the mass of the cluster, $M_{\text{clump}}$ needed to have $N_*(>M_{\text{thresh}})\geq 1$. For a Salpeter IMF ($\xi(M)\propto M^{-2.35}$), with $M_{\text{min}}=0.1$ M$_{\odot}$ and $M_{\text{max}}=100$ M$_{\odot}$, we find $M_{\text{clump}}=1.3\times10^4$ M$_{\odot}$ for $N_*(> M_{\text{thresh}})=1$. Once the NSC in the simulation reaches this fiducial mass of $1.3\times10^4$ M$_{\odot}$, we allow the simulation to run for $t_{\text{lag}}=3.5$ Myr before we extract the clump, consistent with [@Devecchi2009]. Note that the stellar IMF at high redshift is unknown and the chosen value of $M_{\text{clump}}$ will change considerably based on the choice of IMF. However, given that our chosen value of $M_{\text{clump}}$ is much lower than the masses of observed NSCs, this is a rather conservative assumption.
Results from the cosmological simulation {#cosmores}
----------------------------------------
In order to model the formation of a Pop. II star cluster, we identify a collapsing cloud of gas in close vicinity to another already collapsed object. This allows for the first halo to undergo an episode of Pop. III star formation and enrich the surrounding gas, post supernova, to a level suitable for forming Pop. II stars. The secondary collapsing object, however, must be located at a sufficient distance such that the radiation feedback from the first episode of Pop. III star formation does not disrupt the collapse
### The collapse of two mini-halos in close separation {#ccsep}
A halo of $M_{\text{vir}}=2.48\times10^7$ M$_{\odot}$ was identified at $z=20$ in the dark-matter-only simulation with comoving box size 500 kpc $h^{-1}$. The member particles were traced back to the initial conditions where they were centred and the simulation was reinitialized with baryons. Within this larger halo, two mini-haloes were identified with a distance such that the first collapsing object can enrich the second with metals.
At the time of collapse, the first mini-halo has a virial mass $M_{\text{vir}}=2.7\times10^5$ M$_{\odot}$, a virial radius $R_{\text{vir}}=62$ pc[^5] and a baryon fraction of 14.2 per cent. This halo begins to collapse at $z=31.6$ and is the first object to collapse in the entire simulation volume.
If we assume that the average mass of Pop. III stars is 40 M$_{\odot}$ [@Hosokawa2011], the average lifetime of the system prior to supernova explosion is 3.9 Myr [@Schaerer2002]. We model the chemical enrichment from these first supernovae by implementing a metallicity floor of $10^{-4}$ $Z_{\odot}$ at $z=30.7$. While this choice of metallicity floor is arbitrary, a prerequisite for the formation of a Pop. II star cluster is that the halo be enriched to a metallicity above the critical metallicity for fragmentation. For dust-free gas, this value is approximately $10^{-4}$ $Z_{\odot}$ [@Schneider2012]. Slightly higher metallicities are unlikely to significantly affect the hydrodynamics of the gas at the densities our simulations probe, because as we will see, the temperature of the gas in the second mini-halo reaches the CMB temperature floor which prevents further cooling. A slightly higher metallicity may only accelerate this process.
The simulations of [@Ritter2012] model the transport of metals explicitly from the supernova of Pop. III stars and demonstrate that the surrounding medium can be enriched to metallicities as high as $10^{-2}\ Z_{\odot}$. The metal enrichment extends all the way to the virial radius of the halo in only 8.5 Myr. The outflow is expected to be bipolar and the dense filaments feeding the halo should be only minimally enriched. The first mini-halo studied here is less massive than the halo in [@Ritter2012]. We may therefore expect more mixing along the filaments as the outflow should be less impeded by gas in the central regions of the halo in our simulation.
At $z=28.9$, the second object begins its collapse at a distance of 117 pc from the centre of the first mini-halo and slightly outside its virial radius. This occurs 12.9 Myr after the collapse of the first object. This leaves sufficient time for the first object to form Pop. III stars and enrich the surrounding material with metals. The first mini-halo has since grown to $M_{\text{vir}}=8.33\times10^5$ M$_{\odot}$ with $R_{\text{vir}}=97$ pc and a baryon fraction of 16 per cent. The second object is falling into the potential well of the first mini-halo along a dense filament (see Fig. 1) and the two objects will eventually merge.
Assuming a population of 40 M$_{\odot}$ Pop. III stars, we can estimate the expected intensity of the LW radiation at the location of the second mini-halo as, $$J_{21}=10^{21}\frac{{\dot N_{\text{ph}}}h_{\text p}}{4\pi^2r^2},$$ where $J_{21}$ is in units of $10^{-21}$erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ Hz$^{-1}$ sr$^{-1}$, ${\dot N_{\text{ph}}} =\bar{Q}N_{*}f_{\text{esc}} $ is the total number of photons emitted per second which escape the galaxy for a population of $N_{*}$ Pop. III stars with mass of 40 M$_{\odot}$, $\bar{Q}=2.903\times10^{49}$ photons s$^{-1}$ [@Schaerer2002] for a 40 M$_{\odot}$ Pop. III star, $f_{\text{esc}} $ is the escape fraction, and $h_{\text{p}} $ is Planck’s constant. Assuming a maximal $f_{\text{esc}} =1.0$ and a separation of 117 pc, we find $J_{21}=9.37N_{*}$.
[@Regan2014] have demonstrated that for an anisotropic LW source, the critical value of $J_{21}$ needed to completely dissociate H$_2$ and keep the gas from cooling is $J_{21}\approx10^3$. At a maximal escape fraction, complete dissociation would require the formation of a small cluster of roughly 100 Pop. III stars with masses of the order of 40 M$_{\odot}$ at the centre of the first mini-halo whereas simulations of these mini-haloes tend to predict small stellar associations of Pop. III stars [@Greif2011]. Our simulations do not include dust which should be present in the second mini-halo and will help the gas cool and catalyse the formation of H$_2$. One-zone models predict a lower critical value of $J_{21}$ needed to disrupt the formation of HD which is the dominant coolant below $\approx$200K [@Yoshida2007; @WG2011]. This is because the main formation channel of HD, H$_2$ + D$^+$ $\rightarrow$ HD + H$^+$, requires the presence of H$_2$ which is lowered by the exposure to the meta-galactic UV background. Given the low mass of the first mini-halo and the initial separation of the objects when the secondary collapses, it is unlikely that the radiative feedback from the first mini-halo will significantly disrupt the temperature and density evolution of the second. For these reasons, we do not include a meta-galactic UV background in our simulation. This approach is likely to be conservative as even a mild UV background can increase the accretion rate on to a central NSC [@Devecchi2009]. Denser and more massive NSCs should more efficiently undergo runaway stellar collisions, and by neglecting a positive contribution from the UV background we may underestimate the final masses of the VMSs.
### Evolution of the second mini-halo
In Fig. 2 (left and middle panels), we plot the mass-weighted phase space diagram of density versus temperature of the second minihalo within 10 pc of the densest cell just as it is collapsing at $z=28.9$ and then 5 Myr later at $z=28$. In these early phases of the collapse, cooling is dominated by H$_2$ lowers the gas temperature and the mass fraction of HD continues to rise at higher densities. HD and metals significantly contribute at higher densities until either the CMB temperature floor or the artificial temperature floor inhibits further cooling.
In the right-hand panel of Fig. 2, we show the phase space diagram at 14.3 Myr after the initial collapse. By this point in the simulation, much of the highest density gas has reached either T$_{\text{CMB}}$ or is affected by the artificial temperature floor. One-zone models predict that the ratio $n_{\text{HD}}/n_{\text{H}_2}$ peaks around the maximum density we probe in this simulation before falling off steeply at higher densities. We do not probe these very high densities in our simulation and the HD abundance is forced to remain at a high value even though the gas should further collapse and lower the HD abundance. Some of the extra HD can diffuse out of the clump and lower the temperature of gas. This effect would cause an increase in fragmentation and decrease the mass of our central clump. With the inclusion of the CMB temperature floor, this effect is somewhat mitigated because the gas can only cool to T$_{\text{CMB}}$.
Because the small-scale fragmentation properties of the gas are subject to numerical resolution effects, we run two additional simulations in which we vary $l_{\text{max}}$ between 18 and 20 and bracket our fiducial resolution. In Fig. 3, we plot the mass and density profiles of the halo computed using log-spaced bins centred on the centre of mass of the halo for three different resolutions. At the time of collapse (leftmost column), the mass and density profiles are well converged among the three different resolutions. By $z=27.7$, a secondary clump begins to emerge in the higher resolution runs which appears as a bump in the density profile; however, the mass profile remains well converged. As the clumps begin to interact, we see some discrepancy between the different resolution runs in the very central regions; however, in all cases, the mass profile is well converged out to $1.5$ pc. In Appendix A, we discuss how the small-scale differences and the formation of secondary clumps affect our results.
In Fig. 4, we return to the run with $l_{\text{max}}=19$ and plot the evolution of the mass and radius of the clump as a function of time since initial collapse. Both properties increase linearly for $\approx6$ Myr until a second clump appears in the central regions of the mini-halo. The properties of the primary clump begin to oscillate as the presence of secondary fragments increases the average density at larger radii farther away from the centre. Despite this interaction, we can see in the top panel of Fig. 4 that the general trend is for the mass to increase. In order to obtain a smooth function for the mass of the clump as a function of time, we fit a piecewise linear model to the data points extracted directly from the simulation and set the break in the function to be the point where the oscillations begin. We apply this technique for both the mass and the radius of the clump of interest. Note that the radius remains relatively constant after the break.
10.8 Myr after the initial collapse, the central clump has grown to the threshold mass of $1.3\times10^4$ M$_{\odot}$. The average mass accretion on to the clump is $\dot{M}_{\text{clump}}\approx6.0\times10^{-4}$ M$_{\odot}$ yr$^{-1}$. The average mass of dark matter within the clump marginally decreases although this only affects the total mass accretion rate on to the clump by 5 per cent. At 14.3 Myr, which represents 0.8 Myr $+\ t_{\text{lag}}$, the clump reaches a mass of $1.77\times10^4$ M$_{\odot}$ within a radius of 1.25 pc.
### Internal clump structure
We assume that the stars form in the highest density regions of the clump. We identify the densest simulations cells making up a certain fraction the total mass and define them to be star forming. For reasons described in Section 3.1.5, we set the star formation efficiency (SFE), $\epsilon=2/3$. In Fig. 5, we plot the spatial distribution of these cells as viewed along the axis with the highest magnitude of angular momentum ($J_z$ axis) for each of the three different resolution simulations within the star-forming radius of 1.25 pc from the densest cell at three different times. Tracing this region throughout the simulation, we see that at the time of initial collapse (top row of Fig. 5), all three resolutions exhibit a very similar spatial distribution. 5 Myr later (middle row of Fig. 5), the spatial distributions of the three simulations still agree reasonably well, but there is clear evidence that the higher resolution runs collapse further and we begin to see fragmentation. By 14.3 Myr, the distribution of the gas at the different refinement levels has completely diverged although the mass contained within the region remains reasonably consistent. The two higher resolution simulations have fragmented into multiple clumps while the $l_{\text{max}}=18$ run contains only one object. Interactions between the different clumps in the runs with higher level of refinement have caused a significant deviation in the dynamics in the central region which makes the structures appear different. As pointed out by [@Regan2014b], interpreting the results of AMR simulations at different refinement levels is non-trivial and choosing a refinement level that is either too high or too low can lead to misinterpretation of the overall dynamical evolution of collapse simulations. Our simulations indicate that fragmentation of the central clump is likely and therefore $l_{\text{max}}=19$ is the minimum resolution required in this study to resolve the central dynamics and this is the resolution we choose for further analysis.
We hence use the spatial structure identified in the $l_{\text{max}}=19$ [RAMSES]{} simulation to generate reasonably realistic initial conditions for [NBODY6]{} simulations of the NSCs. We caution here, however, that this approach is by no means unambiguous, and we aim to sample realistic rather than exact initial conditions. The resolution effects on the transition from the [RAMSES]{} to the [NBODY6]{} simulations are further discussed in Appendix A where we demonstrate that regardless of which resolution is chosen between our two high-resolution runs, the masses of the VMSs which form remain consistent with each other.
For the run with our fiducial resolution with $l_{\text{max}}=19$, the total volume of cells which represent the densest $2/3$ of the total gas mass in the star-forming region is 0.109 pc$^3$. In this simulation, we identify three distinct regions: a main central massive clump (clump 1), a less massive, off-centred clump (clump 2), and a further less massive, off-centred clump (clump 3) as indicated in the bottom-middle panel of Fig. 5. The masses of these clumps are 9094.4 M$_{\odot}$, 835.4 M$_{\odot}$, and 170.4 M$_{\odot}$, respectively. The structure, orientation, and relative velocities of these clumps are used in Part II of this work to generate a series of non-spherical initial conditions for direct N-body simulations.
Part II: Direct N-body Simulations
==================================
Setup of the [NBODY6]{} simulations
-----------------------------------
### From birth cloud to star cluster {#NIIC}
To create initial conditions for the direct N-body simulations, a minimal bounding ellipsoid enclosing all of the cells for each of the individual regions shown in the bottom-middle panel of Fig. 5 is computed[^6]. We aim to create a set of star cluster initial conditions which have the same spatial structure and bulk velocity properties as the gas bounded by the three ellipsoids. The three clumps/star clusters will then be evolved together and allowed to interact. To construct flattened, ellipsoidal star clusters for each individual clump identified in the birth cloud, we first average the three primary axis lengths and then generate a spherical star cluster with this radius with [MCLUSTER]{} [@Kupper2011]. For each initial sphere, the axial ratios are scaled and the positions of individual stars are rotated and translated according to the properties of the ellipsoids to reproduce the shapes and orientation of the individual clumps with respect to each other. The velocities of individual stars are initialized by choosing a value of the virial parameter $Q$ ($Q=0.5$ represents a virialized cluster and $Q<0.5$ represents dynamically cold clusters) for the initial spherical star cluster prior to axis scaling and the velocities are rotated to be consistent with the reorientation of the positions. We do not attempt to scale the magnitudes of the velocities and only vary $Q$ for the initial spherical cluster which determines how dynamically cold the initial cluster is. The bulk velocities of clumps 2 and 3 with respect to clump 1 are calculated directly from the hydrodynamic simulation and added to the initial velocities of individual stars of clumps 2 and 3, but we do not include a net rotation for the central clump which may delay core collapse. The initial conditions for each of the individual clumps are then merged into one file to make a single input for [NBODY6]{}.
The initial density profile of the spherical star clusters, prior to axis scaling, is varied between a Plummer model [@Plummer1911] and a constant-density model. We further use the fractal dimension option of [MCLUSTER]{} to model inhomogeneous systems where stars are sub-clustered to account for the spatial inhomogeneity in real star-forming systems. $D=3.0$ represents a cluster with no fractalization and $D=1.6$ represents a very clumpy distribution [@Goodwin2004]. We should note here that for both the Plummer and the fractal models not all stars in the initial conditions are placed within the bounding ellipsoid. Higher values of $D$ effectively increase the initial volume that contains the stars and therefore lower the average initial densities.
The dark matter and gas not converted to stars are modelled as an external potential with a Plummer sphere and the virial radius is set to be 1.25 pc, matching that of the cosmological, hydrodynamic simulation. The initial mass of the external potential is 7524.7 M$_{\odot}$ and this mass increases at a rate of $6.04\times10^{-4}$ M$_{\odot}$ yr$^{-1}$ over the course of the simulations as measured from the [RAMSES]{} simulation to represent the gas and dark matter accretion on to the NSC. Accretion at this rather low rate affects the dynamics of the star cluster very little, but is, nevertheless, included for completeness. Note that accretion at higher rates could play an important role in the evolution of the cluster.
### Gravity solver
The evolution of these embedded star clusters and the formation of VMSs from runaway stellar collisions are modelled with the GPUaccelerated version of [NBODY6]{} [@Aarseth1999; @Nitadori2012]. The minimum energy conservation requirement is set so $\Delta E/E\leq10^{-3}$. Because the remaining gas and dark matter are modelled as a background potential which is variable as a function of the gas accretion and expulsion rates, energy is not strictly conserved.
### Stellar evolution and metallicity effects {#metal}
Stellar evolution for individual stars is modelled with the [SSE]{} and [BSE]{} packages [@Hurley2000; @Hurley2002] built into [NBODY6]{}. All stars begin on the zero-age main sequence (ZAMS).
The lifetimes of the most massive stars are reasonably constant at M $>40$ M$_{\odot}$, and range from $\approx3.5-5$ Myr with decreasing mass. These values are rather independent of metallicity. At this epoch in the cluster lifetime, the most massive stars begin to undergo supernovae, a process which is not modelled in our simulations. For this reason, all simulations are stopped at 3.5 Myr when the first massive star evolves off the main sequence. Contrary to main-sequence lifetimes, radii of stars are heavily dependent on metallicity and only converge for lower mass stars. The stellar evolution package native to [NBODY6]{} does not inherently sample the metallicity of our cluster.
The models of [@Baraffe2001] predict that stars with mass $M\approx100$ M$_{\odot}$ and metallicity $Z=10^{-4}Z_{\odot}$ have radii of roughly half that of the lowest metallicity native to [NBODY6]{}. We apply a correction term to the radii to account for this. At $M <10$ M$_{\odot}$, all radii are as computed for the lowest metallicity available in [NBODY6]{} and for $M >10$ M$_{\odot}$, a linear interpolation is applied so that 100 M$_{\odot}$ stars have a radius half that predicted by the stellar evolution packages.
[@Glebbeek2009] demonstrated that at high metallicity, stellar winds become the dominant mode of mass-loss from a star and can significantly limit the final remnant mass of a collision product. We have implemented the mass-loss rates of [@Vink1999; @Vink2000; @Vink2001] and apply them to the collisionally produced stars with M $>100$ M$_{\odot}$. The strength of the wind scales with the metallicity. Lower metallicity stars undergo far less mass-loss than their higher metallicity counterparts. For the metallicity considered here, stellar winds are inefficient at decreasing the mass of the VMS over the main-sequence lifetimes of these stars. However, real NSCs are likely to exhibit a range in metallicities and this will become important if the metallicity of the cluster is significantly increased.
Another consequence of the decreased wind strength is the inability of the stars to unbind the gas from the cluster. This may decrease the number density of stars throughout the cluster. Using models from [STARBURST99]{}, [@Leitherer1999], for a Salpeter stellar IMF with a maximum mass of 100 M$_{\odot}$ and an instantaneous starburst, we can calculate the integrated mechanical luminosity of our star cluster by scaling the mass and $Z^{0.5}$. Our simple model assumes that the mechanical luminosity is dominated by winds rather than radiation. By comparing this energy input to the binding energy of the cluster, we find that the energy input from the stars only becomes comparable to the binding energy of the cluster at $\approx3.5$ Myr which is the lifetime of the most massive stars in the cluster and the point at which we stop the simulations. This calculation also assumes that all of the mechanical luminosity couples to the gas efficiently. We can, therefore, safely neglect gas expulsion in our simulations.
### Treatment of stellar collisions {#toc}
As the simulations begin with all stars on the ZAMS and are truncated after 3.5 Myr, the only collisions which can occur are those between two main-sequence stars. A sticky sphere approximation is used so that if the distance between the centres of the two stars is less than the sum of the radii, it is assumed that the stars have merged. All of the stars in the simulations are on the main sequence and we assume that when stars collide, the remnant is also a main-sequence star. The new star is assumed to be well mixed and the new lifetime is given to be consistent with [@Tout1997]. This results in a slight rejuvenation of the lifetime. If the collision product has M $>100$ M$_{\odot}$, the resulting evolution is treated as a 100 M$_{\odot}$ star.
Smoothed particle hydrodynamic simulations which have studied the merges of main-sequence stars have shown that not all of the mass that enters a collision is necessarily retained. The mass ratio of the stars, as well as the orientation of the collision, ranging from head on to grazing, influences the amount of mass that is lost [@Trac2007; @Dale2006]. [@Glebbeek2013] demonstrated that the mass-loss is also slightly dependent on the types of stars which merge. Since all stars in our simulations are on the main sequence, we adopt approximated mass-loss rates consistent with the high-mass half-age main-sequence merger models of [@Glebbeek2013] as follows: $$dM=\min\left[0.062\frac{M_2}{0.7M_1},0.062\right](M_1+M_2),$$ where $M_1$ is the mass of the primary and $M_2$ is the mass of the secondary. The mass-loss is roughly constant for all mass ratios with $M_2/M_1>0.7$. This is enforced in our equation. We only calculate this mass-loss when the stars collide almost head-on such that the distance between the two centres is less than half the sum of the two radii of the stars and when the orbital kinetic energy of the secondary star just prior to the collision is greater than the binding energy
### Star formation efficiency {#FCC}
In the local Universe the SFE, $\epsilon=M_*/(M_*+M_g)$, is $\approx10-30$ per cent [@Lada2003]. However, we do not know whether this is applicable to the high-redshift Universe where the environment is very different. [@Dib2011] have demonstrated that the SFE increases exponentially with decreasing metallicity with no relation to the mass of the birth cloud. The metallicity studied in their work is three orders of magnitude greater than the metallicity floor of $10^{-4}Z_{\odot}$ used in this study which may suggest that the SFE in the NSC forming in our simulated galaxy could have $\epsilon\gg35$ per cent. Simulations of [@Pfalzner2013] show that, in order to reproduce characteristics of local compact clusters of similar mass to the NSC that forms in our simulation, SFEs of $60-70$ per cent need to be assumed. This finding is further supported by the simulations of [@Fujii2014] which demonstrate that a local SFE of more than 50 per cent is needed for the formation of young massive clusters which have properties similar to such objects in the local Universe. Both observations and the simulation results discussed suggest that it is indeed appropriate to assume a rather high SFE in our star cluster simulations.
For our fiducial model, we adopt $\epsilon=2/3$ which is defined at the point at which we extract the clump properties in the simulation. We should note, however, that the SFE is dependent on how the edge of the clump is defined. This is not necessarily consistent between simulations and observations. We have chosen a fiducial density threshold of $10^4$ cm$^{-3}$ which is higher than the densities at the edges of many local molecular clouds. Since observations may probe lower densities, the SFE which we quote will appear higher than the true efficiency if a fair comparison would be made between observations and the simulation. For example, if we consider a sphere of radius 10 pc around the densest cell and consider only gas with $\rho\geq10^2$ H cm$^{-3}$, the effective SFE would be equivalent to 22 per cent.
Because mass is accreting on to the NSC, the SFE calculated at the beginning of the simulation is higher than it would be if calculated just prior to the most massive stars going supernova. With the mass accretion rate of $\dot{M}_{\text{clump}}=6.0\times10^{-4}$ M$_{\odot}$ yr$^{-1}$ taken from our [RAMSES]{} simulation, the effective SFE at the end of the $N$-body simulation drops to 57 per cent, 10 per cent lower than the initial value. The impact of varying the SFE on our results is further discussed in Appendix B where we relax the assumption of $\epsilon=2/3$.
### Possible outcomes of runaway collisions
There are three possible outcomes of the cluster evolution that we are interested in identifying: (1) when collisional runaway results in the formation of a VMS with M $>260$ M$_{\odot}$, (2) when stellar collisions result in the formation of a pair-instability supernova (PISN) which occurs when mergers produce a star with $150<$ M $<260$ M$_{\odot}$, and (3) when collisions do not lead to efficient runaway growth and no star exceeds the PISN mass threshold. In order to sample the probability of each outcome, we generate multiple realizations of each set of initial conditions.
The runaway collision process begins when the high-mass stars sink to the centre of the cluster and dynamically form binaries. Encounters with other stars perturb these binaries by either three- (or many-) body scattering or by binary exchanges. The semimajor axis of the dominant binary continues to shrink as the system loses energy due to these encounters and if the eccentricity becomes high enough, the two stars merge. This process of binary capture followed by a merge repeats until the core evolves to sufficiently low density or the supernovae from the first massive stars disrupt the cluster. To demonstrate this process in practice, we show in Fig. 6 the number of binaries as a function of time as well as the mass evolution of the collisional runaway star for a representative star cluster simulation which forms a VMS with a mass of $M_{\text{VMS}}=455.1$ M$_{\odot}$ after nine separate collisions. We indicate the times of a collision and see that most of these coincide with the points at which the number of binaries changes. The two specific instances where the collision time is not related to a change in number of binaries occur when the VMS undergoes a hyperbolic collision. The masses of the secondary objects in these types of collision tend to be small with the average secondary mass of the hyperbolic collision being 1.05 M$_{\odot}$ compared to the average mass of the secondary star in binary collisions being 56.2 M$_{\odot}$. Hence, the hyperbolic collisions tend to contribute negligible amounts of mass to the overall mass of the VMS.
Results of the direct N-body simulations {#NB6res}
----------------------------------------
### Non-spherical N-body simulations {#nonideal}
We begin by studying the non-spherical star clusters which are set up to reproduce the mass distribution obtained from the cosmological simulations
#### Varying the density profile, $Q$ and $D$
In Table 1, we list the initial conditions of all of the models sampled in this section as well as the results. We fix the stellar IMF to a top-heavy[^7] Salpeter IMF (TH\_Salp) such that $M_{\text{min}}=1$ M$_{\odot}$, $M_{\text{max}}=100$ M$_{\odot}$ and $\alpha=-2.35$. For each of these models, 50 realizations have been run. The fraction of models which produce a VMS does not exceed 12 per cent and the most massive VMSs have masses in the range 275-410 M$_{\odot}$. The average number of collisions for these models is rather low. This prohibits collisional runaway in the majority of realizations. In Fig. 7, we plot the core number density[^8] for this initial set of models and see that it increases extremely quickly within the first 0.25 Myr and slowly decreases thereafter. Even models which do not form VMSs exhibit this generic behaviour. This number density rarely peaks above $10^6$ pc$^{-3}$ and the final number density always converges to values of $\approx2\times10^4$ pc$^{-3}$ at $t=3.5$ Myr. Differences in the initial degree of fractalization have a very small effect on the core number density. The total number of collisions increases in the models with lower values of $D$. However, this does not affect the fraction of models which produce VMSs. This increase is likely to be due to a higher initial local number density in the more fractal models. There is a clear difference in the peak core number density between models which are initialized with a Plummer profile compared to those initialized with constant density. The Plummer models start with higher core number densities and also reach higher densities. Despite this, the models all converge within $\approx1$ Myr to a core number density of $\approx10^5$ pc$^{-3}$. The models which were initialized with lower $Q$ also reach higher densities than their counterparts. This is expected because the colder clusters are more susceptible to the initial collapse. The increase in number of collisions for the coldest clusters is very marginal (see Table 1) and once again, there is no increase in the fraction of VMSs that are produced.
[@lcccccccccccc@]{}\
&\
$\rho_{\text{init}}$ & IMF & $Q$ & $D$ & $S$ &$\bar{N}_{\text{coll}}$&$f_{\text{VMS}}$&$f_{\text{PISN}}$&$f_{\text{NE}}$&$\bar{M}_{\text{seed}}$&$M_{\text{VMS,max}}$&$\bar{M}_{\text{VMS}}$&$M_{\text{SMBH}}$\
& & & & & & & & & M$_{\odot}$ & M$_{\odot}$ & M$_{\odot}$ & 10$^9$ M$_{\odot}$\
P & TH\_Salp & 0.5 & 3.0 & 0.0 & 2.20 & $8.0\pm4.0$ & $32.0\pm8.0$ & $60.0\pm11.0$ & 83.9 & 323.1 & 297.1 & 2.98\
P & TH\_Salp & 0.3 & 3.0 & 0.0 & 1.84 & $8.0\pm4.0$ & $40.0\pm8.9$ & $52.0\pm10.2$ & 80.9 & 369.9 & 305.3 & 3.06\
P & TH\_Salp & 0.1 & 3.0 & 0.0 & 1.88 & $4.0\pm2.8$ & $46.0\pm9.6$ & $50.0\pm10.0$ & 82.1 & 303.0 & 297.4 & 2.98\
P & TH\_Salp & 0.5 & 2.6 & 0.0 & 1.82 & $6.0\pm3.5$ & $24.0\pm6.9$ & $70.0\pm11.8$ & 91.0 & 308.6 & 306.5 & 3.08\
P & TH\_Salp & 0.3 & 2.6 & 0.0 & 2.04 & $4.0\pm2.8$ & $40.0\pm8.9$ & $56.0\pm10.6$ & 89.9 & 336.5 & 309.1 & 3.10\
P & TH\_Salp & 0.1 & 2.6 & 0.0 & 2.20 & $8.0\pm4.0$ & $38.0\pm8.7$ & $54.0\pm10.4$ & 71.6 & 370.5 & 332.5 & 3.34\
P & TH\_Salp & 0.5 & 1.6 & 0.0 & 3.96 & $8.0\pm4.0$ & $38.0\pm8.7$ & $54.0\pm10.4$ & 82.2 & 398.4 & 302.6 & 3.04\
P & TH\_Salp & 0.3 & 1.6 & 0.0 & 3.34 & $2.0\pm2.0$ & $52.0\pm10.2$ & $46.0\pm9.6$ & 89.2 & 312.6 & 312.6 & 3.14\
P & TH\_Salp & 0.1 & 1.6 & 0.0 & 4.36 & $10.0\pm4.5$ & $30.0\pm7.7$ & $60.0\pm11.0$ & 73.5 & 356.7 & 316.7 & 3.18\
P & TH\_Salp & 0.5 & 3.0 & 1.0 & 1.78 & $6.0\pm3.5$ & $32.0\pm8.0$ & $62.0\pm11.1$ & 80.1 & 338.8 & 303.6 & 3.05\
P & TH\_Salp & 0.3 & 3.0 & 1.0 & 1.80 & $4.0\pm2.8$ & $48.0\pm9.8$ & $48.0\pm9.8$ & 82.6 & 300.6 & 287.5 & 2.88\
P & TH\_Salp & 0.1 & 3.0 & 1.0 & 1.74 & $12.0\pm4.9$ & $30.0\pm7.7$ & $58.0\pm10.8$ & 88.2 & 339.7 & 326.0 & 3.27\
CD & TH\_Salp & 0.5 & 3.0 & 0.0 & 1.56 & $6.0\pm3.5$ & $32.0\pm8.0$ & $62.0\pm11.1$ & 89.4 & 302.8 & 288.4 & 2.89\
CD & TH\_Salp & 0.3 & 3.0 & 0.0 & 1.98 & $4.0\pm2.8$ & $36.0\pm8.5$ & $60.0\pm11.0$ & 74.0 & 275.5 & 268.2 & 2.69\
CD & TH\_Salp & 0.1 & 3.0 & 0.0 & 2.06 & $10.0\pm4.5$ & $40.0\pm8.9$ & $50.0\pm10.0$ & 77.8 & 411.5 & 305.7 & 3.07\
CD & TH\_Salp & 0.5 & 2.6 & 0.0 & 2.22 & $4.0\pm2.8$ & $38.0\pm8.7$ & $58.0\pm10.8$ & 76.1 & 320.5 & 310.0 & 3.11\
CD & TH\_Salp & 0.3 & 2.6 & 0.0 & 1.56 & $0.0\pm0.0$ & $38.0\pm8.7$ & $62.0\pm11.1$ & - & - & - & -\
CD & TH\_Salp & 0.1 & 2.6 & 0.0 & 2.04 & $10.0\pm4.5$ & $46.0\pm9.6$ & $44.0\pm9.4$ & 86.4 & 332.5 & 302.5 & 3.04\
CD & TH\_Salp & 0.5 & 1.6 & 0.0 & 7.90 & $4.0\pm2.8$ & $42.0\pm9.2$ & $54.0\pm10.4$ & 81.3 & 310.5 & 289.1 & 2.90\
CD & TH\_Salp & 0.3 & 1.6 & 0.0 & 7.12 & $8.0\pm4.0$ & $36.0\pm8.5$ & $56.0\pm10.6$ & 82.7 & 428.6 & 321.1 & 3.22\
CD & TH\_Salp & 0.1 & 1.6 & 0.0 & 8.22 & $2.0\pm2.0$ & $48.0\pm9.8$ & $50.0\pm10.0$ & 54.7 & 278.8 & 278.8 & 2.80\
CD & TH\_Salp & 0.5 & 3.0 & 1.0 & 1.80 & $2.0\pm2.0$ & $34.0\pm8.2$ & $64.0\pm11.3$ & 99.2 & 358.0 & 358.0 & 3.59\
CD & TH\_Salp & 0.3 & 3.0 & 1.0 & 2.20 & $10.0\pm4.5$ & $44.0\pm9.4$ & $46.0\pm9.6$ & 80.7 & 355.5 & 302.0 & 3.03\
CD & TH\_Salp & 0.1 & 3.0 & 1.0 & 2.00 & $8.0\pm4.0$ & $48.0\pm9.8$ & $44.0\pm9.4$ & 94.9 & 320.2 & 295.4 & 2.96\
#### Primordial mass segregation
Many observations suggest that star clusters may form with a high degree of mass segregation (see e.g. @Gouliermis2004 and @Chen2007). The simulations of [@Moeckel2011] demonstrate that during the accretion phase of gas on to protostars, mass segregation naturally occurs owning to the distribution of masses of the protostars. We do not simulate this phase but, if this occurs before the stars evolve to the ZAMS, our simulations should be initialized with some degree of mass segregation. Using the algorithm of [@Baumgardt2008] which produces clusters in virial equilibrium for chosen degrees of mass segregation (denoted $S=0$ for a primordially unsegregated cluster and $S=1$ for a fully mass segregated cluster), we introduce mass segregation into the initial spherical clusters prior to scaling the axial ratios and adjusting the positions and velocities. However, the introduction of mass segregation into the models has a very minimal effect on the results of these simulations (see Table 1). The mean number of collisions remains roughly consistent with models without primordial mass segregation and there is a tendency for primordially mass segregated models to produce slightly more PISNs. The number of VMSs that form remains the same as do the average masses of the VMSs. Regardless of many assumptions made to produce the initial conditions, the masses of the VMSs are robust but $f_{\text{VMS}}$ will change with initial central density and this is further discussed in Appendix A where we use the non-spherical initial conditions taken from the $l_{\text{max}}=20$ cosmological simulation to study the formation of collisional runaway in a denser cluster.
### Spherical N-body simulations {#ideal}
Our simulations taking into account the flattened and asymmetric spatial distribution of the gas in the central regions of the galaxy in the cosmological hydrodynamic simulation have succeeded in producing VMSs which may directly collapse into IMBHs. The simulated star clusters become spherical within a few hundred thousand years. However, note that this time-scale is dependent on the initial rotation within the sub-clumps. This has not been included in our simulations. Rotation tends to delay core collapse and should prolong the phase where the star cluster is in an asymmetric flattened state. While the clusters do become spherical rather quickly, it is important to note that the initial dynamics, in particular, differ between the non-spherical and a corresponding spherical cluster. The evolution of the core number density of a spherical model which has a similar initial central density follows closely the non-spherical models with $D=3.0$ and $Q=0.5$ except for an initial spike which is due to the presence of a secondary clump in the non-spherical models (see the left-hand panel of Fig. 7). This evolution differs from the colder and fractal non-spherical models in that the central number density rises slowly and does not decrease by 1 Myr. Regardless of this difference, we show in the following sections that the specific evolution makes little difference for $f_{\text{VMS}}$ or $\bar{M}_{\text{VMS}}$, and the parameters that affect the results the most are the initial central density and the mass of the system. While the change in dynamics is interesting in its own right, it appears not to be of particular importance for the results of our work here. For that reason we explore a wider range of parameters for spherical star clusters and emphasize that this is likely a safe approximation when studying parameters such as $f_{\text{VMS}}$ or $\bar{M}_{\text{VMS}}$.
#### Setup of spherical star clusters
Observations of local clusters as well as simulations [@Lada2003; @Girichidis2011; @Bate2012] show that star formation occurs deeply embedded in molecular clouds and that stars tend to form in the central high-density regions. To set the radius of our spherical star clusters for a given mass, we assume an isothermal density profile. We calculate the radius of the cluster such that the mass enclosed equals $\epsilon M_{\text{clump}}$ and set this as the radius which encloses the stars up to a constant factor $f_c$. The mass within this radius is redistributed into a Plummer sphere and the remaining gas and dark matter are smoothed over a second Plummer sphere with a radius of the original clump multiplied by the same contraction factor $f_c$. For an isothermal sphere, $$\label{densstart}
M(r)=M_{\text{clump}}\frac{r}{R_{\text{clump}}},$$ where $M_{\text{clump}}=M_*+M_g$ and $R_{\text{clump}}$ is the initial radius of the clump. We can then calculate the stellar radius as, $$R_*=\frac{M_*R_{\text{clump}}}{M_{\text{clump}}}=\epsilon R_{\text{clump}},$$ which gives an enclosed mass profile for the stars, $$M_*(r)=\frac{M_{*,p}r^3}{(r^2+a_{*,p}^2)^{\frac{3}{2}}}.$$ Here, $M_{*,p}=[(\frac{3\pi}{16}f_c)^2+1]^{3/2}M_*$, $a_{*,p}=\frac{3\pi}{16}f_cR_*$ and $f_c$ is an arbitrary contraction factor.
We set the radius of the gas, $R_g$, equal to the original radius of the clump times $f_c$, and smooth the mass over a Plummer sphere, so we find that the enclosed mass profile for the gas is, $$\label{densfin}
M_g(r)=\frac{M_{g,p}r^3}{(r^2+a_{g,p}^2)^{\frac{3}{2}}},$$ where $M_{g,p}=[(\frac{3\pi}{16}f_c)^2+1]^{3/2}M_g$ and $a_{g,p}=\frac{3\pi}{16}f_cR_g$.
Fig. 4 shows that a small amount of dark matter is also present within the collapsing clump of gas at the centre of our mini-halo. We include this mass in the external gas potential of our star cluster
In Fig. 8, we plot the average initial density profiles for spherical clusters with $f_c=$ 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, and 0.5 and compare with the spherically averaged density profiles of the Plummer and constant density models for our non-spherical star clusters discussed in Section 3.2.1. Note that the Plummer models used in the non-spherical simulations are similar to the models used in the spherical simulations with $f_c=0.5$. The constant-density models used in the non-spherical simulations are less dense in the inner regions than all of the spherical models considered here; however, they maintain a higher density at larger radii. We found, however, that the difference between the Plummer and constant-density models does not significantly affect the probabilities of forming a VMS nor how massive these stars become. For this reason, we only investigate spherical clusters with Plummer density profiles.
[@lccccccccccc@]{}\
&\
$R_{*,vir}$&$f_c$&$Q$&$D$&$\bar{N}_{\text{coll}}$&$f_{\text{VMS}}$&$f_{\text{PISN}}$&$f_{\text{NE}}$&$\bar{M}_{\text{seed}}$&$M_{\text{VMS,max}}$&$\bar{M}_{\text{VMS}}$&$M_{\text{SMBH}}$\
pc&&&&&per cent&per cent&per cent&M$_{\odot}$&M$_{\odot}$&M$_{\odot}$&$10^9$ M$_{\odot}$\
0.071 & 0.1 & 0.5 & 3.0 & 9.08 & $82.0\pm12.8$ & $18.0\pm6.0$ & $0.0\pm0.0$ & 83.9 & 694.5 & 477.9 & 4.80\
0.143 & 0.2 & 0.5 & 3.0 & 4.56 & $58.0\pm10.8$ & $30.0\pm7.7$ & $12.0\pm4.9$ & 86.6 & 494.0 & 355.6 & 3.57\
0.215 & 0.3 & 0.5 & 3.0 & 2.48 & $20.0\pm6.3$ & $55.0\pm10.5$ & $24.0\pm6.9$ & 86.3 & 408.8 & 336.5 & 3.38\
0.358 & 0.5 & 0.5 & 3.0 & 1.12 & $4.0\pm2.8$ & $38.0\pm8.7$ & $58.0\pm10.8$ & 85.3 & 264.1 & 263.6 & 2.65\
0.358 & 0.5 & 0.5 & 2.6 & 1.48 & $4.0\pm2.8$ & $44.0\pm9.4$ & $52.0\pm10.2$ & 92.4 & 382.4 & 338.2 & 3.39\
0.358 & 0.5 & 0.5 & 1.6 & 3.28 & $4.0\pm 2.8$ & $50.0\pm 10.0$ & $46.0\pm9.6$ & 78.5 & 301.0 & 297.0 & 2.98\
0.358 & 0.5 & 0.3 & 3.0 & 0.92 & $0.0\pm0.0$ & $40.0\pm8.9$ & $60.0\pm11.0$ & - & - & - & -\
0.358 & 0.5 & 0.3 & 2.6 & 1.28 & $0.0\pm0.0$ & $52.0\pm10.2$ & $48.0\pm9.9$ & - & - & - & -\
0.358 & 0.5 & 0.3 & 1.6 & 3.02 & $6.0\pm3.5$ & $38.0\pm8.7$ & $56.0\pm10.6$ & 84.6 & 303.1 & 326.3 & 3.27\
#### Varying $f_c$, $Q$, and $D$
In Table 2, we list the initial conditions for these spherical models where we vary $f_c$, $Q$, and $D$. As we have seen in Fig. 8, $f_c$ controls the initial central density of the cluster and we found that for fixed mass, the initial central density is the most important parameter in determining what percentage of clusters produce a VMS as well as how massive the VMS can grow (see Table 2). In Fig. 9, we plot the mass of the most massive VMS that formed as well as the fraction of clusters which produced a VMS as a function of initial central density. Both the fraction and the mass of the VMS are increasing with the increase in initial central density. The increase of both of these values is reasonably linear in $\log \rho$ and can be approximated as $$\label{eqn:fvms}
f_{\text{VMS}}=42.6\log_{10}(\rho_{*,max})-231.2 \text{ per cent},$$ and $$\label{eqn:mvms}
M_{\text{VMS,max}}=214.1\log_{10}(\rho_{*,max})-900.1 \text{ M}_{\odot}.$$
Decreasing $Q$ from 0.5 to 0.3 does not affect $f_{\text{VMS}}$ or $\bar{N}_{\text{coll}}$, similarly to the non-spherical models. We found a small increase in $\bar{N}_{\text{coll}}$ for the more inhomogeneous models similar to what we found for our non-spherical [NBODY6]{} simulations. This is likely to be due to the higher local initial densities. The value of $D$, however, does not change $f_{\text{VMS}}$. Based on the results in Table 2, a spherical cluster with $f_c$ between 0.5 and 0.3, $Q=0.5$ and $D=3.0$ should give very similar results to the non-spherical models.
#### Varying the IMF
As the stellar IMF is highly uncertain, especially at high redshift, we test the effect of varying the IMF. The parameters of the different IMFs implemented are listed in Table 3. In Table 4, we list the initial conditions and results of the models where the IMF is varied. For these models, we have assumed $f_c=0.2$ which was previously determined to have a high percentage of models which produce a VMS (see Table 2).
[@lccc@]{}\
Name & $M_{\text{min}}$ & $M_{\text{max}}$ & $\alpha$\
& M$_{\odot}$ & M$_{\odot}$ &\
Salp & 0.1 & 100.0 & $-2.35$\
TH\_Salp & 1.0 & 100.0 & $-2.35$\
& 0.1 & 0.5 & $-1.3$\
& 0.5 & 100.0 & $-2.30$\
Flat & 1.0 & 100.0 & $-2.00$\
As the mean mass of the IMF is increased, the fraction of realizations which produce a VMS remain consistent within error bars and therefore, regardless of the IMF, the likelihood of producing a VMS in a high-redshift NSC is the same for an NSC of this mass. The average number of stellar collisions increases, however, for models with lower average stellar mass ($\bar{m}$) due to the higher number density of stars. Furthermore, $M_{\text{VMS,max}}$ and $\bar{M}_{\text{seed}}$ tend to increase as the IMF becomes more top heavy. This is expected because there are simply more high-mass stars in the runs with more top-heavy IMFs and therefore the mean mass per collision will increase. We can also see that $\bar{M}_{\text{seed}}$ slightly increases with increasing $\bar{m}$ which also reflects the availability of more high-mass stars.
#### Primordial binaries and mass segregation:
Observations suggest the presence of a significant fraction of binaries in young stellar clusters, especially for high-mass stars [@Hut1992; @Sana2009]. A large binary fraction at the centres of star clusters can effectively heat the cluster and prevent core collapse. This decreases the maximum value of the central density which may inhibit the formation of a VMS due to collisional runaway. When clusters are initialized with binaries, massive stars with mass greater than $5$ M$_{\odot}$ are preferentially put in binaries. For low-mass binaries, we use a period distribution consistent with [@Kroupa1995] and for binary stars which have a primary star with mass greater than $5$ M$_{\odot}$, we adopt the period distribution consistent with [@Sana2011]. We test the effects of including primordial binaries as well as primordial mass segregation for these spherical clusters and list the initial conditions in Table 5.
[@lcccccccccc@]{}\
&\
IMF & $\bar{M}_{\text{max}}$ & $\bar{m}$ & $\bar{N}_{\text{coll}}$ & $f_{\text{VMS}}$ & $f_{\text{PISN}}$ & $f_{\text{NE}}$ & $\bar{M}_{\text{seed}}$ & $M_{\text{VMS,max}}$ & $\bar{M}_{\text{VMS}}$ & $M_{\text{SMBH}}$\
& M$_{\odot}$ & M$_{\odot}$ & & per cent & per cent & per cent & M$_{\odot}$ & M$_{\odot}$ & M$_{\odot}$ & $10^9$ M$_{\odot}$\
Salp & 79.5 & 0.35 & 8.95 & $40.0\pm14.1$ & $50.0\pm15.8$ & $10.0\pm7.1$ & 75.2 & 353.1 & 295.3 & 2.96\
TH\_Salp & 90.4 & 3.09 & 4.56 & $58.0\pm10.8$ & $30.0\pm7.7$ & $12.0\pm4.9$ & 86.6 & 494.0 & 355.6 & 3.57\
Kroupa & 88.8 & 0.64 & 5.80 & $44.0\pm9.4$ & $38.0\pm8.7$ & $18.0\pm6.0$ & 84.0 & 433.2 & 333.9 & 3.35\
Flat & 96.1 & 4.65 & 3.44 & $48.0\pm9.8$ & $40.0\pm8.9$ & $12.0\pm4.9$ & 89.9 & 591.5 & 376.7 & 3.78\
[@lcccccccccccc@]{}\
&\
IMF & $\bar{M}_{\text{max}}$ & $\bar{m}$ & $S$ & $b$ & $\bar{N}_{\text{coll}}$ & $f_{\text{VMS}}$ & $f_{\text{PISN}}$ & $f_{\text{NE}}$ & $\bar{M}_{\text{seed}}$ & $M_{\text{VMS,max}}$ & $\bar{M}_{\text{VMS}}$ & $M_{\text{SMBH}}$\
& M$_{\odot}$ & M$_{\odot}$ & & & & per cent & per cent & per cent & M$_{\odot}$ & M$_{\odot}$ & M$_{\odot}$ & $10^9$ M$_{\odot}$\
TH\_Salp & 90.4 & 3.09 & 0.0 & 0.0 & 4.56 & $58.0\pm10.8$ & $30.0\pm7.7$ & $12.0\pm4.9$ & 86.6 & 494.0 & 355.6 & 3.57\
TH\_Salp & 90.4 & 3.11 & 0.5 & 0.0 & 4.78 & $66.0\pm11.4$ & $26.0\pm7.2$ & $8.0\pm4.0$ & 85.8 & 516.8 & 352.7 & 3.54\
TH\_Salp & 90.6 & 3.08 & 1.0 & 0.0 & 3.64 & $36.0\pm8.5$ & $48.0\pm9.8$ & $16.0\pm5.7$ & 83.2 & 406.1 & 318.5 & 3.20\
TH\_Salp & 92.6 & 3.10 & 0.0 & 0.5 & 17.6 & $32.0\pm8.0$ & $50.0\pm10.0$ & $18.0\pm6.0$ & 81.9 & 438.4 & 319.0 & 3.20\
TH\_Salp & 91.5 & 3.09 & 0.0 & 1.0 & 22.0 & $22.0\pm6.6$ & $50.0\pm10.0$ & $28.0\pm7.5$ & 79.0 & 445.0 & 327.0 & 3.28\
TH\_Salp & 91.4 & 3.09 & 0.5 & 0.5 & 18.0 & $42.0\pm9.2$ & $44.0\pm9.4$ & $14.0\pm5.3$ & 81.5 & 515.1 & 344.0 & 3.45\
TH\_Salp & 90.6 & 3.09 & 1.0 & 0.5 & 16.8 & $24.0\pm6.9$ & $36.0\pm8.5$ & $40.0\pm8.9$ & 83.2 & 477.7 & 336.7 & 3.38\
TH\_Salp & 90.0 & 3.09 & 0.5 & 1.0 & 23.7 & $46.0\pm9.6$ & $36.0\pm8.5$ & $18.0\pm6.0$ & 80.1 & 465.3 & 353.7 & 3.55\
TH\_Salp & 91.2 & 3.08 & 1.0 & 1.0 & 22.7 & $26.0\pm7.2$ & $38.0\pm8.7$ & $26.0\pm7.2$ & 82.2 & 595.6 & 365.9 & 3.67\
Kroupa & 88.8 & 0.64 & 0.0 & 0.0 & 5.80 & $44.0\pm9.4$ & $38.0\pm8.7$ & $18.0\pm6.0$ & 84.0 & 433.2 & 333.9 & 3.35\
Kroupa & 87.2 & 0.64 & 0.5 & 0.0 & 6.18 & $42.0\pm9.2$ & $50.0\pm10.0$ & $8.0\pm4.0$ & 80.0 & 410.7 & 336.6 & 3.38\
Kroupa & 85.8 & 0.64 & 1.0 & 0.0 & 5.24 & $52.0\pm10.2$ & $38.0\pm8.7$ & $10.0\pm4.5$ & 78.9 & 435.5 & 327.7 & 3.29\
Introducing mass segregation for models with TH\_Salp and Kroupa IMFs makes no difference to $\bar{M}_{\text{VMS}}$. The same is true when binaries are introduced. In all cases, the average VMS undergoes $\approx1-3$ collisions after the PISN mass threshold and with these low number statistics, it is unsurprising that $\bar{M}_{\text{VMS}}$ is roughly the same regardless of variations to these initial parameters. We do, however, see a drastic increase in $\bar{N}_{\text{coll}}$ when the clusters are initialized with large binary fractions. The increase of the total number of collisions in the cluster is clearly not affecting $\bar{M}_{\text{VMS}}$. For stars that are in binaries from the beginning, interactions with other stars can efficiently remove energy from the binary and eventually drive the binary to a merger. Without binaries, the massive stars first have to sink to the centre of the cluster and dynamically form binaries before merging can take place. The average mass of the mergers is, however, much lower for simulations with primordial binaries and these newly formed, merged stars tend to have very little impact on the formation of a VMS. Despite the evolution of the star cluster being significantly different for simulations with primordial mass segregation and binaries, we can make robust predictions for the average mass of a VMS that will form.
Although $\bar{M}_{\text{VMS}}$ is only weakly dependent on most assumptions we have made, we do find a factor of 3 change in the fraction of models which produce a VMS when including mass segregation and binaries. While this does not affect the mass function of these objects, it does affect their number density. Introducing binaries tends to decrease the number of VMSs which form while no trend is evident for increasing the primordial mass segregation. Including the binaries tends to heat the core and eject the low-mass stars, and this influences the evolution of the core of the cluster where the collisions occur. The effect of changing these assumptions is, however, much less significant than changes to the central mass density of the star cluster.
#### Varying the mass of the NSC
Thus far, our work has focused on one simulation of one mini-halo with one NSC with a particular mass motivated by our cosmological zoom-in simulation. The Universe likely exhibits a range of NSC masses with varying initial central densities and we also want to explore how our results depend on the assumed mass of the NSC. Although the first collapsing halo in our simulation is not be metal enriched, to get an idea of the variance in the mass of the NSCs in the early Universe, we can apply the same criteria that we used to define the NSC in the secondary collapsing halo to determine an NSC mass for the first halo. The total mass of the NSC in this halo including gas and dark matter is $\approx2.3\times10^4$ M$_{\odot}$, which is clearly more massive than the NSC in the secondary collapsing object. We run a few additional simulations where we multiply the total mass of the spherical $f_c=0.2$ model by some factor $f_m$ and correspondingly increase the radius of this model by $f_m^{1/3}$ in order to determine how massive an IMBH may become for different NSC masses. In Table 6, we list the initial conditions and results of these models which have been averaged over 25 realizations. For all models, we assume a TH\_Salp IMF and Plummer model initial conditions[^9].
[@lcccccccccccc@]{}\
&\
$f_m$ & $\bar{M}_{\text{max}}$ & $\bar{m}$ & $S$ & $b$ & $\bar{N}_{\text{coll}}$ & $f_{\text{VMS}}$ & $f_{\text{PISN}}$ & $f_{\text{NE}}$ & $\bar{M}_{\text{seed}}$ & $M_{\text{VMS,max}}$ & $\bar{M}_{\text{VMS}}$ & $M_{\text{SMBH}}$\
& M$_{\odot}$ & M$_{\odot}$ & & & & per cent & per cent & per cent & M$_{\odot}$ & M$_{\odot}$ & M$_{\odot}$ & $10^9$ M$_{\odot}$\
2 & 94.8 & 3.09 & 0.0 & 0.0 & 7.20 & $80.0\pm 17.9$ & $20.0\pm 8.9$ & $0.00\pm 0.0$ & 89.1 & 875.8 & 495.2 & 4.97\
3 & 96.7 & 3.09 & 0.0 & 0.0 & 9.48 & $96.0\pm 19.6$ & $4.0\pm 4.0$ & $0.00\pm 0.0$ & 87.3 & 860.9 & 611.1 & 6.13\
4 & 97.2 & 3.09 & 0.0 & 0.0 & 11.36 & $96.0\pm 19.6$ & $4.0\pm 4.0$ & $0.00\pm 0.0$ & 88.2 & 1016.7 & 671.4 & 6.74\
It is clear that for these more massive NSCs, the majority are likely to form an IMBH with some producing IMBHs with masses greater than $1000$ M$_{\odot}$. The average masses of the VMS are also significantly higher.
Caveats and Limitations
-----------------------
The initial conditions of our models, in particular the central number and mass densities, play a major role in determining the fraction of clusters which produce a VMS. Owning to numerical limitations, to the best of our knowledge, there is no study to date which has produced an embedded cluster such as the one presented in this paper that had an IMF consistent with observations which has been evolved from the protostellar accretion phase all the way to the onset of the ZAMS. There is thus a clear disconnect between the types of simulations which can form protostellar cores directly from molecular clouds and the direct N-body simulations which can follow the subsequent evolution of these stars once the cluster has completely formed. Simulations which follow the initial formation and gas accretion on to protostellar cores explore how the physical properties of the collapsing molecular cloud and the accretion dynamics affect the initial conditions of the star cluster [@Bate1998; @Bate2005; @Bate2012; @Krumholz2012]. We are unable to capture this direct link between the properties of the birth cloud and the initial conditions of the star cluster with our direct $N$-body calculations. In order to properly model this system, we would have to self-consistently predict the distribution function and IMF of stars from the cosmological simulation and run the simulation far beyond the initial stages of collapse. This is, unfortunately, beyond current numerical capabilities. We have, however, mitigated this by studying a large number of possible initial conditions for the star clusters we have simulated. We believe that we can therefore confidently conclude that for our choice of physically motivated and reasonable assumptions, our simulations predict collisional runaway to be a promising mechanism for the formation of VMSs.
We have allowed the stars to grow far beyond the masses at which stellar evolution is well understood due to the lack of observational constraints. In this regime, it is not obvious whether such an object is stable and evolves like a normal star especially because it is created by merging. For low-metallicity stars, the main-sequence lifetime and radius, which are the most important stellar parameters for this work, begin to flatten at high masses. For these reasons, we have chosen to evolve them as 100 M$_{\odot}$ stars. Two other processes along these lines are neglected in our simulations that will affect stellar collisions, the inflation of the collisional remnant’s radius and the possible increase in the remnant’s main-sequence lifetime. When stars undergo collisions, some of the kinetic energy from the collision is absorbed into the envelope of the primary which can cause the merger remnant to have a much greater radius than a comparable star with that mass which evolves normally on the main sequence [@Dale2006]. The lifetime of this stage is likely much shorter than the main-sequence lifetime of the star. However, the gravitationally focusing cross-section of the star scales with radius so the probability of undergoing a collision can greatly increase during this period [@Dale2006]. Further collisions will cause a similar effect, and thus, if the time between collisions is short, the inflated radius can be sustained for long periods of time. The mixing of the two colliding stars can introduce a fresh source of hydrogen into the core and can increase the main-sequence lifetime of the remnant compared to a star with a similar mass that evolves normally on the main sequence [@Glebbeek2008; @Glebbeek2013]. The prolonged lifetime will increase the number of stellar collisions that remnant might undergo. Both effects tend to improve the prospect of forming a VMS and by neglecting them, our results should be conservative in this regard.
Implications for the (early) growth of supermassive black holes {#discuss}
===============================================================
We have demonstrated that high-redshift, dense, metal-poor NSCs are likely to host runaway stellar collisions which produce VMSs and that this process is robust to a wide variety of assumptions. We have, however, not addressed here what happens to the VMS once it forms and there are also no observational constraints for stars of this mass. [@Heger2003] predict that VMSs with the mass and metallicity as in our work end their lives by directly collapsing into an IMBH with minimal mass-loss. However, these predictions need probably to be considered with a healthy scepticism given the lack of observational constraints. Furthermore, we have assumed that when the stars merge, the remnant becomes an ordinary main-sequence star. This is also uncertain as the impact of the merge certainly disrupts the star at least temporarily and the subsequent stellar evolution also remains uncertain. With these caveats in mind, we now assess briefly whether this mechanism can be responsible for producing the population of bright quasars at $z\approx6-7$ which has an observed lower limit of $1.1\times10^{-9}$ Mpc$^{-3}$ [@Venemans2013]. To do this, we estimate the mass to which IMBHs can grow by these lower redshifts and their expected space density.
Under the assumption of Eddington-limited accretion, the mass of a black hole increases as $M=M_0e^{((1-\epsilon)/\epsilon)(t/t_{\text{Edd}})}$ where $\epsilon$ is the radiative efficiency and $t_{\text{Edd}}=\sigma_Tc/(4\pi Gm_{\text p})$ [@Frank2002]. The size of $\epsilon$ is somewhat uncertain and depends on the properties of the accretion disc which surrounds the black hole as well as the spin of the black hole. Our direct N-body simulations are run for 3.5 Myr after the point at which we extract the clump from the simulation. This corresponds to the lifetimes of the most massive stars. By this point, the hydrodynamic simulation would have evolved to $z=25.88$. Assuming a canonical value of $\epsilon=0.1$ we calculate the expected mass of the black hole at z = 6 and tabulate the results in Tables 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6. It is clear that regardless of many of the initial assumptions of the IMF, binary fraction, initial mass segregation, SFE, and density profile, the average masses of the VMSs that do form are sufficient to grow to the masses of the black holes powering high-redshift quasars that we observe at $z\gtrsim6$ if the black holes can be continuously fed at the Eddington accretion rate.
The mass range that we predict for our VMSs is well within the range predicted by some simulations of Pop. III stars [@Hirano2014]. For simple models assuming Eddington-limited accretion, there is thus little difference between assuming that the growth of SMBHs starts with the remnants of Pop. III stars and assuming that the growth is seeded by the VMS resulting from runaway growth in Pop. II star cluster. What makes the latter route perhaps more promising is, however, the very different environment in which the collisional runaway VMSs form compared to that of Pop. III stars. [@Johnson2007] predict a long time delay for efficient accretion on to a black hole in the mass range studied in this work due to radiative feedback on the surrounding medium. Only in haloes where the gas density remains sufficiently high can this be avoided although even if the gas remains at high densities, the radiative feedback still may limit the accretion to sub-Eddington levels [@Milosavljevic2009]. Mergers with surrounding mini-haloes may provide the dense gas supply necessary to overcome most of the radiative feedback and efficiently feed the black hole. Recall that the formation of a Pop. II NSC at these very high redshifts we study requires a close neighbouring halo which can pollute the halo in which the IMBH forms with metals. The haloes in our hydrodynamic simulations merge shortly after the IMBH is likely to form. Thus, it appears unlikely that an IMBH which may form in our simulations would suffer a long period of inefficient accretion.
A further difference between a Pop. III remnant black hole and the IMBHs forming from runaway stellar collisions is the presence of a surrounding star cluster in the latter scenario. [@Alexander2014] discuss the evolution of low-mass black holes with $\approx10$ M$_{\odot}$ embedded in a star cluster fed by dense gas flows and accreting at super-Eddington rates due to random motions within the cluster. If high-redshift, dense star clusters have very top-heavy IMFs, this may indeed be relevant for more massive black hole seeds. A similar mechanism was indeed suggested by [@Davies2011] where dense inflows of gas can initiate core collapse and cause efficient merging in the central regions of the cluster. The presence of the cluster after the seed has formed may be key to allowing it to grow efficiently.
Assuming that these SMBH seeds can accrete at the required rates, we can calculate an approximate upper limit on the number density of SMBHs by calculating the total number density of haloes enriched above the critical metallicity at the final redshift, $z_{fin}$, such that IMBHs can grow to $10^9$ M$_{\odot}$ by $z=6$. Assuming that the average mass of an IMBH that forms in our simulation is 300 M$_{\odot}$, $z_{fin}=20$. The number density of SMBHs at $z=6$ then is approximately $$\label{eqn:grow}
n_{\text{SMBH}}=f_pf_ff_{\text{edd}}n_{gal}(>M_{\text{thresh}}),$$ where $f_p$ is the fraction of haloes at $z_{fin}$ that have been metal enriched above $Z_{\text{crit}}$, $f_f$ is the fraction of these haloes that form an IMBH, $f_{\text{edd}}$ is the fraction of the black holes which can sustain Eddington-limited accretion, and $n_{gal}(>M_{\text{thresh}})$ is the total number density of galaxies above the mass threshold, $M_{\text{thresh}}$, which are possible sites for forming an IMBH. We set $M_{\text{thresh}}=5\times10^6$ M$_{\odot}$, and using the Jenkins mass function [@Jenkins2001], we find, $n_{gal}\approx8$ Mpc$^{-3}$. For the mass of the NSC which formed in our simulation, $f_f$ is likely $<0.1$. There is little constraint on the value of $f_p$ as we have little knowledge of the metal enrichment of the intergalactic medium at these extremely high redshifts. Metal enrichment in the early Universe is almost certainly very patchy and confined to overdense regions. However, even for $f_f=0.01$, a rather small value of $f_p\approx10^{-5}$ would be sufficient to explain the observed SMBH number density based on this simple estimate with $f_{\text{edd}}=1$. The value of $f_{\text{edd}}$ also remains highly uncertain and it is unlikely to be unity given the plethora of environmental feedback mechanisms that inhibit efficient accretion on to black holes [@Johnson2007; @Milosavljevic2009; @Park2011]. For this to occur, black holes would require a constant supply of cold, low-angular-momentum gas, and since we do not follow the hydrodynamical simulation past the formation of the NSC birth cloud, it is uncertain whether such a reservoir is available. Note, however, that the mass function of IMBHs forming in high-redshift NSCs is unlikely to be a delta function at the minimum mass required to form an SMBH by $z=6$ so $f_{\text{edd}}$ need not be 1 for this process to produce the population of observed SMBHs at $z=6$. In addition, other mechanisms may allow black holes to accrete at super-Eddington rates when a surrounding star cluster is present [@Davies2011; @Alexander2014].
Conclusions
===========
Using a combination of high-resolution, hydrodynamic cosmological zoom-in simulations and spherical and non-spherical direct N-body simulations, we have demonstrated that stellar runaway growth at the centre of nuclear Pop. II star clusters in high-redshift protogalaxies ($20\lesssim z\lesssim30$) metal enriched by nearby companions is a promising route to form VMSs with masses as high as $300-1000$ M$_{\odot}$. We find that the average masses of the VMSs that are produced in NSCs with an expected total mass of typically $M_*\approx10^4$ M$_{\odot}$ are relatively robust to changes in the stellar IMF, number of primordial binaries, initial degree of mass segregation, as well as initial density profile, but increase strongly with the increase in initial central density and total mass of the star cluster. If the VMSs formed in this way can directly collapse to IMBHs with moderate mass-loss, they are promising seeds for growth into the billion solar-mass black holes observed at $z\approx6$. Our simulations further predict an enhanced number of PISNs as the simulations which fail to produce a VMS often host at least one or two high-mass collisions. This may result in a rapid early enrichment of the IGM with metals and may cause the early pollution of other protogalaxies making them also susceptible to the collisional runaway process. Modelling the evolution of the host galaxy post-supernova will be needed to predict the effects of these PISNs on their environment
The presence of a large numbers of accreting IMBHs as well as an enhanced rate of PISN should significantly alter the early evolution of galaxies and will have important implications for the interpretation of observations of the high-redshift Universe.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
We thank the referee for their comments and revisions. HK is grateful to Sverre Aarseth and Simon Karl for useful discussions about [NBODY6]{} and very much appreciates the hospitality of the Foundation Boustany during his stay in Monaco where parts of this manuscript were written. We also thank John Regan, Chris Tout, and Sverre Aarseth for comments which greatly improved the manuscript. This work made considerable use of the open source analysis software [PYNBODY]{} [@pynbody]. HK’s work is partially supported by Foundation Boustany, Cambridge Overseas Trust, and an Isaac Newton Studentship. Support by ERC Advanced Grant 320596 ’The Emergence of Structure during the Epoch of Reionization’ is gratefully acknowledged.
This work was performed using the DiRAC/Darwin Supercomputer hosted by the University of Cambridge High Performance Computing Service (http://www.hpc.cam.ac.uk/), provided by Dell Inc. using Strategic Research Infrastructure Funding from the Higher Education Funding Council for England and funding from the Science and Technology Facilities Council. Cosmological hydrodynamic simulations were performed on the DARWIN cluster while all direct $N$-body runs were performed on the WILKES
Furthermore, this work used the DiRAC Complexity system, operated by the University of Leicester IT Services, which forms part of the STFC DiRAC HPC Facility (www.dirac.ac.uk). This equipment is funded by BIS National E-Infrastructure capital grant ST/K000373/1 and STFC DiRAC Operations grant ST/K0003259/1. DiRAC is part of the National E-Infrastructure.
Convergence Tests for Non-Spherical Initial Conditions {#converge}
======================================================
In Fig. 3, we have shown that despite the fragmentation present in higher resolution simulations, the mass contained in the central region of the central collapsing galaxy remains well converged. To improve on this point, we plot the phase space diagrams of density versus temperature at three different times for the $l_{\text{max}}=20$ simulation in Fig. A1. The evolution is nearly identical to the $l_{\text{max}}=19$ run which is shown in Fig. 2, and the main difference between these two simulations is caused by clump-clump interactions which affect the central structure. The structure of the cells we identify as star forming in the $l_{\text{max}}=20$ simulation changes and becomes denser compared to the $l_{\text{max}}=19$ run (see Fig. 5). We can test how these denser clumps affect the formation of VMSs by applying the same method for creating initial conditions as used in Section 3.1.1 to the highest resolution simulation.
In Table A1, we list the initial conditions and results of direct $N$-body simulation run using as input the $l_{\text{max}}=20$ run. Even though these runs have slightly less mass, we find that $f_{\text{VMS}}$ has increased due to the increase in density. Overall, $\bar{M}_{\text{VMS}}$ remains reasonably consistent with our previous results which suggest that this mass is robust.
[@lcccccccccccc@]{}\
&\
$\rho_{\text{init}}$ & IMF & $Q$ & $D$ & $S$ &$\bar{N}_{\text{coll}}$&$f_{\text{VMS}}$&$f_{\text{PISN}}$&$f_{\text{NE}}$&$\bar{M}_{\text{seed}}$&$M_{\text{VMS,max}}$&$\bar{M}_{\text{VMS}}$&$M_{\text{SMBH}}$\
& & & & & & & & & M$_{\odot}$ & M$_{\odot}$ & M$_{\odot}$ & 10$^9$ M$_{\odot}$\
CD & TH\_Salp & 0.5 & 3.0 & 0.0 & 2.38 & $16.0\pm5.7$ & $46.0\pm9.6$ & $38.0\pm8.7$ & 87.6 & 311.8 & 290.4 & 2.91\
CD & TH\_Salp & 0.3 & 3.0 & 0.0 & 2.40 & $18.0\pm6.0$ & $56.0\pm10.6$ & $26.0\pm7.2$ & 84.8 & 351.3 & 294.3 & 2.95\
CD & TH\_Salp & 0.1 & 3.0 & 0.0 & 2.44 & $24.0\pm6.9$ & $32.0\pm8.0$ & $44.0\pm9.4$ & 89.0 & 349.0 & 296.6 & 2.98\
Varying the Star Formation Efficiency {#vsfe}
=====================================
[@lccccccccccccc@]{}\
&\
$\epsilon$&$M_*$&$R_{*,vir}$&$f_c$&$Q$&$D$&$\bar{N}_{\text{coll}}$&$f_{\text{VMS}}$&$f_{\text{PISN}}$&$f_{\text{NE}}$&$\bar{M}_{\text{seed}}$&$M_{\text{VMS,max}}$&$\bar{M}_{\text{VMS}}$&$M_{\text{SMBH}}$\
&$10^4$ M$_{\odot}$&pc&&&&&per cent&per cent&per cent&M$_{\odot}$&M$_{\odot}$&M$_{\odot}$&$10^9$ M$_{\odot}$\
1/2 & 0.76 & 0.107 & 0.2 & 0.5 & 3.0 & 3.90 & $50.0\pm10.0$ & $40.0\pm8.9$ & $10.0\pm4.5$ & 84.1 & 492.8 & 345.8 & 3.47\
1 & 1.52 & 0.215 & 0.2 & 0.5 & 3.0 & 4.40 & $45.0\pm9.5$ & $40.0\pm8.9$ & $15.0\pm5.5$ & 82.8 & 551.0 & 402.5 & 4.04\
Most of our models were based on the assumption of an SFE of $\epsilon=2/3$ which is motivated by a series of observations and simulations of relevant environments. We test two models where the SFE is changed and these models are listed in Table B1. The cluster parameters are derived using equations (4)-(7) and note that the initial central densities of the clusters are dependent on the chosen $\epsilon$. We see that VMSs can form in clusters with lower $M_*$ although they likely require higher central densities.
Alternative Model for Mass Segregation {#subr}
======================================
[@lccccccccc@]{}\
&\
Profile&Parameters&$\bar{N}_{\text{coll}}$&$f_{\text{VMS}}$&$f_{\text{PISN}}$&$f_{\text{NE}}$&$\bar{M}_{\text{seed}}$&$M_{\text{VMS,max}}$&$\bar{M}_{\text{VMS}}$&$M_{\text{SMBH}}$\
&&&per cent&per cent&per cent&M$_{\odot}$&M$_{\odot}$&M$_{\odot}$&$10^9$ M$_{\odot}$\
Subr & $S=0.5$ & 3.92 & $50.0\pm10.0$ & $36.\pm8.5$0 & $14.0\pm5.3$ & 84.4 & 559.5 & 350.3 & 3.51\
We generate one additional model in order to compare an alternative method for primordial mass segregation with the one we have used in the text in order to determine how sensitive our results are to the algorithm used. Here we adopt the algorithm of [@Subr2008] and the results are listed in Table C1. For this model, we use the TH\_Salp IMF and it is directly comparable with the model in Section 3.2 with the same IMF and initial degree of primordial mass segregation. Within the 1$\sigma$ errors on the percentages of VMSs and PISNs that form, these models are entirely consistent suggesting that our choice of algorithm is not significantly affecting the results.
\[lastpage\]
[^1]: E-mail: [email protected]
[^2]: www.kromepackage.org
[^3]: https://bitbucket.org/tgrassi/krome
[^4]: The relevance threshold is the ratio of the density peak to the maximum saddle density [@Bleuler2014]. Clumps which do not break this threshold are considered noise.
[^5]: The virial radius is calculated assuming that the average density of the object equals $200\rho_{\text{crit}}$.
[^6]: In addition to these three regions, there is a diffuse ring of mass located around the central clump and parallel to the $J_z$ axis. The total mass in this ring is 5 per cent of the total mass in the main, central clump and we have included it in the mass we list for clump 1 but do not take into account its volume.
[^7]: By “top-heavy" we mean that more mass is locked in high mass stars for this IMF compared to another we sample which has the same slope but a lower $M_{min}$. This should not be confused with an IMF where most of the mass is in high mass stars.
[^8]: The core radius is computed following [@Casertano1985] where the density at each particle is calculated using the five nearest neighbours.
[^9]: Note that models with larger $f_m$ maintain a higher average density at larger radii.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
In this article we develop a concentration compactness type principle in a variable exponent setup. As an application of this principle we discuss a problem involving fractional ‘[*$(p(x),p^+)$-Laplacian*]{}’ and power nonlinearities with exponents $(p^+)^*$, $p_s^*(x)$ with the assumption that the critical set $\{x\in\Omega:p_s^*(x)=(p^+)^*\}$ is nonempty.\
[**keywords**]{}: Concentration compactness principle, fractional Sobolev space with variable exponent, fractional $p(x)$-Laplace operator, critical exponent.\
[**AMS classification**]{}: 35D30, 35J60, 46E35, 35J35.
author:
- |
Akasmika Panda & Debajyoti Choudhuri\
\
\
date:
-
-
title: A study and an application of the concentration compactness type principle
---
Introduction
============
One of the most important theoretical developments in the theory of elliptic PDEs is due to the work of P. L. Lions ([@P.L] in 1984, [@Lion] and [@Lion1] in 1985). In his work he introduced the notion of concentration compactness principle (CCP) which became a fundamental method to show the existence of solutions of variational problems involving critical Sobolev exponents. A strong reason for the popularity of this principle is because it could address a way to compensate for the lack of compact embeddings amongst certain function spaces, which mostly resulted due to the presence of a critical exponent or due to the consideration of an unbounded domain. It aided to examine the nature of weakly convergent subsequence and determine the energy levels of variational problems below which the Palais-Smale condition is satisfied. Lions [@Lion] gave a systematic theory to handle the issue of loss of compactness not only when it is lost due to translations but also because of the invariance of $\mathbb{R}^N$, for instance, by the non-compact group of dilations.\
Later, in 1995, Chabrowski [@Chabrowski] extended the result of Lions for semilinear elliptic equations with critical and subcritical Sobolev exponent but at infinity. Palatucci [@Palatucci] developed a CCP which can be applicable to study a PDE involving a fractional Laplacian and a critical exponent term. At this point, we also refer the reader to the noteworthy work on CCP due to Dipierro et al [@Valdi1] (Proposition 3.2.3). Mosconi et al, further generalized the result due to [@Palatucci] which can be used to analyse equations involving fractional $p$-Laplacian with a critical growth [@Mosconi; @Perera] and with a nearly critical growth [@Mosconi]. A CCP was recently proposed by Bonder et al. [@Bonder1], which can be used to study problems involving the fractional $p$-Laplacian operator for $1<p<\frac{N}{s}$ in unbounded domain. It is also noteworthy to refer to the problem addressed by the authors in [@Bhakta] where they have discussed the existence of multiple nontrivial solutions of $(p,q)$ fractional Laplacian equations involving concave-critical type nonlinearities using CCP. An advanced version of CCP of P. L. Lions is obtained by Fu [@Fu] for variable exponent case dealing with Dirichlet problems involving $p(x)$-Laplacian with critical exponent $p^*(x)=\frac{Np(x)}{N-p(x)}$. Moreover, Bonder and Silva [@Bonder2] developed a more general result for the variable exponent case where the exponent does not require to be critical everywhere. The author worked with the exponent $q(x)$ considering the set $\{x\in\Omega:q(x)=p^*(x)\}$ to be nonempty.\
In the recent years, an increased interest among the researchers has been observed to the study of the following type of elliptic equations. $$\begin{aligned}
\label{1}
\begin{split}
(-\Delta)_{p(x)}^{s}u&= g(x,u)~\text{in}~\Omega,\\
u&= 0~\text{in}~\mathbb{R}^N\setminus\Omega,
\end{split}
\end{aligned}$$ where $(-\Delta)_{p(x)}^{s}$ is the fractional $p(x)$-Laplacian, the domain $\Omega$ is bounded in $\mathbb{R}^N$, $p(.,.)$ is a bounded, continuous symmetric real valued function over $\mathbb{R}^N\times\mathbb{R}^N$ and the function $g$ has a subcritical growth. The solution space for the problem in $\eqref{1}$ is the fractional Sobolev space with variable exponent which is defined in Section $\ref{important}$. Readers may refer [@Bahrouni1], [@Bahrouni2], [@Biswas], [@Ho], [@Kaufmann] and the references therein for further readings on problems of the type as in $\eqref{1}$.\
The present work is new in the sense that- to our knowledge- there is no existence result for the problem $$\begin{aligned}
\label{p,q}
\begin{split}
(-\Delta)_{p(x)}^{s}u+(-\Delta)_{p^+}^{s}u&= |u|^{(p^+)^*-2}u+|u|^{p_s^*(x)-2}u+\lambda |u|^{\beta(x)-2}u~\text{in}~\Omega,\\
u&= 0~\text{in}~\mathbb{R}^N\setminus\Omega,
\end{split}
\end{aligned}$$ where $s\in(0,1)$, $\lambda>0$, $1<p(x,y)\leq p^+=\sup_{(x,y)\in \mathbb{R}^N\times\mathbb{R}^N}p(x,y)<\infty$, $p_s^*(x)=\frac{Np(x,x)}{N-sp(x,x)}$, $(p^+)^*=\frac{Np^+}{N-sp^+}$ and the function $\beta$ appears with a subcritical growth. Due to the lack of continuous embedding in case of variable fractional critical exponent $p_s^*(x)$, i.e. between $W^{s,q(.),p(.,.)}(\Omega)$ and $L^{p_s^*(.)}(\Omega)$, it is difficult to prove the concentration compactness principle for fractional Sobolev space with variable exponent. The novelty of this work lies in our usage of two critical exponents $q^*$, $r(x)$ with the assumptions that $1<q<\inf(r(x))\leq r(x)\leq q^*<\infty$ and the critical set $\{x\in\Omega:r(x)=q^*\}$ is nonempty in deriving a concentration compactness type principle (CCTP). This is an important finding owing to its importance in studying the existence results in elliptic PDEs of the type $\eqref{p,q}$. We have further discussed the problem $\eqref{p,q}$ in Section $\ref{appl}$ as an the application to this principle for a Dirichlet problem involving fractional ‘[*$(p(x),p^+)$-Laplacian*]{}’ with the critical exponents $(p^+)^*$ and $p_s^*(x)$ assuming the critical set $\{x\in\Omega:p_s^*(x)=(p^+)^*\}$ to be nonempty.
Statements of the main results
------------------------------
Following the original method discovered by P. L. Lions [@Lion] we derive a concentration compactness type principle which is given in Theorem $\ref{conc}$ below. The proof of this is in Section $\ref{continuous}$.
\[conc\] Let $\Omega$ be a bounded domain in $\mathbb{R}^N$, $s\in (0,1),~q\in(1,\infty),~ sq<N$ and $r(.)$ be a bounded continuous function in $\mathbb{R}^N$ such that $$1<q<r^-=\underset{x\in\mathbb{R}^N}{\inf}r(x)\leq r(x)\leq \underset{x\in\mathbb{R}^N}{\sup}r(x)=r^+\leq q^*=\frac{Nq}{N-sq}<\infty.$$ Let $\{u_n\}$ be a bounded sequence in $W_0^{s,q}(\Omega)$, then there exist $u\in W_0^{s,q}(\Omega)$ and bounded regular measures $\mu$, $\nu_1$, $\nu_2$ such that, up to a subsequence,
$u_n\rightarrow u$ weakly in $W_0^{s,q}(\Omega)$ and strongly in $L^{\beta(x)}(\mathbb{R}^N)$ for every $1<\beta(x)<q^*,$
$$\label{cc1}
\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}\frac{|u_n(x)-u_n(y)|^{q}}{|x-y|^{N+sq}}dy\overset{t}{\rightharpoonup}\mu, ~|u_n|^{q^*}\overset{t}{\rightharpoonup}\nu_1,~|u_n|^{r(x)}\overset{t}{\rightharpoonup}\nu_2$$
where $\overset{t}{\rightharpoonup}$ denotes the tight convergence. Define a measure $\nu$ as $\nu=\nu_1+\nu_2$ and assume that the [*critical*]{} set $A_r=\{x\in\Omega:r(x)=q^*\}\neq\emptyset$. Then for some countable set $I$ we have $$\label{cc2}
\mu\geq \int_{\mathbb{R}^N}\frac{|u(x)-u(y)|^{q}}{|x-y|^{N+sq}}dy+\sum_{i\in I}\mu_i\delta_{x_i},~~\mu_i=\mu(\{x_i\}),$$ $$\label{cc3}
\nu=|u|^{q^*}+|u|^{r(x)}+\sum_{i\in I}\nu_i\delta_{x_i},~~\nu_i=\nu(\{x_i\}),$$ $$\label{cc4}
2^{-\frac{q^*}{r^-}}S\min\left(\nu_i^{\frac{1}{q^*}},\nu_i^{\frac{1}{r^-}}\right)\leq\mu_{i}^{\frac{1}{q}}, ~\forall i\in I$$ where $\{x_i:i\in I\}$ is a set of distinct points in $\mathbb{R}^N$, $\{\nu_i:i\in I\}\in(0,\infty),~ \{\mu_i:i\in I\}\in (0,\infty)$ and the constant $S=S(N, s, p,r,\Omega)>0$ is a Sobolev constant defined as $$\label{best}
S=\underset{u\in W_0^{s,q}(\Omega)\setminus\{0\}}{\inf}\frac{\|u\|_{s,q}}{\|u\|_{L^{q^*}(\Omega)}+\|u\|_{L^{r(.)}(\Omega)}}.$$
The definition of tight convergence is given in the Section $\ref{continuous}$.
As an application of Theorem $\ref{conc}$, we will prove the existence of nontrivial weak solution of the following nonlocal problem with critical growth, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{pp}
\begin{split}
(-\Delta)_{p(x)}^{s}u+(-\Delta)_{p^+}^{s}u&= |u|^{(p^+)^*-2}u+|u|^{p_s^*(x)-2}u+\lambda |u|^{\beta(x)-2}u~\text{in}~\Omega,\\
u&= 0~\text{in}~\mathbb{R}^N\setminus\Omega,
\end{split}
\end{aligned}$$ in Section $\ref{appl}$, where $(-\Delta)_{p(x)}^{s}$ is the fractional $p(x)$-Laplacian defined as $$(-\Delta)_{p(x)}^{s}u=P.V.\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}\frac{|u(x)-u(y)|^{p(x,y)-2}(u(x)-u(y))}{|x-y|^{N+sp(x,y)}}dy.$$ The result is stated in the form of a theorem as follows.
\[exist\] Let $s\in (0,1),~\lambda>0, ~p(.,.)$ be a continuous symmetric function in $\mathbb{R}^N\times\mathbb{R}^N$ such that $1<p^-=\underset{(x,y)\in\mathbb{R}^N\times\mathbb{R}^N}{\inf}p(x,y)\leq p(x,y)\leq p^+=\underset{(x,y)\in\mathbb{R}^N\times\mathbb{R}^N}{\sup}p(x,y)<\infty$, $sp^+<N$ and $p^+<(p_s^*)^-=\inf_{x\in\mathbb{R}^N}p_s^*(x)$, where $p_s^*(x)=\frac{Np(x,x)}{N-sp(x,x)}$. Further, we assume that the [*critical*]{} set $A=\{x\in\Omega:p_s^*(x)=(p^+)^*\}\neq\emptyset$ and $\beta\in C_+(\overline{\Omega})$ such that $p^+<\beta^-\leq\beta^+<(p_s^*)^-$. Then there exists a $\Lambda>0$ depending on $p,\beta,N,s,\Omega, S$ such that for $\lambda>\Lambda$, the problem $\eqref{pp}$ admits a nontrivial weak solution in $W_0\cap W_0^{s,p^+}(\Omega)$.
The notations and important results will be discussed in the succeeding section.
Important results on Sobolev spaces with variable exponent {#important}
==========================================================
Let $\Omega$ be a bounded domain in $\mathbb{R}^N$ and denote $$C_+(\overline{\Omega}\times\overline{\Omega})=\{f\in C(\overline{\Omega}\times\overline{\Omega}): ~1<f^-\leq f(x,y)\leq f^+<\infty,~\forall~(x,y)\in \overline{\Omega}\times\overline{\Omega}\}$$ where $f^+=\underset{\overline{\Omega}\times\overline{\Omega}}{\sup}f(x,y)~( \text{or}~\underset{\overline{\Omega}}{\sup}f(x))$, $f^-=\underset{\overline{\Omega}\times\overline{\Omega}}{\inf}f(x,y)~(\text{or}~\underset{\overline{\Omega}}{\inf}f(x))$.\
Let $p\in C_+(\overline{\Omega})$ and $\nu$ be a complete, $\sigma$-finite measure in $\Omega$. The Lebesgue space with variable exponent is defined as $$L_\nu^{p(.)}(\Omega)=\{u:\Omega\rightarrow\mathbb{R}~\text{is}~\nu~\text{measurable}~ :\int_{\Omega}|u|^{p(x)}d\nu<\infty\}$$ which is a Banach space endowed with the norm (see [@Fan]) $$\|u\|_{L_\nu^{p(.)}(\Omega)}=\inf\{\eta\in \mathbb{R}^+:\int_{\Omega}\Big|\frac{u(x)}{\eta}\Big|^{p(x)}d\nu<1\}.$$ For $d\nu=dx$ we will denote the Lebesgue space with variable exponent as $L^{p(.)}(\Omega)$ whose norm will be denoted by $\|u\|_{L^{p(.)}(\Omega)}$.\
We now give a few more notations and state Propositions which will be referred to henceforth very often.
\[holder\] Let $f,g\in C_+(\overline{\Omega})$ with $f(x)\leq g(x)$ for every $x\in \overline{\Omega}$. Then $$\|u\|_{L_\nu^{f(.)}(\Omega)}\leq 2[1+\nu(\Omega)]\|u\|_{L_\nu^{g(.)}(\Omega)},~\forall u\in L_\nu^{f(.)}(\Omega)\cap L_\nu^{g(.)}(\Omega).$$
\[holder2\] 1. (Hölder Inequality) Let $\alpha,\theta,\gamma:\overline{\Omega}\rightarrow[1,\infty]$ with $\frac{1}{\alpha(x)}=\frac{1}{\theta(x)}+\frac{1}{\gamma(x)}$. If $h\in L^{\gamma(.)}(\Omega)$ and $f\in L^{\theta(.)}(\Omega)$, then $$\|hf\|_{L^{\alpha(.)}(\Omega)}\leq C \|h\|_{L^{\gamma(.)}(\Omega)}\|f\|_{L^{\theta(.)}(\Omega)}.$$ 2. If $p,q\in C_+({\overline{\Omega}})$ and $p(x)\leq q(x)$, for $x\in{\overline{\Omega}}$, then $L^{q(.)}(\Omega)\hookrightarrow L^{p(.)}(\Omega)$ and this embedding is continuous.
We fix the exponents $0<s<1$, $p\in C_+(\overline{\Omega}\times\overline{\Omega})$, $q\in C_+(\overline{\Omega})$ and assume that $p(.,.)$ is a symmetric function, $p(x,y)=p(y,x)$. We define the fractional Sobolev space with variable exponent and the corresponding Gagliardo seminorm as (see [@Bahrouni2]) $$\begin{aligned}
W^{s,q(.),p(.,.)}&(\Omega)\nonumber\\&=\{u\in L^{q(.)}(\Omega):\int_{\Omega}\int_{\Omega}\frac{|u(x)-u(y)|^{p(x,y)}}{\eta^{p(x,y)}|x-y|^{N+sp(x,y)}}dydx<\infty, \text{ for some }\eta\in \mathbb{R}^+\}\nonumber
\end{aligned}$$ and $$[u]_{\Omega}^{s,p(.,.)}=\inf\{\eta\in \mathbb{R}^+:\int_{\Omega}\int_{\Omega}\frac{|u(x)-u(y)|^{p(x,y)}}{\eta^{p(x,y)}|x-y|^{N+sp(x,y)}}dydx<1\}.$$ The space $W^{s,q(.),p(.,.)}(\Omega)$ is a Banach space equipped with the norm $$\|u\|_{W^{s,q(.),p(.,.)}(\Omega)}=\|u\|_{L^{q(.)}(\Omega)}+[u]_{\Omega}^{s,p(.,.)}.$$ One can continuously extend $p$ to $\mathbb{R}^N\times\mathbb{R}^N$ and $q$ to $\mathbb{R}^N$, using the Tietze extension theorem, such that $p\in C_+(\mathbb{R}^N\times\mathbb{R}^N)$ and $q\in C_+(\mathbb{R}^N)$ respectively. We now address another type of variable exponent fractional Sobolev space, denoted as $W$, by $$\begin{aligned}
W=\{u:\mathbb{R}^N\rightarrow\mathbb{R}&:u|_{\Omega}\in L^{q(.)}(\Omega):\nonumber\\&\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}\frac{|u(x)-u(y)|^{p(x,y)}}{\eta^{p(x,y)}|x-y|^{N+sp(x,y)}}dydx<\infty, \text{ for some }\eta>0\}.\nonumber
\end{aligned}$$ The corresponding norm is given by $$\|u\|_{W}=\|u\|_{L^{q(.)}(\Omega)}+\inf\{\eta:\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}\frac{|u(x)-u(y)|^{p(x,y)}}{\eta^{p(x,y)}|x-y|^{N+sp(x,y)}}dydx<1\}.$$ We define a special subspace of $W$, denoted as $W_0$, as follows $$W_0=\{u\in W:u=0 ~\text{a.e. in}~\mathbb{R}^N\setminus\Omega\}.$$ The norm on $W_0$ is defined as $$\|u\|_{W_0}=\inf\{\eta\in\mathbb{R}^+:\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}\frac{|u(x)-u(y)|^{p(x,y)}}{\eta^{p(x,y)}|x-y|^{N+sp(x,y)}}dydx<1\}.$$
\[rho\] Let $u,u_k\in W_0$, $k\in \mathbb{N}$ and define the modular function as $$\rho_{W_0}(u)=\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}\frac{|u(x)-u(y)|^{p(x,y)}}{|x-y|^{N+sp(x,y)}}dydx.$$ Then we have the following relation between the modular function and the norm.
1. $\|u\|_{W_0}=\eta\iff \rho_{W_0}(\frac{u}{\eta})=1.$
2. $\|u\|_{W_0}>1(<1,=1)\iff \rho_{W_0}(u)>1(<1,=1).$
3. $\|u\|_{W_0}>1\implies\|u\|_{W_0}^{p^-}\leq\rho_{W_0}(u)\leq\|u\|_{W_0}^{p^+}.$
4. $\|u\|_{W_0}<1\implies\|u\|_{W_0}^{p^+}\leq\rho_{W_0}(u)\leq\|u\|_{W_0}^{p^-}.$
5. $\underset{{k\rightarrow\infty}}{\lim}\|u_k-u\|_{W_0}=0\iff\underset{{k\rightarrow\infty}}{\lim}\rho_{W_0}(u_k-u)=0.$
The notion of fractional Sobolev space with variable exponent is a generalization of fractional Sobolev space with constant exponent. Let $q\in(1,\infty)$, then we denote the fractional Sobolev space $$W_0^{s,q}(\Omega)=\{u\in L^q(\mathbb{R}^N): \int_{\mathbb{R}^{2N}}\frac{|u(x)-u(y)|^{q}}{|x-y|^{N+sq}}dydx<\infty,~u=0 \text{ in }\mathbb{R}^N\setminus\Omega\}$$ endowed with the norm $$\|u\|_{s,q}^q=\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}\frac{|u(x)-u(y)|^{q}}{|x-y|^{N+sq}}dydx.$$
Given below are a few well known Propositions and Theorems in the literature.
\[reflexive\] The spaces $(W_0,\|.\|_{W_0})$ and $(W_0^{s,q}(\Omega),\|.\|_{s,q})$ are reflexive, uniformly convex Banach spaces.
\[constant\] Let $0<s<1$ and $q\in[1,\infty)$ with $sq<N$. Then there exists a constant $C>0$ depending on $N,~s,~q$ such that for any measurable and compactly supported function $u:\mathbb{R}^N\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ we have $$C\|u\|_{L^r(\mathbb{R}^N)}^q\leq \int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}\frac{|u(x)-u(y)|^q}{|x-y|^{N+sq}}dxdy$$ for any $r\in[q,q_s^*]$, where $q_s^*=\frac{Nq}{N-sq}$ is the fractional Sobolev critical exponent. Moreover, the space $W^{s,q}(\mathbb{R}^N)$ is continuously embedded in $L^r(\mathbb{R}^N)$ for every $r\in[1,q_s^*]$.
\[poin\] Let us assume $0<s<1$, $p\in C_+(\mathbb{R}^N\times\mathbb{R}^N)$, $q\in C_+(\mathbb{R}^N)$ such that $sp(x,y)<N$ for every $(x,y)\in\mathbb{R}^N\times\mathbb{R}^N$ and $p(x,x)\leq q(x)<p^*_s(x)=\frac{Np(x,x)}{N-sp(x,x)}$ for every $x\in\mathbb{R}^N$. Then for any $\beta\in C_+(\mathbb{R}^N),~1<\beta(x)<p^*_s(x)$, there exists $C>0$ depending on $p,~s,~q,~N,~\Omega$, and $\beta$ such that for every $u\in W_0$, $$\|u\|_{L^{\beta(.)}(\mathbb{R}^N)}=\|u\|_{L^{\beta(.)}(\Omega)}\leq C\|u\|_{W_0}.$$ Moreover, the embedding from $W_0$ to $L^{\beta(.)}(\Omega)$ is continuous and also compact.
If $p>q$, then there is no continuous embedding result from $W_0^{s,p}(\Omega)$ to $W_0^{s,q}(\Omega)$, refer [@Mironescu] for counterexamples. So, the space $W_0^{s,p^+}(\Omega)$ need not be embedded in $W_0$.
We denote $X=W_0\cap W_0^{s,p^+}(\Omega)$ endowed with the norm $$\|u\|_X=\|u\|_{s,p^+}+\|u\|_{W_0}.$$
\[cap\] 1. The space $(X,\|.\|_X)$ is a reflexive Banach space.\
2. The embedding $X\hookrightarrow L^{r(.)}(\mathbb{R}^N)$ is continuous for any continuous function $1<r(x)\leq (p^+)^*$ and is compact whenever $1<r(x)<(p^+)^*$.
The proof of the above lemma is a straight forward application of Proposition $\ref{holder2}$, Propositionn $\ref{reflexive}$ and Theorem $\ref{constant}$.
Concentration compactness type principle {#continuous}
========================================
In this section, we establish the concentration compactness type principle. We now prove our main result with the help of a few properties proved below.. The following two lemmas provide the decay estimate and the scaling property of compactly supported nonlocal gradient of smooth functions.
\[Linfinity p\^+\] Let $\phi\in W^{1,\infty}(\mathbb{R}^N)$ such that support of $\phi$ lies in the unit ball of $\mathbb{R}^N$ and given $\epsilon>0$, $x_0\in\mathbb{R}^N$ define $\phi_{\epsilon,x_0}(x)=\phi(\frac{x-x_0}{\epsilon})$. Then $$\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}\frac{|\phi_{\epsilon,x_0}(x)-\phi_{\epsilon,x_0}(y)|^{p}}{|x-y|^{N+sp}}dy\leq C\min\left(\epsilon^{-sp}, \epsilon^N|x-x_0|^{-(N+sp)}\right)$$ where $C$ depends on $N,s,p,\|\phi\|_{1,\infty}$.
We now state and prove the following Lemma.
\[lemma1\] Let $1<p^-\leq p(x,y)\leq p^+<\infty$ for every $(x,y)\in \mathbb{R}^N\times\mathbb{R}^N$, $sp^+<N$, $\phi\in C_c^\infty(\mathbb{R}^N)$ such that $0\leq\phi\leq1,~\phi(0)=1$ and support of $\phi$ lies in the unit ball of $\mathbb{R}^N$. For some $x_0\in\mathbb{R}^N$ and $\epsilon>0$, define $\phi_{\epsilon,x_0}(x)=\phi(\frac{x-x_0}{\epsilon})$. Then $$\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}\frac{|\phi_{\epsilon,x_0}(x)-\phi_{\epsilon,x_0}(y)|^{p(x,y)}}{|x-y|^{N+sp(x,y)}}dy\leq C\min\left(1/\epsilon^{sp^+}+1/\epsilon^{sp^-}, (\epsilon^N+ \epsilon^{N+s(p^--p^+)})|x-x_0|^{-(N+sp^-)}\right)$$where $C$ depends on $N,s,p,\|\phi\|_{1,\infty}$.
We first observe that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{esti1}
\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}\frac{|\phi_{\epsilon,x_0}(x)-\phi_{\epsilon,x_0}(y)|^{p(x,y)}}{|x-y|^{N+sp(x,y)}}dy&=\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}\frac{|\phi{(\frac{x-x_0}{\epsilon})}-\phi(\frac{y-x_0}{\epsilon})|^{p(x,y)}}{|x-y|^{N+sp(x,y)}}dy\nonumber\\& \leq\left(1/\epsilon^{sp^+}+1/\epsilon^{sp^-}\right)\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}\frac{|\phi(x')-\phi(y')|^{p(x'+\epsilon x_0,y'+\epsilon x_0)}}{|x'-y'|^{N+sp(x'+\epsilon x_0,y'+\epsilon x_0)}}dy'.
\end{aligned}$$ Denote $\tilde{p}(x',y')=p(x'+\epsilon x_0,y'+\epsilon x_0)$ and decompose the integral on the right hand side of $\eqref{esti1}$ as follows. $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}\frac{|\phi(x')-\phi(y')|^{\tilde{p}(x',y')}}{|x'-y'|^{N+s\tilde{p}(x',y')}}dy'\nonumber&= \left(\int_{|x'-y'|\geq1}+\int_{|x'-y'|<1}\right)\frac{|\phi(x')-\phi(y')|^{\tilde{p}(x',y')}}{|x'-y'|^{N+s\tilde{p}(x',y')}}dy'\nonumber\\& =I+II.\nonumber
\end{aligned}$$ We try to find $L^\infty$ bounds of these two integrals. $$\begin{aligned}
\label{esti2}
I &= \int_{|x'-y'|\geq1}\frac{|\phi(x')-\phi(y')|^{\tilde{p}(x',y')}}{|x'-y'|^{N+s\tilde{p}(x',y')}}dy'\nonumber\\& \leq C\|\phi\|_{\infty}^{p^-}\int_{|x'-y'|\geq1}\frac{1}{|x'-y'|^{N+sp^-}}dy'\nonumber\\&\leq C\frac{\|\phi\|_\infty^{p^-}}{sp^-}
\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{esti3}
II&= \int_{|x'-y'|<1}\frac{|\phi(x')-\phi(y')|^{\tilde{p}(x',y')}}{|x'-y'|^{N+s\tilde{p}(x',y')}}dy'\nonumber
\\&\leq \|\nabla\phi\|_{\infty}^{p^\pm} \int_{|x'-y'|<1}\frac{1}{|x'-y'|^{N+s\tilde{p}(x',y')-\tilde{p}(x',y')}}dy'\nonumber\\& \leq \|\nabla\phi\|_{\infty}^{p^\pm} \int_{|x'-y'|<1}\frac{1}{|x'-y'|^{N-p^-(1-s)}}dy'\nonumber\\& \leq C\frac{\|\nabla\phi\|_\infty^{p^\pm}}{p^-(1-s)}.
\end{aligned}$$ In order to obtain a decay estimate, we restrict ourselves to the case where $|x'|>2$ such that $\phi(x')=0$. Hence, we observe that $|x'-y'|\geq|x'|-1\geq\frac{|x'|}{2}$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{esti4}
\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}\frac{|\phi(x')-\phi(y')|^{\tilde{p}(x',y')}}{|x'-y'|^{N+s\tilde{p}(x',y')}}dy'& = \int_{\mathbb{R}^N}\frac{|\phi(y')|^{\tilde{p}(x',y')}}{|x'-y'|^{N+s\tilde{p}(x',y')}}dy'\nonumber\\&\leq \int_{|y'|\leq 1}\frac{|\phi(y')|^{\tilde{p}(x',y')}2^{N+s\tilde{p}(x',y')}}{|x'|^{N+s\tilde{p}(x',y')}}dy'\nonumber\\& \leq\frac{C\|\phi\|_\infty^{p^-}}{|x'|^{N+sp^-}}.
\end{aligned}$$ Combining $\eqref{esti1},\eqref{esti2},\eqref{esti3}$ and $\eqref{esti4}$ we get $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}\frac{|\phi_{\epsilon,x_0}(x)-\phi_{\epsilon,x_0}(y)|^{p(x,y)}}{|x-y|^{N+sp(x,y)}}dy&\leq C(1/\epsilon^{sp^+}+1/\epsilon^{sp^-})\min\left(1,\Big|\frac{x-x_0}{\epsilon}\Big|^{-(N+sp^-)}\right)\nonumber\\&\leq C\min\left(1/\epsilon^{sp^+}+1/\epsilon^{sp^-}, (\epsilon^N+ \epsilon^{N+s(p^--p^+)})|x-x_0|^{-(N+sp^-)}\right)\nonumber
\end{aligned}$$ where $C > 0$ depends on $N, s, p$ and $\|\phi\|_\infty$.
The next lemma plays a major role in the proof of Theorem $\ref{conc}$.
\[lemma2\] Let $\mu\geq0,~\nu\geq0$ be two bounded measures and $1<q<r\leq q^*<\infty$. Assume that there exists $C>0$ such that for all $\phi\in C_c^\infty(\mathbb{R}^N)$, $$\label{c7}
C\min\left(\|\phi\|_{L_\nu^{q^*}(\mathbb{R}^N)},\|\phi\|_{L_\nu^{q^*}(\mathbb{R}^N)}^{\frac{q^*}{r}}\right)\leq\|\phi\|_{L_{\mu}^{q}(\mathbb{R}^N)}.$$ Then, we can find an atmost countable set $I$, a collection $\{x_i:i\in I\}$ of disjoint points in $\mathbb{R}^N$ and $\{\nu_i:i\in I\}\subset(0,\infty)$ such that $$\nu=\sum_{i\in I}\nu_i\delta_{x_i}.$$
To prove the above theorem we need the help of the following lemma proved below.
\[lemma3\] Let $\nu$ be a non-negative and bounded measure such that for any bounded measurable function $\psi$, there exists some constant $C>0$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
C\min\left(\|\psi\|_{L_\nu^{q^*}(\mathbb{R}^N)},\|\psi\|_{L_\nu^{q^*}(\mathbb{R}^N)}^{\frac{q^*}{r}}\right)\leq\|\psi\|_{L_{\nu}^{q}(\mathbb{R}^N)}.\nonumber
\end{aligned}$$ Then there exists $\lambda>0$ such that $\nu(B)=0$ or $\nu(B)\geq\lambda$ for all Borel sets $B$.
Let us consider a Borel set $B$ and the characteristic function $\chi_B$. Then for $\psi=\chi_B$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\|\chi_B\|_{L_\nu^{t}(\mathbb{R}^N)}=\left(\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}|\chi_B(x)|^t d\nu\right)^{\frac{1}{t}}=\nu(B)^{\frac{1}{t}},~\text{for any}~1\leq t<\infty.\nonumber
\end{aligned}$$ From the hypothesis of the lemma we have $$C\min\left(\|\psi\|_{L_\nu^{q^*}(\mathbb{R}^N)},\|\psi\|_{L_\nu^{q^*}(\mathbb{R}^N)}^{\frac{q^*}{r}}\right)\leq\|\psi\|_{L_{\nu}^{q}(\mathbb{R}^N)}.$$ This yields $$\begin{aligned}
&C\min(\nu(B)^{\frac{1}{q^*}},\nu(B)^{\frac{1}{r}})\leq \nu(B)^{\frac{1}{q}}.\nonumber
\end{aligned}$$ For the case $\nu(B)\geq1$, we get $$C \nu(B)^{\frac{1}{q^*}}\leq\nu(B)^{\frac{1}{q}}$$ Hence, either $\nu(B)=0$ or $\nu(B)\geq C^{\frac{N}{s}}$. Working on similar lines for the case $\nu(B)\leq1$ we obtain our desired result.
Following the proof of Lemma $\ref{lemma3}$ and using $\eqref{c7}$ we can see that the measure $\nu$ is absolutely continuous with respect to the measure $\mu$. By the Lebesgue decomposition of $\mu$ with respect to $\nu$ we can express $\mu$ as $$\mu=f\nu+\xi,$$ where $f\in L_\nu^1(\mathbb{R}^N),~ f\geq0$ and $\xi\geq0$ is a bounded measure singular with respect to $\nu$. Now with the choice of $\phi=f^{\frac{1}{q^*-q}}\chi_{\{f\leq n\}}\psi$, for some bounded measurable function $\psi$, we can rewrite equation $\eqref{c7}$ as follows $$\begin{aligned}
C\min\left(\|\phi\|_{L_\nu^{q^*}(\mathbb{R}^N)},\|\phi\|_{L_\nu^{q^*}(\mathbb{R}^N)}^{\frac{q^*}{r}}\right)&\leq\|\phi\|_{L_{f\nu+\xi}^{q}(\mathbb{R}^N)}\nonumber\\&\leq \|f^{\frac{q^*}{q(q^*-q)}}\chi_{\{f\leq n\}}\psi\|_{L_\nu^{q}(\mathbb{R}^N)}.~(\text{since $\xi$ is singular w.r.t $\nu$})\nonumber
\end{aligned}$$ Denote $d\nu_n=f^{\frac{q^*}{q^*-q}}\chi_{\{f\leq n\}}d\nu$, then we get $$\begin{aligned}
C\min\left(\|\psi\|_{L_{\nu_n}^{q^*}(\mathbb{R}^N)},\|\psi\|_{L_{\nu_n}^{q^*}(\mathbb{R}^N)}^{\frac{q^*}{r}}\right)\leq\|\psi\|_{L_{\nu_n}^{q}(\mathbb{R}^N)}.
\end{aligned}$$ Hence, from Lemma $\ref{lemma3}$ we conclude that for a $\lambda>0$ and for any Borel set $B$, either $\nu_n(B)=0$ or $\nu_n(B)\geq\lambda$. Now following the proof of Lemma $\ref{lion}$ (stated in the Appendix) we can guatantee that there exists collection of disjoint points $\{x_i:i\in I\}$ ($I$ countable) in $\mathbb{R}^N$, $\{a^n_i:i\in I\}$ in $(0,\infty)$ such that $\nu_n$ can be represented as $$\nu_n=\sum_{i\in I}a^n_i\delta_{x_i}.$$ On the other hand, $\nu_n$ converges to $f^{\frac{q^*}{q^*-q}}\nu=f^{\frac{N}{sq}}\nu$ in measure. So we have $$f^{\frac{N}{sq}}\nu=\sum_{i\in I}a_i\delta_{x_i},~\text{where}~a_i={f(x_i)}^{\frac{N}{sq}}\nu(\{x_i\}),$$ there by proving the claim of the lemma.
Proof of Theorem $\ref{conc}$ {#main}
-----------------------------
Before proving our main result we discuss some important results and definitions (refer [@Mosconi]).
A bounded sequence $\{u_n\}$ is said to be tight if for every $\epsilon>0$, there exists a compact subset $K$ of $\mathbb{R}^N$ such that $$\underset{n\in \mathbb{N}}{\sup}\int_{K^c}|u_n|dx<\epsilon.$$
**Prokhorov’s theorem**: Every bounded sequence $\{u_n\}$ are relatively sequentially compact if and only if the sequence is tight.
A sequence of integrable functions $\{u_n\}$ in $\mathbb{R}^N$ converges tightly to a Borel regular measure $\nu$ if $$\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}\varphi u_ndx\rightarrow\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}\varphi d\nu$$ for all $\varphi\in C_b(\mathbb{R}^N)$, the space of bounded continuous functions in $\mathbb{R}^N$. We will symbolize the tight convergence by $\overset{t}{\rightharpoonup}$.
Let $\{u_n\}$ be a bounded sequence in $W_0^{s,q}(\Omega)$. Since $u_n\equiv 0$ in $\mathbb{R}^N\setminus\Omega$, the sequences $\{|u_n|^{q^*}\}$ and $\{|u_n|^{r(x)}\}$ are tight. By the Prokhorov’s theorem the existence of two positive Borel measures $\nu_1$ and $\nu_2$ are guaranteed such that $|u_n|^{q^*}\overset{t}{\rightharpoonup}\nu_1$ and $|u_n|^{r(x)}\overset{t}{\rightharpoonup}\nu_2$. Apparently, $supp(\nu_1), supp(\nu_2)\subset\overline{\Omega}$.\
Denote $$|D^su_n(x)|^{q}= \int_{\mathbb{R}^N}\frac{|u_n(x)-u_n(y)|^{q}}{|x-y|^{N+sq}}dy.$$ Consider an open, bounded subset $D$ of $\mathbb{R}^N$ such that $\overline\Omega\subset D$. Let $dist(D^c,\Omega)=d>0$. Then for any $x\in D^c$ and $y\in \Omega$, there exists a constant $C_d$ depending on $d$ such that $|x-y|\geq C_d|x|$ and $$\begin{aligned}
|D^su_n(x)|^{q}&= \int_{\Omega}\frac{|u_n(y)|^{q}}{|x-y|^{N+sq}}dy\nonumber\\
& \leq \int_{\Omega}\frac{|u_n(y)|^{q}}{(C_d|x|)^{N+sq}}dy\nonumber\\ & \leq \frac{C}{|x|^{N+sq}}.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ So the tightness of the sequence $\{|D^su_n|^{q}\}$ follows from the above inequality. Hence, there exists a Borel measure $\mu$ such that $|D^su_n|^{q}\overset{t}{\rightharpoonup}\mu$ and $\eqref{cc1}$ is proved.\
Since $r(x)\leq q^*$, using the Proposition $\ref{holder}$ and Theorem $\ref{constant}$ stated in Section $\ref{important}$, for any $\phi\in C_c^\infty(\mathbb{R}^N)$ with $0\leq|\phi|\leq1$ we have the following Sobolev inequality. $$\begin{aligned}
\label{sobo}
S\{\|u_n\phi\|_{L^{q^*}(\mathbb{R}^N)}+\|u_n\phi\|_{L^{r(.)}(\mathbb{R}^N)}\}\leq \|u_n\phi\|_{s,q}\end{aligned}$$ where $S$ is the Sobolev constant given in $\eqref{best}$. Observe that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{observe}
\left(\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}\left(|u_n|^{q^*}+|u_n|^{r(x)}\right)|\phi|^{q^*}\right)^{\frac{1}{q^*}}&\leq \left(\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}|u_n\phi|^{q^*}\right)^{\frac{1}{q^*}}+\left(\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}|u_n\phi|^{r(x)}\right)^{\frac{1}{q^*}}\nonumber\\& =\|u_n\phi\|_{L^{q^*}(\mathbb{R}^N)}+\left(\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}|u_n\phi|^{r(x)}\right)^{\frac{1}{q^*}}.\end{aligned}$$ We first consider the case when $\|u_n\phi\|_{L^{r(.)}(\mathbb{R}^N)}\geq1$. Then the above inequality $\eqref{observe}$ becomes $$\begin{aligned}
\label{geq1}
S \left(\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}\left(|u_n|^{q^*}+|u_n|^{r(x)}\right)|\phi|^{q^*}\right)^{\frac{1}{q^*}}&\leq S\left( \|u_n\phi\|_{L^{q^*}(\mathbb{R}^N)}+\|u_n\phi\|_{L^{r(.)}(\mathbb{R}^N)}\right)\nonumber\\&\leq\|u_n\phi\|_{s,q}.\end{aligned}$$ For the case $\|u_n\phi\|_{L^{r(.)}(\mathbb{R}^N)}<1$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{leq1}
\left(\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}\left(|u_n|^{q^*}+|u_n|^{r(x)}\right)|\phi|^{q^*}\right)^{\frac{1}{q^*}}&\leq \|u_n\phi\|_{L^{q^*}(\mathbb{R}^N)}+\|u_n\phi\|_{L^{r(.)}(\mathbb{R}^N)}^{\frac{r^-}{q^*}}\nonumber\\&\leq \frac{1}{S}\|u_n\phi\|_{s,q}+\left(\frac{1}{S}\|u_n\phi\|_{s,q}\right)^{\frac{r^-}{q^*}}.\end{aligned}$$ If $\frac{1}{S}\|u_n\phi\|_{s,q}\geq1$, then the inequality $\eqref{leq1}$ becomes $$\label{first}
\frac{S}{2} \left(\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}\left(|u_n|^{q^*}+|u_n|^{r(x)}\right)|\phi|^{q^*}\right)^{\frac{1}{q^*}}\leq\|u_n\phi\|_{s,q},$$ otherwise, we get $$\label{oher}
\frac{S}{2^{\frac{q^*}{r^-}}} \left(\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}\left(|u_n|^{q^*}+|u_n|^{r(x)}\right)|\phi|^{q^*}\right)^{\frac{1}{r^-}}\leq\|u_n\phi\|_{s,q}.$$ Let us denote $M_n=\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}\left(|u_n|^{q^*}+|u_n|^{r(x)}\right)|\phi|^{q^*}dx$. On combining $\eqref{geq1}$, $\eqref{first}$ and $\eqref{oher}$ we establish the following $$\label{final}
2^{-\frac{q^*}{r^-}}S\min\left(M_n^{\frac{1}{q^*}},M_n^{\frac{1}{r^-}}\right)\leq\|u_n\phi\|_{s,q}.$$ Now using the Minkowski’s inequality we get $$\begin{aligned}
\|u_n\phi\|_{s,q}&= \left(\int_{\mathbb{R}^{2N}}\frac{|u_n(x)\phi(x)-u_n(y)\phi(y)|^{q}}{|x-y|^{N+sq}}dydx\right)^{\frac{1}{q}}\nonumber\\
& =\left(\int_{\mathbb{R}^{2N}}\frac{|u_n(x)(\phi(x)-\phi(y))+\phi(y)(u_n(x)-u_n(y)|^{q}}{|x-y|^{N+sq}}dydx\right)^{\frac{1}{q}}\nonumber\\&
\leq
\left(\int_{\mathbb{R}^{2N}}\frac{|u_n(x)|^{q}|\phi(x)-\phi(y)|^{q}}{|x-y|^{N+sq}}dydx\right)^{\frac{1}{q}}\nonumber\\&~~~~+\left(\int_{\mathbb{R}^{2N}}\frac{|\phi(y)|^{q}|u_n
(x)-u_n(y)|^{q}}{|x-y|^{N+sq}}dydx\right)^{\frac{1}{q}}\nonumber\\&
\leq\left(\int_{\mathbb{R}^{2N}}|u_n(x)|^{q}|D^s\phi(x)|^{q}dx\right)^{\frac{1}{q}}+\left(\int_{\mathbb{R}^{2N}}|\phi(x)|^{q}|D^su_n(x)|^{q}dx\right)^{\frac{1}{q}}.\nonumber \end{aligned}$$ Since $\{u_n\}$ is bounded in $W_0^{s,q}(\Omega)$, there exists $u\in W_0^{s,q}(\Omega)$ and a subsequence, still denoted as $\{u_n\}$, such that $u_n$ converges weakly to $u$ in $W_0^{s,q}(\Omega)$ and strongly in $L^{\beta(x)}(\mathbb{R}^N)$ for any $1<\beta(x)<q^*$. By the Corollary $\ref{Linfinity p^+}$, we observe $\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}\frac{|\phi(x)-\phi(y)|^{q}}{|x-y|^{N+sq}}dy\in L^\infty(\mathbb{R}^N)$. Then using $\eqref{cc1}$ we get $$\label{right}
\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\sup \|u_n\phi\|_{s,q}\leq\left(\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}|u(x)|^{q}|D^s\phi(x)|^{q}dx\right)^{\frac{1}{q}}+\left(\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}|\phi(x)|^{q}d\mu\right)^{\frac{1}{q}}.$$ We denote the measure $\nu=\nu_1+\nu_2$ and hence $|u_n|^{q^*}+|u_n|^{r(x)}\overset{t}{\rightharpoonup}\nu$. So $$\label{left}
\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty}\sup M_n=\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty}\sup\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}\left(|u_n|^{q^*}+|u_n|^{r(x)}\right)|\phi|^{q^*}dx=\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}|\phi|^{q^*}d\nu.$$ Considering the inequalities $\eqref{right}$, $\eqref{left}$ and applying limit $n\rightarrow\infty$ in $\eqref{final}$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{c5}
2^{-\frac{q^*}{r^-}}S\min\left(\|\phi\|_{L_\nu^{q^*}(\mathbb{R}^N)},\|\phi\|_{L_\nu^{q^*}(\mathbb{R}^N)}^{\frac{q^*}{r^-}}\right)\leq\left(\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}|u(x)|^{q}|D^s\phi(x)|^{q}dx\right)^{\frac{1}{q}}+\|\phi\|_{L_{\mu}^{q}(\mathbb{R}^N)}.\end{aligned}$$ Now suppose that $u=0$ and $u_n\rightarrow 0$ weakly in $W_0^{s,q}(\Omega)$, then $$\begin{aligned}
\label{holder ineq}
2^{-\frac{q^*}{r^-}}S\min\left(\|\phi\|_{L_\nu^{q^*}(\mathbb{R}^N)},\|\phi\|_{L_\nu^{q^*}(\mathbb{R}^N)}^{\frac{q^*}{r^-}}\right)\leq\|\phi\|_{L_{\mu}^{q}(\mathbb{R}^N)}.\end{aligned}$$ By the Lemma $\ref{lemma2}$, there exists a set of distinct points $\{x_i:i\in I\}\subset\mathbb{R}^N$ and $\{\nu_i:i\in I\}\subset(0,\infty)$ such that $$\nu=\sum_{i\in I}\nu_i\delta_{x_i}.$$ Suppose that $u\neq0$. Then the sequence $\{v_n\}$, when $v_n=u_n-u$, is bounded in $W_0^{s,q}(\Omega)$ and there exists a subsequence of $\{v_n\}$ (named as $\{v_n\}$) which converges weakly to 0 in $W_0^{s,q}(\Omega)$. By the Brézis-Lieb lemma \[Lemma $\ref{brezis}$ in the Appendix\] we have the following $$\begin{aligned}
&\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\left(\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}|\phi|\left(|u_n|^{q^*}+|u_n|^{r(x)}\right)dx-\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}|\phi|\left(|v_n|^{q^*}+|v_n|^{r(x)}\right)dx\right)\nonumber\\&=\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}|\phi|\left(|u|^{q^*}+|u|^{r(x)}\right)dx\end{aligned}$$ for every $\phi\in C_c^\infty(\mathbb{R}^N)$. Clearly the sequences $\{|v_n|^{q^*}\}$ and $\{|v_n|^{r(x)}\}$ are tight. Hence, on similar lines the representation of $\nu$ is given as $$\label{nu}
\nu=|u|^{q^*}+|u|^{r(x)}+\sum_{i\in I}\nu_i\delta_{x_i}.$$ This proves $\eqref{cc3}$. Let us consider $\phi\in C_c^\infty(\mathbb{R}^N)$ such that $0\leq\phi\leq1,~\phi(0)=1$ and $supp(\phi)\subset B_1(0)$. For a fixed $j$, choose $\epsilon>0$ such that for $i\neq j$, $B_\epsilon(x_i)\cap B_\epsilon(x_j)=\emptyset$. We define $\phi_{\epsilon,j}(x)=\phi(\frac{x-x_j}{\epsilon})$.\
[*Claim:*]{}$$\label{claim}
\underset{\epsilon\rightarrow0}{\lim}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}|u(x)|^{q}|D^s\phi(x)|^{q}dx=0.$$ Without loss of generality, we can assume $x_j=0$ and denote $\phi_\epsilon=\phi_{\epsilon,j}$. Using Corollary $\ref{Linfinity p^+}$ we have $$|D^s\phi(x)|^{q}= \int_{\mathbb{R}^N}\frac{|\phi_{\epsilon}(x)-\phi_{\epsilon}(y)|^{q}}{|x-y|^{N+sq}}dy\leq C\min\left(1/\epsilon^{sq},\epsilon^N|x|^{-(N+sq)}\right).\nonumber$$ Thus, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{2}
\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}|u(x)|^{q}|D^s\phi(x)|^{q}dx\nonumber& \leq C\left(1/\epsilon^{sq}\int_{|x|<2\epsilon}|u(x)|^{q}dx+ \epsilon^N\int_{|x|\geq2\epsilon}\frac{|u(x)|^{q}}{|x|^{N+sq}}dx\right)\nonumber\\& =C(I+II).\end{aligned}$$ The first term I can be estimated as $$\begin{aligned}
I&\leq \frac{1}{\epsilon^{sq}}\||u|^{q}\|_{L^{\frac{q^*}{q}}(B_{2\epsilon}(0))}\|1\|_{L^{\frac{N}{sq}}(B_{2\epsilon}(0))}\nonumber\\&\leq C\||u|^{q}\|_{L^{\frac{q^*}{q}}(B_{2\epsilon}(0))}.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Since $u\in L^{q^*}(\mathbb{R}^N)$, $I\rightarrow0$ as $\epsilon\rightarrow0$. For the second term we proceed as follows $$\begin{aligned}
II&=\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\epsilon^N \int_{2^k\epsilon\leq|x|\leq2^{k+1}\epsilon}\frac{|u(x)|^{q}}{|x|^{N+sq}}dx\nonumber\\& \leq \sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\frac{1}{2^{k(N+sq)}\epsilon^{sq}} \int_{|x|\leq2^{k+1}\epsilon}{|u(x)|^{q}}dx\nonumber\\&\leq \sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\frac{C}{2^{kN}} \||u|^{q}\|_{L^{\frac{q^*}{q}}(B_{2^{k+1}\epsilon}(0))}\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Now given $\delta>0$ take $k_0\in \mathbb{N}$ such that $\sum_{k=k_0+1}^{\infty}2^{-Nk}<\delta$. So, $$II\leq \||u|^{q}\|_{L^{\frac{q^*}{q}}(\mathbb{R}^N)}\delta+\sum_{k=1}^{k_0}\frac{1}{2^{Nk}}\||u|^{q}\|_{L^{\frac{q^*}{q}}(B_{2^{k_0+1}\epsilon}(0))}.\nonumber$$ This inequality is true for any $\delta$. Thus $II\rightarrow0$ as $\epsilon\rightarrow0$. Hence, the claim.\
In order to prove $\eqref{cc4}$, we first observe that $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}|\phi_{\epsilon,j}|^{q^*}d\nu&=\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}|\phi_{\epsilon,j}|^{q^*}\left(|u|^{q^*}+|u|^{r(x)}\right)dx+\sum_{i\in I}\nu_i|\phi_{\epsilon,j}(x_i)|^{q^*}\nonumber\\
& \geq \nu_j.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Then $$\|\phi_{\epsilon,j}\|_{L_\nu^{q^*}(\mathbb{R}^N)}\geq\nu_j^{\frac{1}{q^*}}~~~\text{and}~~~\|\phi_{\epsilon,j}\|^{\frac{q^*}{r^-}}_{L_\nu^{q^*}(\mathbb{R}^N)}\geq\nu_j^{\frac{1}{r^-}}.$$ From $\eqref{holder ineq}$ we find $$2^{-\frac{q^*}{r^-}}S\min\left(\nu_j^{\frac{1}{q^*}},\nu_j^{\frac{1}{r^-}}\right)\leq\|\phi_{\epsilon,j}\|_{L_{\mu}^{q}(\mathbb{R}^N)}.$$ On the other hand $$\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}|\phi_{\epsilon,j}|^{q}d\mu
\leq\mu(B_\epsilon(x_j))\rightarrow\mu_{j}~~~\text{as}~\epsilon\rightarrow 0.$$ Thus, on rewriting the inequality $\eqref{holder ineq}$ we establish the inequality in $\eqref{cc4}$. $$2^{-\frac{q^*}{r^-}}S\min\left(\nu_j^{\frac{1}{q^*}},\nu_j^{\frac{1}{r^-}}\right)\leq\mu_{j}^{\frac{1}{q}}.$$ We are now left to prove $\eqref{cc2}$. We already have $\mu\geq\sum_{i\in I}\mu_i\delta_{x_i}$. On using the weak convergence and the Fatou’s lemma we have $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}\phi d\mu&=\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty}\inf\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}|D^su_n(x)|^{q}\phi dx\nonumber\\&\geq \int_{\mathbb{R}^N}|D^su(x)|^{q}\phi dx.\nonumber \end{aligned}$$ Thus, $\mu\geq|D^su(x)|^{q}$. Since, $\sum_{i\in I}\mu_i\delta_{x_i}$ and $|D^su(x)|^{q}$ are orthogonal measures, we conclude $$\mu\geq|D^su(x)|^{q}+\sum_{i\in I}\mu_i\delta_{x_i}.$$ This completes the proof.
Application to Dirichlet problem with fractional ‘[*$(p(x),p^+)$-Laplacian*]{}’- proof of Theorem $\ref{exist}$ {#appl}
===============================================================================================================
In this section we study the following problem $$\begin{aligned}
\label{app}
\begin{split}
(-\Delta)_{p(x)}^{s}u+(-\Delta)_{p^+}^{s}u&= |u|^{(p^+)^*-2}u+|u|^{p_s^*(x)-2}u+\lambda |u|^{\beta(x)-2}u~\text{in}~\Omega,\\
u&= 0~\text{in}~\mathbb{R}^N\setminus\Omega,
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ as an example to demonstrate our theoretical finding of CCTP. Here $\Omega$ is a bounded domain in $\mathbb{R}^N$, $\lambda>0$, the assumptions on $s$, $p(.,.)$ are same as in Theorem $\ref{exist}$, $\beta\in C_+(\overline{\Omega})$ such that $\beta(x)<p_s^*(x)$ for every $x\in \Omega$ and $p^+<\beta^-\leq\beta^+<(p_s^*)^-$. The fractional $p(x)$-Laplacian-$(-\Delta)_{p(x)}^{s}$ and the fractional $p^+$-Laplacian-$(-\Delta)_{p^+}^{s}$ are defined as $$(-\Delta)_{p(x)}^{s}u=P.V.\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}\frac{|u(x)-u(y)|^{p(x,y)-2}(u(x)-u(y))}{|x-y|^{N+sp(x,y)}}dy$$ and $$(-\Delta)_{p^+}^{s}u=P.V.\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}\frac{|u(x)-u(y)|^{p^+-2}(u(x)-u(y))}{|x-y|^{N+sp^+}}dy$$ respectively. We name $\mathcal{L}u=(-\Delta)_{p(x)}^{s}u+(-\Delta)_{p^+}^{s}u$ as a fractional $(p(x),p^+)$-Laplacian. We consider here the [[*critical*]{}]{} case, i.e. when $A=\{x\in\Omega: p_s^*(x)=(p^+)^*\}$ is nonempty. The natural solution space of the problem $\eqref{app}$ is $X=W_0^{s,p^+}(\Omega)\cap W_0$, defined in Section $\ref{important}$, which is endowed with the norm $$\|u\|_X=\|u\|_{s,p^+}+\|u\|_{W_0}.$$ Note that for any $p\in C_+(\mathbb{R}^N\times\mathbb{R}^N)$, $1<p^-\leq p^+<\infty$, $$(p^-)^*\leq(p_s^*)^-=\inf_{x\in \mathbb{R}^N} p^*_s(x)\leq p_s^*(x)\leq\sup_{x\in \mathbb{R}^N} p^*_s(x)=(p_s^*)^+\leq(p^+)^*.$$
A function $u\in X$ is said to be a weak solution of problem $\eqref{app}$, if $u$ is a critical point of the corresponding energy functional $$\begin{aligned}
\label{func}
\Psi(u)&=\int_{\mathbb{R}^{2N}}\frac{1}{p(x,y)}\frac{|u(x)-u(y)|^{p(x,y)}}{|x-y|^{N+sp(x,y)}}dydx+\int_{\mathbb{R}^{2N}}\frac{1}{p^+}\frac{|u(x)-u(y)|^{p^+}}{|x-y|^{N+sp^+}}dydx\nonumber\\&~~-\frac{1}{(p^+)^*}\int_{\Omega}|u|^{(p^+)^*}dx-\int_{\Omega}\frac{1}{p_s^*(x)}|u|^{p_s^*(x)}dx-\lambda\int_{\Omega}\frac{1}{\beta(x)}|u|^{\beta(x)}dx.
\end{aligned}$$
We will use the Mountain Pass geometry to prove the existence of weak solution to the problem $\eqref{app}$. Hence, we show that the functional $\Psi$ satisfies the Palais-Smale (P-S) condition below a certain energy level.
\[bound\] Let $\{u_n\}_{n\in\mathbb{N}}\subset X$ be a Palais-Smale sequence, then $\{u_n\}$ is bounded in $X$.
Let $\{u_n\}$ be a Palais-Smale sequence of the functional $\Psi$, i.e. $\Psi(u_n)\rightarrow c$ and $\Psi^\prime(u_n)\rightarrow 0$ as $n\rightarrow\infty$. Hence, for large $n$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
c+1&\geq \Psi(u_n)-\frac{1}{\beta^-}\langle\Psi^\prime(u_n),u_n\rangle\nonumber\\&= \int_{\mathbb{R}^{2N}}\left(\frac{1}{p(x,y)}-\frac{1}{\beta^-}\right)\frac{|u_n(x)-u_n(y)|^{p(x,y)}}{|x-y|^{N+sp(x,y)}}dydx+\left(\frac{1}{p^+}-\frac{1}{\beta^-}\right)\int_{\mathbb{R}^{2N}}\frac{|u_n(x)-u_n(y)|^{p^+}}{|x-y|^{N+sp^+}}dydx\nonumber\\&~~~~+\left(\frac{1}{\beta^-}-\frac{1}{(p^+)^*}\right)\int_{\Omega}|u_n|^{(p^+)^*}dx+\int_{\Omega}\left(\frac{1}{\beta^-}-\frac{1}{p_s^*(x)}\right)|u_n|^{p_s^*(x)}dx\nonumber\\&~~~~+\lambda\int_{\Omega}\left(\frac{1}{\beta^-}-\frac{1}{\beta(x)}\right)|u_n|^{\beta(x)}dx\nonumber\\&\geq \left(\frac{1}{p^+}-\frac{1}{\beta^-}\right)\left(\int_{\mathbb{R}^{2N}}\frac{|u_n(x)-u_n(y)|^{p(x,y)}}{|x-y|^{N+sp(x,y)}}dydx+\int_{\mathbb{R}^{2N}}\frac{|u_n(x)-u_n(y)|^{p^+}}{|x-y|^{N+sp^+}}dydx\right)\nonumber\\&\geq \left(\frac{1}{p^+}-\frac{1}{\beta^-}\right)\left(\min\{\|u_n\|_{W_0}^{p^+},\|u_n\|_{W_0}^{p^-}\}+\|u_n\|_{s,p^+}^{p^+}\right).\nonumber
\end{aligned}$$ Thus, $\{u_n\}$ is bounded in $X$.
\[palais\] The functional $\Psi$ in $\eqref{func}$ satisfies the Palais-Smale (P-S) condition for energy level $$c<\left(\frac{1}{p^+}-\frac{1}{(p_s^*)^-}\right)2^{-\frac{(p^+)^*p^+}{(p_s^*)^--p^+}} \min\left(S^{\frac{N}{s}},S^{\frac{(p_s^*)^-p^+}{(p_s^*)^--p^+}}\right).$$ where $S$ is the Sobolev constant given in $\eqref{best}$.
Let $\{u_n\}$ be a (P-S) sequence in $X$. Then by Lemma $\ref{bound}$, $\{u_n\}$ is bounded in $X$ and thus there exists $u\in X$ such that, up to a subsequence (still denoted as $\{u_n\}$), $\{u_n\}$ converges weakly to $u$ in $X$. We need to show that $u_n\rightarrow u$ strongly in $X$. Since $\{u_n\}$ is bounded in $X$, $\{u_n\}$ is also bounded in $W_0$ and in $W_0^{s,p^+}(\Omega)$. Thus, using the concentration compactness type principle, stated in Theorem $\ref{conc}$, we have $$\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}\frac{|u_n(x)-u_n(y)|^{p^+}}{|x-y|^{N+sp^+}}dy\overset{t}{\rightharpoonup}\mu\geq\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}\frac{|u(x)-u(y)|^{p^+}}{|x-y|^{N+sp^+}}dy+\sum_{i\in I}\mu_{j}\delta_{x_i}, \nonumber$$ $$|u_n|^{(p^+)^*}+|u_n|^{p_s^*(x)}\overset{t}{\rightharpoonup}\nu=|u|^{(p^+)^*}+|u|^{p_s^*(x)}+\sum_{i\in I}\nu_i\delta_{x_i}\nonumber$$ and $$2^{-\frac{(p^+)^*}{(p_s^*)^-}}S\min\left(\nu_i^{\frac{1}{(p^+)^*}},\nu_i^{\frac{1}{(p_s^*)^-}}\right)\leq\mu_{i}^{\frac{1}{p^+}}, ~\forall i\in I.\nonumber$$ Let us denote $$|U_n(x)|= \int_{\mathbb{R}^N}\frac{|u_n(x)-u_n(y)|^{p(x,y)}}{|x-y|^{N+sp(x,y)}}dy$$ and consider an open, bounded subset $D$ of $\mathbb{R}^N$, defined as in the proof of Theorem $\ref{conc}$. Then for any $x\in D^c$ and $y\in \Omega$, there exists a constant $C_d$ such that $|x-y|\geq C_d|x|$ and $$\begin{aligned}
|U_n(x)|&= \int_{\Omega}\frac{|u_n(y)|^{p(x,y)}}{|x-y|^{N+sp(x,y)}}dy\nonumber\\
& \leq \int_{\Omega}\frac{|u_n(y)|^{p(x,y)}}{(C_d|x|)^{N+sp(x,y)}}dy\nonumber\\ & \leq C\max\left(\frac{1}{|x|^{N+sp^+}}, \frac{1}{|x|^{N+sp^-}}\right).\nonumber
\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, the sequence $\{|U_n|\}$ is tight and there exists a positive bounded Borel measure $\sigma$ such that $|U_n|\overset{t}{\rightharpoonup}\sigma$. Consider $\phi\in C_c^\infty(\mathbb{R}^N)$ with $0\leq\phi\leq1$, $\phi(0)=1$ and support in the unit ball of $\mathbb{R}^N$. Define $\phi_{\epsilon,j}=\phi(\frac{x-x_j}{\epsilon})$. Since $\{u_n\}$ is a (P-S) sequence, we have $\Psi(u_n)\rightarrow c$ and $\Psi^\prime(u_n)\rightarrow 0$ as $n\rightarrow\infty$. On the other hand $$\begin{aligned}
\label{a1}
\langle\Psi^\prime(u_n), \phi_{\epsilon,j}u_n\rangle&=\int_{\mathbb{R}^{2N}}\frac{|u_n(x)-u_n(y)|^{p(x,y)-2}(u_n(x)-u_n(y))((\phi_{\epsilon,j}u_n)(x)-(\phi_{\epsilon,j}u_n)(y))}{|x-y|^{N+sp(x,y)}}dydx\nonumber\\&~~+\int_{\mathbb{R}^{2N}}\frac{|u_n(x)-u_n(y)|^{p^+-2}(u_n(x)-u_n(y))((\phi_{\epsilon,j}u_n)(x)-(\phi_{\epsilon,j}u_n)(y))}{|x-y|^{N+sp^+}}dydx\nonumber\\&~~-\int_{\Omega}|u_n|^{(p^+)^*-2}u_n(\phi_{\epsilon,j}u_n)dx-\int_{\Omega}|u_n|^{p_s^*(x)-2}u_n(\phi_{\epsilon,j}u_n)dx\nonumber\\&~~-\lambda\int_{\Omega}|u_n|^{\beta(x)-2}u_n(\phi_{\epsilon,j}u_n)dx\nonumber\\&=\int_{\mathbb{R}^{2N}}\frac{|u_n(x)-u_n(y)|^{p(x,y)-2}(u_n(x)-u_n(y))u_n(y)(\phi_{\epsilon,j}(x)-\phi_{\epsilon,j}(y))}{|x-y|^{N+sp(x,y)}}dxdy\nonumber\\&~~+\int_{\mathbb{R}^{2N}}\frac{|u_n(x)-u_n(y)|^{p^+-2}(u_n(x)-u_n(y))u_n(y)(\phi_{\epsilon,j}(x)-\phi_{\epsilon,j}(y))}{|x-y|^{N+sp^+}}dxdy\nonumber\\&~~+\int_{\mathbb{R}^{2N}}\frac{|u_n(x)-u_n(y)|^{p(x,y)}\phi_{\epsilon,j}(x)}{|x-y|^{N+sp(x,y)}}dxdy+\int_{\mathbb{R}^{2N}}\frac{|u_n(x)-u_n(y)|^{p^+}\phi_{\epsilon,j}(x)}{|x-y|^{N+sp^+}}dxdy\nonumber\\&~~-\int_{\Omega}|u_n|^{(p^+)^*}\phi_{\epsilon,j}dx-\int_{\Omega}|u_n|^{p_s^*(x)}\phi_{\epsilon,j}dx-\lambda\int_{\Omega}|u_n|^{\beta(x)}\phi_{\epsilon,j}dx.
\end{aligned}$$ We denote $H_n(x,y)=\frac{|u_n(x)-u_n(y)|}{|x-y|^{\frac{N+sp(x,y)}{p(x,y)}}}$ and $\Phi_n(x,y)=\frac{|u_n(y)||\phi_{\epsilon,j}(x)-\phi_{\epsilon,j}(y)|}{|x-y|^{\frac{N+sp(x,y)}{p(x,y)}}}$. Since, $\{u_n\}$ is a bounded sequence in $W_0$, on using the Hölder’s inequality on the first term in the right hand side of $\eqref{a1}$ we observe $$\begin{aligned}
\label{a}
\Big|\int_{\mathbb{R}^{2N}}&\frac{|u_n(x)-u_n(y)|^{p(x,y)-2}(u_n(x)-u_n(y))u_n(y)(\phi_{\epsilon,j}(x)-\phi_{\epsilon,j}(y))}{|x-y|^{N+sp(x,y)}}dxdy\Big|\nonumber\\&\leq \int_{\mathbb{R}^{2N}}\frac{|u_n(x)-u_n(y)|^{p(x,y)-1}|u_n(y)||\phi_{\epsilon,j}(x)-\phi_{\epsilon,j}(y)|}{|x-y|^{N+sp(x,y)}}dxdy\nonumber\\&=\int_{\mathbb{R}^{2N}}\left(\frac{|u_n(x)-u_n(y)|}{|x-y|^{\frac{N+sp(x,y)}{p(x,y)}}}\right)^{p(x,y)-1}\left(\frac{|u_n(y)||\phi_{\epsilon,j}(x)-\phi_{\epsilon,j}(y)|}{|x-y|^{\frac{N+sp(x,y)}{p(x,y)}}}\right)dxdy\nonumber\\&\leq C \||H_n|^{p(.,.)-1}\|_{L^{\frac{p(.,.)}{p(.,.)-1}}(\mathbb{R}^N\times\mathbb{R}^N)}\|\Phi_n\|_
{L^{p(.,.)}(\mathbb{R}^N\times\mathbb{R}^N)}\nonumber\\&\leq C \||H_n|^{p(.,.)-1}\|_{L^{\frac{p(.,.)}{p(.,.)-1}}(\mathbb{R}^N\times\mathbb{R}^N)}\left(\int_{\mathbb{R}^{2N}}\frac{\left(|u_n(y)|^{p^+}+|u_n(y)|^{p^-}\right)|\phi_{\epsilon,j}(x)-\phi_{\epsilon,j}(y)|^{p(x,y)}}{|x-y|^{N+sp(x,y)}}dxdy\right)^{\frac{1}{k}}\nonumber\\& \leq C\left(\int_{\mathbb{R}^{2N}}\frac{\left(|u_n(y)|^{p^+}+|u_n(y)|^{p^-}\right)|\phi_{\epsilon,j}(x)-\phi_{\epsilon,j}(y)|^{p(x,y)}}{|x-y|^{N+sp(x,y)}}dxdy\right)^{\frac{1}{k}}
\end{aligned}$$ where $k$ is either $p^+$ or $p^-$. According to Lemma $\ref{lemma1}$, $\int_{\mathbb{R}^{2N}}\frac{|\phi_{\epsilon}(x)-\phi_{\epsilon}(y)|^{p(x,y)}}{|x-y|^{N+sp(x,y)}}dy\in L^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^N)$. Thus, applying limit $n\rightarrow\infty$ in the above inequality $\eqref{a}$ we get $$\begin{aligned}
\label{aa}
\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty} \Big|\int_{\mathbb{R}^{2N}}&\frac{|u_n(x)-u_n(y)|^{p(x,y)-2}(u_n(x)-u_n(y))u_n(y)(\phi_{\epsilon,j}(x)-\phi_{\epsilon,j}(y))}{|x-y|^{N+sp(x,y)}}dxdy\Big|\nonumber\\&\leq C\left(\int_{\mathbb{R}^{2N}}\frac{\left(|u(y)|^{p^+}+|u(y)|^{p^-}\right)|\phi_{\epsilon,j}(x)-\phi_{\epsilon,j}(y)|^{p(x,y)}}{|x-y|^{N+sp(x,y)}}dxdy\right)^{\frac{1}{k}}.
\end{aligned}$$ We now make the following claim.\
[*Claim:*]{} $$\lim_{\epsilon\rightarrow0}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{2N}}\frac{\left(|u(x)|^{p^+}+|u(x)|^{p^-}\right)|\phi_{\epsilon,j}(x)-\phi_{\epsilon,j}(y)|^{p(x,y)}}{|x-y|^{N+sp(x,y)}}dxdy=0.$$ Without loss of generality, we assume that $x_j=0$ and denote $\phi_\epsilon=\phi_{\epsilon,j}$. Using Lemma $\ref{lemma1}$ we have $$\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}\frac{|\phi_{\epsilon}(x)-\phi_{\epsilon}(y)|^{p(x,y)}}{|x-y|^{N+sp(x,y)}}dy\leq C\min\left(1/\epsilon^{sp^+}+1/\epsilon^{sp^-}, (\epsilon^N+ \epsilon^{N+s(p^--p^+)})|x|^{-(N+sp^-)}\right).\nonumber$$ Thus, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{2}
&\int_{\mathbb{R}^{2N}}\left(|u(x)|^{p^+}+|u(x)|^{p^-}\right)\frac{|\phi_\epsilon(x)-\phi_\epsilon(y)|^{p(x,y)}}{|x-y|^{N+sp(x,y)}}dydx\nonumber\\& \leq C\left(\frac{1}{\epsilon^{sp^+}}+\frac{1}{\epsilon^{sp^-}}\right)\int_{|x|<2\epsilon}|u(x)|^{p^+}+|u(x)|^{p^-}dx\nonumber\\&~~~~+ C(\epsilon^N+ \epsilon^{N+s(p^--p^+)})\int_{|x|\geq2\epsilon}\frac{|u(x)|^{p^+}+|u(x)|^{p^-}}{|x|^{N+sp^-}}dx\nonumber\\& =C(I+II).
\end{aligned}$$ We observe $$\begin{aligned}
I&=\left(\frac{1}{\epsilon^{sp^+}}+\frac{1}{\epsilon^{sp^-}}\right)\int_{|x|<2\epsilon}|u(x)|^{p^+}+|u(x)|^{p^-}dx \nonumber\\&\leq\left(\frac{1}{\epsilon^{sp^+}}+\frac{1}{\epsilon^{sp^-}}\right)\left(\||u|^{p^+}\|_{L^{\frac{(p^+)^*}{p^+}}(B_{2\epsilon}(0))}+\||u|^{p^-}\|_{L^{\frac{(p^+)^*}{p^+}}(B_{2\epsilon}(0))}\right)\|1\|_{L^{\frac{N}{sp^+}}(B_{2\epsilon}(0))}\nonumber\\&\leq C\epsilon^{sp^+}\left(\frac{1}{\epsilon^{sp^+}}+\frac{1}{\epsilon^{sp^-}}\right)\left(\||u|^{p^+}\|_{L^{\frac{(p^+)^*}{p^+}}(B_{2\epsilon}(0))}+\||u|^{p^-}\|_{L^{\frac{(p^+)^*}{p^+}}(B_{2\epsilon}(0))}\right).\nonumber
\end{aligned}$$ Hence, $I\rightarrow 0$ as $\epsilon\rightarrow 0.$ Similarly the second term in the right hand side of $\eqref{2}$ can be rewritten as follows. $$\begin{aligned}
II&=\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}(\epsilon^N+\epsilon^{N+s(p^--p^+)}) \int_{2^k\epsilon\leq|x|\leq2^{k+1}\epsilon}\frac{|u(x)|^{p^+}+|u(x)|^{p^-}}{|x|^{N+sp^-}}dx\nonumber\\& \leq \sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\frac{1}{2^{k(N+sp^-)}}(1/\epsilon^{sp^-}+1/\epsilon^{sp^+}) \int_{|x|\leq2^{k+1}\epsilon}{|u(x)|^{p^+}+|u(x)|^{p^-}}dx\nonumber\\&\leq\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\frac{C\epsilon^{sp^+}}{2^{k(N+sp^--sp^+)}}(1/\epsilon^{sp^-}+1/\epsilon^{sp^+})\left(\||u|^{p^+}\|_{L^{\frac{(p^+)^*}{p^+}}(B_{2^{k+1}\epsilon}(0))}+\||u|^{p^-}\|_{L^{\frac{(p^+)^*}{p^+}}(B_{2^{k+1}\epsilon}(0))}\right)\nonumber\\&\leq\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\frac{C\epsilon^{sp^+}}{2^{ksp^-}}(1/\epsilon^{sp^-}+1/\epsilon^{sp^+})\left(\||u|^{p^+}\|_{L^{\frac{(p^+)^*}{p^+}}(B_{2^{k+1}\epsilon}(0))}+\||u|^{p^-}\|_{L^{\frac{(p^+)^*}{p^+}}(B_{2^{k+1}\epsilon}(0))}\right)
\end{aligned}$$ Now for any $\gamma>0$, there exists a $k'\in \mathbb{N}$ such that $\sum_{k=k'+1}^{\infty}2^{-ksp^-}<\gamma$. So, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{b}
II&\leq \gamma C\epsilon^{sp^+}\left(\frac{1}{\epsilon^{sp^+}}+\frac{1}{\epsilon^{sp^-}}\right)\left(\||u|^{p^+}\|_{L^{\frac{(p^+)^*}{p^+}}(\mathbb{R}^N)}+\||u|^{p^-}\|_{L^{\frac{(p^+)^*}{p^+}}(\mathbb{R}^N)}\right)\nonumber\\&~~+C\epsilon^{sp^+}\left(\frac{1}{\epsilon^{sp^+}}+\frac{1}{\epsilon^{sp^-}}\right)\sum_{k=1}^{k'}\frac{1}{2^{ksp^-}}\left(\||u|^{p^+}\|_{L^{\frac{(p^+)^*}{p^+}}(B_{2^{k'+1}\epsilon}(0))}+\||u|^{p^-}\|_{L^{\frac{(p^+)^*}{p^+}}(B_{2^{k'+1}\epsilon}(0))}\right).
\end{aligned}$$ Hence, $II\rightarrow0$ as $\epsilon\rightarrow0$. Hence, the claim. Therefore, from the inequality $\eqref{aa}$ we establish $$\lim_{\epsilon\rightarrow 0}\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{2N}}\frac{|u_n(x)-u_n(y)|^{p(x,y)-2}(u_n(x)-u_n(y))u_n(y)(\phi_{\epsilon,j}(x)-\phi_{\epsilon,j}(y))}{|x-y|^{N+sp(x,y)}}dxdy\rightarrow 0.$$ Following the argument used in the proof of $\eqref{a}$ and using $\eqref{claim}$ we find $$\lim_{\epsilon\rightarrow 0}\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty} \int_{\mathbb{R}^{2N}}\frac{|u_n(x)-u_n(y)|^{p^+-2}(u_n(x)-u_n(y))u_n(y)(\phi_{\epsilon,j}(x)-\phi_{\epsilon,j}(y))}{|x-y|^{N+sp^+}}dxdy \rightarrow 0.\nonumber$$ Passing the limit $n\rightarrow\infty$ in the inequality $\eqref{a1}$ we get $$0=\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}\phi_{\epsilon,j}d\mu+\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}\phi_{\epsilon,j}d\sigma-\int_{\Omega}\phi_{\epsilon,j}d\nu-\lambda\int_{\Omega}|u|^{\beta(x)}\phi_{\epsilon,j}dx.$$ Sinec, $\phi_{\epsilon,j}(x)\rightarrow 0$ as $\epsilon\rightarrow0$ for any $x\neq x_j$ and $\phi(0)=1$ we have $$\lim_{\epsilon\rightarrow 0}\int_{\Omega}|u|^{\beta(x)}\phi_{\epsilon,j}dx\rightarrow0,~\lim_{\epsilon\rightarrow 0}\int_{\Omega}\phi_{\epsilon,j}d\nu=\nu_j,$$ $$\lim_{\epsilon\rightarrow 0}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}\phi_{\epsilon,j}d\mu=\mu_j,~\lim_{\epsilon\rightarrow 0}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}\phi_{\epsilon,j}d\sigma=\sigma_j$$ where $\nu_j=\nu(\{x_j\})$, $\mu_j=\mu(\{x_j\})$ and $\sigma_j=\sigma(\{x_j\})$. Hence, $\mu_i+\sigma_i=\nu_i$ for every $i\in I$. This implies $\mu_i\leq\nu_i$ and from $\eqref{cc4}$ we have $$2^{-\frac{(p^+)^*}{(p_s^*)^-}}S\min\left(\nu_i^{\frac{1}{(p^+)^*}},\nu_i^{\frac{1}{(p_s^*)^-}}\right)\leq\nu_{i}^{\frac{1}{p^+}}.\nonumber$$ This arises two cases.\
[*Case 1-*]{} If $2^{-\frac{(p^+)^*}{(p_s^*)^-}}S\nu_i^{\frac{1}{(p^+)^*}}\leq\nu_{i}^{\frac{1}{p^+}}.$ Then either $\nu_i=0$ or $\left(2^{-\frac{(p^+)^*}{(p_s^*)^-}}S\right)^{\frac{N}{s}}\leq \nu_i.$\
[*Case 2-*]{} If $2^{-\frac{(p^+)^*}{(p_s^*)^-}}S\nu_i^{\frac{1}{(p_s^*)^-}}\leq\nu_{i}^{\frac{1}{p^+}}.$ Then either $\nu_i=0$ or $\left(2^{-\frac{(p^+)^*}{(p_s^*)^-}}S\right)^{\frac{(p_s^*)^-p^+}{(p_s^*)^--p^+}}\leq \nu_i.$\
Then, from the above two cases we conclude $$2^{-\frac{(p^+)^*p^+}{(p_s^*)^--p^+}} \min\left(S^{\frac{N}{s}},S^{\frac{(p_s^*)^-p^+}{(p_s^*)^--p^+}}
\right)\leq \nu_i.$$ Then, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{estimate}
c&=\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty}\Psi(u_n)\nonumber\\&=\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty}\left(\Psi(u_n)-\frac{1}{p^+}\langle\Psi^\prime(u_n),u_n\rangle\right)\nonumber\\&=\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty}
\left(\int_{\mathbb{R}^{2N}}\left(\frac{1}{p(x,y)}-\frac{1}{p^+}\right)\frac{|u_n(x)-u_n(y)|^{p(x,y)}}{|x-y|^{N+sp(x,y)}}dxdy+\int_{\Omega}\left(\frac{1}{p^+}-\frac{1}{p_s^*(x)}\right)|u_n|^{p_s^*(x)}dx\right)\nonumber\\&~~~~+\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty}\left(\frac{1}{p^+}-\frac{1}{(p^+)^*}\right)\int_{\Omega}|u_n|^{(p^+)^*}dx+\lambda \lim_{n\rightarrow \infty}\int_{\Omega}\left(\frac{1}{p^+}-\frac{1}{\beta(x)}\right)|u_n|^{\beta(x)}dx\nonumber\\& \geq \lim_{n\rightarrow \infty}\left(\frac{1}{p^+}-\frac{1}{(p_s^*)^-}\right)\int_{B_\epsilon(x_j)}\phi_{\epsilon,j}\left(|u_n|^{(p^+)^*}+|u_n|^{p^*_s(x)}\right)dx\nonumber\\&=\left(\frac{1}{p^+}-\frac{1}{(p_s^*)^-}\right)\left(\int_{B_\epsilon(x_j)}\phi_{\epsilon,j}\left(|u|^{(p^+)^*}+|u|^{p^*_s(x)}\right)dx+\sum_{i\in I}\nu_i\phi_{\epsilon,j}(x_i)\right)\nonumber\\&\geq\left(\frac{1}{p^+}-\frac{1}{(p_s^*)^-}\right)\nu_j\nonumber\\&\geq\left(\frac{1}{p^+}-\frac{1}{(p_s^*)^-}\right)2^{-\frac{(p^+)^*p^+}{(p_s^*)^--p^+}} \min\left(S^{\frac{N}{s}},S^{\frac{(p_s^*)^-p^+}{(p_s^*)^--p^+}}
\right).
\end{aligned}$$ This implies the indexing set $I=\emptyset$ if we are to have $$c<\left(\frac{1}{p^+}-\frac{1}{(p_s^*)^-}\right)2^{-\frac{(p^+)^*p^+}{(p_s^*)^--p^+}} \min\left(S^{\frac{N}{s}},S^{\frac{(p_s^*)^-p^+}{(p_s^*)^--p^+}}\right).$$ Hence, $|u_n|^{(p^+)^*}\overset{t}{\rightharpoonup}|u|^{(p^+)^*}$ and $|u_n|^{p_s^*(x)}\overset{t}{\rightharpoonup}|u|^{p_s^*(x)}$. Therefore, using Prokhorov’s theorem we have $u_n\rightarrow u$ in $L^{(p^+)^*}(\Omega)$ and in $L^{p_s^*(x)}(\Omega)$.\
Define $$\langle I_1(u),v\rangle=\int_{\mathbb{R}^{2N}}\frac{|u(x)-u(y)|^{p(x,y)-2}(u(x)-u(y))(v(x)-v(y))}{|x-y|^{N+sp(x,y)}}dxdy$$ and $$\langle I_2(u),v\rangle=\int_{\mathbb{R}^{2N}}\frac{|u(x)-u(y)|^{p^+-2}(u(x)-u(y))(v(x)-v(y))}{|x-y|^{N+sp^+}}dxdy.$$ Observe $$\begin{aligned}
\label{s}
\langle\Psi^\prime(u_n),(u_n-u)\rangle&=\langle I_1(u_n),(u_n-u)\rangle+\langle I_2(u_n),(u_n-u)\rangle-\int_{\Omega}|u_n|^{(p^+)^*-2}u_n(u_n-u)dx\nonumber\\&~~~~-\int_{\Omega}|u_n|^{p_s^*(x)-2}u_n(u_n-u)dx-\lambda\int_{\Omega}|u_n|^{\beta(x)-2}u_n(u_n-u)dx.
\end{aligned}$$ Since $\{u_n\}$ is bounded in $W_0$, $\{u_n\}$ is also bounded in $L^{(p^+)^*}(\Omega)$ and $L^{p_s^*(x)}(\Omega)$. Thus, on applying the Hölder’s inequality we get $$\begin{aligned}
\left|\int_{\Omega}|u_n|^{(p^+)^*-2}u_n(u_n-u)dx\right|&\leq \int_{\Omega}|u_n|^{(p^+)^*-1}|u_n-u|dx\nonumber\\&\leq C \||u_n|^{(p^+)^*-1}\|_{L^{\frac{(p^+)^*}{(p^+)^*-1}}(\Omega)}\|u_n-u\|_{L^{(p^+)^*}(\Omega)}\nonumber\\&\leq C\|u_n-u\|_{L^{(p^+)^*}(\Omega)}=o_n(1).
\end{aligned}$$ Similarly we can show that $$\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty}\left(\int_{\Omega}\lambda|u_n|^{\beta(x)-2}u_n(u_n-u)dx+\int_{\Omega}|u_n|^{p_s^*(x)-2}u_n(u_n-u)dx\right)\rightarrow 0.$$ Passing the limit $n\rightarrow \infty$ in $\eqref{s}$ we get $\langle I_1(u_n),(u_n-u)\rangle+\langle I_2(u_n),(u_n-u)\rangle\rightarrow 0$. Therefore, $$\label{s+}
\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty}\left(\langle I_1(u_n)-I_1(u),(u_n-u)\rangle+\langle I_2(u_n)-I_2(u),(u_n-u)\rangle\right)=0.$$ Recall the Simon’s inequality [@Simon] given as$$\begin{aligned}
|x-y|^p&\leq\frac{1}{p-1}\left[\left(|x|^{p-2}x-|y|^{p-2}y\right).(x-y)\right]^{\frac{p}{2}}\left(|x|^p+|y|^p\right)^{\frac{2-p}{2}},~\text{if}~1<p<2.\nonumber\\|x-y|^p&\leq 2^p \left(|x|^{p-2}x-|y|^{p-2}y\right).(x-y),,~\text{if}~p\geq2.
\end{aligned}$$ Let us first consider the case $p^+>2$. Then using the Simon’s inequality we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{G}
\|u_n-u\|_{s,p^+}^{p^+}&=\int_{\mathbb{R}^{2N}}\frac{|(u_n-u)(x)-(u_n-u)(y)|^{p^+}}{|x-y|^{N+sp^+}}dxdy\nonumber\\&\leq\frac{1}{(p^+-1)}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{2N}}
\left\{\frac{|u_n(x)-u_n(y)|^{p^+-2}(u_n(x)-u_n(y))((u_n-u)(x)-(u_n-u)(y))}{|x-y|^{N+sp^+}}\right. \nonumber \\
&~~~~\left.\kern-\nulldelimiterspace -\;\frac{|u(x)-u(y)|^{p^+-2}(u(x)-u(y))((u_n-u)(x)-(u_n-u)(y))}{|x-y|^{N+sp^+}}\vphantom{}\right\}\nonumber\\&\leq C_1 \langle I_2(u_n)-I_2(u),(u_n-u)\rangle.\end{aligned}$$ Similarly for $1<p^+<2$, using Hölder’s inequality and the boundedness of $\{u_n\}$ in $W_0^{s,p^+}(\Omega)$, we establish the following. $$\begin{aligned}
\label{L}
\|u_n-u\|_{s,p^+}^{p^+}&\leq 2^{p^+}\langle I_2(u_n)-I_2(u),(u_n-u)\rangle^{\frac{p^+}{2}}\left(\|u_n\|_{s,p^+}^{p^+}+\|u\|_{s,p^+}^{p^+}\right)^{\frac{2-p^+}{2}}\nonumber\\& \leq C_2\langle I_2(u_n)-I_2(u),(u_n-u)\rangle^{\frac{p^+}{2}}\left(\|u_n\|_{s,p^+}^{p^+\frac{2-p^+}{2}}+\|u\|_{s,p^+}^{p^+\frac{2-p^+}{2}}\right)\nonumber\\&\leq C_3\langle I_2(u_n)-I_2(u),(u_n-u)\rangle^{\frac{p^+}{2}}.\end{aligned}$$ Considering both the inequalities $\eqref{G}$ and $\eqref{L}$, from $\eqref{s+}$ we obtain $$\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty}\langle I_1(u_n)-I_1(u),(u_n-u)\rangle\leq0.$$ Since $I_1$ is of $(S_+)$-type by Lemma $\ref{bah}$ (refer Appendix), we conclude that $u_n\rightarrow u$ strongly in $W_0$ and hence by simple calculation we get $\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty}\langle I_1(u_n)-I_1(u),(u_n-u)\rangle=0$. Therefore, from $\eqref{s+}$, $\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty}\langle I_2(u_n)-I_2(u),(u_n-u)\rangle=0$. By $\eqref{G}$ and $\eqref{L}$ we obtain that $u_n\rightarrow u$ strongly in $W_0^{s,p^+}(\Omega)$ and hence $u_n\rightarrow u$ strongly in X.
Clearly, $\Psi$ is a $C^1$ functional and also well-defined. Now to prove Theorem $\ref{exist}$ we first show that $\Psi$ satisfies the hypotheses of Mountain Pass theorem.
It can be concluded from the Lemma $\ref{palais}$ that $\Psi(0)=0$ and $\Psi$ satisfies the P-S condition below a certain energy level.\
[*Claim 1-*]{} For every $u\in X$, there exist $r>0$ and $0<\delta\leq 1$ such that $\Psi(u)\geq r>0$ for $\|u\|_{X}=\delta$.\
Let $\|u\|_{X}\leq1$, then using Theorem $\ref{cap}$ we observe $$\begin{aligned}
\Psi(u)&=\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}\frac{1}{p(x,y)}\frac{|u(x)-u(y)|^{p(x,y)}}{|x-y|^{N+sp(x,y)}}dydx+\frac{1}{p^+}\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}\frac{|u(x)-u(y)|^{p^+}}{|x-y|^{N+sp^+}}dydx\nonumber\\&~~~~-\frac{1}{(p^+)^*}\int_{\Omega}|u|^{(p^+)^*}dx-\int_{\Omega}\frac{1}{p_s^*(x)}|u|^{p_s^*(x)}dx-\lambda\int_{\Omega}\frac{1}{\beta(x)}|u|^{\beta(x)}dx\nonumber\\&\geq \frac{1}{p^+}\left(\|u\|_{W_0}^{p^+}+\|u\|_{s,p^+}^{p^+}\right)-\frac{C_1}{(p^+)^*}\|u\|_{X}^{(p^+)^*}-\frac{C_2}{(p_s^*)^-}\|u\|_{X}^{(p_s^*)^-}-\frac{\lambda C_3}{\beta^-}\|u\|_{X}^{\beta^-}\nonumber
\end{aligned}$$ where $C_i>0,~i=1,2,3$. Since, $p^+<\beta^-<(p_s^*)^-\leq(p^+)^*$, there exists $r>0$ and $0<\delta\leq1$ such that $\Psi(u)\geq r
>0$ for $\|u\|_{X}=\delta$.\
[*Claim 2-*]{} For any $v\in W_0$, we have $\Psi(tv)\rightarrow -\infty$ as $t\rightarrow+\infty$.\
Let $v\in W_0$ with $t>1$. Then it is easy to check that $\Psi(tv)\rightarrow -\infty$ as $t\rightarrow+\infty$. So the functional $\Psi$ satisfies the Mountain Pass geometry.\
[*Claim 3-*]{} There exists a $\Lambda>0$ such that $$0<\inf_{u\in X\setminus \{0\}}\sup_{t\geq0} \Psi(tu)<2^{-\frac{(p^+)^*p^+}{(p_s^*)^--p^+}}\left(\frac{1}{p^+}-\frac{1}{(p_s^*)^-}\right) \min\left(S^{\frac{N}{s}},S^{\frac{(p_s^*)^-p^+}{(p_s^*)^--p^+}}\right),~~\text{for}~\lambda>\Lambda.$$ Let us choose $v\in X$. Clearly, $\lim_{t\rightarrow \infty}\Psi(tv)=-\infty$ and $\lim_{t\rightarrow0^+}\Psi(tv)=0$. Thus, by Claim-1 and Claim-2, there exists a $t_\lambda>0$ such that $\sup_{t\geq0} \Psi(tu)=\Psi(t_\lambda v)$. Now $$\begin{aligned}
\Psi(tv)\leq \frac{t^{p^\pm}}{p^-}\|v\|_{W_0}^{p^\pm}+\frac{t^{p^+}}{p^+}\|v\|_{s,p^+}^{p^+}-\frac{t^{(p^\pm)^*}}{(p^+)^*}\|v\|_{L^{p_s^*(.)}(\Omega)}^{(p^\pm)^*}-\frac{t^{(p^+)^*}}{(p^+)^*}\|v\|_{L^{(p^+)^*}(\Omega)}^{(p^+)^*}-\frac{\lambda t^{\beta^\pm}}{\beta^+}\|v\|_{L^{\beta(.)}(\Omega)}^{\beta^\pm}.\nonumber
\end{aligned}$$ Here $U^{\alpha^\pm}$, for $\alpha>0$, denotes the maximum of $U^{\alpha^+}$ and $U^{\alpha^-}$. Therefore, $$\begin{aligned}
&0\leq \frac{p^\pm}{p^-}t_\lambda^{p^\pm-1}\|v\|_{W_0}^{p^\pm}+t_\lambda^{p^+-1}\|v\|_{s,p^+}^{p^+}-\frac{(p^\pm)^*}{(p^+)^*}t_\lambda^{(p^\pm)^*-1}\|v\|_{L^{p_s^*(.)}(\Omega)}^{(p^\pm)^*}\nonumber\\&~~~~-t_\lambda^{(p^+)^*-1}\|v\|_{L^{(p^+)^*}(\Omega)}^{(p^+)^*}-\frac {\lambda\beta^\pm} {\beta^+}t_\lambda^{\beta^\pm-1}\|v\|_{L^{\beta(.)}(\Omega)}^{\beta^\pm}.
\end{aligned}$$ So we have $$\begin{aligned}
\frac {\lambda\beta^\pm} {\beta^+}\|v\|_{L^{\beta(.)}(\Omega)}^{\beta^\pm}&\leq\frac{p^\pm}{p^-}t_\lambda^{p^\pm-\beta^\pm}\|v\|_{W_0}^{p^\pm}+t_\lambda^{p^+-\beta^\pm}\|v\|_{s,p^+}^{p^+}-\frac{(p^\pm)^*}{(p^+)^*}t_\lambda^{(p^\pm)^*-\beta^\pm}\|v\|_{L^{p_s^*(.)}(\Omega)}^{(p^\pm)^*}\nonumber\\&~~~~-t_\lambda^{(p^+)^*-\beta^\pm}\|v\|_{L^{(p^+)^*}(\Omega)}^{(p^+)^*}.\end{aligned}$$ Since $p^-\leq p^+<\beta^-\leq\beta^+<(p_s^*)^-\leq(p^+)^*$, we observe that $t_\lambda\rightarrow 0$ as $\lambda\rightarrow\infty$. Therefore, there exists a $\Lambda>0$ such that for any $\lambda>\Lambda$, $$\sup_{t\geq0} \Psi(tu)<2^{-\frac{(p^+)^*p^+}{(p_s^*)^--p^+}}\left(\frac{1}{p^+}-\frac{1}{(p_s^*)^-}\right) \min\left(S^{\frac{N}{s}},S^{\frac{(p_s^*)^-p^+}{(p_s^*)^--p^+}}\right).$$ and hence the claim. Thus, we conclude that there exists a critical point $u$ of $\Psi$ in $X$ which is also a weak solution of the problem $\eqref{pp}$.
Appendix
========
Following are a few Lemmas and results that have been used at several places in the manuscript.
\[lion\] Let $\mu$ and $\nu$ are two positive bounded measures on $\mathbb{R}^N$ satisfying $$\left(\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}|\phi|^h d\nu\right)^{\frac{1}{h}}\leq C\left(\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}|\phi|^t d\mu\right)^{\frac{1}{t}},~~\forall\phi\in C_c^\infty(\mathbb{R}^N),$$ for $1\leq t<h\leq\infty$ and for some $C>0$. Then there exist a countable set $I$, a collection of distinct points $\{x_i:i\in I\}\subset \mathbb{R}^N$ and $\{\nu_i:i\in I\}\subset(0,\infty)$ such that $$\nu=\sum_{i\in I}\nu_i\delta_{x_i},~~\mu\geq C^{-t}\sum_{i\in I}\nu_i^{\frac{t}{h}}\delta_{x_i}.$$
\[brezis\] Let $u_n\rightarrow u$ a.e. and $u_n\rightarrow u$ weakly in $L^p(\Omega)$ for all $n$ where $\Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^N$ and $0<p<\infty$. Then $$\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty}\left(\int_{\Omega}|u_n|^p-\int_{\Omega}|u_n-u|^p\right)=\int_{\Omega}|u|^p.$$
\[bah\] Consider the mapping $I_1:W_0\rightarrow W_0^*$ defined as $$\langle I_1(u),v\rangle=\int_{\mathbb{R}^{2N}}\frac{|u(x)-u(y)|^{p(x,y)-2}(u(x)-u(y))(v(x)-v(y))}{|x-y|^{N+sp(x,y)}}dxdy,$$ for every $u,v\in W_0$. Then the following properties hold for $I_1$.
1. $I_1$ is a bounded and strictly monotone operator.
2. $I_1$ is a mapping of $(S_+)$ type, i.e. if $u_n\rightarrow u$ weakly in $W_0$ and $\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty}\sup\langle I_1(u_n)-I_1(u),u_n-u\rangle\leq0$, then $u_n\rightarrow u$ strongly in $W_0$.
3. $I_1:W_0\rightarrow W_0^*$ is a homeomorphism.
The Lemma $\ref{bah}$ is a generalization of the Lemma 4.2 in [@Bahrouni2] where the authors worked with the space $\{u\in W^{s,q(.),p(.,.)}(\Omega):u=0$ in $\partial\Omega\}$. The proof here follows exactly the same arguments even in this case.
Conclusion {#conclusion .unnumbered}
==========
We have developed a concentration compactness type principle in a variable exponent setup. This has been applied to a problem involving fractional $(p(x),p^+)$-Laplacian to guarantee the existence of a nontrivial solution.
Acknowledgement {#acknowledgement .unnumbered}
===============
The author Akasmika Panda thanks the financial assistantship received from the Ministry of Human Resource Development (M.H.R.D.), Govt. of India. Both the authors also acknowledge the facilities received from the Department of mathematics, National Institute of Technology Rourkela.
[99]{} A. Bahrouni, Comparison and sub-supersolution principles for the fractional $p(x)$-Laplacian, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 458 (2), 2018, 1363-1372. A. Bahrouni, V. Rǎdulescu, On a new fractional Sobolev space and applications to nonlocal variational problems with variable exponent, Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst. Ser. S 11 (3), 2018, 379–389. M. Bhakta, D. Mukherjee, Multiplicity results for $(p,q)$ fractional elliptic equations involving critical nonlinearities, Adv. Differential Equations, 3/4(4), 185-228, 2019. G. M. Bisci, V. D. Rǎdulescu and R. Servadei, Variational Methods for Nonlocal Fractional Problems (Encyclopedia of Mathematics and its Applications), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 162, 2016. R. Biswas, S. Tiwari, Multiplicity and uniform estimate for a class of variable order fractional $p(x)$-Laplacian problems with concave-convex nonlinearities, arXiv:1810.12960v3 \[math.AP\], 2019. J. F. Bonder and A. Silva, Concentration-compactness principle for variable exponent spaces and applications, Elec. Jour. of Differ. Equ., 141, 2010, 1-18. J. F. Bonder, N. Saintier, A. Silva, The concentration-compactness principle for fractional order Sobolev spaces in unbounded domains and applications to the generalized fractional Brezis–Nirenberg problem, Nonlinear Differ. Equ. Appl., 2018, 25-52. H. Brézis, E. Lieb, A relation between pointwise convergence of functions and convergence of functionals, Proc. Am. Math. Soc., 88(3), 1983, 486–490. J. Chabrowski, Concentration-compactness principle at infinity and semilinear elliptic equations involving critical and subcritical Sobolev exponents, Calc. Var. Partial Differ. Equ, 3(4), 1995, 493–512. S. Dipierro, M. Medina, E. Valdinocci, Fractional elliptic problems with critical growth in the whole of $\mathbb{R}^N$, arXiv:1506.01748v2 \[math.AP\], 2016. X. L. Fan, D. Zhao, On the generalized Olicz-Sobolev space $W^{1,p(x)}(\Omega)$, J. Gansu Educ. college, 12(1), 1998, 1-6. Y. Fu, The principle of concentration compactness in $L^p(x)(\Omega)$ spaces and its application, Nonlinear Anal., 71(5-6), 2009, 1876–1892. J. Giacomoni, S. Tiwari and G. Warnault, Quasilinear parabolic problem with $p(x)$-laplacian: existence, uniqueness of weak solutions and stabilization, NoDEA Nonlinear Differential Equations Appl., 23, 2016, 24. K. Ho and Y. Kim, A-priori bounds and multiplicity of solutions for nonlinear elliptic problems involving the fractional $p(·)$-Laplacian, arXiv:1810.04818v1 \[math.AP\] 11 Oct 2018. U. Kaufmann, J. D. Rossi, R. Vidal, Fractional Sobolev spaces with variable exponents and fractional $p(x)$-Laplacians, Electronic Journal of Qualitative Theory of Differential Equations, 76, 2017, 1-10. P. L. Lions, The concentration-compactness principle in the calculus of variations, locally compact case, Part 1,2. Ann. Inst. H. Poincaré, 1 (1 and 4), 1984, 109-145, 223-283. P. L. Lions, The concentration-compactness principle in the calculus of variations, The limit case., part I, Rev. Mat. Iberoamericana, 1(1), 1985, 145–201. P. L. Lions, The concentration-compactness principle in the calculus of variations, The limit case., part II, Rev. Mat. Iberoamericana, 1(2), 1985, 45–121. P. Mironescu, W. Sickel, A Sobolev non embedding, Atti Accad. Naz. Lincei Cl. Sci. Fis. Mat. Natur. Rend. Lincei, (9) Mat. Appl., 26 (3), 2015, 291–298. S. Mosconi, K. Perera, M. Squassina, Y. Yang, The Brezis–Nirenberg problem for the fractional $p$-Laplacian, Calc. Var. Partial Differ. Equ., 55(4), 2016, 1–25. S. Mosconi, M. Squassina, Nonlocal problems at nearly critical growth, Nonlinear Analysis, 136, 2016, 84–101. G. Palatucci, A. Pisante, Improved Sobolev embeddings, profile decomposition and concentration-compactness for fractional Sobolev spaces. Calc. Var. Partial Differ. Equ. 50(3–4), 2014, 799–829. L. D. Pezzo and J. D. Rossi, Traces for fractional Sobolev spaces with variable exponents, Advances in Operator Theory, 2, 2017, 435-446. J. Simon, Régularité de la solution ďune équation non-linéaire dans $\mathbb{R}^n$, Journée ďAnalyse Non Linéaire. Proceedings, Besançon, France, Lectures notes in Mathematics. Springer-Verlag, 1997. E. Di Nezza, G. Palatucci, E. Valdinoci, Hitchhiker’s guide to the fractional Sobolev spaces, Bull. Sci. Math, 136, 2012, 521-573.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
author:
- 'A. Nicuesa Guelbenzu, S. Klose, J. Greiner, D. A. Kann, T. Krühler, A. Rossi, S. Schulze, P. M. J. Afonso, J. Elliott, R. Filgas, D. H. Hartmann, A. Küpcü Yoldaş, S. McBreen, M. Nardini, F. Olivares E., A. Rau, S. Schmidl, P. Schady, V. Sudilovsky, A. C. Updike, & A. Yoldaş'
bibliography:
- 'mypaper.bib'
date: 'Received 2012 May 4; accepted XXXX'
title: |
Multi-color observations of short GRB afterglows:\
20 events observed between 2007 and 2010
---
Introduction {#Intro}
============
Gamma-Ray Bursts (GRBs) show a bimodality in their duration distribution, separated in the CGRO/BATSE data at $T_{90}=2$ s, with the peak of the short-burst population at $T_{90}\sim$0.5 s and the long-burst population at $\sim$30 s (@Kouveliotou1993 [@Sakamoto2011ApJS]). Historically, bursts are still devided into long and short based on the BATSE scheme, even though the shape of the bimodal distribution is energy-dependent, in particular peaking for [*Swift*]{}/BAT at $T_{90}\sim0.5$ s and $\sim70$ s, respectively (@Sakamoto2011ApJS).
According to the current picture, long bursts originate from the collapse of massive stars into black holes (@MacFadyen1999) or into rapidly spinning, strongly magnetized neutron stars (e.g., @Usov1992 [@Mazzali2006]). Short bursts are instead commonly attributed to the merger of compact stellar objects (e.g., @Paczynski1986 [@Nakar2007]). The physical association of long bursts with the collapse of massive stars has been well established (e.g., @ZehKH2004 [@Hjorth2003Natur; @Pian2006Natur; @Ferrero2006; @WB2006; @Fruchter2006]). However, the observational situation with short bursts is less clear.
Until 2005 no afterglow of a short burst had ever been detected, while for the long burst sample at that time many important discoveries had already been made (redshifts, supernova light, collimated explosions, circumburst wind profiles). The first well-localized short burst (GRB 050509B; @Gehrels2005Natur) was seen close in projection to a massive early-type galaxy (@Hjorth2005 [@Bloom2006ApJ638]), supporting the model that compact stellar mergers are the progenitors of short-duration gamma-ray bursts. However, since then the observational progress has been rather modest when compared to the long-burst population (for a review @Gehrels2009 [@Berger2011NewAR]).
There are mainly two reasons for this situation. Firstly, compared to long bursts there is a substantially smaller detection rate of short bursts. Secondly, short-burst afterglows are rarely brighter than $R=20$ even minutes after a trigger (e.g., @Kann2010 [@Kann2011]). This general faintness makes their discovery and detailed follow-up very challenging. However, only the precise detection of the afterglow, with sub-arcsec accuracy, enables a secure determination of a putative GRB host galaxy and its redshift, while the X-ray plus optical light curves provide information about the processes that take place after the explosion, clues about the physics of the central engine, and the properties of the environment of the progenitor. Rapid follow-up observations of these events are therefore very important to gain as much observational data as possible.
Since there is a substantial overlap between the long and the short-burst duration distribution, the simple devision between long and short is only a first guess about the true origin of a burst under consideration. Several other phenomenological properties of the bursts and their afterglows have to be considered in order to reveal the nature of their progenitors (@Zhang2007 [@Zhang2009; @Kann2011]). Thereby, of special interest are the circumburst density profiles, the afterglow luminosities, and the outflow characteristics that might be shaped by or related to the physical properties of the GRB progenitors.
Theoretical studies suggest that long GRBs are followed by more luminous afterglows than short bursts, mainly due to the expected difference in the circumburst density around the GRB progenitors (@Panaitescu2001). Also the circumburst density profile is an indicator on the nature of the explosion (e.g., @Schulze2011). In addition, the distribution function of the jet-opening angles of long and short bursts should be different from each other since an extended massive envelope collimates the escaping relativistic outflow [@Zhang2004ApJ608], while the lack of such a medium in the case of merger events might allow for wider jet-opening angles [@Aloy2005; @Rezzolla2011]. Any short-burst afterglow that adds information here is naturally of great interest.
Here we report on the results of the first 3.5 years of follow-up observations of short-duration GRBs using the optical/NIR seven-channel imager GROND (@Greiner2007Msngr [@Greiner2008]) mounted at the 2.2-m ESO/MPG telescope on La Silla (Chile). GROND is in continuous operation since mid-2007. Since then it observes every burst with a declination $\lesssim
+35^\circ$, providing a complete sample of events observed with the same instrument at the same telescope. The capability of GROND to observe in seven bands simultaneously, from $g'$ to $K_s$, does not only provide the opportunity to follow the color evolution of an afterglow but also allows for a stacking of all bands; in particular a white-light image in $g'r'i'z'$ reaches a fainter detection threshold. In addition, GROND’s routine operation in Rapid Response Mode in principle allows us to start observations within minutes after a trigger, catching also afterglows even if they are fading rapidly.
In this work, we summarize the detections and upper limits for 20 short burst afterglows in $g'r'i'z'JHK_s$. First results have already been published in @NicuesaGuelbenzu2011a [ in the following paper I] and @NicuesaGuelbenzu2012a [ in the following paper II]. Here we add detailed information on all individual bursts. In particular, we compare the afterglow luminosities with those of their long-burst relatives. We also include X-ray data in order to extend this discussion to the high-energy band. If possible, based on our optical data, we derive the spectral energy distribution (SED) of the afterglows and give an estimate of the corresponding jet half-opening angles.
Throughout the paper, we adopt a concordance $\Lambda$CDM cosmology ($\Omega_M=0.27$, $\Omega_{\Lambda}=0.73$, $H_0=71$ km/s/Mpc; @Spergel2003), and the convention that the flux density is described as $F_\nu (t)\propto t^{-\alpha}\,\nu^{-\beta}$. In cases where no redshift is known for a burst, we adopt a redshift of $z$=0.5, as it is justified based on the redshift distribution of short bursts detected by [*Swift*]{} by the end of 2010 (@Leibler2010, their table 1).
Target selection, observations, and data reduction
==================================================
Between July 2007 and December 2010 altogether 394 GRBs were localized at the arcmin or (mostly) arcsec scale.[^1] Among them 220 events were followed up with GROND. For the present study, from this data base we have selected all those bursts with a duration of $T_{90} \leq 2$ s (within 1 $\sigma$) and an error circle smaller than 3 arcmin in radius (Table \[tab:coords\]), giving us 20 targets.
All optical/NIR data were analysed through standard PSF photometry using DAOPHOT and ALLSTAR tasks of IRAF (@Tody1993), in a similar way to the procedure described in @Thomas2008 and @Aybueke2008AIPC.1000. PSF fitting was used to measure the magnitudes of an optical transient. For completeness, publicly available archives were also checked (VLT/FORS and Gemini/GMOS).
The optical data were calibrated against the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS DR7; [@Abazajian2009]), if available. Otherwise a standard star field was observed under photometric conditions. For the NIR bands, photometric calibration was always performed against the 2MASS catalogue [@Skrutskie2006AJ]. This procedure results in a typical absolute accuracy of 0.04 mag in $g^\prime r^\prime i^\prime z^\prime$, 0.06 mag in $JH$ and 0.08 mag in $K_s$. All reported magnitudes are in the AB photometric system. Observed magnitudes were corrected for Galactic reddening based on [@Schlegel1998] and assuming a Milky Way extinction curve with a ratio of total-to-selective extinction of $R_V=3.1$. For GROND the Vega-to-AB conversion is $J_{\rm AB} = J_{\rm Vega} + 0.93$ mag, $H_{\rm AB} = H_{\rm
Vega} + 1.39$ mag, $K_{\rm AB} = K_{s,\rm Vega} + 1.80$ mag, except for observations after an intervention on the instrument on March 2008, for which $K_{\rm AB} = K_{s,\rm Vega} + 1.86$ mag. Extinction corrections for the GROND filters we have used here are: $A(g^\prime)= 1.253 \,A_V,\; A(r^\prime)= 0.799
\,A_V,\; A(i^\prime)= 0.615 \,A_V,\; A(z^\prime)= 0.454 \,A_V,\; A(J) = 0.292
\,A_V,\; A(H) = 0.184 \,A_V,\; A(K_s) = 0.136 \,A_V$.
Results
=======
In what follows, in several cases we combined GROND’s $g^\prime r^\prime
i^\prime z^\prime$ into a *white* band. This turned out to be particularly useful when searching for a faint afterglow, for studying the light-curve shape, and for measuring the offset of a detected afterglow from its suspected host galaxy. Image subtraction between the first and the last epoch, if applied, was performed using the *hotpants* package.[^2] Errors in the astrometric accuracy of GROND are less than 03 in right ascension and declination.
GRBs with an afterglow detected by GROND \[Sect1:OTs\]
------------------------------------------------------
Among the 20 events followed up by GROND, in six cases an optical afterglow was detected by GROND. Two of these events, GRB 090426 and GRB 090510, have been discussed in detail in paper I and II. Here we report on the four additional cases.
### GRB 081226A: Discovery of the optical afterglow \[081226.txt\]
[*Observations:*]{} GROND started observations 10 min after the GRB trigger and was on target for 2.5 hrs. Second-epoch observations were performed the following night and a final epoch was obtained 1 month after the burst. Inside the 90% c.l. XRT error circle ($r=3\farcs8$; @Evans12250 [@Evans12273]), the white-band image shows three objects (A-C; Fig. \[fig:081226A\]).
![*White*-band image of the field of GRB 081226A. Inside the 90% c.l. XRT error circle ($r=3\farcs8$) lie three objects (A,B,C). The position of the afterglow is indicated (C). In order to go deep, all GROND images of the first and the second epoch have been combined here.[]{data-label="fig:081226A"}](081226A.FC.ps){width="9.0cm"}
[*Afterglow light curve:*]{} After performing image subtraction on the *white*-band images, the afterglow appears in the southern part of its very faint host galaxy (object C in Fig. \[fig:081226A\]). It is detected in all optical bands (Table \[tab:logGROND.081226A\]) and is best-sampled in the $r^\prime$ band. Fitting the light curve with a single power-law plus host galaxy component (Fig. \[fig:081226A\_lc\]) gives $\alpha=1.3\pm0.2$, i.e., the afterglow was in the pre-jet break evolutionary phase. The decay slope is in agreement with the two X-ray detections of the afterglow centered at 0.6 ks and 11.5 ks (@Evans2010). We re-reduced archival Gemini $r^\prime$-band images (@Berger2008GCN8732) and find that they fit well into this light curve, confirming the GROND discovery.
Due to the faintness of the afterglow, a well-defined SED, corrected for host-galaxy light, cannot be constructed.
![ GROND $r^\prime$-band light curve of the afterglow of GRB 081226A fitted with a single powerlaw plus host galaxy component. Overplotted in green color are the Gemini-S/GMOS $r^\prime$-band data (Table \[tab:logGROND.081226A\]). No corrections for the slightly different filters have been performed.[]{data-label="fig:081226A_lc"}](081226A.GROND.only.eps){width="9.0cm"}
[*Energy budget:*]{} No redshift is known for GRB 081226A. Assuming a redshift of $z=0.5$ and using the data and the numerical approach from [@Butler2007][^3], we obtain an isotropic equivalent energy for this burst of $E_{\rm iso} =
2.0^{+1.7}_{-0.5}\,\times\,10^{50}$ erg. If there is a jet break in the optical light curve then it must have occurred after about 10 ks. Adopting an ISM profile, for the jet half-opening angle we have (e.g., @Frail2001ApJ562 [@Lu2011arXiv1110.4943L]) $$\begin{aligned}
\Theta_{\rm jet}&=&0.057 \, {\rm rad}\,\left(\frac{t_b}{1\ \rm
day}\right)^{3/8}\left(\frac{1+z}{2}\right)^{-3/8}\left(\frac{E_{\rm iso}}{10^{53}\ \rm
erg}\right)^{-1/8} \nonumber \\
&\times& \left(\frac{\eta_\gamma}{0.2}\right)^{1/8}\left(\frac{n}{0.1\ \rm
cm^{-3}}\right)^{1/8}\,.
\label{theta}\end{aligned}$$ Adopting a radiative efficiency of 0.2, and scaling the results to a rather low gas density of 0.01 cm$^{-3}$ as it might be implied for a neutron star merger, we obtain $\Theta_{\rm jet} \gtrsim 2.6^{+0.1}_{-0.2} \,\times\,
(n/0.01)^{1/8}$ deg and a beaming-corrected energy of $E_{\rm cor} \gtrsim
2.1^{+1.3}_{-0.4}\ 10^{47} \,\times\,(n/0.01)^{2/8}$ erg. There are no X-ray data for $t>10$ ks that could yield further evidence for a possible break in the afterglow light curve (@Evans2010).
[*Host galaxy:*]{} The underlying host galaxy (C) is very faint and only visible in the $g^\prime, r^\prime$ second-epoch images ($g' = 25.88\pm0.24,
r' = 25.79 \pm 0.34$). The offset of the afterglow from its center is $\lesssim$05. For an assumed redshift of $z=0.5$ this corresponds to $\lesssim$3 kpc. No statement can be made about the morphological type of this galaxy.
### GRB 090305: Discovery of a jet break
[*Afterglow light curve:*]{} GROND started observing the field 30 min after the [*Swift*]{}/BAT trigger and was on target for 1.5 hrs. The fading optical afterglow [@Cenko2009GCN8933; @Berger2009GCN8934] is detected in all optical bands but it is not seen in the NIR (Table \[tab:ULs\]).
Gemini-S/GMOS observed from 1.5 ks to 7.5 ks after the burst in $g',r',i'$ and discovered the afterglow (@Cenko2009GCN8933); no detailed light curve data have been published so far, with $i'$-band data affected by strong fringing. Figure \[fig:GROND090305lc\] shows the result of the simultaneous fit of all data (GROND/Gemini) using a broken power-law with the Gemini data overplotted. The fit finds a break in the light curve at $t_b=6.6\pm0.4$ ks, a pre-break decay slope of $\alpha_1=0.56\pm0.04$, and a post-break decay slope of $\alpha_2 = 2.29\pm0.60$. The pre-break decay slope is rather shallow but not unusual (e.g., @Zeh2006). There is no X-ray light curve available for this afterglow (@Beardmore8937).
![ The field of GRB 090305: the optical afterglow (A) and the object closest to it (B). Shown here is the $g'r'i'z'$-combined (*white*-band) image taken between 4 ks to 7 ks after the burst. The circle is just drawn to guide the eye; there is no independent [*Swift*]{}/XRT position (@Beardmore2009GCN8937).[]{data-label="fig:090305host"}](090305.FC.ps){width="9.0cm"}
![ Gemini and GROND light curve of the optical afterglow of GRB 090305. All data are fit simultaneously. Open circles are GROND while filled circles are Gemini. Color coding: green $g'$ band (shifted by $+0.5$ mag), red $r'$ band, brown $i'$ band (shifted by $-0.5$ mag), black $z'$ band (shifted by $-1$ mag).[]{data-label="fig:GROND090305lc"}](090305_JointFit2.eps){width="9.0cm"}
[*SED:*]{} By fitting the Gemini $g'$ and $r'$-band data together with the GROND $g'r'i'z'$-band data we find a spectral slope of $\beta_{\rm opt}=0.52
\pm 0.15$ ($\chi^2$/d.o.f.=0.66). No evidence for color evolution was found. Applying the $\alpha-\beta$ relations, there is no solution with $p>2$ for the pre-jet break phase; the light curve decay is too shallow at that time (Table \[tab:alphabeta090305\]). On the other hand, the observed spectral slope suggests that between about 2 ks and 8 ks it was $\nu_{\rm opt} <
\nu_c$, since then $p= 2\beta+1 = 2.04 \pm 0.32$, a standard value. Possibly, the deduced shallow $\alpha_1$ indicates that at early times the evolution of the light curve was affected by re-brightening episodes or energy injections. No decision can be made between a wind and an ISM model.
![GROND SED of the afterglow of GRB 090305 at 6 ks after the burst, after correction for Galactic extinction. Index G stands for GROND.[]{data-label="fig:090305SED"}](090305_SED3.eps){width="9.0cm"}
---------------------------- ------------------- ------------------- --------------- --
\[-2mm\] afterglow model $\beta(\alpha)$ predicted $\beta$ $p$
\[2mm\]
\[-2mm\] ISM, iso, case 1 $(2\alpha_1+1)/3$ 0.71$\pm$0.06 $1.42\pm$0.12
ISM, iso, case 2 $ 2\alpha_1/3 $ 0.38$\pm$0.06 $1.76\pm$0.12
\[1mm\] ISM, jet, case 1 $\alpha_2/2$ 1.15$\pm$0.32 $2.30\pm$0.50
ISM, jet, case 2 $(\alpha_2-1)/2$ 0.65$\pm$0.32 $2.30\pm$0.50
\[1mm\]
\[-3mm\] wind, iso, case 1 $(2\alpha_1+1)/3$ 0.71$\pm$0.06 $1.42\pm$0.12
wind, iso, case 2 (2$\alpha_1-1$)/3 0.05$\pm$0.06 $1.10\pm$0.12
\[1mm\] wind, jet, case 1 $\alpha_2/2$ 1.15$\pm$0.32 $2.30\pm$0.50
wind, jet, case 2 $(\alpha_2-1)/2$ 0.65$\pm$0.32 $2.30\pm$0.50
\[1mm\]
---------------------------- ------------------- ------------------- --------------- --
: GRB 090305: Predicted $\beta$ based on the $\alpha-\beta$ relations using $\alpha_1=0.56\pm0.04$ and $\alpha_2=2.29\pm0.60$.
\[tab:alphabeta090305\] Case 1 stands for $\nu > \nu_c$, case 2 for $\nu < \nu_c.$ In the former case the power-law index of the electron distribution function is given by $p=2\beta$, whereas in the latter case $p=2\beta+1$ (@Sari1999).
[*Energy budget:*]{} Assuming a redshift of $z=0.5$, and following the same procedure as in Sect. \[081226.txt\], we find $E_{\rm iso} =
2.1^{+1.7}_{-0.7}\,\times\,10^{50}$ erg. The observed break time, if interpreted as a jet break in an ISM medium (Eq. \[theta\]), leads to a jet half-opening angle of $\Theta_{\rm jet} = 2.2^{+0.2}_{-0.1} \,\times\,
(n/0.01)^{1/8}$ deg and a beaming-corrected energy release of $E_{\rm cor} =
1.6^{+0.9}_{-0.4}\ 10^{47}\,\times\,(n/0.01)^{2/8}$ erg.
[*Host galaxy:*]{} At the position of the optical transient there is no evidence for an underlying host galaxy in any band, only upper limits can be given ($g'r'i'z'JHK_s >$ 25.7, 26.0, 24.5, 24.2, 22.4, 22.0, 20.6). The object closest to the optical afterglow is a faint source at a distance of 14 (object B; see Fig. \[fig:090305host\]). This object is only detected in the GROND $i^\prime$ band with a magnitude of $24.1\pm0.2$. Object B is also detected in Gemini $r^\prime$ band data taken 10 days after the burst at a magnitude of $26.0\pm0.1$. It was also imaged with VLT/FORS in $R_c$ (program ID 082.D-0451; PI: A. Levan).
Following the procedure described in [@Bloom2002a] and [@Perley2009], the probability to find a galaxy as bright as object B within 14 distance from the afterglow is about 7%. Formally, this small probability makes B a host galaxy candidate. If its observed color ($r^\prime -i^\prime$= $2.3\pm0.2$ mag) is due to the redshifted stellar 4000 Å bump, then its redshift is around $z=0.5$.[^4] For $z=0.5$ the projected distance of the afterglow from object B would then be 8.5 kpc.
### GRB 090927: A wind medium?
[*Observations:*]{} GROND started observations about 17 hrs after the burst and continued for 1.5 hrs. A second-epoch observation was performed the following night for about 1 hr. Both observing runs were affected by bad seeing (23). The afterglow is clearly fading in all GROND optical bands, while it was not detected in the NIR.
[*Afterglow light curve:*]{} The GROND $r^\prime$-band light curve can be fitted with a single power-law that has a slope of $\alpha=1.32\pm0.14\ (\chi^2$/d.o.f. = 0.39; Fig. \[fig:090927lc\]), which is also in agreement with the results from the Faulkes Telescope South (@Cano2009GCN9960) and the VLT (@Levan2009GCN9958). The first two $R$-band data points from the Zadko telescope, however (@Klotz2009GCN9956; see appendix), lie about 1 mag below the extrapolated fit (but also have large errors). Those data suggest that between 2 and 4 hours after the burst the optical flux was nearly constant. At the same time the X-ray light curve shows strong fluctuations but also seems to be in a plateau phase.
Assuming for the X-ray light curve a single power-law decay, for $t>20$ ks we obtain $\alpha_{\rm X} =1.30\pm0.07$. On the other hand, the outlier at 70 ks could also be interpreted as evidence for a break in the X-ray light curve. However, the light curve decay after the break is then too shallow for a post-jet break decay slope. We thus conclude that also the X-ray afterglow is best described by pre-jet break evolution up to the end of the XRT observations. A decay slope of 1.3 is in agreement with the ensemble statistics of pre jet-break decay slopes for long-burst afterglows [@Zeh2006].
![ The $r',i'$-band light curve of the optical afterglow of GRB 090927 (the $i'$-band is shifted by $-$0.6 mag; Table \[tab:logGROND.090927\]). Overplotted are also $R$-band data reported in GCN Circulars (@Klotz2009GCN9956 [@Cano2009GCN9960; @Levan2009GCN9958]; in violet) as well as the X-ray data [@Evans2010].[]{data-label="fig:090927lc"}](090927.Xgriz.eps){width="9.0cm"}
[*SED:*]{} The SED of the afterglow was constructed by combining all GROND data taken from 64 ks to 66 ks after the trigger, when the seeing was best (about $2''$). It is best fit by a power law with no extinction in the host galaxy ($A_V^{\rm host}=0$; Fig. \[fig:090927SED\]). The spectral slope is $\beta_{\rm opt}=0.41\pm0.16$. The $\alpha-\beta$-relations then imply that at the time of the GROND observations it was $\nu_{\rm opt} < \nu_c$ (Table \[tab:alphabeta090927\]). The spectral slope $\beta_{\rm X}$ in the X-ray band during this time period was $1.2\pm0.2$ (@Evans2010), which in combination with the spectral slope in the optical points to $\nu_{\rm opt} < \nu_c < \nu_{\rm X}$ and prefers a wind over an ISM model. For the pre-jet break phase this order in frequencies implies $\alpha_X-\alpha_{\rm opt} =\pm 0.25$ ($-$ for a wind, + for an ISM), while we measure a difference of $-0.02\pm0.17$, not favoring any of both models.
Figure \[fig:090927XOSED\] shows the optical-to-X-ray SED of the afterglow at $t$=65 ks. Using a Galactic $N_{\rm H} = 2.9\,\times\,10^{20}$ cm$^{-2}$, for the given redshift ($z=1.37$; @Levan2009GCN9958) the fit finds no evidence for host extinction (SMC dust; $A_V^{\rm host}=0.02\pm0.02$ mag), a spectral slope $\beta_{\rm opt}=
0.57_{-0.10}^{+0.17}$, and a break energy of 42 eV ($\chi^2$/d.o.f.=196/229 = 0.85). A fit with a single power-law is worse, confirming that $\nu_{\rm
opt} < \nu_c < \nu_{\rm X}$.
![ SED of the afterglow of GRB 090927 at $t=$65 ks (from $g^\prime$ to $K_s$). It is best fit by a power law with no evidence for extinction in the host galaxy. Note that the NIR bands are only upper limits.[]{data-label="fig:090927SED"}](090927_SED2.eps){width="9.0cm"}
![Optical-to-X-ray SED of the afterglow of GRB 090927 at $t=$65 ks.[]{data-label="fig:090927XOSED"}](090927_XSED.eps){width="6.7cm"}
[*Energy budget:*]{} Assuming a wind model, it is (@Bloom2003ApJ594) $$\begin{aligned}
\Theta_{\rm jet}&=&0.169 \, {\rm rad}\,\left(\frac{t_b}{1\ \rm
day}\right)^{1/4}\left(\frac{1+z}{2}\right)^{-1/4}\left(\frac{E_{\rm iso}}{10^{52}\ \rm
erg}\right)^{-1/4} \nonumber \\
&\times& A_\star^{1/4}\ \left(\frac{\eta_\gamma}{0.2}\right)^{1/4}\,,
\label{thetaWind}\end{aligned}$$ where $A_\star$ is the wind density parameter (@Chevalier2000ApJ536) and, similar to Eq. (\[theta\]), we have introduced a radiative efficiency $\eta_\gamma$. For a jet-break time of $t_b>6\,\times\,10^5$ s (as implied by the X-ray data), then for $z=1.37$ and $\eta_\gamma =0.2$, with $E_{\rm iso} =
4.5^{+3.0}_{-2.0}\,\times\,10^{51}$ erg, we find $\Theta_{\rm jet} \gtrsim
12\pm2$ deg and $E_{\rm cor} \gtrsim 1.0^{+0.3}_{-0.2} \,\times\,10^{50}$ erg. An ISM model (Eq. \[theta\]) gives $\Theta_{\rm jet} =
7.0^{+0.5}_{-0.4} \,\times\, (n/0.01)^{1/8}$ deg and $E_{\rm cor} =
3.4^{+1.5}_{-1.2}\ 10^{49}\,\times\,(n/0.01)^{2/8}$ erg.
---------------------------- ------------------- ------------------- --------------- ----------------- --
\[-2mm\] afterglow model $\beta(\alpha)$ $\beta_{\rm opt}$ $p$ $\beta_{\rm X}$
\[2mm\]
\[-2mm\] ISM, iso, case 1 $(2\alpha_1+1)/3$ 1.21$\pm$0.09 $2.42\pm$0.18 1.20$\pm$0.05
ISM, iso, case 2 $ 2\alpha_1/3 $ 0.88$\pm$0.09 $2.76\pm$0.18 0.87$\pm$0.05
\[1mm\]
\[-3mm\] wind, iso, case 1 $(2\alpha_1+1)/3$ 1.21$\pm$0.09 $2.42\pm$0.18 1.20$\pm$0.05
wind, iso, case 2 (2$\alpha_1-1$)/3 0.55$\pm$0.09 $2.10\pm$0.18 0.53$\pm$0.05
\[1mm\]
---------------------------- ------------------- ------------------- --------------- ----------------- --
: GRB 090927: Predicted $\beta$ based on the $\alpha-\beta$ relations using $\alpha=1.32\pm0.14$ (for details see Table \[tab:alphabeta090305\]).
\[tab:alphabeta090927\]
Note: $p$ is given based on $\beta_{\rm opt}$.
[*Host galaxy:*]{} Observations performed two years after the trigger show no evidence of a host galaxy at the position of the optical transient down to deep upper limits $(g'r'i'z'JHK_s >$ 25.2, 25.2, 24.5, 24.2, 22.3, 21.6, 20.4). The late-epoch data reveal that there are two objects (A and B) within a radius of 10 arcsec centered at the position of the optical afterglow (Fig. \[fig:090927host\]). Both objects are clearly extended. If one of them is the host then the projected offset of the burst was 65 and 75, respectively. For a redshift of $z=1.37$ (@Levan2009GCN9958) this corresponds to a projected distance of 55 kpc and 63 kpc, respectively. If the progenitor of GRB 090927 was a collapsar, this large distance rules out that A or B is the putative host.
![ Finding chart of the field of GRB 090927 (GROND $g^\prime r^\prime i^\prime
z^\prime$-band combined). *Left:* First-epoch detection of the afterglow with GROND. *Right:* Deep, late-epoch observation of the field in June 2011. The circle (25 in radius), drawn to guide the eye, is centered at the position of the optical afterglow. A and B label the two galaxies nearest to the afterglow.[]{data-label="fig:090927host"}](090927.FC.ps){width="9.0cm"}
### GRB 100117A: Determination of the afterglow decay slope
[*Observations:*]{} GROND started observing the field of GRB 100117A 3.5 hrs after the GRB trigger and was on target for one hour (Fig. \[fig:100117Ahost\]). The host galaxy flux was measured half a year later.
![ Combined GROND $g^\prime r^\prime i^\prime z^\prime$-band (white) image of the field of GRB 100117A taken half a year after the burst. The circle is just drawn to guide the eye, it is centered at the position of the optical transient discovered by [@Fong2010] and circumscribes the GRB host galaxy.[]{data-label="fig:100117Ahost"}](100117A.FC.ps){width="9.0cm"}
[*Afterglow:*]{} The optical afterglow on top of its host galaxy was discovered by [@Fong2010]. During the first night for the host plus afterglow we measure a $g^\prime,r^\prime$-band magnitude of $24.37\pm 0.25,
23.72\pm 0.18$, while in the late-epoch data $g^\prime,r^\prime=25.44\pm 0.37,
24.60\pm 0.35$, resulting in a decay between both epochs of $1.07\pm0.45$ mag and $0.88\pm0.39$ mag, respectively.
The second-epoch data can be used to remove the host galaxy flux from the first epoch data. Based on this result, we obtain an afterglow magnitude of $r^\prime\sim 24.3$ during our first-epoch observations at a mean time of $t=4.3$ hr. We can estimate the decay slope of the afterglow light curve by comparing this result with the $r$-band detection of the afterglow by [@Fong2010] 8.3 hrs after the burst. This gives $\alpha\sim 1.3$, assuming no color transformation between both filters. This result is confirmed by combining the GROND $g'r'i'$ images into a *white* band. Figure \[fig:100117ALC\] shows the corresponding light curve of the afterglow during the first night, providing a slope of $\alpha=1.2$, indicating that during this time period the afterglow was still in its pre jet-break phase.
![ Combined GROND $g^\prime r^\prime i^\prime$ white-band light curve of the decaying afterglow of GRB 100117A, centered on galaxy (Fig. \[fig:100117Ahost\]). Also shown is the host galaxy magnitude as a straight line, including the $1\sigma$ error (measured by GROND eight months after the burst). Note that the $y-$axis shows arbitrarily magnitudes.[]{data-label="fig:100117ALC"}](100117A.white.host.eps){width="9.0cm"}
[*Energy budget:*]{} [*Swift*]{}/XRT data do not cover the time period when GROND and [@Fong2010] were observing. The last X-ray detection is at $477^{+101}_{-57}$ s after the trigger [@Evans2010]. In particular, since the very last XRT data point at around 0.5 d is only an upper limit, optical and XRT data cannot be compared. If the afterglow was in the pre-jet break decay phase until at least 8.3 hr after the burst, in combination with the observed isotropic equivalent energy of $E_{\rm iso} =
51.0^{+0.1}_{-0.1}\,\times\,10^{50}$ erg [@Kann2011] and a redshift of $z=0.92$ [@Fong2010], the lower limit on the jet half-opening angle is (Eq. \[theta\]) $\Theta_{\rm jet} = 2.4\,\times\, (n/0.01)^{1/8}$ deg and $E_{\rm cor} \gtrsim 4.6\ 10^{48}\,\times\,(n/0.01)^{2/8}$ erg.
[*Host galaxy:*]{} Our data do not allow us to measure the offset of the afterglow from its host galaxy center; [@Fong2010], using their Gemini-N/GMOS observations, obtained 60$\pm$40 mas, corresponding to $0.5\pm0.3$ kpc.
GRBs with no afterglow detected by GROND \[Sect2:NOTs\]
-------------------------------------------------------
The results for those 14 out of 20 GRBs where GROND could not detect the afterglow are summarized in Table \[tab:ULs\]. In most cases we were on target within some hours after the burst. In all cases deep upper limits can be provided, in particular in the NIR, where we reach up to $J$=22.7, $H$=22.0, and $K_s$=21.2. The individual observations by GROND are described in detail in the appendix. However, of particular interest are two events (GRB 080919, 100702A), where observations started within less than 10 min after the trigger.
### GRB 080919 \[080919.txt\]
GROND started observing the field 8 min after the burst. Due to a delay in secure XRT coordinates (@Preger2008GCN8270), during the first 30 min only the NIR images cover the afterglow position. Deep second-epoch observations were performed with GROND three years after the burst. Image subtraction was performed between second and first-epoch data in all bands but no afterglow was found. Probably the main reason for this non-detection is the presence of a bright star inside the error circle which makes it difficult to detect any faint transient in spite of the small XRT error circle (90% c.l. radius $r=1\farcs6$; @Evans12273). Therefore, we note that the upper limits we provide in Table \[tab:ULs\] refer to isolated objects in the field while the more reliable upper limits for the afterglow can be substantially less deep than reported there.
![ The field of GRB 080919. The XRT error circle (radius $r=1\farcs6$) lies close to a relatively bright foreground star.[]{data-label="fig:080919psfsub"}](080919.FC.ps){width="8.4cm"}
### GRB 100702A
GROND started to observe the field 2.5 min after the burst. Inside the 90% c.l. XRT error circle ($r$=24; @Siegel2010GCN10916) the GROND data reveal two bright objects (A, B) within the XRT error circle and two others (C, D) close by (Fig. \[fig:100702chart\]; see also @Malesani2010GCN10918). Objects A and B look have a point-like PSF and might be stars, while C and D might be galaxies.
![Finding chart of the field of GRB 100702A in the GROND $J$ band. Shown also is the 90% c.l. XRT error circle ($r=2\farcs4$; @Siegel2010GCN10916).[]{data-label="fig:100702chart"}](100702A.FC.ps){width="9.0cm"}
Image subtraction and PSF photometry in each band was performed for all objects but no evidence for variability was found, neither in the optical nor in the NIR bands; only upper limits can be provided for any afterglow (Table \[tab:ULs\]). Similarly to GRB 080919, the upper limits refer to isolated objects in the field.
Discussion
==========
Including our discovery of the afterglow and host galaxy of GRB 081226A, nine out of 20 short-bursts in our sample have a discovered optical transient, while six have only a [*Swift*]{}/XRT and four have only a BAT/IBIS localization with no optical afterglow. Among the 9 bursts with detected optical transient six events have a redshift reported in the literature. An additional redshift information comes from the identification of the host galaxies in the case of GRBs 100206A [@Cenko10389; @Perley2011], 100628A [@Cenko10946], and 101219A [@Chornock11518]. These redshifts range from $z=0.10$ (GRB 100628A) to $z=2.61$ (GRB 090426). Four of the 9 bursts have a redshift of smaller than 0.5, a high percentage compared to the long-burst population; for more redshifts of short-bursts see the compilations by [@Berger2009ApJ690] and [@Kann2011].
The best-sampled light curves are those of GRB 090426 (paper I) and GRB 090510 (paper II) followed by (ordered by sampling quality) GRBs 090305, 081226A, 090927, and 100117A. Only the afterglow of GRB 090426 has NIR detections. In three cases we find a clear break in the light curve, partly in combination with data obtained at other facilities. Two of these events (GRBs 090426, 090510) were imaged by GROND in the post-break decay phase only and for GRB 090305 the data included also the pre-break phase. In principle, the three breaks might be interpreted as jet breaks but for GRB 090510 the [*Swift*]{}/UVOT data suggest a different explanation, namely the passage of the injection frequency across the GROND bands (for details see @Kumar2010, @DePasquale2010 and paper II). For the other three cases the light curves can be fitted with a single power law and, based on the deduced decay slope, observations were performed during the pre-jet break evolutionary phase. The light curve decay slopes as well as the spectral slopes are not different from what is known for the long-burst sample (Table \[tab:summary\]).
Optical luminosities
--------------------
In the last years, evidence has been mounting that the classical $T_{90}$ division between short and long GRBs is not transferable to a more physically inspired division between progenitor models. It seems that merging compact objects may result in high-energy emission on timescales far exceeding $T_{90}=2$ s, whereas conversely collapsar-triggered GRBs can be luminous short spikes with $T_{90,rest}<2$ s. This led [@Zhang2007] to propose, analogous to the designations of supernovae, that GRBs come in two types: Type I GRBs stem from the coalescence of massive compact objects, whereas Type II GRBs are associated with the core-collapse of massive stars. [@Zhang2009] studied the observational signatures of the two classes and devised a scheme to classify GRBs. [@Kann2011] studied a large sample of Type I candidate GRBs, adding the optical afterglow luminosity at late times as an additional criterion to discern the two classes, with Type I GRB afterglows being much less luminous than those of Type II GRBs.
![ Light curves of long and short GRB afterglows. These light curves have been corrected individually for Galactic foreground extinction following [@Schlegel1998], and, if possible, host galaxy contribution. The thin gray lines are the long GRB sample of [@Kann2010]. The red squares connected by splines represent the afterglow detections reported by [@Kann2011]. The short GRB afterglows detected by GROND and presented in paper I and II as well as this work are given as labeled thick black lines (they may include additional data beyond the GROND detections). Upper limits presented in this work (Table \[tab:ULs\]) are given as blue triangles. GRB 100702A is highlighted also because of its very early upper limits. The last data point for GRB 100117A is from [@Fong2010], the others as well as the data for GRBs 090305 and 081226A are presented in this paper. Early data for GRB 090927 are taken from [@Klotz2009GCN9956], [@Levan2009GCN9958], [@Cano2009GCN9960] as well as [@Kuin2009GCN9954].[]{data-label="fig:AlexLCobs"}](Graph11AnaS.eps){width="8.9cm"}
{width="18.5cm"}
So far, in this work, we have discussed the sample based on the classic $T_{90}$ division. What can the optical luminosity of the afterglows (or upper limits thereon) tell us about the likely progenitor systems? Figure \[fig:AlexLCobs\] is a continuation of the plots shown in [@Kann2006; @Kann2010; @Kann2011]. Against the background of Type II GRB afterglow light curves (thin gray lines), we show the Type I GRB afterglow detections as presented in (@Kann2011; red squares connected by splines, upper limits have been omitted for clarity) as well as the detected afterglows (thick black splines) and upper limits (downward-pointing blue triangles) derived by GROND in this work as well as in paper I and II.
Already in this plot it is visible that the short GRB afterglows are less bright than the mean brightness of the long GRB afterglows, with half of them (GRBs 090305, 10017A and 081226A) being as faint or fainter than the faintest so-far detected long GRB afterglows. A true comparison needs to account for the redshift and intrinsic extinction, though.
Figure \[fig:AlexLC\] shows the light curves of the six short GRBs detected with GROND in the $z=1$ reference frame, having been corrected for both distance and intrinsic reddening in the GRB host galaxy, if possible [@Kann2006; @Nardini2006]. A redshift of $z=0.5$ and zero host extinction was assumed for all cases where these values are not known. Of the six afterglows, that of GRB 090426 is now seen to be the most luminous, followed by the ones of GRBs 090927 and 090510. Several arguments have already been put forward that the origin of 090426 was a collapsar event (see paper I and references therein). Between about 0.01 and 0.1 d after the burst (measured in the GRB host frame), its magnitude (for the fixed distance a measure of the luminosity) was about 2 mag brighter than the magnitude of the optical afterglow of the other two events. The optical afterglow of GRB 090510, if due to a merger event, must be characterized as very luminous between $\sim0.005$ and 0.1 d after the burst. Because of its emission in the 10-100 GeV band and its outstandingly small jet half-opening angle of $\Theta_{\rm jet}\lesssim
1^\circ$ (@DePasquale2010 [@He2011; @Kumar2010], paper II; if correctly interpreted in this way), it was special in several other respects, too. The optical afterglow of GRB 090927 reached the luminosity of the afterglow of GRB 090426 at about 1 d after the burst, but its further evolution is unfortunately unknown. This moderately high optical luminosity along with significant lag and other spectral characteristics [@Stamatikos2009GCN9955] and a redshift beyond what is seen for Type I GRBs [@Levan2009GCN9958] argue that GRB 090927 is also likely to be a Type II GRB. All other afterglows with GROND detections or GROND upper limits fall well within the Type I GRB sample.
Between about 0.01 and 0.1 d (host frame time) the three optical afterglows mentioned above (which have a measured redshift) were about $7 \pm 1$ mag brighter than the afterglows of GRBs 081226A, 090305, and 100117A (among which only the latter has a secure redshift).[^5] For GRB 090510, the situation changes after about 0.1 d, when the early break and following steep decay (paper II) lead it to become much fainter than the Type II GRB afterglows [see also @Kann2011]. From the perspective of optical luminosities, we therefore find additional evidence for a collapsar origin of GRB 090927, despite its short duration, whereas there is no evidence indicating that GRBs 090305 and 081226A are not members of the classical short/Type I GRB population. We note in passing, though, that [@Panaitescu2011] also discussed a collapsar origin for GRB 090510.
Jet half-opening angles
-----------------------
Observations of jet breaks in short-burst afterglow light curves are rather sparse, in the optical as well as in the X-ray band. In the optical band, the best-sampled cases are GRBs 090426 and 090510, but the former burst is suspected to be due to a collapsar explosion rather than due to a merger event (e.g., @Thoene2011MNRAS), while the latter stands apart even from the long-burst sample due to its very small jet half-opening angle (@He2011). The third member of this group is GRB 050709 with an estimated $\Theta_{\rm jet}\sim 14$ deg [@Fox2005Natur437], which is based on a very sparsely sampled light curve, however.
In the X-ray band the observational situation is not much better. The best case might again be GRB 090510 [@DePasquale2010], followed by GRBs 050724, 051221A, 061201, and 111020A. Unfortunately, the first burst (GRB 050724) allows only for an estimate of a lower limit on $\Theta_{\rm jet}$ ($\gtrsim 25$ deg; @Grupe2006ApJ653 [@Malesani2007]), while GRB 051221A relies on a rather well-sampled light curve (leading to $\Theta_{\rm jet}
\sim$4–8 deg; @Burrows2006ApJ653 [@Soderberg2006]). The X-ray light curve of GRB 061201 is well-sampled, too [@Stratta2007]; again the observed break time is quite early ($\sim$40 min; $\Theta_{\rm jet}$=1–2 deg). Recently, [@Fong2012arXiv1204.5475F] reported on the X-ray light curve of the short burst 111020A, which showed a break at 2 d, leading to an estimated $\Theta_{\rm jet} = 3-8$ deg for an assumed $z$=0.5-1.5 and $n\sim$0.01 cm$^{-3}$.
Figure \[fig:Thetas\] shows the observed distribution of jet half-opening angles of long-bursts based on the compilation of [@Lu2011arXiv1110.4943L] compared to the short-burst sample (a similar plot is recently shown by [@Fong2012arXiv1204.5475F]. The latter contains the results summarized in Table \[tab:summary\], supplemented by GRBs 061006 ($\Theta_{\rm
jet}\sim 5$ deg), 070714B ($\Theta_{\rm jet}\gtrsim 4$ deg), and 071227 ($\Theta_{\rm jet}\gtrsim 4$ deg) taken from the compilation of [@Fan2011] but using $\eta_\gamma=0.2$ instead of 1.0 (i.e., multiplying their numbers by 0.8; Eq. \[theta\]). At a first view, this figure shows tentative evidence that short bursts have wider jet-opening angles than long bursts. Some caution is necessary, however. First at all, when calculating the jet half-opening angles, [@Lu2011arXiv1110.4943L] assumed $n=0.1$ cm$^{-3}$ and $\eta_\gamma=0.2$ throughout. Even though $\Theta_{\rm
jet}$ is only modestly sensitive to changes in both parameters (see Eq. \[theta\]), gas densities derived for bursts based on multi-wavelength data show a spread from burst to burst by several orders of magnitude (e.g., @Panaitescu2001ApJ554). Second, error bars in $\Theta_{\rm jet}$ are not taken into account in the histogram. Similarly, our standard assumption of $n=0.01$ cm$^{-3}$ for short bursts is a simplification, too. Possibly for individual bursts it can be wrong by a factor of up to 100 in both directions. Finally, our plot contains only long bursts with measured jet break times. A more detailed study should also contain those long bursts for which only a lower limit on $\Theta_{\rm jet}$ can be given (e.g., @Grupe2007ApJ662).
![ The observed distribution of jet half-opening angles of 74 long bursts (based on the compilation in @Lu2011arXiv1110.4943L) compared to the short-burst sample. Since the latter has much less data, we do not plot a histogram but only points. An arrow indicates a lower limit on $\Theta_{\rm
jet}$. The Type I events GRB 051221A, 060614, and 070714B listed in [@Lu2011arXiv1110.4943L] have not been used for the plot of the long-burst data.[]{data-label="fig:Thetas"}](Theta.eps){width="9.0cm"}
X-ray afterglows
----------------
We selected from the [*Swift*]{} Burst Analyser [@Evans2010] all bursts with detected X-ray afterglow and measured redshift that were detected between January 2005 and August 2011. We then shifted all light curves to their rest frames following @Greiner2009ApJ693. If no redshift information is available for a short-burst in our sample (Table \[tab:coords\]), we assumed a redshift of $z=0.5$.
Figure \[fig:XLCs\] displays the resulting luminosity evolution of those 14 bursts in our sample for which an X-ray afterglow light curve can be constructed, i.e., the X-ray afterglow is detected during at least two epochs. This excludes GRBs 071112B, 081226B, 090305, 091117A, and 101129A from the plot, which have no afterglow detection at all, and it also excludes GRB 100206A that is only detected once. The figure also shows the luminosity evolution of 191 long GRBs with measured redshift. In addition, we overplot the short-burst sample compiled by @Kann2011, consisting of an additional group of 19 events that are not included in our short-burst sample.
Figure \[fig:XLCs\] demonstrates that the X-ray afterglows of short-bursts represent the low end of the luminosity distribution of X-ray afterglows. They are on average a factor of $\sim100$ less luminous than those of long-bursts, similar to what is seen for optical afterglows [Fig. \[fig:AlexLC\]; see also @Gehrels2008; @Nysewander2009; @Kann2011]. However, with the single exception of GRB 050509B, short-bursts do not represent the least-luminous X-ray afterglows known. There is a continuous overlap between both populations; for certain time intervals several long-burst afterglows are even less luminous than the population of short-burst afterglows.
There is a remarkable concentration of short-burst afterglows in a relatively narrow luminosity band around $L_{X,\,(0.3-10)\, \rm keV]}\simeq
10^{48}\,\rm{erg/s}$ at $t\sim100\,\rm s$ in the rest frame. Even after removing bursts with assumed redshifts, the concentration is still present, indicating that this is a genuine feature and is not an artifact caused by bursts with assumed redshifts. After that time the luminosities of most short-burst afterglows drop notably and their luminosity distribution broadens by an additional factor of $\sim10$ to a final range of $\sim100$, which holds up to at least t=1 d. At even later times most short-bursts are not detected anymore. Outstanding here is the X-ray afterglow of GRB 060614, which was detected until $t=2\,\times\,10^6$ s (rest-frame), while in our sample only three events (GRBs 090426, 090927, and 100628A) have been detected beyond $t=10^5$ s. We caution that the former two are possibly Type II GRBs, i.e. originating from the gravitational collapse of a massive star.
In our sample, the X-ray afterglows of the short-bursts GRBs 071227 ($z=0.383$; @DAvanzo7152) and 080905A ($z=0.122$; @Rowlinson2010a) have the lowest luminosities, while GRB 090927 ($z=1.37$; @Levan2009GCN9958) and 090426 ($z=2.609$; @Levesque9264) are the most luminous short-bursts in our sample, again we stress that the latter two are likely Type II GRBs. Adding the data set discussed in @Kann2011, then the X-ray afterglow of GRB 050509B represents the low end of the luminosity distribution between $\sim0.3$ ks and $\sim30$ ks, followed by GRBs 061201, 060505, and 060614[^6] at later times. On the other hand, the most luminous short-burst afterglows are that of GRBs 080503 and 051210 which reach $\log
\left(L_{X,\,(0.3-10)\,\rm keV]} [\rm{erg/s}] \right)) \simeq 49.25$ during the peak of their emission at $\sim100$ s. Only the X-ray afterglow of GRB 060121 is more luminous at later times, assuming $z=4.6$ (@deUgartePostigo2006ApJ648; but this GRB is possibly also Type II GRB, @Kann2011).
Summary
=======
We have reported on the results of 3.5 yrs follow-up observations of short-duration GRBs (defined by $T_{90}<2$ s) using the multi-channel imager GROND mounted at the 2.2-m telescope on La Silla. GROND is especially designed to perform rapid follow-up observations of afterglows, which is particularly useful for short-duration GRBs because of their on average very faint optical afterglows (@Nysewander2009 [@Kann2010; @Kann2011]). To our knowledge, what we have presented here is one of the most comprehensive data sets on short-burst follow-up observations published so far, although most of them provide only upper limits.
Among the twenty events followed-up by GROND, in six cases GROND could image the fading optical afterglow. Five of them had already been known in the literature (GRBs 090305, 090426, 090510, 090927, 100117A), and the GROND follow-up observations of GRBs 090426 and 090510 were already represented in paper I and II. The new discovery reported here is the optical afterglow of GRB 081226A. It was imaged by GROND superimposed on its faint host galaxy ($r'\sim 25.8$) and faded away already within 10 ks after the burst. GRB 081226A also belongs to those three cases in our sample where GROND was on target within 10 min after the trigger. The other two events (GRBs 080919 and 100702A), even though with very small X-ray error circles, were unfortunately located in fields crowded by stars, preventing the discovery of the optical/NIR afterglow in any band.
Three of the six optical afterglow light curves (GRBs 090305, 090426, 090510) show a break that can be interpreted as a jet break. The other three afterglows (GRBs 081226A, 090927, 100117A) show a decay slope in agreement with a pre-jet break evolution, allowing us to set at least lower constraints on their corresponding jet half-opening angle, $\Theta_{\rm jet}$. When comparing these results with the long-burst population, we find tentative evidence for wider jet-opening angles of short bursts compared to their long-duration relatives. However, it might need another 20, or so, short-burst afterglow light curves with well detected jet breaks before observations can seriously start to constrain theoretical models. Moreover, it should be kept in mind that some long-duration GRBs have relatively large jet-opening angles, too (e.g., @Grupe2007ApJ662 [@Racusin2009; @Liang2008]); a clear separation between long and short bursts with respect to their $\Theta_{\rm jet}$ values does obviously not exist.
The separation between merger and collapsar events becomes more evident when the luminosities of their optical and X-ray afterglows are compared. If the Type I/II classification scheme is used, GRBs 090426 and 090927 have a collapsar origin (@Kann2011), and in fact their afterglow luminosities in the optical band lie in the region occupied by the main body of the long-burst/collapsar population (Fig. \[fig:AlexLC\]). The optical luminosities of the afterglows of the Type I GRBs 081226A, 090305, and 100117A are substantially smaller and stand apart from the parameter space occupied by the long-burst sample. On the other hand, the optical afterglow of GRB 090510, which was special due to its very high-energy emission (see appendix), seems to be an intermediate case.
Seven years after the first precise localizations of short-duration GRBs by [*Swift*]{}, the discovery of their optical afterglows remains an observational challenge. Even though the list of well-localized short-bursts is not that small anymore (@Nysewander2009 [@Kann2011]; for a continuous update see footnote \[foot1\]), the number of well-observed light curves of short-burst afterglows is rather small. Progress in this respect might be strongly linked to the availability of GRB-dedicated instruments on at least medium-class optical telescopes. GROND is one of them.
A.N.G., D.A.K., A.R., and S.K. acknowledge support by grant DFG Kl 766/16-1. A.N.G., A.R., D.A.K., and A.U. are grateful for travel funding support through the MPE. A.R. acknowledges additional support by the Jenaer Graduiertenakademie. S.S. acknowledges support by a Grant of Excellence from the Iceland Research. T.K. acknowledges funding by the DFG cluster of excellence ’Origin and Structure of the Universe’, F.O.E. funding of his Ph.D. through the DAAD, M.N. support by DFG grant SA 2001/2-1 and P.S. by DFG grant SA 2001/1-1. Part of the funding for GROND (both hardware and personnel) was generously granted by the Leibniz-Prize to G. Hasinger (DFG grant HA 1850/28-1). This work made use of data supplied by the UK Swift science data center at the University of Leicester.
Data tables
===========
Time (s) $g^{\prime}$ $r^{\prime}$ $i^{\prime}$ $z^{\prime}$ $J$ $H$ $K_s$
---------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- --------- ---------- ---------
1320 $>$ 24.1 23.59(22) $>$ 23.1 22.86(35) $>$20.9 $>$ 20.3 $>$19.6
4070 25.48(30) 24.76(24) 24.40(35) 23.73(24) $>$21.8 $>$ 21.3 $>$20.1
21650 25.56(23) 25.75(34) $>$ 24.9 $>$ 24.5 $>$21.9 $>$ 21.4 $>$20.3
2.44E6 25.85(24) 25.75(34) $>$ 25.0 $>$ 24.5 $>$22.2 $>$ 21.6 $>$20.6
: Log of the GROND observations of the afterglow (plus host) of GRB 081226A (Fig. \[fig:081226A\_lc\]). These results supercede the data given in [@Afonso2008GCN8731].
\[tab:logGROND.081226A\]
Time (s) $g^{\prime}$ $r^{\prime}$ $i^{\prime}$ $z^{\prime}$
---------- -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------
2014 – 23.13(09) 22.96(18) –
2568 23.77(19) 23.26(13) – –
3318 23.79(15) 23.55(15) 23.24(19) –
3925 – 23.68(13) – –
4367 – 23.61(07) – –
4594 24.07(09) – 23.55(13) –
4814 – 23.92(11) – –
5262 – 23.82(20) – –
5495 – – – 23.46(12)
5719 – 23.74(11) – –
6166 – 23.91(08) – –
6392 24.534(13) – 23.70(11) –
6613 – 23.91(08) – –
7065 – 23.86(08) – –
7519 – 24.14(27) – –
: Log of the GROND observations of the afterglow of GRB 090305 (Fig. \[fig:GROND090305lc\]).
\[tab:logGROND.090305\]
---------- ----------- ---------- ----------- -- --
Mid-time $g'$ Mid-time $r'$
(s) mag (s) mag
2859 23.89(05) 1681 23.18(03)
3329 23.94(05) 2150 23.21(03)
3800 24.02(07) 2621 23.43(04)
– – 5220 23.77(05)
– – 5689 23.82(05)
– – 6159 23.89(05)
– – 6478 24.04(04)
– – 7587 24.29(04)
\[1mm\]
---------- ----------- ---------- ----------- -- --
: Log of the Gemini observations of the afterglow of GRB 090305 (Fig. \[fig:GROND090305lc\]).
\[tab:logGemini.090305\]
Time (s) $r^{\prime}$ $i^{\prime}$
---------- -------------- --------------
61700 21.90(09) 21.79(06)
62380 21.86(15) –
63036 21.93(05) –
65325 21.89(07) –
150945 23.18(21) 23.03(22)
: Log of the GROND observations of the afterglow of GRB 090927 (Fig \[fig:090927lc\]).
\[tab:logGROND.090927\]
[^1]: http://www.mpe.mpg.de/$\sim$jcg/grbgen.html \[foot1\]
[^2]: http://www.astro.washington.edu/users/becker/hotpants.html\
http://svn.pan-starrs.ifa.hawaii.edu/trac/ipp/wiki/ppSub$_-$vs$_-$Hotpants
[^3]: http://astro.berkeley.edu/$^\sim$nat/swift/bat$_-$spec$_-$table.html
[^4]: Assuming that this is the GRB host galaxy, this color cannot be the Lyman break since the afterglow was detected in the $g'$ band (@Cenko2009GCN8933).
[^5]: if the redshift of the former two bursts is not 0.5, as assumed here, but somewhere in the range between 0.2 and 1.0, then this magnitude difference changes by about $\pm2$ mag
[^6]: which is likely a Type I GRB despite its long duration, @Zhang2009, @Kann2011
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Representing examples in a way that is compatible with the underlying classifier can greatly enhance the performance of a learning system. In this paper we investigate scalable techniques for inducing discriminative features by taking advantage of simple second order structure in the data. We focus on multiclass classification and show that features extracted from the generalized eigenvectors of the class conditional second moments lead to classifiers with excellent empirical performance. Moreover, these features have attractive theoretical properties, such as inducing representations that are invariant to linear transformations of the input. We evaluate classifiers built from these features on three different tasks, obtaining state of the art results.'
bibliography:
- 'gev.bib'
---
Introduction {#intro}
============
Supervised learning has been a great success story for machine learning, both in theory and in practice. In theory, we have a good understanding of the conditions under which supervised learning can succeed [@vapnik1998statistical]. In practice, supervised learning approaches are profitably employed in many domains, from movie recommendation to speech and image recognition [@koren2009matrix; @hinton2012deep; @krizhevsky2012imagenet]. The success of all of these systems crucially hinges on the compatibility between the model and the representation used to solve the problem.
For some problems, the kinds of representations and models that lead to good performance are well-known. In text classification, for example, unigram and bigram features together with linear classifiers are known to work well for a variety of related tasks [@halevy2009unreasonable]. For other problems, such as drug design, speech, and image recognition, far less is known about which combinations are effective. This has fueled interest in methods that can learn the appropriate representations directly from the raw signal, with techniques such as dictionary learning [@mairal2008supervised] and deep learning [@krizhevsky2012imagenet; @hinton2012deep] achieving state of the art performance in many important problems.
In this work, we explore conceptually and computationally simple ways to create discriminative features that can scale to a large number of examples, even when data is distributed across many machines. Our techniques are not a panacea. They are exploiting simple second order structure in the data and it is very easy to come up with sufficient conditions under which they will not give any advantage over learning using the raw signal. Nevertheless, they empirically work remarkably well.
Our setup is the usual multiclass setting where we are given labeled data $\{x_i,y_i\}_{i=1}^n$, sampled iid from a distribution ${\mathcal{D}}$ on ${\mathbb{R}}^d \times [k]$, and we need to come up with a classifier $h:
{\mathbb{R}}^d \to [k]$ with low generalization error ${\mathbb{P}}_{\mathcal{D}}(h(x)\neq y)$. Abusing notation, we will sometimes use $y$ to refer to the one hot encoding of $y$ that identifies each class with one of the vertices of the standard $k-1$-simplex. To keep the focus on the quality of our feature representation we will restrict ourselves to $h$ being linear, such as a multiclass linear SVM or multinomial logistic regression. We suspect representations that improve the performance of linear classifiers will also beneficially compose with nonlinear techniques.
Method
======
One of the simplest possible statistics involving both features and labels is the matrix ${\mathbb{E}}[x y^\top]$, which in multiclass classification is the collection of class-conditional mean feature vectors. This statistic has been thoroughly explored, e.g., Fisher LDA [@fisher1936use] and Sliced Inverse Regression [@li1991sliced]. However, in many practical applications we expect that the data distribution contains much more information than that contained in the first moment statistics. The natural next object of study is the tensor ${\mathbb{E}}[x \otimes x \otimes y]$.
In multiclass classification, the tensor ${\mathbb{E}}[x\otimes x \otimes
y]$ is simply a collection of the conditional second moment matrices $C_i={\mathbb{E}}[xx^\top | y=i]$. There are many standard ways of extracting features from these matrices. For example, one could try per-class PCA [@wold1977simca] which will find directions that maximize $v^\top{\mathbb{E}}[xx^\top | y=i]v={\mathbb{E}}[(v^\top x)^2 | y=i]$, or VCA [@livni2013vanishing] which will find directions that minimize the same quantity. The subtlety here is that there is no reason to believe that these directions are specific to class $i$. In other words, the directions we find might be very similar for all classes and, therefore, not be discriminative.
A simple alternative is to work with the quotient $$\label{eqn:rayleigh}
R_{ij}(v)=\frac{{\mathbb{E}}[(v^\top x)^2 | y=i]}{{\mathbb{E}}[(v^\top x)^2 | y=j]}=
\frac{v^\top C_i v}{v^\top C_j v},$$ whose local maximizers are the generalized eigenvectors solving $C_i v = \lambda C_j v$. Despite the non-convexity, efficient and robust routines for solving these types of problems are part of mature software packages such as LAPACK.
Since objective is homogeneous in $v$, we will assume that each eigenvector $v$ is scaled such that $v^\top C_j
v=1$. Then we have that $v^\top C_i v=\lambda$, i.e. on average, the squared projection of an example from class $i$ on $v$ will be $\lambda$ while the squared projection of an example from class $j$ will be $1$. As long as $\lambda$ is far from 1, this gives us a direction along which we expect to be able to discriminate the two classes by simply using the magnitude of the projection. Moreover, if there are many eigenvalues substantially different from 1 all associated eigenvectors can be used as feature detectors.
Useful Properties
-----------------
The feature detectors resulting from maximizing equation have two useful properties which we list below. For simplicity we state the results assuming full rank exact conditional moment matrices, and then discuss the impact of regularization and finite samples.
\[prop:invariance\] (Invariance) Under the above assumptions, the embedding $v^\top x$ is invariant to invertible linear transformations of $x$.
Let $A \in {\mathbb{R}}^{d \times d}$ be invertible and $x'=Ax$ be the transformed input. Let $C_m={\mathbb{E}}[xx^\top|y=m]$ be the second moment matrix given $y=m$ for the original data. For a class pair $(i,j)$, a generalized eigenvector $v$ satisfies $C_i v= \lambda C_j v$. Using the Cholesky factorization $C_j=L_j L_j^\top$ and setting $v=L_j^{-\top}u$ we have $$\label{eq:gevreduction}
L_j^{-1}C_i L_j^{-\top} u=\lambda u,$$ i.e., $u$ is an eigenvector of $L_j^{-1}C_i L_j^{-\top}$. Moreover, the embedding for the original data involves only $$\label{eq:embed}
v^\top x=u^\top L_j^{-1} x.$$ For the transformed data, the conditional second moments are ${\mathbb{E}}[x'x'^\top|y=m]=A{\mathbb{E}}[xx^\top|y=m]A^\top=AC_m A^\top$ and the corresponding generalized eigenvector $v'$ satisfies $AC_i A^\top v'= \lambda AC_j A^\top v'$. Letting $v'=A^{-\top} L_j^{-\top} u'$ we see that $u'$ satisfies $L_j^{-1}C_i L_j^{-\top} u'=\lambda u'$ which is the same as . Therefore $u'$ can be chosen such that $u'=u$. Finally, the embedding involves only $v'^\top x' = u'^\top L_j^{-1}A^{-1} A x = u^\top L_j^{-1} x$ which is the same as the embedding for the original data.
It is worth pointing out that the results of some popular methods, such as PCA, are not invariant to linear transformations of the inputs. For such methods, differences in preprocessing and normalization can lead to vastly different results. The practical utility of an “off the shelf” classifier is greatly improved by this invariance, which provides robustness to data specification, e.g., differing units of measurement across the original features.
(Diversity) Two feature detectors $v_1$ and $v_2$ extracted from the same ordered class pair $(i,j)$ have uncorrelated responses ${\mathbb{E}}[(v_1^\top x)(v_2^\top x)|y=j]=0.$
This follows from the orthogonality of the eigenvectors in the induced problem $L_j^{-1}C_i L_j^{-\top} u=\lambda u$ (c.f. proof of Proposition \[prop:invariance\]) and the connection $v= L_j^{-\top}u$. If $u_1$ and $u_2$ are eigenvectors of $L_j^{-1}C_i L_j^{-\top}$ then $ 0 = u_1^\top u_2 = v_1^\top L_j L_j^\top v_2 = v_1^\top {\mathbb{E}}[xx^\top|y=j] v_2 = {\mathbb{E}}[(v_1^\top x)(v_2^\top x)|y=j]. $
Diversity indicates the different generalized eigenvectors per class pair provide complementary information, and that techniques which only use the first generalized eigenvector are not maximally exploiting the data.
Finite Sample Considerations
----------------------------
Even though we have shown the properties of our method assuming knowledge of the expectations ${\mathbb{E}}[xx^\top|y=m]$, in practice we estimate these quantities from our training samples. The empirical average $$\label{eq:empirical}
\hat C_m = \frac{\sum_{i=1}^n {\mathbb{I}}[y_i=m] x_i x_i^\top}{\sum_{i=1}^n {\mathbb{I}}[y_i=m]}$$ converges to the expectation at a rate of $O(n^{-1/2})$. Here and below we are suppressing the dependence upon the dimensionality $d$, which we consider fixed. Typical finite sample tail bounds become meaningful once $n=O(d\log d)$ [@vershynin2010introduction].
Given $\hat C_m= C_m +E_m$ with $||E_m||_2=O(n^{-1/2})$, we can use results from matrix perturbation theory to establish that our finite sample results cannot be too far from those obtained using the expected values. For example, if the *Crawford number* $$c(C_i,C_j) \doteq \min_{||v||=1} (v^\top C_i v)^2 + (v^\top C_j v)^2 > 0,$$ and the perturbations $E_i$ and $E_j$ satisfy $$||E_i||_2^2+||E_j||_2^2 < c(C_i,C_j),$$ then [@golub2012matrix] for all $q \in [d]$ $$\tan(|\tan^{-1}(\lambda_q) - \tan^{-1}(\hat \lambda_q)|) \leq
O\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt n c(C_i,C_j)}\right),$$ where $\lambda_q,\hat \lambda_q$ are the $q$-th generalized eigenvalues of the matrix pairs $C_i,C_j$ and $\hat C_i,\hat C_j$ respectively. Similar results apply to the sine of the angle between an estimated generalized eigenvector and the true one [@demmel2000templates] Section 5.7.
Regularization
--------------
An additional concern with finite samples is that $\hat C_m$ may not be full rank as we have assumed until now. In particular, if there are fewer than $d$ examples in class $m$, then $\hat C_m$ is guaranteed to be rank deficient. When such a matrix appears in the denominator of , estimation of the eigenvectors can be unstable and overly sensitive to the sample at hand. A common solution [@platt2010translingual] is to regularize the denominator matrix by adding a multiple of the identity to the denominator, i.e., maximizing $$R^\gamma_{ij}(v)=\frac{v^\top \hat C_i v}{v^\top ( \hat C_j +\gamma I)v},
\label{eqn:regsignoise}$$ which is equivalent to maximizing equation with an additional upper-bound constraint on the norm of $v$. We typically set $\gamma$ to be a small multiple of the average eigenvalue of $\hat C_j$ [@friedman1989regularized] which can be easily obtained as the trace of $\hat C_j$ divided by $d$. In Section \[sec:experiments\] we find this strategy empirically effective.
An Algorithm
------------
$S=\{(x_i,y_i)\}_{i=1}^n$, $\theta \geq 0$ and $\gamma \geq 0$ $F \leftarrow \emptyset$ Solve $\hat C_i V = (\hat C_j+\frac \gamma d \operatorname*{Trace}(\hat C_j) I) V \Lambda $ $F \leftarrow F \cup \{ V_{q} | \Lambda_{qq} \geq \theta \}$ $\psi_{v,\alpha,\delta}(x) \doteq \max(0,\delta v^\top x)^{\alpha/2}$\
$\phi(x) \doteq [\psi_{v,\alpha,\delta}(x) | v,\alpha,\delta \in F \times \{1,2,3\} \times \{-1,1\}]$\
$w = \mathrm{MultiLogit} (\{ (\phi(x), y) | (x, y) \in S \})$
We are left with specifying a full algorithm for multiclass classification. First we need to specify how to use the eigenvectors $\{ v_i \}$. The eigenvectors define an embedding for each example $x$ using the projection magnitudes $\{ v_i^\top x \}$ as new coordinates. However the embedding is linear, therefore composition with a linear classifier is equivalent to learning a linear classifier in the original space, perhaps with a different regularization. This motivates the use of nonlinear functions of the projection magnitude.
To construct nonlinear maps, we can get inspiration from the optimization criterion in equation , i.e., the ratio of expected projection magnitudes conditional on different class labels. For example, we could use a nonlinear map such as $(v^\top x)^2$. This type of nonlinearity can be sensitive (for example, it is not Lipschitz) so in practice more robust proxies can be used such as $|v^\top x|$ or even $|v^\top x|^{1/2}$.[^1] In principle, smoothing splines or any other flexible set of univariate basis functions could be used. In our experiments we simply fit a piecewise cubic polynomial on $|v^\top x|^{1/2}$. The polynomial has only two pieces, one for $v^\top x>0$ and one for $v^\top x \leq 0$. We briefly experimented with interaction terms between projection magnitudes, but did not find them beneficial.
Additionally, we need to address from which class pairs to extract eigenvectors. A simple and empirically effective approach, suitable when the number of classes is modest, is to just use all ordered pairs of classes. This can be wasteful if two classes are never confused. The alternative, however, of leaving out a pair $(i,j)$ is that the classifier might have no way of distinguishing between these two classes. Since we do not know upfront which pairs of classes will be confused, our brute force approach is just a safe way to endow the classifier with enough flexibility to deal with any pair of classes that could potentially be confused. Of course, as the number of classes grows, this brute force approach becomes less viable both computationally (due to the quadratic increase in generalized eigenvalue problems) and statistically (due to the increase in the number of features for the final classifier). We discuss issues regarding large numbers of classes in Section \[sec:discussion\].
Finally, the generalized eigenvalues can guide us in picking a subset of the $d$ generalized eigenvectors we could extract from each class pair, i.e., generalized eigenvalues are useful for feature selection. A generalized eigenvector $v$ with eigenvalue $\lambda$ has ${\mathbb{E}}[(v^\top x)^2 | y]$ equal to $1$ for the denominator class $y=j$ and equal to $\lambda$ for the numerator class $y=i$. Therefore, eigenvalues far from 1 correspond to highly discriminative features. Similar to [@platt2010translingual], we extract the top few eigenvectors, as top eigenspaces are cheaper to compute than bottom eigenspaces. To guard against picking non-discriminative eigenvectors, we discard those whose eigenvalues are less than a threshold $\theta>1$.
The above observations lead to the GEM procedure outlined in Algorithm \[alg:gem\]. Although Algorithm \[alg:gem\] has proven sufficiently versatile for the experiments described herein, it is merely an example of how to use generalized eigenvalue based features for multiclass classification. Other classification techniques could benefit from using the raw projection values without any nonlinear manipulation, e.g., decision trees; additionally the generalized eigenvectors could be used to initialize a neural network architecture as a form of pre-training.
We remark that each step in Algorithm \[alg:gem\] is highly amenable to distributed implementation: empirical class-conditional second moment matrices can be computed using map-reduce techniques, the generalized eigenvalue problems can be solved independently in parallel, and the logistic regression optimization is convex and therefore highly scalable [@agarwal2011].
Related Work {#sec:related}
============
Method Signal Noise
-------------- ----------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------
PCA ${\mathbb{E}}[xx^\top]$ $I$
VCA $I$ ${\mathbb{E}}[xx^\top]$
Fisher LDA ${\mathbb{E}}_y[{\mathbb{E}}[x|y]{\mathbb{E}}[x|y]^\top]$ $\sum_y \operatorname*{Cov}[x|y]$
SIR $\sum_y {\mathbb{E}}[w|y]{\mathbb{E}}[w|y]^\top$ $I$
Oriented PCA ${\mathbb{E}}[xx^\top]$ ${\mathbb{E}}[zz^\top]$
Our method ${\mathbb{E}}[xx^\top|y=i]$ ${\mathbb{E}}[xx^\top|y=j]$
: Table of related methods (assuming ${\mathbb{E}}[x]=0$) for finding directions that maximize the signal to noise ratio. $\operatorname*{Cov}[x|y]$ refers to the conditional covariance matrix of $x$ given $y$, $w$ is a whitened version of $x$, and $z$ is any type of noise meaningful to the task at hand. []{data-label="tab:signalnoise"}
Our approach resembles many existing methods that work by finding eigenvectors of matrices constructed from data. One can think of all these approaches as procedures for finding directions $v$ that maximize the signal to noise ratio $$R(v)=\frac{v^\top S v}{v^\top N v},
\label{eqn:signoise}$$ where the symmetric matrices $S$ and $N$ are such that the quadratic forms $v^\top S v$ and $v^\top N v$ represent the signal and the noise, respectively, captured along direction $v$. In Table \[tab:signalnoise\] we present many well known approaches that could be cast in this framework. Principal Component Analysis (PCA) finds the directions of maximal variance without any particular noise model. The recently proposed Vanishing Component Analysis (VCA) [@livni2013vanishing] finds the directions on which the projections vanish so it can be thought as swapping the roles of signal and noise in PCA. Fisher LDA maximizes the variability in the class means while minimizing the within class variance. Sliced Inverse Regression first whitens $x$, and then uses the second moment matrix of the conditional whitened means as the signal and, like PCA, has no particular noise model. Finally, oriented PCA [@diamantaras1996principal; @platt2010translingual] is a very general framework in which the noise matrix can be the correlation matrix of any type of noise $z$ meaningful to the task at hand.
By closely examining the signal and noise matrices, it is clear that each method can be further distinguished according to two other capabilities: whether it is possible to extract many directions, and whether the directions are discriminative. For example, PCA and VCA can extract many directions but these are not discriminative. In contrast, Fisher LDA and SIR are discriminative but they work with rank-$k$ matrices so the number of directions that could be extracted is limited by the number of classes. Furthermore both of these methods lose valuable fidelity about the data by using the conditional means.
Oriented PCA is sufficiently general to encompass our technique as a special case. Nonetheless, to the best of our knowledge, the specific signal and noise models in this paper are novel and, as we show in Section \[sec:experiments\], they empirically work very well.
Experiments {#sec:experiments}
===========
MNIST
-----
![Pictures of the top 5 generalized eigenvectors for MNIST for class pairs $(3, 2)$ (top row), $(8, 5)$ (second row), $(3, 5)$ (third row), $(8, 0)$ (fourth row), and $(4, 9)$ (bottom row) with $\gamma = 0.5$. Filters have large response on the first class and small response on the second class. Best viewed in color.[]{data-label="fig:mnistfeats"}](mnist_select.png){width="\linewidth"}
We begin with the MNIST database of handwritten digits [@mnistlecun], for which we can visualize the generalized eigenvectors, providing intuition regarding the discriminative nature of the computed directions. For each of the ten classes, we estimated $C_m = {\mathbb{E}}[xx^\top|y=m]$ using and then extracted generalized eigenvectors for each class pair $(i, j)$ by solving $\hat C_i v = \lambda (\frac{\gamma}{d} \operatorname*{Trace}(\hat C_j) I + \hat C_j) v$. Figure \[fig:mnistfeats\] shows a sample of results from this procedure for five class pairs (one in each row) and $\gamma=0.5$. In the top row we use class pair $(3, 2)$ and we observe that the eigenvectors are sensitive to the circular stroke of a typical 3 while remaining insensitive to the areas where 2s and 3s overlap. Similar results are seen in the second and third rows where we use class pairs $(8, 5)$ and $(3, 5)$: the strokes we find are along areas used by the first class and mostly avoided by the second class. In the fourth row we use class pair $(8, 0)$. Here we observe two patterns. First, a dot in the center that avoids the 0s. The other 4 detectors consist of positive (red) and negative (blue) strokes arranged in a way that would cancel each other if we take the inner product of the detector with a radially symmetric pattern such as a 0. Similarly in the bottom row with class pair $(4, 9)$, the detector attempts to cancel the horizontal stroke corresponding to the top of the 9, where a typical 4 would be open.
Figure \[fig:mnistproj\] shows for each of the ten classes the distribution of values obtained by projecting the training examples in that class onto the first eigenvector for class pair $(3, 2)$, i.e., the top left image in Figure \[fig:mnistfeats\]. The projection pattern inspires two comments. First, while the magnitude of the projection is itself discriminative for distinguishing between 2s and 3s, there is additional information in knowing the sign of the projection. This motivates our particular choice of nonlinear expansion in Algorithm \[alg:gem\]. Second, the detector is discriminative for class 3 vs. class 2 as per design, but also useful for distinguishing other classes from 2s. However certain classes such as 1s and 7s would be completely confused with 2s were this the only feature. The number of classes in MNIST is modest ($k=10$) so we can easily afford to extract features for all $k(k-1)$ class pairs for excellent discrimination. For problems with a large number of classes, however, we need to carefully pick the subproblems we need to solve so that the resulting set of features is discriminative, diverse, and complete. We revisit this topic in Section \[sec:discussion\].
Table \[tab:mnistres\] contains results for algorithm \[alg:gem\] on the MNIST test set. To determine the hyperparameter settings $\gamma$ and $\theta$, we held out a fraction of the training set for validation. Once $\gamma$ and $\theta$ were determined, we trained on the entire training set.
For “deep GEM” we applied GEM to the representation created by GEM, i.e., line 7 of Algorithm \[alg:gem\]. Because of the intermediate nonlinearity this is not equivalent to a single application of GEM, and we do observe an improvement in generalization. Subsequent recursive compositions of GEM degrade generalization, e.g., 3 levels of GEM yields 110 test errors. We would like to better understand the conditions under which composing GEM with itself is beneficial.
Our results occupy an intermediate position amongst state of the art results on MNIST. For comparison we include results from other permutation-invariant methods from [@wan2013regularization] and [@goodfellow2013maxout]. These methods rely on generic non-convex optimization techniques and face challenging scaling issues in a distributed setting [@NIPS2012_0598]. While maximization of the Rayleigh quotient is non-convex, mature implementations are computationally efficient and numerically robust. The final classifier is built using convex techniques and our pipeline is particularly well suited to the distributed setting, as discussed in Section \[sec:discussion\].
Method Test Errors
------------- -------------
Dropout 120
DropConnect 112
GEM 108
deep GEM 96
Maxout 94
: Test errors on MNIST. All techniques are permutation invariant and do not augment the training set.[]{data-label="tab:mnistres"}
Covertype
---------
Covertype is a multiclass data set whose task is to predict one of 7 forest cover types using 54 cartographic variables [@blackard1999comparative]. RBF kernels provide state of the art performance on Covertype, and consequently it has been a benchmark dataset for fast approximate kernel techniques [@rahimi2007random; @manik]. Here, we demonstrate that generalized eigenvector extraction composes well with randomized feature maps in the primal. This approximates generalized eigenfunction extraction in the RKHS, while retaining the speed and compactness of primal approaches.
Covertype does not come with a designated test set, so we randomly permuted the data set and used the last 10% for testing, utilizing the same train-test split for all experiments. We followed the same experimental protocol as the previous section, i.e., held out a portion of the training set for validation to select hyperparameters.
Table \[tab:covertyperes\] summarizes the results.[^2] GEM and deep GEM are exactly the same as in the previous section, i.e., Algorithm \[alg:gem\] without and with self-composition respectively. RFF stands for Random Fourier Features [@rahimi2007random], in which the Gaussian kernel is approximated in the primal by a randomized cosine map; we used logistic regression for the primal learning algorithm. We treated the bandwidth and number of cosines as hyperparameters to be optimized.
The relatively poor classification performance of RFF on Covertype has been noted before [@rahimi2007random], a result we reproduce here. Instead of using the randomized feature map directly, however, we can apply Algorithm \[alg:gem\] to the representation induced by RFF, which we denote GEM + RFF. This improves the classification error with only modest increase in computation cost, e.g., in MATLAB it takes 8 seconds to compute the randomized Fourier features, 58 seconds to (sequentially) solve the generalized eigenvalue problems and compute the GEM feature representation, and 372 seconds to optimize the logistic regression. The final error rate of 8.4% is a new record for this task.
Method Test Error Rate
-------------------- -----------------
GEM 12.9%
RFF 12.7%
deep GEM 9.8%
GEM + RFF 8.4%
RBF kernel (exact) 8.8%
: Test error rates on Covertype. The RBF kernel result is from [@manik] where they also use a 90%-10% (but different) train-test split.[]{data-label="tab:covertyperes"}
TIMIT
-----
TIMIT is a corpus of phonemically and lexically annotated speech of English speakers of multiple genders and dialects [@timit]. Although the ultimate problem is sequence annotation, there is a derived multiclass classification problem of predicting the phonemic annotation associated with a short segment of audio. Such a classifier can be composed with standard sequence modeling techniques to produce an overall solution, which has made the multiclass problem a subject of research [@hinton2012improving; @hutchinson2012deep]. In this experiment we focus exclusively on the multiclass problem.
We use a standard preprocessing of TIMIT as our initial representation [@hutchinson2012deep]. Specifically the speech is converted into feature vectors via the first to twelfth Mel frequency cepstral coefficients and energy plus first and second temporal derivatives. This results in 39 coefficients per frame, which is concatenated with 5 preceding and 5 following frames to produce a 429 coefficient input to the classifier. The targets for the classifier are the 183 phone states (i.e., 61 phones each in 3 possible states).
We use the standard training, development, and test sets of TIMIT. As in previous experiments herein, hyperparameters are optimized on the development set (using cross-entropy as the objective), but unlike previous experiments we do not retrain with the development set once hyperparameters are determined, in correspondence with the experimental protocol used with the T-DSN [@hutchinson2012deep].
With 183 classes the all-pairs approach for generalized eigenvector extraction is unwieldy, so we used a randomized procedure to select from which class pairs to extract features, by randomly positioning the class labels on a hypercube and extracting generalized eigenvectors only for immediate hyperneighbors. For $k$ classes this results in $O (k \log k)$ generalized eigenvalue problems. Although we did not attempt a thorough exploration of different strategies for subproblem selection, the hypercube heuristic yielded better results for a given feature budget than either uniform random selection over all class pairs or stratified random selection over class pairs ensuring equal numbers of denominator or numerator classes. The resulting performance for five different choices of random hypercube is shown in the row of Table \[tab:timitres\] denoted GEM. We show both multiclass error rate as well as cross entropy, the objective we are actually optimizing.
The random subproblem selection creates an opportunity to ensemble, and empirically the resulting classifiers are sufficiently diverse that ensembling yields a substantial improvement. In Table \[tab:timitres\], denoted GEM ensemble, we show the performance of the ensemble prediction of the 5 classifiers using the geometric mean prediction (this is the prediction that minimizes its average KL-divergence to each element of the ensemble). The result matches the classification error and improves upon the cross-entropy loss of the best published T-DSN. This is remarkable considering the T-DSN is a deep architecture employing between 8 and 13 stacked layers of nonlinear transformations, whereas the GEM procedure produces a shallow architecture with a single nonlinear layer.
---------------- -------------------- ------------------
Frame Cross
State Error (%) Entropy
GEM $41.87 \pm 0.073 $ $1.637\pm 0.001$
T-DSN 40.9 2.02
GEM (ensemble) 40.86 1.581
---------------- -------------------- ------------------
: Results on TIMIT test set. T-DSN is the best result from [@hutchinson2012deep].[]{data-label="tab:timitres"}
Discussion {#sec:discussion}
==========
Given the simplicity and empirical success of our method, we were surprised to find considerable work on methods that only extract the first generalized eigenvector [@mika2003constructing] but very little work on using the top $m$ generalized eigenvectors. Our experience is that additional eigenvectors provide complementary information. Empirically, their inclusion in the final classifier far outweighs the necessary increase in sample complexity, especially given typical modern data set sizes. Thus we believe this technique should be valuable in other domains.
Of course our method will not be able to extract anything useful if all classes have the same second moment but different higher order statistics. While our limited experience here suggests second moments are informative for natural datasets, there are potential benefits in using higher order moments. For example, we could replace our class-conditional second moment matrix with a second moment matrix conditioned on other events, informed by higher order moments.
As the number of class labels increases, say $k \geq 1000$, our brute force all-pairs approach, which scales as $O(k^2)$, becomes increasingly difficult both computationally and statistically: we need to solve $O(k^2)$ eigenvector problems (possibly in parallel) and deal with $O(k^2)$ features in the ultimate classifier. Taking a step back, the object of our attention is the tensor ${\mathbb{E}}[x
\otimes x \otimes y]$ and in this paper we only studied one way of selecting pairs of slices from it. In particular, our slices are tensor contractions with one of the standard basis vectors in ${\mathbb{R}}^k$. Clearly, contracting the tensor with any vector $u$ in ${\mathbb{R}}^k$ is possible. This contraction leads to a $d\times d$ second moment matrix which averages the examples of the different classes in the way prescribed by $u$. Any sensible, data-dependent way of picking a good set of vectors $u$ should be able to reduce the dependence on $k^2$.
The same issues also arise with a continuous $y$: how to define and estimate the pairs of matrices whose generalized eigenvectors should be extracted is not immediately clear. Still, the case where $y$ is multidimensional (vector regression) can be reduced to the case of univariate $y$ using the same technique of contraction with a vector $u$. Feature extraction from a continuous $y$ can be done by discretization (solely for the purpose of feature extraction), which is much easier in the univariate case than in the multivariate case.
In domains where examples exhibit large variation, or when labeled data is scarce, incorporating prior knowledge is extremely important. For example, in image recognition, convolutions and local pooling are popular ways to generate representations that are invariant to localized distortions. Directly exploiting the spatial or temporal structure of the input signal, as well as incorporating other kinds of invariances in our framework, is a direction for future work.
High dimensional problems create both computational and statistical challenges. Computationally, when $d > 10^6$, the solution of generalized eigenvalue problems can only be performed via specialized libraries such as ScaLAPACK, or via randomized techniques, such as those outlined in [@halko2011finding; @saibaba2013randomized]. Statistically, the finite-sample second moment estimates can be inaccurate when the number of dimensions overwhelms the number of examples. The effect of this inaccuracy on the extracted eigenvectors needs further investigation. In particular, it might be unimportant for datasets encountered in practice, e.g., if the true class-conditional second moment matrices have low effective rank [@bunea2012].
Finally, our approach is simple to implement and well suited to the distributed setting. Although a distributed implementation is out of the scope of this paper, we do note that aspects of Algorithm \[alg:gem\] were motivated by the desire for efficient distributed implementation. The recent success of non-convex learning systems has sparked renewed interest in non-convex representation learning. However, generic distributed non-convex optimization is extremely challenging. Our approach first decomposes the problem into tractable non-convex subproblems and then subsequently composes with convex techniques. Ultimately we hope that judicious application of convenient non-convex objectives, coupled with convex optimization techniques, will yield competitive and scalable learning algorithms.
Conclusion
==========
We have shown a method for creating discriminative features via solving generalized eigenvalue problems, and demonstrated empirical efficacy via multiple experiments. The method has multiple computational and statistical desiderata. Computationally, generalized eigenvalue extraction is a mature numerical primitive, and the matrices which are decomposed can be estimated using map-reduce techniques. Statistically, the method is invariant to invertible linear transformations, estimation of the eigenvectors is robust when the number of examples exceeds the number of variables, and estimation of the resulting classifier parameters is eased due to the parsimony of the derived representation.
Due to this combination of empirical, computational, and statistical properties, we believe the method introduced herein has utility for a wide variety of machine learning problems.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
We thank John Platt and Li Deng for helpful discussions and assistance with the TIMIT experiments.
[^1]: These choices are simple and yield only slightly worse results than what we report in our experiments.
[^2]: When comparing with other published results, be aware that many authors adjust the task to be a binary classification task.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'In this paper we continue investigation of the interior problem of tomography that was started in [@BKT2]. As is known, solving the interior problem [with prior data specified on a finite collection of intervals $I_i$]{} is equivalent to analytic continuation of a function from $I_i$ to an open set ${\bf J}$. In the paper we prove that this analytic continuation can be obtained with the help of a simple explicit formula, which involves summation of a series. Our second result is that the operator of analytic continuation is not stable for any pair of Sobolev spaces regardless of how close the set ${\bf J}$ is to $I_i$. Our main tool is the singular value decomposition of the operator ${{\mathcal H}}^{-1}_e$ that arises when the interior problem is reduced to a problem of inverting the Hilbert transform from incomplete data. The asymptotics of the singular values and singular functions of ${{\mathcal H}}^{-1}_e$, the latter being valid uniformly on compact subsets [of the interior of $I_i$]{}, was obtained in [@BKT2]. [Using these asymptotics we can accurately measure the degree of ill-posedness of the analytic continuation as a function of the target interval ${\bf J}$.]{} Our [last]{} result is the convergence of the asymptotic approximation of the singular functions [in the $L^2(I_i)$ sense]{}.'
bibliography:
- 'bibexport.bib'
---
plus 1pt minus 1pt
**On Sobolev instability of the interior problem of tomography**
M. Bertola$^\dagger$[^1] A. Katsevich$^\star$[^2] and A. Tovbis $^\star$[^3]
$^{\dagger}$ [*Centre de recherches mathématiques, Université de Montréal\
C. P. 6128, succ. centre ville, Montréal, Québec, Canada H3C 3J7*]{} and\
[*Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Concordia University\
1455 de Maisonneuve W., Montréal, Québec, Canada H3G 1M8*]{}\
$^{\star}$ [*University of Central Florida Department of Mathematics\
4000 Central Florida Blvd. P.O. Box 161364 Orlando, FL 32816-1364* ]{}\
[*E-mail:*]{} [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Introduction {#math-intro}
============
Suppose one is interested in imaging a small region of interest (ROI) inside an object using tomography. In order to acquire a complete data set that enables stable reconstruction, one needs to send multiple x-rays through the object from many different directions. In particular, the x-rays that do not pass through the ROI are required as well. The interior problem of tomography arises when only the x-rays through the ROI are measured. In this case the tomographic data are incomplete, and image reconstruction becomes a challenging problem. In what follows, image reconstruction from x-ray data taylored to an ROI will be called the interior problem, and the corresponding data will be called interior data. Practical importance of the interior problem is clear, since tayloring the x-ray exposure to an ROI results in a reduced x-ray dose to the patient in medical applications of tomography. See [@wy-13] for a nice review of the state of the art in interior tomography.
One of the most powerfull tools for investigating the interior problem from the theoretical point of view is the Gelfand-Graev formula, which relates the tomographic data of an object with its one-dimensional Hilbert transform along lines [@gegr-91]. With the help of this formula, the interior problem of tomography can be reduced to the problem of inverting the Hilbert transform from incomplete data.
Pick any line $L$ through the object. We regard $L$ as the $x$-axis. Fix some $2g+2$, $g\in\N$, distinct points $a_i$ on $L$: $a_i<a_{i+1}$, $i=1,2,\dots,2g+1$. Points $a_1$ and $a_{2g+2}$ mark the boundaries of the support of $f$ along $L$. Points $a_2$ and $a_{2g+1}$ mark the boundaries of the ROI along $L$. Consider the Finite Hilbert Transform (FHT) $$\label{def-hilb}
({{\mathcal H}}f)(x):= \frac1\pi \int_{a_1}^{a_{2g+2}} \frac{f|_L(y)}{y-x}dy,\ f|_L\in L^2([a_1,a_{2g+2}]).$$ Here $f|_L$ is the restriction of $f$ to $L$, and ${{\mathcal H}}f$ is the one-dimensional Hilbert transform of $f|_L$. Throughout the paper the line $L$ is always the same, so with some abuse of notation we write $f$ instead of $f|_L$. In the case of interior tomographic data, the Gelfand-Graev formula allows computation of ${{\mathcal H}}f$ only on $[a_2,a_{2g+1}]$, but not on all $[a_1,a_{2g+2}]$. Thus the interior problem of tomography is reduced to finding $f$ inside the ROI, i.e. on $[a_2,a_{2g+1}]$, by solving the equation $$\label{hilb-dataintro}
({{\mathcal H}}f)(x)=\varphi(x),\ x\in [a_2,a_{2g+1}].$$
Consider the operator ${{\mathcal H}}:\, L_2([a_1,a_{2g+2}])\to L_2([a_2,a_{2g+1}])$. Unique recovery of $f$ on $[a_2,a_{2g+1}]$ is impossible since ${{\mathcal H}}$ has a non-trivial kernel (see [@kt12] for its complete description). Therefore, to achieve unique recovery the data $\varphi$ should be augmented by some additional information. One type of information that guarantees uniqueness is the knowledge of $f$ on some [interval or]{} intervals inside $[a_2,a_{2g+1}]$. This is the so-called interior problem with prior knowledge ([@yyw-07b; @kcnd; @cndk-08; @wy-13]) [that will be considered below]{}. Let us assume that $f$ is known on the intervals $$\label{int-int}
I_i:=[a_3,a_4]\cup [a_5,a_6]\cup\dots\cup [a_{2g-1},a_{2g}],$$ which we call “interior" (inside the ROI). Denote by $I_e:=[a_1,a_2]\cup [a_{2g+1},a_{2g+2}]$ the remaining “exterior” intervals (they are outside the ROI). Applying the FHT inversion formula (see e.g. [@oe91]), we get $$\label{hilb-inv}
\begin{split}
f(y)&=-\frac{w(y)}{\pi}\left(\int_{a_1}^{a_2}+\int_{a_{2g+1}}^{a_{2g+2}}\right) \frac{\varphi(x)}{w(x)(x-y)}dx-\frac{w(y)}{\pi}\int_{a_2}^{a_{2g+1}}\frac{\varphi(x)}{w(x)(x-y)}dx,\\
{\rm where}~~~w(x):&=\sqrt{(a_{2g+2}-x)(x-a_1)}~~~{\rm and}~~~\varphi(x)=({{\mathcal H}}f)(x),~ x\in [a_1,a_{2g+2}].
\end{split}$$ The left side of (\[hilb-inv\]) is known on $I_i$. The last integral on the right is known everywhere. Combining these known quantities we get an integral equation: $$\label{int-eq}
({{\mathcal H}}^{-1}_e\varphi)(y):=-\frac{w(y)}\pi \int_{I_e} \frac{\varphi(x)}{w(x)(x-y)}dx=\psi(y),\ y\in I_i,$$ where \[psi\] (y)= f(y)+\_[a\_2]{}\^[a\_[2g+1]{}]{}dx, yI\_i is a known function.
The main problem we study in this paper is the stability of finding $f$ from the data. Several approaches to finding $f$ on $[a_2,a_{2g+1}]$ are possible. The first one consists of two steps. In step 1 we solve equation (\[int-eq\]) for $\varphi(x)$ on $I_e$. In step 2 we substitute the computed $\varphi(x)$ into (\[hilb-inv\]) and recover $f(y)$ on $[a_2,a_{2g+1}]$. It is clear that solving (\[int-eq\]), i.e. inverting ${{\mathcal H}}^{-1}_e$, is the most unstable step. Consider the operator ${{\mathcal H}}^{-1}_e$ in (\[int-eq\]) as a map between two weighted $L^2$-spaces: $$\label{map}
{{\mathcal H}}^{-1}_e:\ L^2(I_e,1/w)\to L^2(I_i,1/w).$$ Its adjoint is the Hilbert transform: $$\label{hilb-adj}
({{\mathcal H}}_i\psi)(x):= \frac1\pi \int_{I_i} \frac{\psi(y)}{y-x}dy,\ x\in I_e.$$ In [@BKT2] the authors studied the singular value decomposition (SVD) for the operator ${{\mathcal H}}^{-1}_e$. Namely, we were interested in the singular values $2\l=2\l_n>0$, $n\in\N$, and the corresponding left and right singular functions $f=f_n,~h=h_n$, satisfying $$\label{svd-def}
\begin{split}
({{\mathcal H}}^{-1}_e) h(y)=-\frac{w(y)}{\pi}&\int_{I_e} \frac{h(x)}{w(x)(x-y)}dx={2}{\lambda}f(y),\ y\in I_i,\\
({{\mathcal H}}_i f)(x)=\frac1\pi &\int_{I_i} \frac{f(y)}{y-x}dy={2}{\lambda}h(x),\ x\in I_e.
\end{split}$$ See – and Theorem \[theo-whK\], which show that the SVD is well-defined. It is well known that the rate at which $\l_n$’s approach zero is related with the ill-posedness of inverting ${{\mathcal H}}^{-1}_e$. Because of the symmetry $(\l,f,h)\Leftrightarrow (-\l,-f,h)$ of , we are interested only in positive $\l_n$. The main result of the paper [@BKT2] is the large $n$ asymptotics of $\l_n$, $f_n$ and $h_n$.
Let us introduce a $g\times g$ matrix $\mathbb A$ by \[matrixA\] (A)\_[kj]{}=2\_[a\_[2k]{}]{}\^[a\_[2k+1]{}]{}, k=1,…,g-1, [and]{} (A)\_[gj]{}=2\_[a\_[1]{}]{}\^[a\_[2g+2]{}]{}, j=1,…,g, where $R(z) = \prod_{j=1}^{2g+2}(z-a_j)^\hf$ is an analytic function on $\C \setminus (I_e \cup I_i)$ behaving as $z^{g+1}$ at infinity, and define \[tau11intro\] \_[11]{}=-2\_[j=1]{}\^g (A\^[-1]{})\_[j1]{}\_[I\_e]{}. Here and throughout the paper the subscripts $\pm$ routinely denote limiting values of functions (vectors, matrices) from the left/right side of corresponding oriented arcs. In particular, $R_+$ means the limiting value of $R$ on $I= I_e\cup I_i$ from $\Im z>0$. We also want to note that, according to the well-known Riemann’s Theorem on periods of holomorphic differentials ([@FarkasKra], $\tau_{11}$ is a purely imaginary number with positive imaginary part. Then the asymptotics of $\l_n$ is given by ([@BKT2]) ł\_n = [e]{}\^[-n + O(1)]{} , n. \[in1\] The asymptotics of the singular functions from [@BKT2] is described in Section \[sec-review\] of this paper. An alternative approach to the analysis of SVD for the Hilbert transform with incomplete data is developed in [@kat10c; @kat_11; @kt12; @aak13].
The very rapid decay of singular values in indicates that finding $\varphi$ from $\psi$ is very unstable. This, however, does not imply that finding $f$ on $[a_2,a_{2g+1}]$ is unstable, since $f$ is computed by applying a smoothing operator to $\varphi$. The second approach to finding $f$ is based on the observation that the function $\psi$ defined by is analytic in $\mathbb C\setminus I_e$ (cf. ). Hence, analytically continuing $\psi$ from $I_i$ to $(a_2,a_{2g+1})$, we can find $f$ using with $y\in (a_2,a_{2g+1})$. Note that any method that gives $f$ on $(a_2,a_{2g+1})$ is equivalend to analytic continuation of $\psi$ in view of . [*Thus, analytic continuation of $\psi$ is at the heart of any method for solving the interior problem of tomography [with prior knowledge]{}.*]{}
In this paper we obtain two results regarding the analytic continuation of $\psi$. We show that this analytic continuation can be obtained with the help of a simple explicit formula, which involves summation of a series, [see Corollary \[analcont-series\]]{}. We prove that the series is absolutely convergent if $\psi$ is in the range of ${{\mathcal H}}^{-1}_e$. We also analyze stability of this analytic continuation. Intuitively, it is clear that the farther away from $I_i$ we continue $\psi$ the less stable the procedure becomes. Our second result is that the operator of analytic continuation is not stable for any pair of Sobolev spaces: $H^{s_1}(I_i)\to H^{-s_2}(J)$, where $J$ is any open set containing $I_i$. In other words, the procedure is unstable no matter how close to $I_i$ we perform the continuation. This is an [interesting]{} result, because earlier related results indicated that finding $f$ might be stable [@dnck; @kcnd].
The paper is organized as follows. Since the derivation of our main results strongly depends on the results in [@BKT2], the latter are briefly reviewed in Section \[sec-review\]. The analytic continuation of $\psi$ and its instability in the Sobolev spaces are established in Section \[sec-sobol\]. [Loosely speaking, this result shows that no matter how many derivatives are required of $\psi$, the continuation is not stable. The availability of asymptotics of singular values and singular functions allows us to accurately estimate the degree of instability of the continuation. In Section \[sec-sobol\] we introduce a Hilbert space $\mathcal A$ of functions defined on $I_i$ with the help of an exponentially growing weight. We show how fast this weight must grow in order to ensure that the analytic continuation from $I_i$ to an open set ${\bf J}$ be a continuous map from $\mathcal A\to L^2({\bf J})$. Thus, this rate of growth measures the degree of ill-posedness of the analytic continuation as a function of the target interval ${\bf J}$.]{}
In [@BKT2] it is shown that the asymptotic approximations to the exact singular functions $f_n$ are valid uniformly on compact subsets of the interior of $I_i$ as $n\to\infty$. In Section \[sec-L2-conv\] we show that these approximations are also valid in the $L^2(I_i)$ sense as well. This is the third result obtained in this paper. We do not consider the other set of singular functions that are defined on $I_e$, since they are not needed for the analytic continuation of $\psi$. The main idea of the approach in [@BKT2] is to reduce the SVD problem to a matrix Riemann-Hilbert problem (RHP), which, in turn, is asymptotically reduced to a simpler RHP. That simpler (model) RHP has an explicit solution, which can be expressed in terms of the Riemann Theta function. A brief review of the reduction to the model RHP and certain related results from [@BKT2] are contained in Appendix \[sec-ideas\]. Some technical lemmas related to the approximation of singular functions on $[a_1,a_{2g+2}]\setminus I$ and on $I_i$ that are needed in Sections \[sec-sobol\] and \[sec-L2-conv\] are proven in Appendix \[proofstechn\].
Brief review of main results of [@BKT2] {#sec-review}
=======================================
This section contains a brief review of major results of [@BKT2]. For convenience, most of the statements below are provided with direct references (in square brackets) to the corresponding results of [@BKT2].
The SVD system can be represented as \[svd-hat\] (H\^[-1]{}\_eh)(y) &&:=\_[I\_e]{} dx = f(y), yI\_i,\
(H\_if)(x)&&:=1[2i]{} 1 \_[I\_i]{} dy= h(x), xI\_e, \[svd-def2\] where $\wh h = \frac {h}{\sqrt{w}}\in L^2(I_e)$, $\wh f = \frac { i f}{\sqrt{w}}\in L^2(I_i)$, and the operators $H^{-1}_e$, $H_i$ act on the corresponding unweighted $L^2$ spaces. It can be checked directly that the triple $(\l,\wh f,\wh h)$ satisfies the system if and only if $\l,\psi$ is the eigenvalue/eigenvector of the integral operator $(\hat K \phi)(z) =\int_I K(z,x)\phi(x)dx$ from $L^2(I)$ to $L^2(I)$, where \[svd-K\] K(z,x)= , =f(z) \_i(z)+h(z)\_e(z). (Here and henceforth $ \chi_i(z), \chi_e(z)$ denote the characteristic (indicator) functions of the sets $I_i, I_e$, respectively.) Thus, the SVD problem for the system is reduced to the spectral problem for the integral operator $\wh K:L^2(I) \to L^2(I)$. It follows directly from that K|\_[L\^2(I\_i)]{} = H\_i , K|\_[L\^2(I\_e)]{} = H\_e\^[-1]{}.\[straight\] \[theo-whK\]\[Thm.3.1 and Cor.3.8\] $\wh K$ is a self-adjoint and a Hilbert–Schmidt operator. Moreover, all the eigenvalues of $\wh K$ are simple.
According to Theorem \[theo-whK\], the eigenvalues of $\wh K$ are real with the only possible point of accumulation $\l=0$. Since the singular values of are positive (note the symmetry $(\l,\wh f,\wh h)\mapsto (-\l,-\wh f, \wh h)$ in ), we are interested only in the positive eigenvalues $\l_n$, $n\in\N$, of $\wh K$, where we order $\l_0>\l_1>\dots >0$.
Let $\wh L$ denote the restrictions of $\wh K^2$ to the interval $I_i$. Then, according to , $\wh L = H_e^{-1} H_i:L^2(I_i) \to L^2(I_i)$ is an integral operator with eigenvalues $\l_n^2$ and eigenfunctions $\wh f_n$, $n\in\N$. It is interesting to note (Lemma 3.6 in [@BKT2]) that $\wh L$ is a strictly totally positive operator. Then the simplicity of the eigenvalues $\l^2_n$ of $\wh L$ and, thus, of $\l_n$ of $\wh K$ in Theorem \[theo-whK\], follows from properties of strictly totally positive integral operators (see [@Pinkus-Rev]). Another consequence of this property of $\wh L$ is that the singular function $\wh f_n$ has exactly $n$ sign changes on $I_i$, $n=0,1,2,\dots$.
An important object of the spectral theory is the resolvent operator $\wh R$ of $\wh K$, defined by \[whR\] (+ R)(-1 łK) = . The resolvent operator $\wh R$ is an integral operator with the kernel of the form \[resolvent\] R(z,x;) = , [where]{} f(z):= , g(x):= , where $\vec g^t$ denotes the transposition of $\vec g$ and the matrix ${\Gamma}(z;\l)$ satisfies the following Riemann-Hilbert Problem (RHP) \[RHPGamma\].
\[RHPGamma\] Find a $2\times 2$ matrix-function ${\Gamma}={\Gamma}(z;{\lambda})$, $\l\in\C\setminus\{0\}$, which is analytic in $\overline{\C}\setminus I$, where $I=I_i\cup I_e$, admits non-tangential boundary values from the upper/lower half-planes that belong to $L^2_{loc}$ in the interior points of $I$, and satisfies \[rhpGam\] \_+(z;ł)&=\_-(z;ł) , zI\_i; \_+(z;ł)=\_-(z;ł) , zI\_e,\
\[assGam\] &(z;ł)=+O(z\^[-1]{}) [as]{} z,\
\[endpcond-out\] &(z;ł)=, za\_j, j=1,2g+2,\
\[endpcond-out-inn\] &(z;ł)=, za\_j, j=2,2g+1,\
\[endpcond-inn\] &(z;ł)=, za\_j, j=3, …, 2g. Here the endpoint behavior of $\Gamma$ is described column-wise. We will frequently omit the dependence on $\l$ from notation and write simply ${\Gamma}(z)$ for convenience.
The latest fact links the resolvent operator $\wh R$ for $\wh K$ with the RHP for the matrix ${\Gamma}$ from .
\[theo-Gam\]\[Thm.3.17 and Prop.3.12\] The RHP \[RHPGamma\] has a solution ${\Gamma}(z;\l)$, where $\l\in \C\setminus\{0\}$, if and only if $\l$ is not an eigenvalue of $\wh K$. Moreover, for any fixed $\l\in \C\setminus\{0\}$ the RHP \[RHPGamma\] has at most one solution.
Connection of our spectral problem with the RHP \[RHPGamma\] is remarkable, as the RHP \[RHPGamma\] is a much more convenient object for rigorous asymptotic analysis (in small $\l$) than the spectral problem for $\wh K$. The eigenfunctions of $\wh K$ corresponding to a fixed eigenvalue $\l_n$ are given by two proportional expressions \[round-phi\_n\] \_[n,j]{}(z)= \_[j1]{}(z;ł) + [i]{} \_i(z) \_[j2]{}(z;ł) , j=1,2, in terms of the entries of the matrix ${\Gamma}(z,\l)$, where for every $n\in\N$ at least one of $\phi_{n,j}$ is not identical zero on $I$.
Once the connection between the spectral problem for $\wh K$ and the RHP \[RHPGamma\] is established, we use the nonlinear steepest descent method of Deift and Zhou to construct an explicit leading order approximation of ${\Gamma}(z,\l)$ as $\l\ra 0^+$ in terms of the Riemann Theta functions. Of course, this approximation will not be valid at the eigenvalues $\l_n$ of $\wh K$, as, according to Theorem \[theo-Gam\], ${\Gamma}(z,\l_n)$ does not exists. However, using the explicit form of the approximate solution, we can find the values $\tl_n$ for which this approximate solution has singularities. The obtained values $\tl_n$ will be referred to as “approximate eigenvalues”. It tuns out that, indeed, $\tl_n$ approximate the corresponding $\l_n$ with the accuracy \[acc\_sing\_val\] | \_n - \_n|=O( \_n\^[-12]{}), where ${\varkappa}_n=-\ln \l_n$ and $\tk_n=-\ln \tl_n$ (it will be shown that $\tk_n=O(n)$ as $n\ra\infty$).
Let us now consider the asymptotics of singular functions. According to , the approximation of normalized singular functions can be obtained by replacing rows of the matrix $\Gamma_{jk}(z;\l)$, $j,k\in\{1,2\}$, in by the corresponding rows of the approximate solution to the RHP \[RHPGamma\]. To present the approximation formula for singular functions, we need to introduce some notations and a few notions from the theory of compact Riemann surfaces. They will also be helpful for a geometrical interpretation of $\tk_n$.
The [**Riemann Theta function**]{} associated with a symmetric matrix $\tau$ with strictly positive imaginary part (that guarantees convergence) is the function of the vector argument $\vec z\in\C^g$ given by \[Theta\] (z,):= \_[n\^g]{} (in\^t n +2in\^t z). Often the dependence on $\tau$ is omitted from the notation. We will consider the matrix $\tau$ given by = \[\_[ij]{}\]= \_[i,j=1,g]{}, \[taumatrix\] where \[1stkind\] \^t(z)= = A\^[-1]{}, matrix $\mathbb A$ is defined by , and the loops (cycles) $B_i$, $i=1,\dots,g$ are shown in Figure \[homology\].
\[Riemann1\] The matrix $\tau$ is [**symmetric**]{} and its imaginary part is strictly positive definite.
Matrix $\tau$ is an important object in the theory of compact Riemann surfaces. Indeed, consider the hyperelliptic Riemann surface $\mathcal R$, defined by the segments $[a_{2k-1},a_{2k}]$, $k=1,2,\dots,g+1$, that form $I$, with canonical $A$ and $B$ cycles shown in Figure \[homology\]. Then $\vec \omega(z)dz$ is known as the vector of normalized holomorphic differentials on $\mathcal R$ and $\tau$ is called the [normalized matrix of $B$-periods]{} of $\mathcal R$. Note that $[\mathbb A]_{ji}=
\oint_{A_j} \frac {\z^{i-1} d \z}{R(\z)}$, and $\t_{11}$ in is the $(1,1)$ entry of the matrix $\tau$.
[[R]{}]{}\[rem-imag\_tau\] It follows from , and that the entries of the matrix $\t$ are purely imaginary.
\[homology\]
\[thetaproperties\] For any $\lambda, \mu \in \Z^g$, the Theta function has the following properties: && (z,) = (-z,);\
&& (z + + , ) = ( -2i\^tz - i\^t ) (z,).\[thetaperiods\]
According to and Proposition \[thetaproperties\], the Theta function is an even function of $g$ complex variables, periodic on the lattice $\Z^g$ and quasi-periodic on the lattice $\t\Z^g$. A hypersurface $(\Th)\subset\C^g$, defined by $\Theta(\vec z,\tau)=0$, is called a theta divisor. This is a hypersurface of complex codimension one or real codimension two. According to Proposition \[thetaproperties\], the theta divisor $(\Th)$ is periodic in $\Z^g$ and $\t\Z^g$.
Let \[wukappa\] W= W()= \_1 + 2u() + , W\_0 = 2 - 2, where $\t_1$ is the first column of matrix $\t$, \[Abelmap\] u(z) = \_[a\_1]{}\^z ()d, z\[a\_1,), is known as the Abel map on $\mathcal R$, and ${\bf e}_k$ denotes the $k$th vector of the standard basis in $\C^g$. Then $\tk_n=-\ln \tl_n$ are defined by the condition \[kappa\_n\_cond\] ( W() - W\_0)=0. Geometrically, this condition determines the points of intersection of the line $ W({\varkappa})-W_0\subset \C^g$ with the theta divisor. Let us consider this question in a little more details. Direct calculations show that all the terms of $W({\varkappa})$ in are real, provided that ${\varkappa}\in\R$. Thus, the line $\{W({\varkappa}):{\varkappa}\in\R\}\subset \R^g\subset\R^{2g}$, if we identify $\C^g$ with $\R^{2g}$. So, the line $ W({\varkappa})-W_0$, ${\varkappa}\in\R$, is a subset of the shifted hyperplane $\Pi=W_0+\R^g$. Let $(\Th)_R:=(\Th)\cap\Pi$.
\[lem-Theta\_R\]\[Lem.7.5\] Each connected component of $(\Th)_R$ is a smooth $g-1$ (real) dimensional hypersurface in $\Pi$.
Moreover, since $(\Th)_R$ is $Z^g$ periodic on $\Pi$, it is sufficient to study $(\Th)_R$ in a $g$ (real) dimensional torus $\mathbb T_g$. Numerically simulated surfaces $(\Th)_R\cap\mathbb T_g$ for $g=2,3$, and their intersections with the line $ W({\varkappa})-W_0$ are shown on Figure \[ThetaDivisor\]. In the case $g=2$ we proved that the line $ W({\varkappa})-W_0$ has one and only one intersection with $(\Th)_R$ in $\mathbb T_2$. It is likely (but not proven yet) that this statement holds for a general $g\in\N$. However, the following lemma is sufficient to obtain the asymptotics for $\l_n$ with any $g\in\{2,3,\dots\}$.
![Intersection of the line $ W({\varkappa})-W_0$ (blue or lighter line) with the theta divisor $(\Th)_R$ in $\mathbb T_g$, where $g=2$ (left panel) and $g=3$ (right panel). On the left panel ($g=2$) $(\Th)_R$ is represented by a curve, on the right panel ($g=3$) $(\Th)_R$ is represented by a surface. In both cases the point of intersection of $ W({\varkappa})-W_0$ with $(\Th)_R$ determines some ${\varkappa}=\tk_n$. []{data-label="ThetaDivisor"}](ThetaDivisorg2.pdf "fig:"){width="50.00000%"} ![Intersection of the line $ W({\varkappa})-W_0$ (blue or lighter line) with the theta divisor $(\Th)_R$ in $\mathbb T_g$, where $g=2$ (left panel) and $g=3$ (right panel). On the left panel ($g=2$) $(\Th)_R$ is represented by a curve, on the right panel ($g=3$) $(\Th)_R$ is represented by a surface. In both cases the point of intersection of $ W({\varkappa})-W_0$ with $(\Th)_R$ determines some ${\varkappa}=\tk_n$. []{data-label="ThetaDivisor"}](ThetaDivisorg3.pdf "fig:"){width="50.00000%"}
\[prop-ass\] \[Prop.7.11\] Let ${\varkappa}_0\in\R^+$ and $g\in\{2,3,\dots\}$. For any $N\in\N$ the number $m(N)$ of intersections of the segment of the line $W({\varkappa})-W_0$, where ${\varkappa}\in \le [{\varkappa}_0 , {\varkappa}_0 + \frac{N(g-1) i\pi}{\tau_{11}}\ri)$, with $(\Theta)_\R$ is bounded by \[bound\_n\] (N-1)(g-1)m(N) (N+1)(g-1).
Let us now denote $$\label{some_not}
\begin{split}
&\mathbf f_n:= W(\tk_n)-W_0,~~~\gg(z) = \frac 12 - 2 \int_{a_1}^z\!\!\! \omega_1d z ~~~{\rm and} \\
d(z)=&\frac{R(z)}{2\pi i}\le(-\sum_{j=1}^{g+1}\int_{a_{2j-1}}^{a_{2j}}\frac{\ln w(\z)d\z}{(\z-z)R_+(\z)}+
\sum_{j=1}^{g}\int_{a_{2j}}^{a_{2j+1}}
\frac
{i{\delta}_{\mu(j)}
d\z}{(\z-z)R_+(\z)}\ri),
\end{split}$$ where: $\mu(g)=0$ and $\mu(j)=j$ for all $j\neq g$; the vector $\vec{\delta}=[{\delta}_1,\dots,{\delta}_{g-1},{\delta}_0]^t$ is given by $\vec {\delta}= 2\pi L^{-1} \le(2\mathfrak u(\infty) - \mathfrak u(a_{2g+2}) \ri)$ and L= .
\[propositiongg\]\[Prop.4.2\] [**(1)**]{} $\gg(z)$ satisfies the jump conditions \[geqm\] \_+(z)+\_-(z)=-1 [on]{} I\_i, \_+(z)+\_-(z)=1 [on]{} I\_e, \[geqc\] [and]{} \_+(z)-\_-(z)=iØ\_[(j)]{} [on]{} \[a\_[2j]{},a\_[2j+1]{}\], j=1,,g, where ${\Omega}_0= \frac 4 i \sum_{k=1}^g\int_{a_{2k-1}}^{a_{2k}}\!\!\!\!\! \omega_1dz\in \R$ and $\Omega_j = \frac 4 i \sum_{k=1}^j\int_{a_{2k-1}}^{a_{2k}} \!\!\!\!\! \omega_1dz\in \R$. [**(2)**]{} The function $d(z)$given by is analytic on $\bar \C \setminus [a_1,a_{2g+2}]$ (in particular, analytic at infinity) and satisfies the jump conditions d\_+ +d\_- =- w [on ]{} I, d\_+ -d\_- =i\_[(j)]{} [on ]{} c\_j, \[a\_[2j]{},a\_[2j+1]{}\], j=1,,g. \[propertyDelta\]
Let r(z):= , z, \[spinorh\] where $J = \{ 1,5, 7,9,11, \dots, 2g-1\}$ and $J' = \{1,2, 3, \dots 2g+2\}\setminus J$ (so that $|J| = g-1$ and $|J|' =g+3$). The function $r(z)$ is defined so that it is analytic in $\C\setminus [a_1,a_{2g+2}]$ and at infinity behaves like $\frac 1 z$.
Let $$\label{Ups}
\begin{split}
\Upsilon^{(j)}(z;\mathbf f_n ) = (-1)^j&\sqrt{ \frac {\Theta(W_0\!+\!(-1)^j2\mathfrak u(\infty) )}{\Theta(\mathbf f_n\!+\! (-1)^j2\mathfrak u(\infty))}
\frac {[\mathbb A^{-1} \nabla \Theta(W_0)]_g }{i\vec \tau_1\!\!\cdot \!\! \nabla \Theta(\mathbf f_n) }}
\\
&\times
\frac{\Theta\le(\mathfrak u_+(z)\! +\!\!(-1)^j\!\mathfrak u(\infty) + \mathbf f_n \ri) r_+(z)}
{ \Theta\le(\mathfrak u_+(z) \!+\!(-1)^j \mathfrak u(\infty)+W_0\ri)},~j=1,2,
\end{split}$$ where $z\in I$. It follows from Corollary 7.20, [@BKT2], that for every $n\in\N$ we have $\Upsilon^{(1)}(z;\mathbf f_n)\equiv \pm\Upsilon^{(2)}(z;\mathbf f_n)$, where the choice of the sign depends on a particular $n$. It turns out that this sign is not essential, since the normalized singular functions $\wh f_n(z)$ and $\wh h_n(z)$, approximated through $\Upsilon^{(j)}(z;\mathbf f_n )$ (see below), are determined only up to a sign. Thus, we introduce $\Upsilon(z;\mathbf f_n)$ that, for a given $n\in\N$, coincides with both $\Upsilon^{(j)}(z;\mathbf f_n)$, $~j=1,2,$ modulo factor $(-1)$.
Now the asymptotics of singular functions is described by the following theorem.
\[cor-first\]\[Thm.7.22\] The singular functions $\wh f_n(z)$ and $\wh h_n(z)$ of the system in in $L^2(I_i)$ and $L^2(I_e)$, respectively, are asymptotically given by $$\label{843}
\begin{split}
\wh f_n(z) =
{i} \Im \le[ 2\Upsilon(z;\mathbf f_n){\rm e}^{-i \tk_n \Im (\gg_+(z)) -i\Im (d_+(z)) } \ri] +
\mathcal O({\tk}_n^{-1}), ~~~z\in I_i,\\
\wh h_n(z) =
\Re \le[ 2\Upsilon(z;\mathbf f_n) {\rm e}^{-i \tk_n \Im (\gg_+(z)) -i\Im (d_+(z)) } \ri] +
\mathcal O({\tk}_n^{-1}),~~~z\in I_e,
\end{split}$$ where the approximation is uniform in any compact subset of the interior of $I_i, I_e$, respectively.
\[cor-sing-func\]\[Cor.7.24\] The [singular functions]{} $f_n(z)$ and $h_n(z)$ of the system in $L^2(I_i,\frac 1{w(z)})$ and $L^2(I_e,\frac 1{w(z)})$, respectively, are asymptotically given by f\_n(z) = + O(\_n\^[-1]{}), zI\_i,h\_n(z) = + O(\_n\^[-1]{}), zI\_e,\[844\] where the approximation is uniform in any compact subset of the interior of $I_i, I_e$, respectively.
Instability of the interior problem in Sobolev spaces {#sec-sobol}
=====================================================
Continuation of $f$ from $I_i$ {#sec-cont}
------------------------------
The function $\psi(y)$ in is analytic in $\C\setminus I_e$ and is known on $I_i$. If we can find the analytic continuation of $\psi(y)$ on $(a_2, a_{2g+1})$, then, according to , we can solve the problem of reconstructing $f$ on $(a_2, a_{2g+1})$.
The idea of such reconstruction is straightforward. The eigenfunctions $\phi_n=\frac 1 {\sqrt{2}}(\wh f_n\chi_i + \wh h_n\chi_e)$ of the self-adjoint Hilbert-Schmidt integral operator $\wh K: L^2(I)\mapsto L^2(I)$ form an orthonormal basis in $L^2(I)$. Thus, $\wh f_n, \wh h_n$ form orthonormal bases in $L^2(I_i)$, $L^2(I_e)$ respectively, so that $ f_n, h_n$ form orthonormal bases in the corresponding in $L^2(I_i,1/w)$, $L^2(I_e,1/w)$. Note that the former [coincides]{} with $L^2(I_i)$. Given $\psi\in L^2(I_i,1/w)$ and $\varphi\in L^2(I_e,1/w)$ we have \[psi\_phi\_exp\] =\_n f\_n [on]{} I\_i [and]{} =\_n h\_n [on]{} I\_e, where $\sum \psi_n^2<\infty,~\sum \varphi_n^2<\infty$. According to , ${{\mathcal H}}_e^{-1} h_n =2\l_n f_n$, so that ${{\mathcal H}}_e^{-1} \varphi =\psi$ and imply $\psi_n=2\l_n\varphi_n$. In view of the asymptotics of $\l_n$, we conclude that the coefficients $\psi_n$ decay exponentially fast, so we have a very fast convergence of the series for $\psi$. Note that, according to , the singular functions $f_n$ are analytic in $\C\setminus I_e$. Thus the question of analytic continuation of $\psi$ to $(a_2, a_{2g+1})$ through the series is reduced to the question of convergence of $\psi=\sum \psi_n f_n$ in $(a_2, a_{2g+1})\setminus I_i$.
Let ${\mathcal I}_{\omega}$, ${\omega}>0$, denote the set of all $z\in (a_2, a_{2g+1}) \setminus I_i$ that are at least ${\omega}$ away from the nearest branchpoint $a_j$, $j=2,3,\dots,2g+1$. Below, we consider only such ${\omega}$, that $a_j+{\omega}<a_{j+1}-{\omega}$ for all $j=2,\dots,2g$.
\[lem-f\_n\_in\_gaps\] There exists a constant $C_{\omega}>0$, such that for all $n\in\N$ and for all $z\in {\mathcal I}_{\omega}$ \[est-f\_n-gaps\] |f\_n(z)|C\_øe\^[\_n((z)+)]{}.
Lemma \[lem-f\_n\_in\_gaps\] follows from Lemma \[lem-est-gaps\], and .
\[lem-Re\_g\] $|\Re \gg(z)|< \frac 12$ for any $z\in\C\setminus I$, with $\Re \gg(z)\equiv \hf$ on $I_e$ and $\Re \gg(z)\equiv-\hf$ on $I_i$.
Consider $\gg(z)$ on the main sheet of the Riemann surface $\mathcal R$ with branchcuts on $I$. Note that $\gg(z)$ is Schwarz symmetrical and satisfies the jump conditions $\gg_+ + \gg_- \equiv 1 $ on $I_e$ and $\gg_+ + \gg_- \equiv -1 $ on $I_i$, see Proposition \[propositiongg\]. Thus, $\Re \gg(z)\equiv \hf$ on $I_e$ and $\Re \gg(z)\equiv-\hf$ on $I_i$. The remaining statement follows from the maximal principle for harmonic functions.
\[thm33\] For a given ${\omega}>0$, the series $\psi(z)=\sum \psi_n f_n(z)$ converges absolutely and uniformly on ${\mathcal I}_{\omega}$.
Recall that ${\lambda}_n=\exp(-{\varkappa}_n)$. As a consequence of Lemma \[lem-f\_n\_in\_gaps\], we have \[unif-conv\] | \_n f\_n(z)| 2C\_ø\_\* e\^[\_n((z)-)]{}, where $\varphi_*=\max_n\{|\varphi_n|\}<\infty$. In light of and Lemma \[lem-Re\_g\], the series in the right hand side of converges absolutely and uniformly on ${\mathcal I}_{\omega}$.
\[analcont-series\] The series $\psi(z)=\sum \psi_n f_n(z)$ provides analytic continuation of $\psi$ onto $(a_2,a_{2g+1})$. Indeed, by choosing a sufficiently small ${\omega}$, one can analytically continue $\psi(z)$ to any point in $(a_2,a_{2g+1})\setminus I_i$ through this series.
Instability of analytic continuation in Sobolev norms
-----------------------------------------------------
In the previous section we obtained a formula for analytic continuation of $\psi(y)$ from $I_i$ to all of $(a_2,a_{2g+1})$. Next we prove that analytic continuation of $\psi$ from $I_i$ is unstable for any pair of Sobolev spaces: $H^{s_1}(I_i)\to H^{-s_2}({\bf J})$, where ${\bf J}$ is any open set containing $I_i$. Clearly, it makes sense to consider $s_1,s_2>0$. For simplicity we will assume that $s_1$ and $s_2$ are integers, so (see Chapter 1 in [@egs]): $$\label{norm1}
\lVert f \rVert_{H^{s_1}(I_i)}^2:=\sum_{j=0}^{s_1} \int_{I_i} |f^{(j)}(y)|^2dy,$$ and $$\label{norm2}
\lVert f\rVert_{H^{-s_2}(J)}:=\inf_{\tilde f \in H^{-s_2}(\mathbb R), f=\tilde f|_{\bf J}}\sup_{\phi\in{C_0^{\infty}}({\mathbb R})} \frac{\left| \int_{\mathbb R} \tilde f(y)\overline{\phi(y)}dy\right|}{\lVert \phi\rVert_{H^{s_2}({\mathbb R})}}.$$ Let $\gamma$ be a collection of simple loops in the complex plane so that $I_i$ is contained in the union of the interiors of the loops. We take ${\gamma}$ to be sufficiently close to $I_i$. By the Cauchy integral theorem using the analyticity of $f_n$ one can show that $$\label{est1}
\lVert f_n\rVert_{H^{s_1}(I_i)} \leq c(s_1,{\gamma}) \max_{z\in\gamma}|f_n(z)|$$ for some $c(s_1,{\gamma})>0$. Analogously to Lemma \[lem-f\_n\_in\_gaps\], it follows from Lemma \[lem-est-gaps\] that $$\label{est2}
\max_{z\in\gamma}|f_n(z)|\leq c_{\gamma}\exp({\varkappa}_n(\max_{z\in{\gamma}} \Re g(z)+\frac12))$$ for some $c_{\gamma}>0$. By taking ${\gamma}$ sufficiently close to $I_i$, we can make $\max_{z\in{\gamma}} \Re g(z)+\frac12$ as close to zero as we want.
\[lem-seq-intervals\] One can find a sequence of intervals $J_n\subset {\bf J}$ with the following properties:
1. The length of each $J_n$ is greater than a fixed positive constant independent of $n$;
2. The distance of each $J_n$ to $I_i$ is greater than a fixed positive constant independent of $n$; and
3. There exists $N>0$ large enough such that $$\label{est4}
|f_n(y)|\ge c \exp({\varkappa}_n(\Re g(y)+\frac12)),\ n\ge N,\ y\in J_n,$$ for some $c>0$ independent of $n$.
Lemma \[lem-seq-intervals\] is proven in Appendix \[proofstechn\]. By property 1 in Lemma \[lem-seq-intervals\] we can find $L>0$ such that the length of each interval $J_n$ is greater than or equal to $L$. Then we select a real-valued function $\phi\in C_0^\infty([-L/2,L/2])$, $\phi\ge0$, $\phi\not\equiv0$. By shifting $\phi$ appropriately, we get a collection of functions $\phi_n\in{C_0^{\infty}}(J_n)$ and they all have the same $H^{s_2}({\mathbb R})$-norm. Using the facts that: (i) $f$ and $\tilde f$ coincide on ${\bf J}$ (cf. ); (ii) $f_n$’s are real-valued on ${\bf J}$, and; (iii) $f_n$’s do not change sign on $J_n$ for $n$ large (cf. ), equation immediately yields $$\label{est3}
\lVert f_n \rVert_{H^{-s_2}({\bf J})}\ge c_\phi \min_{y\in J_n} |f_n(y)|,\ n\ge N,$$ for some $c_\phi>0$.
From the second property in Lemma \[lem-seq-intervals\], by choosing ${\gamma}$ sufficiently close to $I_i$ so that all $J_n$ are in the exterior of $\gamma$ and $\text{dist}({\gamma},\cup_n J_n)>0$, we get $\inf_{y\in \cup J_n} \Re g(y) > \max_{z\in{\gamma}} \Re g(z)$. Hence, $$\label{final}
\frac{ \exp({\varkappa}_n(\min_{y\in J_n} \Re g(y)+\frac12))}{ \exp({\varkappa}_n(\max_{z\in{\gamma}} \Re g(z)+\frac12))}\to\infty,\ n\to\infty.$$ Hence it follows from and that the quantity $\lVert f_n \rVert_{H^{-s_2}({\bf J})}$ cannot be bounded in terms of $\lVert f_n \rVert_{H^{s_1}(I_i)}$. Since the Sobolev norm $\lVert f \rVert_{H^s}$ is a monotonically increasing function of $s$ (provided that $f$ belongs to the appropriate spaces), our argument proves the following result.
\[instability\] Fix an open set ${\bf J}\supset I_i$. The operation of analytic continuation from $I_i$ to ${\bf J}$ described in Corollary \[analcont-series\] cannot be extended to a continuous operator $H^{s_1}(I_i)\to H^{-s_2}({\bf J})$ for any $s_1,s_2$.
Theorem \[instability\] shows that analytic continuation is more unstable than calculation of any number of derivatives. An interesting question is to estimate the degree of ill-posedness of analytic continuation. This can be done, for example, by finding a Hilbert space $\mathcal A$ on which the operator of analytic continuation is bounded. It is clear that the space $\mathcal A$ should contain at least all functions in the range of ${{\mathcal H}}^{-1}_e:\ L^2(I_e,1/w)\to L^2(I_i,1/w)$. If $\psi\in \mathcal A$, but $\psi$ is not in the range of ${{\mathcal H}}^{-1}_e$, then the analytic continuation of $\psi$ is understood via the summation of the series in Corollary \[analcont-series\].
Let $w_n$ be a sequence of positive numbers. Introduce the following space: $$\mathcal A:=\{ \psi\in {L^2}(I_i):\, \sum_{n\ge0} w_n^2 |\psi_n|^2<\infty \},$$ where $$\psi_n:=\langle \psi,f_n \rangle:=\int_{I_i} \psi(y) f_n(y) \frac1{w(y)}dy.$$ It is obvious that $\mathcal A$ is a Hilbert space with the inner product defined by the formula $$\langle \psi^{(1)},\psi^{(2)} \rangle:=\sum_{n\ge 0} w_n^2 \psi^{(1)}_n \overline{\psi^{(2)}_n}.$$ \[stability\] Fix an open set ${\bf J}$, whose closure is a subset of $(a_2,a_{2g+1})$. Suppose that each connected component of ${\bf J}$ contains at least one of the intervals that make up $I_i$. Suppose the sequence of $w_n$’s is such that the limit below exists and satisfies $$0<\lim_{n \to \infty} \left\{\frac{w_n}n \exp(-{\varkappa}_n(\sup_{z\in {\bf J}} \Re g(z)+\frac12))\right\} <\infty.$$ Then one has: (1) ${{\mathcal H}}^{-1}_e(L^2(I_e,1/w))\subset \mathcal A$, and; (2) the operator of analytic continuation acting between the spaces $\mathcal A \to L^2({\bf J})$ is continuous.
Similarly to the proof of Theorem \[thm33\], it is easily seen that assertion (1) holds. Now we prove assertion (2). First we show that $$\label{est-comb}
\max_{z\in {\bf J}}|f_n(z)|\leq c_ {\bf J} \exp({\varkappa}_n(\sup_{z\in {\bf J}} \Re g(z)+\frac12))$$ for some $c_ {\bf J}>0$. Denote $G:=\sup_{z\in {\bf J}} \Re g(z)$. Let ${\gamma}$ be a collection of simple contours in $\C$ containing the components of ${\bf J}\cap I_i$ in their interior. By making ${\gamma}$ as close to these component as we need and using Lemma \[lem-Re\_g\], we can find ${\gamma}$ such that $\sup_{z\in {\gamma}} \Re g(z)<G$. Now follows immediately by using inequalities and combined with the maximum modulus principle. Finally, to prove (2) we fix any $N>0$. Then $$\label{eq316}
\begin{split}
\int_{J} \left| \sum_{n=0}^N \psi_n f_n(z) \right|^2 dz \leq
|J| \left (\sum_{n=0}^N |\psi_n| \sup_{z\in J} |f_n(z)| \right)^2\leq
c \left (\sum_{n=0}^N |\psi_n| \frac{w_n}{n} \right)^2\leq
c \sum_{n=0}^N (|\psi_n| w_n)^2 \sum_{n=0}^N \frac{1}{n^2},
\end{split}$$ where $c>0$ is some constant. By taking the limit $N\to\infty$ the desired assertion follows immediately.
Using the fact that the singular functions $f_n$ are analytic on ${\bf J}$ and the coefficients $\psi_n$ go to zero sufficiently fast, similarly to the proof of Theorem \[thm33\] and it is easy to see that each $\psi\in\mathcal A$ defined on ${\bf J}$ via the series in Corollary \[analcont-series\] is a uniform limit of analytic functions. Hence the continuation of $\psi$ from $I_i$ to ${\bf J}$ via the series and via the conventional analytic continuation coincide.
Approximation in $L^2(I_i)$ {#sec-L2-conv}
============================
According to Theorem \[cor-first\], the normalized singular functions $\wh f_n$ are approximated by \_n:=[i]{} \[tfn\] with accuracy $O(n^{-1})$ in the sup-norm (uniformly) on any compact subset of the interior of $I_i$. In this subsection we discuss this approximation in $L^2(I_i)$. We will use $\|f\|$ to denote the $L^2$ norm of $f\in L^2(I_i)$.
\[lem-prepar\] Let ${\omega}_0$ be so small that each interval $(a_k-{\omega}_0,a_k+{\omega}_0)$ contains no endpoints except $a_k$. Then there exists some $\eta>0$, such that \[est-unif\] k{3,…,2g},n, ø(0,ø\_0): |\_n(z)| [on]{} (a\_k-ø,a\_k+ø).
Lemma \[lem-prepar\] follows from Lemma \[lemmab1\] and Corollary \[cor-Ups12\].
\[lem-norm-tf\] [The norms of $\wt f_n(z)$ satisfy the asymptotic expansion]{} \[norm-tf-st\] \_n=1 + O(n\^[-1]{}) , n.
The proof of this lemma can be found in Appendix \[proofstechn\].
Let ${\omega}>0$ and define $I_i^{\omega}=I_i\setminus \bigcup_{k=3}^{2g}(a_k-{\omega},a_k+{\omega})$. If $f\in L^2(I_i)$, then $\|f\|^2= \|f\|_b^2+\|f\|^2_t$, where $\|f\|_b$ denotes the norm of $f$ in $L^2(I_i^{\omega})$ (in the bulk) and $\|f\|_t$ denotes the norm of $f$ in $L^2(I_i\setminus I_i^{\omega})$ (in the tails).
According to Theorem \[cor-first\], for any ${\omega}\in(0,{\omega}_0)$ there exists some $P_{\omega}>0$, such that \[dif-norm\] f\_n-\_n\_b.
$\tf_n$ approximate $\wh f_n$ in $L^2(I_i)$, that is, $\forall {\epsilon}>0 \, \exists n_0\in\N$ such that $ \forall n>n_0:\,\|\wh f_n-\tf_n\|<{\epsilon}$.
According to , $\|\tf_n\|_t\leq 2\sqrt{g-1}\eta{\omega}^\frac 14$ for all $n\in\N$. As implied by Lemma \[lem-norm-tf\], there exist some $Q_{\omega}>0$, such that $\|\tf_n\|\geq 1- \frac{Q_{\omega}}{n}$. Since $1- \frac{Q_{\omega}}{n}\leq\|\tf_n\|\leq \|\tf_n\|_b+\|\tf_n\|_t$, we obtain $\|\tf_n\|_b\geq 1-2\sqrt{g-1}\eta{\omega}^\frac 14- \frac{Q_{\omega}}{n}$. Then, according to ,
& f\_n\_b\_n\_b-f\_n-\_n\_b1-2ø\^14-- , [so that]{} & f\_n\_t\^2=1- f\_n\_b\^2 2(2ø\^14+).
Thus, \[first-est\] f\_n-\_nf\_n-\_n\_b +f\_n\_t+ \_n\_t2ø\^14++. It is clear that for a small ${\epsilon}$ condition $2\sqrt{g-1}\eta{\omega}^\frac 14+\frac{P_{\omega}+Q_{\omega}}{n}<\frac{{\epsilon}^2}{4}$ would imply $\|\wh f_n-\tf_n\|\leq {\epsilon}$. Choose ${\omega}^\frac 14=\frac{{\epsilon}^2}{16\sqrt{g-1}\eta}$. Then the former inequality holds for all $n>\frac{8(P_{\omega}+Q_{\omega})}{{\epsilon}^2}$. The proof is completed.
Approximate solution of the RHP \[RHPGamma\] and related results from [@BKT2] {#sec-ideas}
=============================================================================
Construction of the leading order approximation of the solution ${\Gamma}(z;\l)$ of the RHP \[RHPGamma\] in the limit $\l\ra 0^+$ is at the heart of our method. We also have to control the accuracy of such approximation. We employ the nonlinear steepest descent method of Deift and Zhou, that allows to asymptotically reduce the original RHP (RHP \[RHPGamma\]) to a certain RHP with constant jumps (RHP \[modelRHP\]) that one can solve explicitly. The asymptotic reduction consists of a sequence of transformations of the RHP \[RHPGamma\], some of them equivalent and some asymptotic (with the error estimates for the later). The key idea is a factorization of the jump matrix with a subsequent contour deformation, where each factor “aquiring” its own jump-contour in the process. In this appendix we only briefly outline some main points of the reduction of the RHP \[RHPGamma\] and provide a solution to the corresponding “reduced” RHP with constant jumps. The details can be found in [@BKT2]. There exists a large and rapidly growing literature about the method Deift and Zhou and its various applications, see, for example, [@Deift], [@Deift60volume]. We also include some facts about theta divisors as well as some further results from [@BKT2] that are used in the proof of technical lemmas in Appendix \[proofstechn\].
Let ${\Sigma}$ be an oriented collection of contours that partition $\C$ into a finite number of open regions and let $V(z)$ be an $n\times n$ matrix valued function defined on ${\Sigma}$, satisfying certain conditions at the nodes of ${\Sigma}$. [^4] A (somewhat) general formulation of a matrix RHP can be stated as follows. We do not get here into the details of the smoothness of ${\Sigma}$ and $V(z)$.
\[RHPgen\] Find an $n\times n$ matrix-function $M(z)$ that:
is analytic in each element of partition, induced by the contour ${\Sigma}$;
for any $z\in{\Sigma}$ that is not a node $M(z)$ admits non-tangential boundary values $M_\pm(z)$ from the corresponding sides of ${\Sigma}$ and \[jump-gen\] M\_+(z)=M\_-(z)V(z);
\[ass-gen\] \_[z]{} M(z)=.
In general, the existence of a solution to the RHP is not guaranteed. The nonlinear steepest descent method is based upon the following “small norm theorem”.
\[theo-small\_norm\] Let $N_p$ denotes the norms of $V(z)-\1$ in $L^p({\Sigma},dz)$. Then
There is a constant $C_{\Sigma}$ such that if $N_\infty < C^{-1}_{\Sigma}$ the solution of the RHP \[RHPgen\] exists;
In this case \[small\_norm\] M(z)-(N\_1+) for every $z\in\C\setminus {\Sigma}$.
The name of this theorem reflects the fact that the solution $M(z)$ of the RHP \[RHPgen\] is close (pointwise) to the identity matrix $\1$ [if the norms $N_{1,2}$ are small]{}.
Let ${\varkappa}=-\ln {\lambda}$. Then ${\varkappa}>0$ when ${\lambda}\in(0,1)$ and ${\varkappa}\ra\infty$ as $\l\ra 0$. The first transformation is replacing ${\Gamma}(z;\l)$ with $Y(z;{\varkappa})$ by $$\label{y-def}
Y(z;{\varkappa})=e^{-(\varkappa \gg(\infty)+d(\infty)\sigma_3}\Gamma(z;e^{-{\varkappa}}) e^{(\varkappa \gg(z)+d(z))\sigma_3},$$ where $ \gg(z),d(z)$ are defined by and the Pauli matrices are defined as $$\s_1= \begin{bmatrix}
0 & 1\\
1&0
\end{bmatrix},~~~
\s_2= \begin{bmatrix}
0 & -i\\
i&0
\end{bmatrix},~~~
\s_3= \begin{bmatrix}
1 & 0\\
0&-1
\end{bmatrix}.$$
Then direct calculations show that the RHP \[RHPGamma\] for ${\Gamma}(z;\l)$ is reduced to the following equivalent RHP for $Y$.
\[prob-Y\] Find a $2\times 2$ matrix-function $Y(z;{\varkappa})$ with the following properties:
1. $Y(z;{\varkappa})$ is analytic in $\C\setminus[a_1,a_{2g+2}]$;
2. $Y(z;{\varkappa})$ satisfies the jump conditions \[jumpY\] Y\_+&& =Y\_- , zI\_i,\
Y\_+&&=Y\_-, zI\_e\
[and]{} && Y\_+=Y\_- e\^[\[(+d)\_+ -(+d)\_-\] \_3]{} [on]{} \[a\_[2j]{},a\_[2j+1]{}\], j =1,…, g ;
3. $Y=\1+O(z^{-1})~~~~{\rm as} ~~z\ra\infty,$ and;
4. Near the branchpoints (we indicate the behavior for the columns if these have different behaviors) \[endpcondY\] Y(z;)=\[ O(1), O(z-a\_[j]{})\^[-1 2]{}\], j=1,2g+2; Y(z;)=O((z-a\_j)), j=2,…, 2g+1.
In the next transformation (now of the RHP \[prob-Y\]) we first factorize the triangular jump matrices in as \[jumpY2\]
Y\_+&=Y\_- I\_i,\
Y\_+&=Y\_- I\_e,
and then put each of the three factors (for $I_e$ and for $I_i$) on its own jump contour as described below.
The validity of the factorization can be checked directly, taking into the account the identities $-{\varkappa}(\gg_+ +\gg_- \pm 1)-\ln w - d_+ - d_- \equiv 0$ that hold on $I_i$ and $I_e$ respectively, see , . The left and right (triangular) matrices in both factorizations (on $I_i$ and on $I_e$) admit analytic extension on the left/right vicinities of the corresponding segments because they are boundary values of analytic matrices in those vicinities. This suggests opening of the lenses ${\partial}\mathcal L_{e}^{(\pm)},~ {\partial}\mathcal L_{i}^{(\pm)}$ around the corresponding intervals of $I_e\cup I_i$, see Figure \[Lenses\] upper panel, and introduction of the new unknown matrix Z(z;) = {
[ll]{} Y(z;) &\
Y(z;) & z,\
Y(z;) & zL\_i\^[()]{}.
. \[422\]
Consequently, after the second (equivalent) transformation we obtain the following RHP for the matrix $Z$.
\[ZetaRHP\] Find the matrix $Z$, analytic on the complement of the arcs of Figure \[Lenses\], satisfying the jump conditions (note also the orientations marked in Figure \[Lenses\]) \[RHPZ\] Z\_+(z;) = Z\_-(z;) {
[ll]{} [e]{}\^[i(\_[(j)]{} + \_[(j)]{})\_3]{} & z, j =1,…, g,\
& zL\_[e]{}\^[()]{} ,\
& zL\_[i]{}\^[()]{} ,\
i\_1 & zI\_i,\
-i\_1 & zI\_e,
. normalized by Z(z;) , z, \[ass-Z\] and with the same endpoint behavior as $Y$ near the endpoints $a_j$’s, see . Here $$\vec{\delta}=[{\delta}_1,\dots,{\delta}_{g-1},{\delta}_0]^t=2\pi L^{-1}\le((2\mathfrak u(\infty) - \mathfrak u(a_{2g+2}) \ri), ~~~
\vec{\Omega}=[{\Omega}_1,\dots,{\Omega}_{g-1},{\Omega}_0]^t=-2iL^{-1}\t_1$$ and $\mu(g)=0$, $\mu(j)=j$ for all $j\neq g$, see Prposition \[propositiongg\].
In the third and final transformation we would like to (asymptotically) reduce the RHP \[ZetaRHP\] for $Z(z;{\varkappa})$ to the following RHP for $\Psi=\Psi(z;{\varkappa})$.
\[modelRHP\] Find a matrix $\Psi=\Psi(z;{\varkappa})$, analytic on $\C\setminus[a_1,a_{2g+2}]$ and satisfying the following conditions: \[jumpPsi\] & \_+=\_- (-1)\^[s(j)]{}(i\_1), & z, j=1,…g+1,&\_+=\_-e\^[i(Ø\_[(j)]{}+\_[(j)]{})\_3]{} & z, j =1,…, g, &(z) = O( |z-a\_j|\^[-1 4]{}) , & za\_j, j=1,…, 2g+2,&(z) = + O(z\^[-1]{}) , & z, [and]{} \_(z)L\^2(\[a\_1,a\_[2g+2]{}\]). Here $s(j) = \delta_{j,1} + \delta_{j,g+1}$, where ${\delta}_{j,k}$ denotes the Kronecker delta.
The RHP \[modelRHP\] is not eqiuvalent to the RHP \[ZetaRHP\] since the former does not have jumps on the lenses ${\partial}\mathcal L_{e}^{(\pm)} \setminus \R$, ${\partial}\mathcal L_{i}^{(\pm)} \setminus \R$. Also, a different behavior is required near the branchpoints $a_j$, $j=1,2,\dots,,2g+2$. However, as a consequence of Theorem \[theo-small\_norm\], the solution $\Psi(z;{\varkappa})$ of the RHP \[modelRHP\] will approximate the solution $Z(z;{\varkappa})$ of the RHP \[ZetaRHP\], if the jump matrices on the lenses ${\partial}\mathcal L_{e}^{(\pm)} \setminus \R$, ${\partial}\mathcal L_{i}^{(\pm)} \setminus \R$ in will be small in the norms $N_1,N_2$ and $N_\infty$. The choice of the so-called $g$-function $\gg(z)$ in the transformation , as well as of the lenses $\mathcal L_{e,i}^{(\pm)}$, is defined by the requirements that (2-1) <0 [on]{} L\_[e]{}\^[()]{} [and]{} (2+1) >0 [on]{} L\_[i]{}\^[()]{} . If these requirements hold, the jump matrices on the contours ${\partial}\mathcal L_{e}^{(\pm)} \setminus \R,
{\partial}\mathcal L_{i}^{(\pm)} \setminus \R$ approach $\1$ exponentially fast as ${\varkappa}\ra\infty$ [in any $L^p, \ p<\infty$ but [*not*]{} in $L^\infty$]{}, [ because]{} this convergence is uniform away from small vicinities of the branchpoints. These vicinities which require special consideration. Namely, to match RHP \[RHPZ\] with RHP \[modelRHP\], we need to construct special [*local parametrices*]{} in these vicinities of the branchpoints.
The discrepancy between $Z(z;{\varkappa})$ and $\Psi(z;{\varkappa})$, the latter modified by the parametrices near the branchpoints, is represented by the so-called error matrix $\mathcal E(z;{\varkappa})$. The error matrix also satisfies a certain RHP; the jump contours of this RHP are shown on Figure \[Lenses\]. We already know that the jump matrices on the arcs ${\partial}\mathcal L_{e}^{(\pm)} \setminus \R,
{\partial}\mathcal L_{i}^{(\pm)} \setminus \R$ away from the branchpoints should approach $\1$ exponentially fast in ${\varkappa}\ra\infty$. The parametrices, constructed in [@BKT2], ensure that the jump matrices on the circles, shown on Figure \[Lenses\], behave like $\1+O({\varkappa}^{-1})$ as ${\varkappa}\ra\infty$ [ in any $L^p$, including $L^\infty$]{}. Thus, according to Theorem \[theo-small\_norm\], $\Psi(z;{\varkappa})$ is $O({\varkappa}^{-1})$ [close]{} to $Z(z;{\varkappa})$ uniformly in $z$ outside small circles around the branchpoints.
Now, by reversing the chain of transformations, one obtains the following summary of the steepest descent analysis of [@BKT2]: let constants $\epsilon, \rho_z, \rho_0>0$ be fixed and sufficiently small. Then \[gammaexact\] (z;[e]{}\^[-]{}) = e\^[(()+d())\_3]{} E (z;)(z;) e\^[-((z)+d(z))\_3]{}, where $\wh\chi_{e}^\pm, \wh\chi_{i}^\pm$ are the characteristic (indicator) functions of the sets $\mathcal L_{e}^{(\pm)}$, $\mathcal L_{i}^{(\pm)}$ respectively, see Figure \[Lenses\], and \[err\_est\] E(z;) = + uniformly in the domain \[domain\] <, |(W()-W\_0 )|>\_0, |z-a\_j|>\_z , j=1,…, 2g+2. The matrix $\mathcal E(z;{\varkappa})$ solves an auxiliary RHP where all the jumps satisfy the assumption of Theorem \[theo-small\_norm\]; in particular it is important for us that $\mathcal E$ does not have a jump on the main arcs $I_e\cup I_i$. This implies that the following matrix \[gammainfty\] \^[()]{} (z;[e]{}\^[-]{}) = e\^[(()+d())\_3]{} (z;) e\^[-((z)+d(z))\_3]{} has the exact same jumps as $\Gamma(z;\l)$ on $I_i\cup I_e$.
In terms of the Riemann Theta functions $\Th$, the explicit solution to the RHP \[modelRHP\] is given by \[Psi\] (z;)= C\_0 , where vectors $W=W({\varkappa})$ and $W_0$ are defined in and $C_0=[\mathbb A^{-1} \nabla \Theta(W_0)]_g$ is the last entry of the vector $\mathbb A^{-1} \nabla \Theta(W_0)$. The constant $C_0\neq 0$.
\[lem-facts-need\] The endpoints $a_n$, $n\in J$, and infinity (on one of the sheets) are the only zeroes (in $z$) of the functions $\Theta\le(-(-1)^k\mathfrak u(z)+(-1)^j\mathfrak u(\infty)+W_0\ri)$, $j,k=1,2$. All these zeroes are simple.
According to Lemma \[lem-facts-need\], $\Psi(z;{\varkappa})$ is well defined if the denominator $\Theta(W-W_0)\neq 0$.
\[theo-exist\]\[Thm. 5.3, [@BKT2]\] The RHP \[modelRHP\] has a solution if and only if $\Theta(W-W_0)\neq 0$. As a consequence, we obtained the condition for the logarithms of approximate eigenvalues. According to , in order to approximate singular functions, we need to calculate the residues of .
\[symmetry\] If $\Psi(z;{\varkappa})$ satisfies the RHP \[modelRHP\] then $\det \Psi\equiv 1$ and $\wt \Psi(z)\equiv \Psi(z)$, where $\wt \Psi(z;{\varkappa})=\overline{\Psi(\bar z; \ov {\varkappa})}$. In particular, for ${\varkappa}\in \R$, $\Psi_{j1+}(z;{\varkappa})= \ov \Psi_{j1-}(z;{\varkappa})$ for any $z\in I = I_i\cup I_e$.
Further analysis of singular functions requires some information about zeroes of the Theta function, given in Section \[sec-res-main\]
Theta divisors and some related results from [@BKT2] {#sec-res-main}
-----------------------------------------------------
\[prop-K\] Let $a_1$ be a base-point of the Abel map $\mathfrak u(z)$ (see ) on the hyperelliptic Riemann surface ${\mathcal R}$ of $\sqrt{\prod_{j=1}^{2g+2} (z-a_j)}$. Then the vector of Riemann constants $\mathcal K$ is K = \_[j=1]{}\^g u(a\_[2j+1]{}). \[generalTheta\] Let ${\bf f}\in \C^g$ be arbitrary, and denote by $\mathfrak u(p)$ the Abel map extended to the whole Riemann surface. The (multi-valued) function $\Theta(\mathfrak u(z) - {\bf f})$ on the Riemann surface either vanishes identically or vanishes at $g$ points ${p}_1,\dots, {p}_g$ (counted with multiplicity). In the latter case we have =\_[j=1]{}\^[g]{} u(p\_j) + K.
[[R]{}]{}Description of the vectors ${\bf f}$ that lead to identically vanishing $\Theta(\mathfrak u(z) - {\bf f})$ is more involved and will not be discussed here.
Let us denote by $\Lambda_\tau = \Z^g + \tau \Z^g\subset \C^g$ the [*lattice of periods*]{}. The [**Jacobian**]{} is the quotient $\mathbb J_\tau = \C^g\mod \Lambda_\tau$ and it is a compact torus of real dimension $2g$ on account of Theorem \[Riemann1\].
\[def-thetadiv\] The [**theta divisor**]{} is the locus ${\bf e}\in\mathbb J_\tau$ such that $\Theta({\bf e})=0$. It will be denoted by the symbol $(\Theta)$.
\[ThetaDiveig\] If $W\in \R^g$ and $W_0$ is given as in , then ( W - W\_0)=0 W = \_[=1]{}\^[g-1]{}( u (p\_[[+1]{}]{}) -u(a\_[j\_]{}) ) \^g , where $p_{\ell+1}= (z_{\ell+1}, R_{\ell+1}), \ell =1,\dots, g-1,$ are arbitrary points with $z_{\ell+1}\in [a_{2\ell}, a_{2\ell+1}],$ $\ell =1,\dots, g-2,$ and $z_{g}\in \R\setminus [a_1,a_{2g+2}]$ (i.e. belonging to the cycles $A_{1+\ell}, \ell =1,\dots, g-1$), and $j_\ell \in J = \{1, 5,7, 9,11, \dots,2g-1\}$.
[[R]{}]{}\[rem-f\_n\] Proposition \[ThetaDiveig\] explicitly parametrizes the hypersurface $\Theta\le ( W - W_0\ri)=0,\ W\in \R^g$ in terms of $g-1$ points $p_2,\dots, p_g$ belonging to the cycles $A_2,\dots, A_g$. For the special values ${\varkappa}=\tk_n$, when the line $W({\varkappa})$ (given by ) intersects with this hypersurface, we shall denote the correponding points on the cycles $A_2,\dots A_g$ by $p_2^{(n)}, \dots, p_{g}^{(n)}$ with $\vec p_{n}=(p_2^{(n)}, \dots, p_{g}^{(n)})$. According to and Theorem \[generalTheta\], $\mathbf f_n= \sum_{j=2}^{g}\mathfrak u(p^{(n)}_j) + \mathcal K$. For this reason it makes sense to consider ${\bf f}(\vec p) := \sum_{j=2}^{g}\mathfrak u(p_j) + \mathcal K$, where $\vec p=(p_2,\dots,p_{g})$, as a function on the (universal cover) of the torus $A_2\times \dots \times A_g$ Then we have ${\bf f}_n = {\bf f} (\vec p_n)$.
\[lemmarespsi\] [**(1)**]{} For $\Psi(z;{\varkappa})$ from we have \[res-Psi\] (z;) = C\_0 . ${\bf (2)}$ For any $\vec p_n \in A_2\times \dots\times A_g$ the matrix in is not identically zero. [**(3)**]{} The two rows of the matrix in are proportional to each other for any $\vec p_n \in A_2\times \dots\times A_g$.
\[technical\] [**(1)**]{} The following identities hold for $j=1,2$: \[psipsi\] N\_[j]{}(p\_n):=- i[\^2]{}\_[B\_1]{} \_[j1]{}(z;) \_[j2]{}(z;)d z = . The function $N_j(\vec p)$ is a (real) analytic function of $\vec p\in A_2\times \dots \times A_g$. It vanishes to second order at $p_{g-1} =\infty_{l}$, where $\infty_l$ is the point at $z=\infty$ on the sheet $l=1,2$, and has no other zeroes.
According to , , the normalized singular function $\wh f_n(z)$ is propotional to \[varps\_jn\] \_[n,j]{}(z)= [i]{} \_[j2]{}(z;ł) , j=1,2, where at least one of the latter expressions is not zero. Note that $\varphi_{n,j}$ corresponds to the second term of $\phi_{n,j}$ from .
\[asymptnorms\] The norms in $L^2({I}) $ of the singular functions $\phi_{n,j}$ are given by \[748\] \_[n,j]{}\^2 = 2[e]{}\^[(-1)\^[j+1]{}2(d\_+ \_[n]{}\_) - \_n]{} (\^2 N\_j(p\_n) + O(\_n\^[-1]{})), j=1,2. Moreover, $\|\varphi_{n,j}\|^2 =\hf \|\phi_{n,j}\|^2$, where $\|\varphi_{n,j}\|$ is the $L^2({I_i}) $ norm of $\varphi_{n,j}$.
\[doublecover\] [**(1)**]{} The functions $N_j(\vec p)$ have constant sign on the torus $A_2\times \dots A_g$. The function $\sqrt{N_j(\vec p)}$ can be defined analytically on the double cover of $A_2\times \dots A_g$. [**(2)**]{} There exists $\nu>0$ such that for all $ \vec p \in A_2\times \dots A_g$ \[748a\] \_[j=1,2]{}|N\_j(p)| >.
\[cor-Ups12\]\[Cor. 7.20, [@BKT2]\] Functions \[Upsns\] \_[j,k]{}(z;p)= , $j,k=1,2$, are analytic in $z$ on $Z_0$ and in $\vec p$ on the double covering of the torus $ A_2 \times \dots A_g$, where $Z_0 = \bar\C \setminus [a_1,a_{2g+2}]$ together with the boundary points on both sides of the interval $ (a_1,a_{2g+2})$. Moreover, $\Upsilon_{1,k}(z;\vec p)$ coincides with $\Upsilon_{2,k}(z;\vec p)$, $k=1,2$, on $Z_0 \times A_2 \times \dots A_g$ modulo factor $(-1)$.
[[R]{}]{}\[rem-2Ups\] Note that $(\Upsilon_{j,1})_+(z;\vec p_n)= \Upsilon^{(j)}(z;\mathbf f_n ) $, the latter defined in , where $z\in I$. The subscipt “$+$” indicates that the limiting value on the upper side of $z\in I$ in $Z_0$ is taken. In view of Corollary \[cor-Ups12\], we denote by $\Upsilon_k(z;\vec p)$ a function on $Z_0 \times A_2 \times \dots A_g$ that coincides (modulo sign) with both $\Upsilon_{1,k}(z;\vec p)$ and $\Upsilon_{2,k}(z;\vec p)$, $k=1,2$. Then for each $n\in\N$ we have $(\Upsilon_1)_+(z;\vec p_n) = \Upsilon(z;\mathbf f_n ) $ on $z\in I$, see Theorem \[cor-first\], modulo factor $(-1)$.
Proofs of the technical lemmas {#proofstechn}
==============================
In this section, we use $\wh f_n$ to denote the $n$-th normalized singular function for the system , as well as its analytic continuation on $\C\setminus I_e$. It follows from that each $\wh f_n$ is purely imaginary on $I_i$ and defined uniquely modulo the factor $-1$. According to , \[hatf\_prop\] \_[n,j]{}(z) = i \^[ \_n ((z) -(-1)\^j \_) + (d(z)-(-1)\^jd\_)]{} ( \_[j,2]{}(z;) + O(\_n\^[-1]{}))uniformly on any compact set not intersecting the lenses $\mathcal L_{i}^{(\pm)},~ \mathcal L_e^{(\pm)}$, see Figure \[Lenses\], and \[hatf\_proplens\] && \_[n,j]{}(z) = i m\_[n,j]{} ,&& m\_[n,j]{}:= [e]{}\^[ -(-1)\^[j]{} \_n () -(-1)\^j d() ]{}, uniformly on any compact subset of $\mathcal L_i^{(\pm)}$ not containing the endpoints.
We now define the approximations $\varphi_{n,j}^{(\infty)}(z)$ of $ \varphi_{n,j}(z)$ as $\varphi^{(\infty)}_{n,j}=
{i} \sqrt{w(z)}\res{\l=\l_n} \Gamma^{(\infty)}_{j2}(z;\l) \frac {1}{\l}$, $j=1,2$. Then, according to , \[hatf\_propinfty\] && \_[n,j]{}\^[()]{}(z) = i \^[ \_n ((z) -(-1)\^j \_) + (d(z)-(-1)\^jd\_)]{} \_[j,2]{}(z;) for $z\in \C \setminus \bigcup_{\pm} \mathcal L_{i}^{(\pm)} \cup \mathcal L_e^{(\pm)}$ and \[hatf\_proplensinfty\] && \_[n,j]{}\^[()]{} (z) = i m\_[n,j]{} ( \_[j1]{}(z) [e]{}\^[-((z) +1) -d(z)]{} + \_[j2]{} (z)[e]{}\^[(z) + d(z)]{} ) for $z\in \mathcal L^{(\pm)}_i$ (we will not need an expression in $\mathcal L^{(\pm)}_e$).
[[R]{}]{}It follows from , and that Schwarz symmetry of $\gg(z), d(z)$ that $\gg_+ + 1 = \frac 1 2 + \frac 1 2 (\gg_+ - \gg_-) = \frac 1 2 + i \Im \gg_+$ on $I_i$ and $d_+ = \frac {d_+- d_- - \ln w}2 = i\Im d_+ - \frac 1 2 \ln w$ on $I$. Then, taking the $+$ boundary value of and using Proposiotion \[symmetry\], we obtain the following chain of equalities valid for $z\in I_i$ (we omit the dependence on $z$ for brevity) \_[n,j]{}\^[()]{}(z)= i m\_[n,j]{} ( \_[j1+]{} [e]{}\^[-(\_+ +1) -d\_+]{} + \_[j2+]{} [e]{}\^[\_+ + d\_+]{} ) == m\_[n,j]{} ( \_[j1+]{} [e]{}\^[-i \_+ - 2 -id\_+]{} + i \^[i\_+ - 2 +id\_+]{} ) == m\_[n,j]{}[e]{}\^[- 2]{} (\_[j1+]{} [e]{}\^[-i \_+ -id\_+]{} -\^[i\_+ +id\_+]{} ) = = 2im\_[n,j]{}[e]{}\^[- 2]{} (\_[j1+]{} [e]{}\^[-i \_n\_+ -id\_+]{} ). \[imphinfty\]
\[lemmab1\] The functions $\prod_{j=1}^{2g+2} (z-a_j)^\frac 1 4\Upsilon_{jk}(z;\vec p)$ are uniformly bounded on the compact $\bar Z_0\times A_2 \times \dots A_g$.
The closure $\bar Z_0$ of $Z_0$ include the endpoints $a_j$, $j=1,\dots,2g+2$. Lemma \[technical\] and Corollary \[cor-Ups12\] imply \[ind\_Ups\] \_[jk]{} (z;p)= . Moreover, according to Corollary \[cor-Ups12\] and , we can always assume that for a given $\vec p
\in A_2 \times \dots A_g$ we have $\le|\frac{1}{\sqrt{N_{j}(\vec p)}}\ri| < \nu^{-\hf}$. Thus, it remains to estimate the second factor in .
The numerator $\Theta( (-1)^{k+1} \u(z) +\!\!(-1)^j \u(\infty) + \mathbf f(\vec p))$ is analytic (in all variables) on the compact set $(z;\vec p)\in \bar Z_0 \times A_2 \times \dots A_g$ and, thus, bounded there. The Theta function in the denominator depends only on $z$. According to Lemma \[lem-facts-need\], it vanishes only at infinity (like $z^{-1}$) and at the $g-1$ points $z = a_j, j\in J$, where it vanishes like $\sqrt{z-a_j}$. Taking into account , we see that the ratio $\frac{ r(z)}{ \Theta\le((-1)^{k+1}\mathfrak u(z) \!+\!(-1)^j \mathfrak u(\infty)+W_0\ri)}$ is bounded on $\bar Z_0$ away from the endpoints $a_j$, and behaves like $O(z-a_j)^{-\frac 14}$ near each endpoint $a_j$, $j=1,\dots, 2g+2$. Thus, the statement of the lemma is proven.
[[R]{}]{}\[rem-Ups-phi\] According to Lemmas \[technical\],\[lemmarespsi\], \[resPsiUps\] \_[j,k]{}(z;p\_n)=, j,k=1,2. Thus, implies that $\varphi_{n,j}^{(\infty)}$ belongs to $L^2(I_i)$. Let $ {\mathcal J}^{\omega}$ denote the ${\omega}$ neighborhood of [ the endpoints of $I$.]{}
\[lem-est-gaps\] For any ${\omega}>0$ there exists some $c_{\omega}>0$ such that \[est\_whf\_n\] |f\_n(z)|\^[ \_n ((z)+ 1 2 )]{} [on]{} |[J]{}\^ø.
As it was mentined in Section \[sec-res-main\], $\wh f_n= \varphi_{n,j}/\|\varphi_{n,j}\|$, $j=1,2$, provided $\|\varphi_{n,j}\|>0$. Note that for every $n\in\N$ at least one of $\|\varphi_{n,j}\|>0$. Then, [ using the estimate for $\mathcal E(z;{\varkappa})$ and taking the residue of , we have \[gap-approx\] f\_n(z)= i[e]{}\^[ \_n ((z)+ 1 2 ) +d(z)]{} ( \_[2]{}(z;p\_n) +) uniformly on closed subsets of $\C \setminus {\mathcal J}^{\omega}$. Here we also used Remarks \[rem-Ups-phi\] and \[rem-2Ups\]. Near $z=\infty$ the function $\Upsilon_{2}(z;\vec p_n)$ has behavior \[est-Upsi\] \_[2]{}(z;p\_n) = + O(z\^[-2]{}), see RHP \[modelRHP\] and , with some constant $K(\vec p_n)>0$. Since $K(\vec p_n)$ is continuous on the compact set $\vec p_n\in A_2\times \dots \times A_g$, we conclude that there is $\wh K>0$ and a neighborhood of $z=\infty$ such that $|\Upsilon_{2}(z;\vec p_n) |\leq \frac {\wh K}{|z|}$ in this neighborhood for all $n\in\N$. Then, according to Lemma \[lemmab1\], there exists some $K>0$, such that |\_[2]{}(z;p\_n)| on $\C \setminus {\mathcal J}^{\omega}$ uniformly in $n\in\N$. The statement thus follows from .]{}
[[R]{}]{}\[rem-subtlety\] The subtlety in proving the accuracy in is that $\wh f_n$ is obtained by dividing by and, although $\max_{j=1,2} |N_{j}(\vec p_n)|$ is separated from zero, each of the sequences $|N_{1}(\vec p_n)|$, $|N_{2}(\vec p_n)|$ is, in general, not. However, for each $n\in\N$ we could always use the particular choice of $j$ that provides the said maximum, which guarantees the uniformity of the estimate.
The following corollary is a direct consequence of Corollary \[cor-Ups12\]. \[cor-bound-gaps\] For any ${\omega}>0$ and any closed interval ${\mathcal I}\subset \R\setminus{\mathcal J}^{\omega}$, the functions \[munu\] \_[I]{}(p)=\_[z[I]{}]{} |\_[2]{}(z;p)|, \_[I]{}(p)=\_[z[I]{}]{} |\_[2]{}(z;p)|, are continuous on $ A_2 \times \dots \times A_g$.
[**Proof of Lemma \[lem-seq-intervals\].**]{} Let us choose ${\omega}>0$ so that ${\bf J}\setminus {\mathcal J}^{\omega}$ contains some segment ${\mathcal I}$. We construct intervals $J_n\subset {\mathcal I}$, $n\in\N$. In view of and , it is sufficient to construct $ J_n$ so that $|\Upsilon_2(z;\mathbf f_n) |$ instead of $|f_n e^{-{\varkappa}_n (\gg(z)+\hf)}|$ will be separated from zero on $J_n$ (uniformly in $n$). Let \[min-max\] \_\*=\_[pA\_2 …A\_g]{}\_[I]{}(p), \_\*=\_[pA\_2 …A\_g]{}\_[I]{}(p), and let the maximum $\mu_{\mathcal I}(\vec p)$ of $| \Upsilon_2(z;\vec p)|$ in $z\in{\mathcal I}$ be attained at some $z_{\vec p}\in{\mathcal I}$. Obviously, $\mu_*>0$ and $\nu_*<\infty$. Let us now define the intervals $J_n$ by \[J\_n\] J\_n= (z\_[p\^[(n)]{}]{}-, z\_[p\^[(n)]{}]{}+)[I]{}. Then the length of each $J_n$ is at least $\min(\frac{\mu_*}{2\nu_*},|{\mathcal I}|)$, where $|{\mathcal I}|$ is the length of ${\mathcal I}$. Then, according to , , \[lower\_bound\] |\_2(z;p\^[(n)]{})| for all $z\in J_n$. Thus, we completed the proof Lemma \[lem-seq-intervals\].
[**Proof of Lemma \[lem-norm-tf\].**]{} The norm of $ \varphi_{n,j}^{(\infty)}$ in $L^2(I_i)$ (here $\wt \l_n = {\rm e}^{-\tk_n }$ is the approximate singular-value) [is given by ]{} \_[I\_i]{}( \^[()]{}\_[j2]{}(z;ł) ł)\^2 dz=-i \_[I\_i]{} ( łJ(\^[()]{}\_[j1]{}(z;ł))ł) ( \^[()]{}\_[j2]{}(z;ł) ł) dz, \[c11\] where $J(F) = F_+-F_-$. We can thus deform the two contributions from the $\pm $ boundary values to ${\partial}\L^{(\pm)}_i$ which consists of arcs joining the consecutive endpoints of $I_i$ (in the formula below, we omit the reference to the dependence on ${\varkappa}, z$ for brevity): && -i \_[I\_i]{} ( łJ(\^[()]{}\_[j1]{}(z;ł))ł) ( \^[()]{}\_[j2]{}(z;ł) ł) dz ==&&-i m\_[n,j]{}\^2 [[e]{}\^[- [\_n]{}]{}]{}\_ ()\_[ Ł\_i\^[()]{} ]{} \_[j1]{}[e]{}\^[-- d]{} ( \_[j1]{} [e]{}\^[-(+1) -d]{} + \_[j2]{} [e]{}\^[+ d]{} ) dz =\
&& =-i m\_[n,j]{}\^2[[e]{}\^[- [\_n]{}]{}]{} (\_[B\_1]{} \_[j1]{}(z;) \_[j2]{}(z;) dz + \[A15\]\
&& + \_ \_[L\_i\^[()]{} ]{} ( \_[j1]{}(z;) )\^2 ). \[A16\] The expression is precisely $m_{n,j}^2N_{n,j}$ from . The remaining terms on line contribute to order $\mathcal O(\tk_n ^{-1})$ as we now explain. Indeed, according to and Lemma \[lemmab1\], there exists some $C>0$, such that the integrals in are bounded by \_[L\_i\^[()]{} ]{} |dz| uniformly in $n\in\N$. Using $\Re (2\gg(z) +1) = C_j|z-a_j|^{\frac 1 2 }( 1 + \mathcal O(|z-a_j|))$, see , we can estimate to be of order $\mathcal O({\varkappa}^{-1})$ as ${\varkappa}\to + \infty$. Thus, according to Lemma \[technical\], we have proved \[D5\] \_[n,j]{}\^[()]{} \^2\_[I\_i]{} = m\_[n,j]{}\^2 [[e]{}\^[- [\_n]{}]{}]{}\^2N\_[j]{}(p\_n) (1 + O(\_n\^[-1]{})).
Using , and , we obtain \[hatfn-exp\] f\_n(z) =, where the right hand side does not depend on $j=1,2$. Now , and imply $\|\tf_n(z)\|_{I_i}=1+ \mathcal O(n^{-1})$.
[^1]: The work was supported in part by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.
[^2]: The work was supported in part by NSF grant DMS-1211164.
[^3]: The work was supported in part by NSF grant DMS-1211164.
[^4]: A point $z\in{\Sigma}$ is called a node if three or more branches of ${\Sigma}$ emanates from $z$. We assume ${\Sigma}$ has no more than finitely many nodes.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Within the LAGUNA design study, seven candidate sites are being assessed for their feasibility to host a next-generation, very large neutrino observatory. Such a detector will be expected to feature within a future European accelerator neutrino programme (Superbeam or Beta Beam), and hence the distance from CERN is of critical importance. In this article, the focus is a $^{18}$Ne and $^{6}$He Beta Beam sourced at CERN and directed towards a 50 kton Liquid Argon detector located at the LAGUNA sites: Slanic ($L=1570$ km) and Pyhäsalmi ($L=2300$ km). To improve sensitivity to the neutrino mass ordering, these baselines are then combined with a concurrent run with the same flux directed towards a large Water Čerenkov detector located at Canfranc ($L=650$ km). This degeneracy breaking combination is shown to provide comparable physics reach to the conservative Magic Baseline Beta Beam proposals. For $^{18}$Ne ions boosted to $\gamma=570$ and $^{6}$He ions boosted to $\gamma=350$, the correct mass ordering can be determined at Slanic for all $\delta$ when $\sin^{2}2\theta_{13}>4\cdot 10^{-3}$ in this combination.'
address: |
Institute for Particle Physics Phenomenology,\
Department of Physics, Durham University,\
Durham, DH1 3LE, United Kingdom
author:
- Christopher Orme
title: 'High-$\gamma$ Beta Beams within the LAGUNA design study'
---
IPPP /10/28\
DCPT /10/56\
Introduction
============
Results from a series of atmospheric [@SKatm; @atm], solar [@sol; @SKsolar; @SNO], reactor [@CHOOZ; @PaloVerde; @KamLAND] and long baseline accelerator [@K2K; @MINOS] neutrino experiments indicate that neutrinos are both massive and mix amongst themselves. A combined analysis points to two approximate 2-neutrino mixing schemes, each parameterised by a mixing angle and a mass-squared splitting. The extent to which these two schemes combine into a single 3-neutrino picture is controlled by the size of a third mixing angle, $\theta_{13}$. Defining $\Delta m_{ji}^{2}=m_{j}^{2}-m_{i}^{2}$, a combined analysis [@current] of all available data returns the best fit values $$\begin{aligned}
{4}
&\vert \Delta m_{31}\vert^{2} = 2.47 \times 10^{-3}\:\: {\rm eV}^{2} &\quad \mbox{and} \quad & \sin^{2}\theta_{23} =0.463 ~;&\notag\\
&\Delta m_{21}^{2} = 7.59 \times 10^{-5}\:\: {\rm eV}^{2} &\quad \mbox{and} \quad & \sin^{2}\theta_{12} =0.319~.& \notag \end{aligned}$$ The third mixing angle, $\theta_{13}$, is constrained to be $$\sin^{2} \theta_{13} < 0.016\:\:\: (0.053)\quad \mbox{at}\quad 1\sigma\:\:\: (3\sigma)~;$$ although some collaborations report a hint at low significance from a combined analysis of atmospheric, solar and long-baseline reactor neutrino data [@hint_Fogli; @hint_Ge].
The long term targets for the long baseline neutrino oscillation programme is to determine the unknown neutrino mixing angle $\theta_{13}$; whether there is CP-violation in the lepton sector, that manifests itself through a phase $\delta$; and to determine the sign of the atmospheric mass-squared splitting. The extraction of both the CP-phase and sign of the atmospheric mass-squared splitting require a three-neutrino analysis, the extent of the effect controlled by $\theta_{13}$. Therefore sensitivity, optimisation and general experimental strategy are intrinsically related to the size of $\theta_{13}$. Running and near future experiments will be the first to probe $\theta_{13}$ below the current experimental limit. If $\theta_{13}$ is beyond the reach of these experiments, then intense sources of neutrinos from next generation Superbeams [@Superbeam_US; @T2K_up; @rubbia_cern], Neutrino Factories [@nufact; @nufactlow] or Beta Beams [@zucchelli] will be necessary.
A Beta Beam is a variation on the Neutrino Factory that instead sources neutrinos from the decays of boosted radioactive ions. Proposed by Zucchelli in 2001 [@zucchelli], a Beta Beam distinguishes itself by sourcing beams of $\nu_{e}$ or $\bar{\nu}_{e}$ without contamination from other flavours and CP-conjugates. Through the analysis of the $\nu_{\mu}$ and $\bar{\nu}_{\mu}$ appearance channels, the Beta Beam provides a competitive physics reach on the unknown elements of neutrino mixing that have yet to be extracted from experiment. A Beta Beam will be a facility that will exploit existing, or proposed, ion production facilities and accelerator infrastructure. The major addition required is a large decay ring to store the ions once they are boosted to the desired energy. In the laboratory frame, the neutrino flux is a function of both the ion decay Q-value and the Lorentz boost of the ions. Low Q-value ions; $^{18}$Ne and $^{6}$He; and high Q-value ions $^{8}$B and $^{8}$Li have been identified as the best candidate ions [@Autin_et_al]. The focus of phenomenological study has been on a Beta Beam source at CERN using either the Super Proton Synchrotron [@cernmemphys; @Mauro; @8fold; @alternating; @100_revisit] or an enhanced 1 TeV version, as required in some LHC upgrade scenarios [@BB_upgrades; @highergamma; @singleion; @BB_LENA; @MB_4ions; @MB_except; @MB_Madrid; @MB_INOpapers] (Other facilities could be the Tevatron at Fermilab [@rubbia_FNAL; @CPT_FNAL; @FNAL_DUSEL], or a re-fitted HERA-ring [@DESY].) In addition to specific setups, a number of optimisation studies have also been carried out [@lowtohigh; @greenfield; @minimal].
In this article, the physics reach of Beta Beams directed towards Liquid Argon detectors in Europe will be simulated on the assumption that a 1 TeV machine will be available [@LHC_upgrade]. The study of both low and high boost Beta Beams directed at large Water Čerenkov (WC) detectors has been studied in detail and is well understood [@cernmemphys; @Mauro; @8fold; @alternating; @100_revisit; @BB_upgrades; @highergamma]. Water Čerenkov detectors are best suited to short baselines since they only use the quasi-elastic events to reconstruct the signal. For longer baselines, and hence higher energies, it is necessary to use and reconstruct the energy of multi-particle final state interactions, especially deep inelastic scattering events. For this reason, one must use active scintillator, calorimeters and projection chamber technologies for intermediate and very long baselines. This study considers the GLACIER liquid argon detector [@GLACIER] as a far detector for the baselines CERN-Slanic ($L=1570$ km) and CERN-Pyhäsalmi ($L=2300$ km) for $\gamma=350,350$ and $\gamma=570,350$ $^{18}$Ne and $^{6}$He Beta Beams. (The CERN-Boulby baseline with a non-WC detector was discussed in [@singleion] for different exposures and so the very similar baseline for Sierozsowice ($L=950$ km) will not be included here.)These two baselines will then be combined with the same neutrino flux directed towards a large Water Čerenkov detector based at Canfranc ($L=650$ km) to examine the possible broad physics reach.
This work is part of the LAGUNA design study: an EC-funded project to assess the feasibility of underground laboratories in Europe capable of housing a future, large neutrino observatory. In addition to long baseline physics, the detectors aim to improve the bounds on proton decay half-lifes up to $\sim 10^{35}$ years to test a number of theoretical models; to detect neutrinos from astrophysical objects and Cosmological sources; continued study of solar and atmospheric neutrinos; and new sources such as from Dark Matter annihilations in the Earth’s centre or Sun’s core. Work towards understanding detector response to various neutrino sources in currently on-going. This work is one of a series of studies [@BB_LENA; @SB_LENA; @rubbia_cern] examining the physics reach on long baselines experiments with the LAGUNA network of detectors based on available information. These studies will help prioristise the potential host laboratories for the future neutrino observatories.
The remainder of this article is organised as follows; in Sec. \[S:baselines\], the baselines available within Europe as part of the LAGUNA design study [@LAGUNA] will be listed and the basic phenomenological strategy for short and intermediate baselines will be summarised. In Sec. \[S:single\] a description of the simulations carried out is made followed by the results for Beta Beams directed along single baselines. In Sec. \[S:twobase\], the simulations from Sec. \[S:single\] are augmented with an additional Beta Beam directed towards a large Water Čerenkov based at Canfranc. The results are then discussed in relation to Magic Baseline Beta Beams in Sec. \[S:discussion\]. Finally, in Sec. \[S:summary\], the study is summarised.
Laguna sites hosting Beta Beam far detectors {#S:baselines}
============================================
Detector R&D is not part of the LAGUNA Design Study [@LAGUNA]; however the physics reach of these sites with respect to any European accelerator neutrino programmes will be critical in any decision making process. Since future European Superbeams and Beta Beams will be one of the main users for these detector technologies; the distance from CERN will be a critical factor in the final decision. However, since the size of $\theta_{13}$ and the number of future facilities and their scale is unknown, it is very hard to determine what is the optimal baseline and detector choice. More precisely, optimisation of a facility can only be carried out once its purpose and circumstance is defined. Since $\theta_{13}$ is unknown, and (specifically) the role in which a Beta Beam will take in a long term experimental strategy is uncertain; optimisation of the Beta Beam is not a well defined process. A typical strategy, therefore is to aim for a broad physics reach using the ability to rule out $\theta_{13}=0^{\circ}$, $\delta = 0^{\circ}$ and $180^{\circ}$, and determine the correct neutrino mass ordering as indicators for a particular experimental setup; an approach also adopted here. How one achieves this is dependent, amongst other things, on the choice of baseline (or baselines) and detectors technologies.
Within Europe there are three detector options being considered: a single volume Liquid Argon time projection chamber (LAr) known as GLACIER [@GLACIER]; a 500 kton Water Čerenkov (WC) known as MEMPHYS [@Memphys] suitable only for energy reconstruction at short baselines where quasi-elastic events dominate; and a non-segmented liquid scintillator detector known as LENA [@LENA]. The 7 laboratory sites being considered within LAGUNA to house these detectors are listed in Tab. \[T:sites\] along with their distances from CERN and corresponding first oscillation maximum energies. It clearly seen that a wide range of neutrino baselines are possible in Europe ranging from $L=130$ km to $L=2300$ km.
To develop a strategy, or interpret results of numerical simulations, for particular baselines it is useful to consider an analytical approximation to the oscillation probability. With the definitions $\alpha \equiv \frac{\Delta m_{21}^{2}}{\Delta m_{31}^{2}}$ and $\Delta
\equiv \frac{\Delta m_{31}^{2}L}{4E}$; the assumption of a constant matter density profile along the baseline $A\equiv \frac{2\sqrt{2}G_{F}n_{e}E}{\Delta m_{31}^{2}}$; and by expanding in all the small parameters one finds [@probability]
$$P(\nu_{e}\rightarrow\nu_{\mu}) \simeq \sin^{2}2\theta_{13}\cdot T_{1} +\alpha
\cdot \sin\theta_{13}\cdot (T_{2}+T_{3}) +\alpha^{2}\cdot T_{4} ~,$$
where $$\begin{aligned}
{1}
T_{1} =& \sin^{2}\theta_{23}\cdot \frac{\sin^{2}[(1-A)\cdot\Delta]}{(1-A)^{2}}~,
\notag \\
T_{2} =& \sin\delta_{CP}\cdot \sin 2\theta_{23}\cdot \sin\Delta
\frac{\sin(A\Delta)}{A}\cdot \frac{\sin((1-A)\Delta)}{(1-A)}~,\notag \\
T_{3} =& \cos\delta_{CP}\cdot \sin 2\theta_{23}\cdot \cos\Delta
\frac{\sin(A\Delta)}{A}\cdot \frac{\sin((1-A)\Delta)}{(1-A)}~,\notag \\
T_{4} =& \cos^{2}\theta_{23}\cdot\sin^{2} 2\theta_{12}
\frac{\sin^{2}(A\Delta)}{A^{2}}~;\end{aligned}$$
As is well known, and clear from this expression, the determination of $\theta_{13}$ and $\delta$ is severely affected by parameter correlations and degeneracies [@degeneracies]. For a given bin at fixed baseline, up to 8 possible parameter sets can fit the data. The challenge for a future long baseline experiment is to successfully resolve these degeneracies and push for a good physics return over the sought region of parameter space. With a 1 TeV machine, it is in principle possible to source a Beta Beam from very short long-baselines ($L=130$ km) up to very long long-baselines (Magic Baselines [@MB_INOpapers]). A Beta Beam proposal therefore has access to two types of baseline in which some of the degeneracy can be naturally suppressed:
1. At short long-baselines ($L < 700$ km say), the matter effect is sufficiently small so that the true ($\theta_{13},\delta$) and the fake solution corresponding to the incorrect mass ordering are close together. Consequently, the sensitivity to $\theta_{13}$ and $\delta$ is typically very good, especially with the availability of large Water Čerenkov detectors. Using the above expression, the CP-violation contribution to the probability is maximal for $L/E = 515/{\rm GeV}$. A Beta Beam flux with Lorentz boost $\gamma=350$, matches well the CERN-Canfranc baseline ($L=650$ km) [@MB_4ions].
2. At the ‘Magic Baseline’, cancellations leave only the atmospheric contribution ($T_{1}$) to the appearance probability and thus there is no $\delta$ dependence. Numerically, this is found to be at $L=7250$ km [@MB_original]. Use of the Magic Baseline in isolation will therefore return a reasonably clean measurement of $\theta_{13}$ and sign$(\Delta m_{31}^{2}$). The excellent sensitivity to these parameters, which is typical to proposals incorporating it, is because of the proximity to the matter resonance which, with the larger cross-sections at high energy, can compensate for the $L^{-2}$ dependence of the un-oscillated neutrino flux.
Both these options are a staple in long baseline proposals since the effective removal of one of the unknown parameters helps greatly with degeneracy resolution. However, a extra baseline will be always be needed if one is to have a competitive reach on all three physics indicators: discovery of non-zero $\theta_{13}$, CP non-conservation, and ability to rule out the incorrect neutrino mass ordering. For Beta Beams, the optimal choice for a second detector has not be determined rigorously, although several possibilities have been put forward for accompanyment of the Magic Baseline [@MB_4ions; @MB_except; @MB_Madrid].
In this article, a Liquid Argon detector is considered at the two longest baselines within LAGUNA and therefore there is no natural suppression of the degeneracy. By itself, a single baseline Beta Beam using a 50 kton detector will not return competitive sensitivities at the longer LAGUNA baselines owing to a suppression of the neutrino flux from the baseline ($ \propto L^{-2}$) and the presence of parameter degeneracies [@degeneracies]. In isolation, binning the data to extract the oscillatory structure of the appearance probability is the required strategy to break parameter degeneracies. The relative weight of the atmospheric ($T_{1}$), interference ($T_{2}$ and $T_{3}$) and solar ($T_{4}$) contributions to the probability changes with the neutrino energy for a fixed baseline. Since different contributory features of the appearance probability dominate different bins and that the location of parameter degeneracies are energy dependent, this strategy greatly aids degeneracy resolution.
The above strategy was discussed in [@singleion] for the CERN-Boulby baseline ($L=1050$ km) and is used in a number of other long baseline proposals, such as the Wide Band Superbeam [@WBB] and the low energy Neutrino Factory [@nufactlow]. It was argued semi-analytically that combining data from first and second oscillation maximum, even for a neutrinos (or anti-neutrinos) only, helps considerably in breaking the intrinsic energy degeneracy (or energy degeneracy [@EC]). Degeneracy in $\delta$, but not $\theta_{13}$ still remains, however. Incorporating data from surrounding bins typically allows determination of the true $\delta$. Resolving the sign($\Delta m_{31}^{2}$) degeneracy at short to intermediate baselines is far harder. The difference in the probability for normal and inverted ordering results from two effects: the $\sin\Delta$ in $T_{2}$ (which is present even in the vacuum for 3-neutrino mixing); and from $(1-A)$ in $T_{1}$, $T_{2}$ and $T_{3}$. The discrepancy between normal and inverted orderings clearly increases with baseline and neutrino energy. For the baselines considered here, the approach is therefore to extract the sign from high energy bins. Since these bins also contain information on $\theta_{13}$ and $\delta$, degeneracy will need to be resolved. This, again, is achieved through the combination with the low energy bins where the probability splitting between mass orderings is much smaller and hence the degenerate solution is much closer to the true solution. The limit on the sensitivity to the mass ordering is then limited by the available neutrino flux.
In the following section, the effectiveness of the above strategy will be explored for a Beta Beam directed along the CERN-Slanic and CERN-Pyhäsalmi baselines. The event rates from the low energy bins are an important component of this approach, however, they are small owing the small detector mass and cross-sections. Therefore, following the initial analysis, the Liquid Argon baselines will be put in combination with a large Water Čerenkov based at the Canfranc laboratory. As indicated above, this will provide a clean measurement of $\theta_{13}$ and $\delta$ which can then be combined with the high energy bins of the Liquid Argon detectors. The reach on the correct mass ordering is expected to improve significantly as the inclusion of the extra (short) baseline is akin to enhancing the event rate in the low energy bins. The analysis carried out will be discussed in more detail in the following sections.
Single baseline study {#S:single}
=====================
The physics strategy in this study exploits $\nu_{e}$ and $\bar{\nu}_{e}$ beams sourced from the decays of boosted $^{18}$Ne and $^{6}$He. With production and acceleration of the ions based at CERN, the physics will be simulated for a 50 kton Liquid Argon detector located at the Slanic ($L=1570$ km) and Pyhäsalmi ($L=2300$ km) mines. In the first instance only these baseline will be considered for a 5 year run of $\nu_{e}$ and 5 years of $\bar{\nu}_{e}$ for the two boost pairings $(\gamma_{\nu},\gamma_{\bar{\nu}})=(350,350)$ and $(570,350)$. These boost assignments make the standard assumption that a 1 TeV Super Proton Synchrotron will be available for a Beta Beam based at CERN [@LHC_upgrade]. In the following section, the simulations will also include the combination with a larger Water Čerenkov detector based at Canfranc ($L=650$ km) exposed to the same neutrino source.
The current R&D in Liquid Argon detector technology is working towards a target mass of 100 kton [@GLACIER]. However, in this article a 50 kton detector is used for the following reasons
- To bring it in line with other non-WC based Beta Beam studies in the literature.
- The sought level of $^{18}$Ne decays along the straight section of the storage ring for the $\gamma=100,100$ proposal [@Mauro] currently is beyond reach by a factor 20, using ISOLDE techniques [@Elena]. A 100 kton detector is assumed but with a factor of 2 used to offset a smaller than sought decay rate.
The ion decay rates in the straight sections of the decay ring are currently unknown. R&D towards production of $^{18}$Ne and $^{6}$He has focussed on the use of ISOLDE techniques within the EURISOL design study [@eurisol] with target rates of $1.1\times 10^{18}$ and $2.9\times 10^{18}$ yearly decays for a $\gamma=100,100$ machine for $^{18}$Ne and $^{6}$He respectively. Currently, the projected rates are a factor 20 short for $^{18}$Ne and about 2 short for $^{6}$He [@Elena]. This in part is because ISOL techniques, as applied by Nuclear Physicists, are optimized for more exotic nuclides that are of little interest for Beta Beams [@Don_Lin_Nufact]. The route to the sought decay rate for $^{18}$Ne could be through ‘direct production’, for example through the $^{16}$O($^{3}$He,n)$^{18}$Ne reaction [@Direct].
Atmospheric neutrino events are skewed below 1 GeV and cause a problem for sourcing decays for the short baselines and need to suppressed with a restrictive duty factor in the decay ring ($\sim 10^{-3}$). However this constraint can be loosened for longer baselines where neutrino energies $E_{\nu}> 1$ GeV are more important. This action will be necessary to reclaim the decay rate for high-$\gamma$ machines which, to first order, scales as $\gamma^{-1}$. (The impact of how much one inhibits the atmospheric neutrino background at the longer baselines has yet to studied in detail.) It may be possible to also claim some deficiency in the event rate through loosening the duty factor. To aid comparison with the latest studies, in this article the assumption that $3\times 10^{18}$ useful ion decays per straight section of the decay ring can be sourced per year for each ion as suggested in [@Don_Lin_Nufact], and used in [@MB_4ions], will be adopted.
For short and intermediate baselines, the aim is to exploit the energy dependence of the oscillatory structure of the appearance signal to help break the parameter degeneracies and push for a good physics reach. This is achieved through binning the signal to separate out the low and high energy appearance events so that the different strengths of the solar, interference and atmospheric contributions to the appearance probability can be observed. To this end, the detector has been assumed to possess a low energy threshold of 0.4 GeV and has binned up to 2.0 GeV in 0.2 GeV intervals. All bins thereafter are in 0.5 GeV intervals up to the maximum laboratory energy of the neutrinos. At present, detector response for incident Beta Beam fluxes have not been simulated for the GLACIER Liquid Argon detector. Work in this respect in ongoing, with response data soon to be available for Superbeams directed at this technology [@respon]. In its absence, a flat event efficiency of 80 % has been taken for all channels with signal errors set at 2.5 % and an energy resolution of $\sigma(E_{\nu}) = 0.15E_{\nu}$[^1].
{width="15cm"}
All simulations in this study have been carried using the GLoBES long baseline simulation software [@globes]. The known oscillation parameters have been fixed to their current central values, taken from [@current], and are always marginalised over. The exception is $\theta_{23}$ which is fixed to $45^{\circ}$ so that the octant degeneracy is absent. The errors have been set to 1 % for the solar parameters and 5 % for the atmospheric parameters and matter potential. Negligible background from neutral current events is expected and has been set to 0.1 %. The 1 degree of freedom convention is adopted for all sensitivity plots in this paper.
Results
-------
The physics reach of the two baselines considered in summarised is Fig. \[Fi:single\]. The 3$\sigma$ confidence level contours are shown for sensitivity to non-zero $\theta_{13}$ (left), CP non-conservation (middle), and to resolving the sign($\Delta m_{31}^{2}$) ambiguity (right). The analysis takes into account the impact of intrinsic and the sign($\Delta m_{31}^{2}$) degeneracies. The top line of Fig. \[Fi:single\] shows the results for the CERN-Slanic baseline, whilst the bottom display the outcome of the CERN-Pyhäsalmi simulations.
The best sensitivity to non-zero $\theta_{13}$ and CP-violation is found for the CERN-Slanic baseline. This is to be expected since, with the same source, the flux is larger for this baseline. The weaker matter effect means that the sign($\Delta m_{31}^{2}$) degeneracy interferes less with these measurments. For the $\gamma=570,350$ boost pair, non-zero $\theta_{13}$ can be seen down to $\sin^{2}2\theta\sim 10^{-3}$, and, for both boost pairs, at all values of $\delta$ for $\sin^{2}2\theta_{13}>10^{-2}$. However, there is a marked difference between the two boost pairings for sensitivity to CP-violation. For the $\gamma=350,350$ pair, the ability to rule out $\delta =0^{\circ}$ or $180^{\circ}$ is restricted to $\sin^{2}2\theta_{13}>10^{-2}$, but increasing the boost of the $^{18}$Ne ions returns a large region of parameter space for $\delta <0^{\circ}$ and centred on $\sin^{2}2\theta_{13} =10^{-3}$. There is little enhancement on the region for low boost paring. This is suggestive that degeneracy is a problem for the $\gamma=350,350$ boost pairing; especially for $\sin^{2}2\theta_{13}\sim 5\cdot10^{-3} - 1\cdot 10^{-2}$ where there is a gap in CP-violation sensitivity. The lower event rates for the longer baselines mean that the data is insufficient to reduce the significance of some degenerate solutions. Although, the ability to rule out the incorrect mass ordering is poor relative to Neutrino Factories, for a Beta Beam it is not intrinsically bad. For the high boost run, the correct ordering can be indentified down to $\sin^{2}2\theta_{13}=2\cdot 10^{-3}$, with determination for all values of $\delta$ for $\sin^{2}2\theta_{13}>10^{-2}$ in both cases. Although the increase in the $^{18}$Ne boost improves the reach, it does not do so significantly. Increasing the boost makes data from higher enegies available without significantly altering the event rate and composition at lower energies. Since European baselines make use of these bins in combination, improving one without the improving other need not, and has not, dramatically improved the physics return. The low event rate at low energies is still insufficient to break the degeneracy for small values of $\theta_{13}$.
The physics return for the CERN-Pyhäsalmi baseline is weaker for each of the physics indicators, with little sensitivity for $\sin^{2}2\theta_{13}<10^{-2}$. Principally, this is due to the $L^{-2}$ dependence of the un-oscillated neutrino flux. In particular, the ability to determine the correct mass ordering is very poor even given the large matter effect at this baseline. The true and incorrect mass ordering solutions will be sufficiently separated in $(\theta_{13},\delta)$ space; however, the low event rate means that the solution regions at $3\sigma$ will be large and possibly merged together. When combined with a large solution region from the low energy bins (also owing to low event rates), the data is insufficient to break the degeneracy for small $\theta_{13}$.
In summary, neither of the baselines considered here have, in isolation, the right combination for degeneracy breaking ability and sufficient un-oscillated event rate to return a competitive physics reach on all physics indicators. One solution to this problem is to combine these baselines with another beam. It has been proposed in [@CPT_FNAL; @Schwetz_small] to use combinations of Beta Beams and Superbeams at these shorter baselines to break degeneracy and, in particular, improve the ability to determine the mass ordering. This strategy exploits the different forms of the appearance probability for the $\nu_{e}\rightarrow \nu_{\mu}$, $\bar{\nu}_{e}\rightarrow \bar{\nu}_{\mu}$,$\nu_{\mu}\rightarrow \nu_{e}$ and $\bar{\nu}_{\mu}\rightarrow \bar{\nu}_{e}$ channels which in turn affects the location of the degenerate solutions for different oscillation channel pairs.
In the next section, a variant on this approach will be adopted. Specifically, a second Beta Beam baseline will be introduced in view of returning sensitivity to $\theta_{13}$ and $\delta$ to much greater precision. This is extrapolated from the strategy advocated earlier of using low and high energy bins and is motivated from the results for the Slanic baseline indicating that improvement in the high energy neutrino event rate is insufficient to significantly improve the hierarchy reach. Increasing the ion boost does not significantly improve the event rate at low energies; however, introducing a second Beta Beam at a shorter baseline, and with a large Water Čerenkov will have the desired effect. This shorter baseline can be used to locate the true solution accurately to the level $\sin^{2}2\theta_{13}\sim 10^{-4}$, effectively replacing the low energy bins of the (now) far detector. With this information the longer baseline can then rule out the incorrect solution from the sign($\Delta m_{31}^{2}$) degeneracy for much smaller $\sin^{2}\theta_{13}$. This idea will be presented in the next section.
In combination with a large Water Čerenkov {#S:twobase}
==========================================
As discussed in Sec. \[S:baselines\], for a single baseline, the strategy is to use the complementary information from low and high energies to break degeneracies and push to physics reach at small $\theta_{13}$. However, for the intermediate baselines considered here, owing to smaller detector sizes and increasing sign($\Delta m_{31}^{2}$)-degeneracy dominance, the $\theta_{13}$ and $\delta$ reaches are relatively poor compared to the Water Čerenkov Beta Beams. This was demonstrated through the simulations of the previous section which indicated that degeneracy persisted for the intermediate baselines of Europe. A straightforward way to overcome this is to increase the exposure so that degenerate solutions lose statistical significance. However, for the Beta Beam, demands on production and ion storage impose restrictions on scaling up of this kind.
The challenge is improve the event rate at the low energies and then use this data in combination with high energy neutrinos. This approach is distinct from the standard technique to resolve the neutrino mass ordering. It is typical to consider very long baselines where the matter effect is strongest and the closeness to the matter resonance allows the recovery of flux reduced by its $L^{-2}$ dependance. Most interest centres on the Magic Baseline where CP-violation effects vanish from the appearance probability, leaving only the atmospheric contributions. There have been a number of studies using a second Beta Beam in addition to a Magic Baseline Beta Beam to help break degeneracies. Thus far, a Magic Baseline/short baseline combination has been studied in [@MB_except; @MB_4ions] and a Magic Baseline/long baseline combination in [@MB_Madrid]. The strategy employed in this section is to deliberately place the far detector at a baseline where the degeneracy is strong. In a short baseline/intermediate baseline configuration the short baseline will provide the sensitivity to $\theta_{13}$ and $\delta$ down to the $\sin^{2}2\theta_{13}\sim 10^{-4}$ level. This information can then used to rule out degenerate solution regions in ($\theta_{13},\delta$) space for the longer baseline. (For a short baseline, the sign($\Delta m_{31}^{2}$)-degenerate solution will be very close to the true solution. As the matter increases, the two solutions diverge.) The combination of data sets is expected to improve the sensitivity considerably. This is demonstrated in the following simulations.
Results
-------
{width="15cm"}
In Fig. \[Fi:dual\], the $3\sigma$ confidence levels for the three physics indicators are shown for a large Water Čerenkov, based at Canfranc, in combination with the same Liquid Argon detector as previous for the the Slanic and Pyhäsalmi laboratories. The Water Čerenkov dominates the $\theta_{13}$ and $\delta$ sensitivities and the reaches are essentially identical in both combinations. Therefore only the results for Slanic are shown here. The CP-discovery plot is both smooth and symmetric. There is no residue intrinsic degeneracy at $\sin^{2}2\theta_{13}\sim 10^{-2}$ as its location is different for each baseline and therefore can be resolved. For both baseline pairs, non-zero $\theta_{13}$ and $\delta$ distinguishable from $0^{\circ}$ and $180^{\circ}$ can be achieved down to $\sin^{2}2\theta_{13}=5\cdot 10^{-5}$.
The important result is that the combination of baselines does indeed improve the ability to rule out the incorrect mass ordering beyond the capability of either baseline separately. Specifically, for $\gamma=350,350$ and for both combinations, the correct mass ordering can be extracted for all $\delta$ down to $\sin^{2}2\theta_{13}\sim 6-7 \cdot 10^{-3}$. For $\gamma=570,350$ this improves to $\sin^{2}2\theta_{13}\sim 4 \cdot 10^{-3}$ which is the level reported for the conservative Magic Baseline proposal in [@MB_4ions]. Even for $\gamma=350,350$, there is substantial resolving power at the $4\cdot 10^{-3}$ level indicating that a more more minimal Beta Beam is capable of returning similar physics.
Discussion {#S:discussion}
==========
The simulations presented in this article indicate that a two-baseline Beta Beam configuration using a short and intermediate baseline can obtain a similar physics reach as conservative Magic Baseline proposals, such as in [@MB_4ions]. Long baseline experiments incorporating the Magic Baseline aim to exploit the absence of the CP-violation at this baseline along with the nearby resonance associated with atmospheric neutrino mixing. Since such an environment provides a relatively clean measurement of the mass ordering, usually to very small $\theta_{13}$, Beta Beam studies aiming to achieve the best reach in this respect typically exploit it [@MB_4ions; @MB_except; @MB_Madrid; @MB_INOpapers]. It is instructive to highlight the reason why a more minimal setup can return similar sensitivity to the conservative Magic Baseline proposals.
The crucial point to realise is that the sought features of the baseline, namely no CP-phase and proximity to the matter resonance, are features of the appearance probability. In an experiment, one measures the event rate which is a convolution of the unoscillated neutrino flux at detector, a cross-section, detector efficiencies and the probability. Having a signal clean from CP-violation is of little use if the event rate is too low to provide a competitive sensitivity. The unoscillated flux has a $L^{-2}$ dependence which greatly reduces the flux at very long baseline. This reduction can be recovered through the larger cross-sections at high energy and the matter enhancement of the appearance probability. On the assumption that the same number of ion decays is available for the very long baselines as for the short, the number of appearance events is roughly independent of the baseline at very long baselines [@MB_INOpapers]. In this instance, the ability to extract the mass ordering will peak where the signal is cleanest from $\delta$ ‘contamination’: the Magic Baseline. However, a second baseline is always necessary to have access to the CP-violation. In which case, it may be possible to use synergy between baselines to extract the sign of the mass splitting at a similar level as demonstrated in this study.
Never-the-less, the sensitivity presented here can still be beaten by most Magic Baseline Beta Beams considered. The point raised in [@MB_4ions] is that construction restrictions on the size of the decay ring could result in a considerable reduction of the flux at very long baseline in a realistic proposal. (Longer baselines require the decay ring to dip at larger angles to the surface so that the maximum depth of the ring could be beyond 2km if very powerful superconducting magnets are not available.) If one imposes a limit on the maximum depth of the decay ring, then there is a maximum baseline for which one can source $3\times 10^{18}$ ion decays per year in the straight section. For all baselines longer than this, the length of the straight sections need to be curtailed. If the flux at the Magic Baseline is sufficiently reduced, there will become a point when the $\delta$ cleanliness of the signal is insufficient to achieve the best physics reach, even for a single baseline. At such a point, combinations involving synergy would then be sought to obtain a broad overall physics reach. By choosing to use $^{18}$Ne and $^{6}$He only, this study was able to expose both detectors simultaneously to the neutrino flux. In studies using all four candidate ions, one effectively cuts the event rate in half since the low-Q and high-Q pairs need to be run separately and irradiate only the appropriate detector. The combination of the synergy between baselines and the higher event rate from using only two ions is the reason why the relatively minimal configurations discussed here have returned similar physics to conservative Magic Baseline proposals.
Summary {#S:summary}
=======
Assessing the physics reach of long baselines with far detectors based at the potential LAGUNA sites is of critical importance for strategic decisions towards accelerator and non-accelerator neutrino physics in Europe. Recently, as part of the LAGUNA design study, work studying the physics return for a Beta Beam with LENA [@BB_LENA] as a far detector, and a high powered Superbeam directed towards GLACIER [@rubbia_cern] have been performed. In this article, this has been continued to include Beta Beam physics with GLACIER, but with the mass effectively reduced to 50 kton to offset any shortfall in the useful ion decay rate. R&D towards the detector response for the incident beam is currently unavailable, and so the approach was to be conservative in energy resolution and efficiency assumptions. Configuring the detector with a low energy threshold and binned in a manner to extract the oscillatory structure of the signal, the physics for single and double baselines was simulated.
The physics reach for a Beta Beam directred towards the Slanic Mine ($L=1570$ km) and Pyhäsalmi ($L=2300$ km) were simulated initially. The shorter baseline performed best owing to its larger event rate and weaker sign($\Delta m_{31}^{2}$) degeneracy. Non-zero $\theta_{13}$ could be established down to $\sin^{2}2\theta_{13}\sim 10^{-3}$ for the $\gamma=570,350$ facility. The effect of altering the boost of the $^{18}$Ne ion is large for the Slanic baseline, especially for CP-violation. This indicates that degenerate solutions pose a problem for the less energetic neutrinos. The effect was much less apparent for identifying the correct mass ordering. This is because the increasing the boost gives access to higher energy neutrinos without substantially increasing the flux at low energies. For Pyhäsalmi, the sensitivities were much weaker for all indicators with little return below $\sin^{2}2\theta_{13}=10^{-2}$. Although the matter effect is larger at Pyhäsalmi, the reduced flux from being more distant from source allows the degenerate solutions to remain statistically significant for small $\theta_{13}$.
These results indicated that the data from the Slanic and Pyhäsalmi Liquid Argon detectors should be combined with a concurrent run directed towards a large Water Čerenkov based at Canfranc. Such an addition provides an almost clean measurement of $\theta_{13}$ and $\delta$ down to $\sin^{2}2\theta_{13}\sim 10^{-4}$. This information is then available for the longer baseline to remove the degenerate solutions and extract the mass ordering from its data set. The reach on the neutrino mass ordering is competitive with the conservative two baseline configurations incorporating the Magic Baseline. The access to $\theta_{13}$ and CP-violation was dominated by the short baseline with reach down to $\sin^{2}2\theta_{13} =5\cdot 10^{-5}$.
In conclusion, the results of this study indicate that European Beta Beams can be provide competitive physics reach to move extensive proposals. The optimal Beta Beam configuration, therefore, has yet to be determined and should be investigated further, taking into account available knowledge on technological restrictions. More generally, these results demonstrate that the Magic Baseline is not mandatory for determining the sign of $\Delta m_{31}^{2}$: the combination of data from a short baseline with data heavy in degeneracy can be an equally as powerful phenomenological tool.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
This work was supported by the European Commission Framework Programme 7 Design study: LAGUNA, project number 212343. The EC is not liable for any use that maybe made of the information contained herein.
[99]{}
Y. Ashie [*et al.*]{} \[Super-Kamiokande Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. D [**71**]{} (2005) 112005 \[arXiv:hep-ex/0501064\]; J. Hosaka [*et al.*]{} \[Super-Kamiokande Collaboration\], neutrinos in Super-Kamiokande,” Phys. Rev. D [**74**]{} (2006) 032002 \[arXiv:hep-ex/0604011\]; H. Sekiya for the Super-Kamiokande Collaboration, arXiv:0810.0595 \[astro-ph\].
M. Ambrosio [*et al.*]{} \[MACRO Collaboration\], Eur. Phys. J. C [**36**]{} (2004) 323; M. C. Sanchez [*et al.*]{} \[Soudan 2 Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. D [**68**]{}, 113004 (2003) \[arXiv:hep-ex/0307069\].
Y. Fukuda [*et al.*]{} \[Kamiokande Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. Lett. [**77**]{} (1996) 1683; B. T. Cleveland [*et al.*]{}, Astrophys. J. [**496**]{} (1998) 505; W. Hampel [*et al.*]{} \[GALLEX Collaboration\], Phys. Lett. B [**447**]{} (1999) 127; J. N. Abdurashitov [*et al.*]{} \[SAGE Collaboration\], J. Exp. Theor. Phys. [**95**]{} (2002) 181 \[Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. [**122**]{} (2002) 211\] \[arXiv:astro-ph/0204245\]; T. A. Kirsten \[GNO Collaboration\], Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. [**118**]{} (2003) 33.
S. Fukuda [*et al.*]{} \[Super-Kamiokande Collaboration\], Phys. Lett. B [**539**]{} (2002) 179 \[arXiv:hep-ex/0205075\]; J. P. Cravens [*et al.*]{} \[Super-Kamiokande Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. D [**78**]{} (2008) 032002 \[arXiv:0803.4312 \[hep-ex\]\].
Q. R. Ahmad [*et al.*]{} \[SNO Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. Lett. [**87**]{} (2001) 071301 \[arXiv:nucl-ex/0106015\]; [*ibid.*]{} [**89**]{} (2002) 011301 \[arXiv:nucl-ex/0204008\]; and [*ibid.*]{} [**89**]{} (2002) 011302 \[arXiv:nucl-ex/0204009\]; S. N. Ahmed [*et al.*]{} \[SNO Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. Lett. [**92**]{} (2004) 181301 \[arXiv:nucl-ex/0309004\]; B. Aharmim [*et al.*]{} \[SNO Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. C [**72**]{} (2005) 055502 \[arXiv:nucl-ex/0502021\].
M. Apollonio [*et al.*]{} \[CHOOZ Collaboration\], Phys. Lett. B [**466**]{} (1999) 415 \[arXiv:hep-ex/9907037\]; M. Apollonio [*et al.*]{} \[CHOOZ Collaboration\], Eur. Phys. J. C [**27**]{} (2003) 331 \[arXiv:hep-ex/0301017\].
F. Boehm [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**84**]{} (2000) 3764 \[arXiv:hep-ex/9912050\]; Phys. Rev. D [**62**]{} (2000) 072002 \[arXiv:hep-ex/0003022\]; and [*ibid.*]{} [**64**]{} (2001) 112001 \[arXiv:hep-ex/0107009\].
K. Eguchi [*et al.*]{} \[KamLAND Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. Lett. [**90**]{} (2003) 021802 \[arXiv:hep-ex/0212021\]; T. Araki [*et al.*]{} \[KamLAND Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. Lett. [**94**]{} (2005) 081801 \[arXiv:hep-ex/0406035\]; S. Abe[*et al.*]{} \[KamLAND Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. Lett. [**100**]{} (2008) 221803 \[arXiv:0801.4589 \[hep-ex\]\].
M. H. Ahn [*et al.*]{} \[K2K Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. D [**74**]{} (2006) 072003 \[arXiv:hep-ex/0606032\].
D. G. Michael [*et al.*]{} \[MINOS Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. Lett. [**97**]{} (2006) 191801 \[arXiv:hep-ex/0607088\]; P. Adamson[*et al.*]{} \[MINOS Collaboration\], arXiv:0806.2237 \[hep-ex\]; arXiv:0807.2424 \[hep-ex\]. M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, M. Maltoni and J. Salvado, arXiv:1001.4524 \[hep-ph\]. G. L. Fogli, E. Lisi, A. Marrone, A. Palazzo and A. M. Rotunno, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**101**]{} (2008) 141801 \[arXiv:0806.2649 \[hep-ph\]\]. H. L. Ge, C. Giunti and Q. Y. Liu, Phys. Rev. D [**80**]{} (2009) 053009 \[arXiv:0810.5443 \[hep-ph\]\]. V. Barger, M. Dierckxsens, M. Diwan, P. Huber, C. Lewis, D. Marfatia and B. Viren, Phys. Rev. D [**74**]{} (2006) 073004 \[arXiv:hep-ph/0607177\]; V. Barger, P. Huber, D. Marfatia and W. Winter, Phys. Rev. D [**76**]{} (2007) 031301 \[arXiv:hep-ph/0610301\]; V. Barger, P. Huber, D. Marfatia and W. Winter, Phys. Rev. D [**76**]{} (2007) 053005 \[arXiv:hep-ph/0703029\]; V. Barger [*et al.*]{}, arXiv:0705.4396 \[hep-ph\].
M. Ishitsuka, T. Kajita, H. Minakata and H. Nunokawa, Phys. Rev. D [**72**]{} (2005) 033003 \[arXiv:hep-ph/0504026\]; K. Hagiwara, N. Okamura and K. i. Senda, Phys. Rev. D [**76**]{} (2007) 093002 \[arXiv:hep-ph/0607255\]; T. Kajita, H. Minakata, S. Nakayama and H. Nunokawa, Phys. Rev. D [**75**]{} (2007) 013006 \[arXiv:hep-ph/0609286\].
A. Rubbia, arXiv:1003.1921. S. Geer, Phys. Rev. D [**57**]{} (1998) 6989 \[Erratum-ibid. D [**59**]{} (1999) 039903\] \[arXiv:hep-ph/9712290\]; A. De Rújula, M. B. Gavela and P. Hernández, Nucl. Phys. B [**547**]{} (1999) 21 \[arXiv:hep-ph/9811390\]; V. Barger, S. Geer, R. Raja and K. Whisnant, Phys. Rev. D [**62**]{} (2000) 013004 \[arXiv:hep-ph/9911524\]. S. Geer, O. Mena and S. Pascoli, Phys. Rev. D [**75**]{} (2007) 093001 \[arXiv:hep-ph/0701258\]; A. D. Bross, M. Ellis, S. Geer, O. Mena and S. Pascoli, Phys. Rev. D [**77**]{} (2008) 093012 \[arXiv:0709.3889 \[hep-ph\]\]; A. Bross, S. Geer, M. Ellis, E. Fernandez-Martinez, T. Li, S. Pascoli and O. Mena, arXiv:0911.3776.
P. Zucchelli, Phys. Lett. B [**532**]{}, 166 (2002). B. Autin [*et al.*]{}, J. Phys. G [**29**]{} (2003) 1785 \[arXiv:physics/0306106\]. J. E. Campagne [*et al.*]{}, JHEP [**0704**]{}, 003 (2007).
M. Mezzetto, J. Phys. G [**29**]{}, 1771 (2003), \[arXiv:hep-ex/0302007\]; M. Mezzetto, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. [**143**]{}, 309 (2005), \[arXiv:hep-ex/0410083\]; M. Mezzetto, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. [**155**]{}, 214 (2006), \[arXiv:hep-ex/0511005\]. A. Donini, E. Fernandez-Martinez, P. Migliozzi, S. Rigolin and L. Scotto Lavina, Nucl. Phys. B [**710**]{}, 402 (2005), \[arXiv:hep-ph/0406132\]. A. Donini and E. Fernandez-Martinez, Phys. Lett. B [**641**]{}, 432 (2006), \[arXiv:hep-ph/0603261\].
E. Fernandez-Martinez, arXiv:0912.3804 \[hep-ph\]. A. Donini, E. Fernandez, P. Migliozzi, S. Rigolin, L. Scotto Lavina, T. Tabarelli de Fatis and F. Terranova, arXiv:hep-ph/0511134; A. Donini, E. Fernandez-Martinez, P. Migliozzi, S. Rigolin, L. Scotto Lavina, T. Tabarelli de Fatis and F. Terranova, Eur. Phys. J. C [**48**]{}, 787 (2006), \[arXiv:hep-ph/0604229\].
J. Burguet-Castell, D. Casper, E. Couce, J. J. Gómez-Cadenas and P. Hernandez, Nucl. Phys. B [**725**]{}, 306 (2005), \[arXiv:hep-ph/0503021\]; J. Burguet-Castell, D. Casper, J. J. Gómez-Cadenas, P. Hernandez and F. Sanchez, Nucl. Phys. B [**695**]{}, 217 (2004). D. Meloni, O. Mena, C. Orme, S. Palomares-Ruiz and S. Pascoli, JHEP [**0807**]{}, 115 (2008), \[arXiv:0802.0255 \[hep-ph\]\]. J. Peltoniemi, arXiv:0911.5234 \[hep-ph\]. S. Choubey, P. Coloma, A. Donini and E. Fernandez-Martinez, JHEP [**0912**]{} (2009) 020 \[arXiv:0907.2379 \[hep-ph\]\]. S. K. Agarwalla, S. Choubey and A. Raychaudhuri, Nucl. Phys. B [**805**]{} (2008) 305 \[arXiv:0804.3007 \[hep-ph\]\]. P. Coloma, A. Donini, E. Fernandez-Martinez and J. Lopez-Pavon, JHEP [**0805**]{} (2008) 050 \[arXiv:0712.0796 \[hep-ph\]\]. S. K. Agarwalla, S. Choubey and A. Raychaudhuri, Nucl. Phys. B [**798**]{} (2008) 124 \[arXiv:0711.1459 \[hep-ph\]\]; S. K. Agarwalla, S. Choubey and A. Raychaudhuri, Nucl. Phys. B [**771**]{} (2007) 1 \[arXiv:hep-ph/0610333\]; S. K. Agarwalla, A. Raychaudhuri and A. Samanta, Phys. Lett. B [**629**]{} (2005) 33 \[arXiv:hep-ph/0505015\]. C. Rubbia, arXiv:hep-ph/0609235; C. Rubbia, A. Ferrari, Y. Kadi and V. Vlachoudis, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A [**568**]{} (2006) 475 \[arXiv:hep-ph/0602032\]. A. Jansson, O. Mena, S. J. Parke and N. Saoulidou, Phys. Rev. D [**78**]{}, 053002 (2008), \[arXiv:0711.1075 \[hep-ph\]\].
S. K. Agarwalla and P. Huber, arXiv:0909.2257 \[hep-ph\]. A. Stahl, talk given at EURO$\nu$u WP4 kick-off meeting, CERN, 23rd October 2008.
P. Huber, M. Lindner, M. Rolinec and W. Winter, Phys. Rev. D [**73**]{} (2006) 053002 \[arXiv:hep-ph/0506237\].
S. K. Agarwalla, S. Choubey, A. Raychaudhuri and W. Winter, JHEP [**0806**]{} (2008) 090 \[arXiv:0802.3621 \[hep-ex\]\]. W. Winter, Phys. Rev. D [**78**]{} (2008) 037101 \[arXiv:0804.4000 \[hep-ph\]\]. O. Bruning [*et. al.*]{},“LHC luminosity and energy upgrade: A feasibility study,” CERN-LHC-PROJECT-REPORT-626, 2002.
A. Rubbia, arXiv:hep-ph/0402110. J. Peltoniemi, arXiv:0911.4876 \[hep-ex\].
See http://www,laguna-science.eu .
A. de Bellefon [*et al.*]{}, arXiv:hep-ex/0607026. L. Oberauer, F. von Feilitzsch and W. Potzel, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. [**138**]{} (2005) 108. E. K. Akhmedov, R. Johansson, M. Lindner, T. Ohlsson and T. Schwetz, JHEP [**0404**]{} (2004) 078 \[arXiv:hep-ph/0402175\]; A. Cervera, A. Donini, M. B. Gavela, J. J. Gomez Cadenas, P. Hernandez, O. Mena and S. Rigolin, Nucl. Phys. B [**579**]{} (2000) 17 \[Erratum-ibid. B [**593**]{} (2001) 731\] \[arXiv:hep-ph/0002108\].
J. Burguet-Castell, M. B. Gavela, J. J. Gomez-Cadenas, P. Hernandez and O. Mena, Nucl. Phys. B [**608**]{} (2001) 301 \[arXiv:hep-ph/0103258\]; H. Minakata and H. Nunokawa, JHEP [**0110**]{} (2001) 001 \[arXiv:hep-ph/0108085\]; G. L. Fogli and E. Lisi, Phys. Rev. D [**54**]{} (1996) 3667 \[arXiv:hep-ph/9604415\]; V. Barger, D. Marfatia and K. Whisnant, Phys. Rev. D **65** (2002) 073023 \[arXiv:hep-ph/0112119\].
P. Huber and W. Winter, Phys. Rev. D [**68**]{} (2003) 037301 \[arXiv:hep-ph/0301257\]. M. V. Diwan [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. D [**68**]{} (2003) 012002 \[arXiv:hep-ph/0303081\]; V. Barger, M. Dierckxsens, M. Diwan, P. Huber, C. Lewis, D. Marfatia and B. Viren, Phys. Rev. D [**74**]{} (2006) 073004 \[arXiv:hep-ph/0607177\]. C. Orme, arXiv:0912.2676.
E. Wildner, PoS [**NUFACT08**]{} (2008) 007. www.eurisol.org .
A. Donini and M. Lindroos, PoS [**NUFACT08**]{} (2008) 051. M. Loislet and S. Mitrofanov, “Alternative production scenerios for $^{6}$He and $^{18}$Ne,” Oral presentation at the 6th Beta Beam Task meeting, EURISOL, 19th November 2007, http:eurisol.org .
A. Rubbia, private communication.
L. Bartoszek [*et al.*]{}, arXiv:hep-ex/0408121.
P. Huber, M. Lindner and W. Winter, Comput. Phys. Commun. [**167**]{}, 195 (2005) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0407333\]; P. Huber, J. Kopp, M. Lindner, M. Rolinec and W. Winter, Comput. Phys. Commun. [**177**]{}, 432 (2007) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0701187\].
T. Schwetz, JHEP [**0705**]{} (2007) 093 \[arXiv:hep-ph/0703279\].
[^1]: These assignments are conservative with studies for FLARE [@Flare] indicating that below 1 GeV, resolution could be as good as 2 %, whilst above 2 GeV $\sigma(E_{\nu}) \simeq 0.10E_{\nu}$.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We report the first detection of $>$100 MeV gamma rays associated with a behind-the-limb solar flare, which presents a unique opportunity to probe the underlying physics of high-energy flare emission and particle acceleration. On 2013 October 11 a GOES M1.5 class solar flare occurred $\sim$ 9.9 behind the solar limb as observed by [*STEREO*]{}-B. [*RHESSI*]{}observed hard X-ray emission above the limb, most likely from the flare loop-top, as the footpoints were occulted. Surprisingly, the [*Fermi*]{}Large Area Telescope (LAT) detected $>$100 MeV gamma-rays for $\sim$30 minutes with energies up to 3 GeV. The LAT emission centroid is consistent with the [*RHESSI*]{}hard X-ray source, but its uncertainty does not constrain the source to be located there. The gamma-ray spectra can be adequately described by bremsstrahlung radiation from relativistic electrons having a relatively hard power-law spectrum with a high-energy exponential cutoff, or by the decay of pions produced by accelerated protons and ions with an isotropic pitch-angle distribution and a power-law spectrum with a number index of $\sim$3.8. We show that high optical depths rule out the gamma rays originating from the flare site and a high-corona trap model requires very unusual conditions, so a scenario in which some of the particles accelerated by the CME shock travel to the visible side of the Sun to produce the observed gamma rays may be at work.'
author:
- 'M. Pesce-Rollins, N. Omodei, V. Petrosian, Wei Liu, Fatima Rubio da Costa, A. Allafort, Qingrong Chen'
title: 'FIRST DETECTION OF $>100$ MeV GAMMA RAYS ASSOCIATED WITH A BEHIND-THE-LIMB SOLAR FLARE'
---
Introduction
============
During its first six years in orbit, the [*Fermi*]{}Large Area Telescope [LAT; @LATPaper] has detected $>$30 MeV gamma-ray emission from more than 40 solar flares, nearly 10 times more than EGRET [@Thompson:93] onboard the [*Compton Gamma-Ray Observatory*]{}, GRS [@forr85] onboard the [*Solar Maximum Mission* (*SMM*)]{} and CORONAS-F [@coronasf]. The [*Fermi*]{}detections sample both the impulsive [@2012ApJ...745..144A] and the long-duration phases [@0004-637X-787-1-15] including the longest extended emission ever detected ($\sim$20 hours) from the SOL2012-03-07 GOES X-class flares [@0004-637X-789-1-20].
Our understanding of solar flares has also been shaped by decades of hard X-ray (HXR) observations, notably by the detection of conjugate footpoint sources by [*SMM*]{} [@HoyngP1981ApJ246L.155.HXRfp], coronal sources above soft X-ray loops by [*Yohkoh*]{}[e.g., @Masuda1994Nature; @2002ApJ...569..459P], and double coronal sources suggestive of magnetic reconnection in between by [*RHESSI*]{}[e.g., @SuiL2003ApJ...596L.251S; @LiuW_2LT.2008ApJ...676..704L; @LiuW.cusp.flare.20120719M7.2013ApJ...767..168L]. These and many other observations support the standard flare model involving magnetic reconnection and associated particle acceleration in the corona [for reviews, see, e.g., @2011SSRv..159..107H]. There are alternatively proposed scenarios, including (re-)accleration of particles in the chromosphere [e.g., @2008ApJ...675.1645F; @2012ApJ...749..166H], supported by [e.g., @2012ApJ...753L..26M].
Of particular interest are those flares whose footpoints are occulted by the solar limb, allowing coronal emission to be imaged in greater detail than in normal situations dominated by bright footpoints [e.g., @KruckerS_Coronal60keV_2007ApJ...669L..49K; @KruckerS.occult-stat2008ApJ...673.1181K].
In this Letter, we present [*Fermi*]{}and [*RHESSI*]{}observations of such a flare whose position was confirmed to be behind the limb by [*STEREO*]{}-B. While gamma-ray emission up to tens of MeV resulting from proton interactions has been detected before from occulted solar flares , the significance of this particular event lies in the fact that this is the first detection of $>$100 MeV gamma-ray emission from a footpoint-occulted flare and presents a unique opportunity to diagnose the mechanisms of high-energy emission and particle acceleration in solar flares.
Observations and data analysis {#sec:analysis}
==============================
Observational Overview {#sec:overview}
----------------------
On 2013 October 11 at 07:01 UT a GOES M1.5 class flare occurred with soft X-ray emission lasting 44 min and peaking at 07:25:00 UT. Figure \[fig:LightCurve\] shows the GOES, [*STEREO*]{}-B, [*RHESSI*]{}, [*Fermi*]{}Gamma-ray Burst Monitor [GBM; @meeg09] and LAT lightcurves of this flare. The LAT detected $>$100 MeV emission for $\sim$30 min with the maximum of the flux occurring between 07:20:00–07:25:00 UT. [*RHESSI*]{}coverage was from 07:08:00–07:16:40 UT, overlapping with [*Fermi*]{}for 9 min.
Images in Figure \[fig:STEREOSDO\] from the [*STEREO*]{}-B Extreme-Ultra Violet Imager [EUVI; @EUVIinstrument] and the [*SDO*]{}Atmospheric Imaging Assembly [AIA; @AIApaper] of the photosphere indicate that the active region (AR) was $\sim$9.9 behind the limb at the time of the flare. LASCO onboard the *Solar and Heliospheric Observatory* ([*SOHO*]{}) observed a backside asymmetric-halo CME associated with this flare beginning at 07:24:10 UT with a linear speed of 1200 km s$^{-1}$ [@CMEcatalog] and a bright front over the Northeast. Both [*STEREO*]{} spacecrafts detected energetic electrons, protons, and heavier ions including helium, as well as type-II radio bursts indicating the presence of a coronal–heliospheric shock. [*STEREO*]{}-B had an unblocked view of the entire flare and detected a maximum rate of 3.5$\times$10$^{6}$ photons s$^{-1}$ in its 195 channel, corresponding to a GOES M4.9 class [@2013SoPh..288..241N] if it had not been occulted.
![Light curves of the 2013 October 11 flare as detected by a) *GOES*, b) [*STEREO*]{}, c) [*RHESSI*]{}, d) GBM, e) LAT, and heights of the [*RHESSI*]{}emission centroid (f) with the same color coding as in c). [*Fermi*]{}exited the South Atlantic Anomaly (SAA) at 06:57:00 UT. The vertical dashed line represents flare start time (7:01 UT). []{data-label="fig:LightCurve"}](fig1.eps "fig:"){width="49.00000%"}\
Data analysis {#sec:analysis}
-------------
We performed an unbinned likelihood analysis of the LAT data with the `gtlike` program distributed with the [*Fermi*]{}`ScienceTools`[^1] For [*RHESSI*]{}data, we applied the CLEAN imaging algorithm [@Hurford2002] using the detectors 3$-$9 to reconstruct the X-ray images. We used the FITS World Coordinate System software package [@2010SoPh..261..215T] to co-register the flare location between [*STEREO*]{} and [*SDO*]{}images. The [*STEREO*]{} light curves are pre-flare background subtracted, full-Sun integrated photon rates.
Localization of the Emission {#sec:positions}
----------------------------
We measure the location of the LAT $>$100 MeV gamma-ray emission [as described in @0004-637X-789-1-20] and find a best fit position for the emission centroid at heliocentric coordinates of ($-850\arcsec$,$70\arcsec$) with a 68% error radius of 250$\arcsec$, as shown in Figure \[fig:STEREOSDO\](b). [*RHESSI*]{} X-ray sources integrated over 07:11:04$-$07:16:44 UT are shown as 80%-level, off-limb contours in Figure \[fig:STEREOSDO\](d).
The temporal evolution of the projected [*RHESSI*]{}source heights above the solar limb are shown in Figure \[fig:LightCurve\](f). The higher-energy emission generally comes from greater heights, consistent with expectations for a loop-top source [e.g., @SuiL2003ApJ...596L.251S; @2004ApJ...611L..53L]. Moreover, from [*SDO*]{}/AIA movies we find no signature of EUV ribbons, even in the late phase during the [*RHESSI*]{}night. Together, these observations provide convincing evidence that the footpoints were indeed occulted.
![[*STEREO*]{}-B (left) and [*SDO*]{}(right) images near the flare peak. The white-dashed line in (a) and (c) represents the solar limb as seen by [*SDO*]{}. The green line in (b) shows the 68% error circle for the LAT source centroid. The cyan contour and plus sign in (c) mark the [*STEREO*]{} flare ribbon and its centroid, respectively. Their projected view as seen from the AIA perspective is shown in (d), in which the centroid is located at 9.9 behind the limb. The green and blue-dotted contours in (d) show [*RHESSI*]{}sources. The rectangular brackets in (a) and (b) mark the field of view (FOV) for (c) and (d), respectively.[]{data-label="fig:STEREOSDO"}](fig2.eps){width="48.00000%"}
The LAT measured 4 photons with energies $>$1 GeV and reconstructed direction less than 1$^{\circ}$ from the center of the solar disk. All, including a 3 GeV photon, arrived after 7:19:00 UT (outside of the RHESSI coverage).
Spectral analysis {#sec:spectra}
-----------------
We fit the LAT gamma-ray spectral data with three models. The first two, a pure power-law (PL) and a power-law with an exponential cut-off (PLEXP) are phenomenological functions that may describe bremsstrahlung emission from accelerated electrons. The third model uses templates based on a detailed study of the gamma rays produced from pion decay [updated from @murp87].
We rely on the likelihood ratio test [TS; @Mattox:96] to estimate the significance of the source (TS$_{\rm PL}$) as well as to estimate whether the addition of the exponential cut-off is statistically significant. To this end we define $\Delta$TS=TS$_{\rm PLEXP}$-TS$_{\rm PL}$ which is equivalent to the corresponding difference of maximum likelihoods computed between the two models. The significance in $\sigma$ can be roughly approximated as $\sqrt{\rm TS}$.
For each interval where PLEXP provides a significantly better fit than PL ($\Delta{\rm TS}>$20) we also fit the data with a series of pion-decay models to determine the best proton spectral index following the same procedure described in @0004-637X-789-1-20. The TS values for PLEXP and pion-decay fits cannot be directly compared [@wilks1938] however the PLEXP approximates the shape of the pion-decay spectrum (see Figure \[fig:SED\]) thus we expect the pion-decay models to provide a similarly acceptable fit. We studied the effect of the LAT systematic uncertainties (mainly from the effective area, as considered here) via the bracketing technique described in @2012ApJS..203....4A.
The [*RHESSI*]{}and GBM NaI$_{1}$ spectral data are independently fitted with one or two thermal components plus a broken power-law with index fixed to 2 (to avoid energy divergence) below the break. Table \[tab:LATintervals\] summarizes the spectral analysis results. Data from BGO$_{0}$ are analyzed using the procedure described in @2012SPIE.8443E..3BF with an additional 5% systematic error on the background estimation. Figure \[fig:SED\] shows the combined spectra from [*RHESSI*]{}, GBM and LAT in four integration intervals. The discrepancy (up to a factor of 2.5) between the [*RHESSI*]{}and GBM flux values is likely due to pile-up in the [*RHESSI*]{}detector, and cannot be easily corrected. As is evident from Figure \[fig:SED\], more energy is radiated in HXRs than gamma rays.
{width="\textwidth"}\
[lcccccc]{} 07:10:00–07:15:00 & 16 & 5 & 1.80$\pm$0.35$^{+0.02}_{-0.02}$$^{d}$ &–&– & 0.60$\pm$0.26$^{+0.05}_{-0.04}$\
07:15:00–07:20:00 & 987 & 22 & 0.21$\pm$0.34$^{+0.16}_{-0.14}$ & 145$\pm$27$^{+9}_{-8}$& 3.7$\pm$0.2$\pm$0.1 & 24.1$\pm$1.5$^{+1.6}_{-1.4}$\
07:20:00–07:25:00 & 1146 & 92 & 0.23$\pm$0.27$^{+0.11}_{-0.11}$ & 162$\pm$26$^{+7}_{-7}$& 3.5$\pm$0.2$\pm$0.1 & 28.2$\pm$1.7$^{+1.7}_{-1.5}$\
07:25:00–07:30:00 & 435 & 45 & -0.42$\pm$0.58$^{+0.14}_{-0.15}$ & 95$\pm$21$^{+4}_{-4}$& 4.3$\pm$0.4$\pm$0.1 & 13.7$\pm$1.33$^{+0.8}_{-0.7}$\
07:30:00–07:35:00 & 55 & 4& 2.36$\pm$0.24$^{+0.03}_{-0.02}$$^{d}$ &–&–& 4.1$\pm$1.1$^{+0.4}_{-0.3}$\
07:08:00– 07:35:00 & 2885 & 233& 0.2$\pm$0.2$^{+0.135}_{-0.132}$ & 147$\pm$15$^{+1}_{-3}$ & 3.7$\pm$0.2$^{+0.1}_{-0.1}$ & 14.2$\pm$0.5$^{+0.9}_{-1.2}$\
07:16:40– 07:35:00 & 2855 & 204& 0.4$\pm$0.2$^{+0.134}_{-0.128}$ & 155$\pm$16$^{+1}_{-2}$ & 3.8$\pm$0.2$^{+0.1}_{-0.1}$ & 22.1$\pm$0.8$^{+1.5}_{-1.8}$\
\
\
& & & &\
& & & & & &\
& & & & & &\
07:08:00–07:10:58$^{\star}$ & & 17.9$\pm$0.5 & 3.76$\pm$0.04 & 2.23$\pm$0.06 & – & 52$\pm$1\
07:08:00–07:10:58 & & 17.9$\pm$0.9 & 3.88$\pm$0.03 & 1.9$\pm$0.1 & – & 55$\pm$1\
07:11:10–07:16:40$^{\star}$ & & 16$\pm$2 & 4.24$\pm$0.07 & 1.92$\pm$0.02 & 0.62$\pm$0.03 & 253$\pm$5\
07:11:10–07:16:40 & & 21$\pm$5 & 3.52$\pm$0.05 & 2.9$\pm$0.4 & 1.54$\pm$0.16 & 630$\pm$10\
07:16:40–07:35:00 & & 20 (fixed) & 2.56$\pm$0.06 & 2.71$\pm$0.07 & 1.27$\pm$0.04 & 399$\pm$8\
07:08:00–07:35:00 & & 20$\pm$8 & 3.22$\pm$0.05 & 2.8$\pm$0.2 & 1.34$\pm$0.08 & 388$\pm$8\
\[tab:LATintervals\]
Discussion {#sec:discussion}
==========
We have analyzed the data of the 2013 October 11 solar flare from [*Fermi*]{}, [*RHESSI*]{}, [*SDO*]{}and [*STEREO*]{}. [*STEREO*]{}-B images indicate that the flare occurred in an AR 9.9 behind the limb. [*RHESSI*]{}and GBM NaI$_{1}$ detected HXRs up to 50 keV from the flaring loop-top. The most unusual aspect of this flare is the LAT detection of photons of energies $\epsilon >$100 MeV for about 30 minutes with some photons having energies up to 3 GeV. Electrons or protons with energies $E >
\epsilon$ can produce these photons after traversing a column depth of matter $N(E)>10^{25}$ and $10^{26}$ cm$^{-2}$, respectively, which is much larger than the depth $\sim 10^{20}$ cm$^{-2}$ penetrated by HXR-producing electrons. For occulted flares the emitted photons must traverse even larger depths where they may be scattered and absorbed. We consider three scenarios for the emission site of the gamma rays; (i) deep below the photosphere of the flare site (ii) in the corona above the limb, suggestive of trapping of particles, e.g., by strongly converging magnetic fields and (iii) CME-shock accelerated particles traveling back to the Sun.
Emission below the photosphere {#sec:belowphotosphere}
------------------------------
For the first scenario we need continuous acceleration of particles because they penetrate deep into the solar atmosphere and lose energy in a fraction of a second. Most of the radiation they produce also comes from deep within the photosphere so we need to calculate the optical depth, $\tau(\e)=\sigma\times N_\g(\e)$ from the emission site to the Earth. For $>$100 MeV photons the main absorption is via pair production with a cross section $\sigma_{\rm PP}\sim 0.035\times\sigma_0$, where $\sigma_0$ is the Thomson scattering cross section relevant for $<$100 keV HXRs[^2]. The column depth along the line of sight to the observer, $N_\g(\e)$, depends on both the position of the flare and the column depth $N(E)$ penetrated by the emitting particles of energy $E=\eta \epsilon$. This depth is determined by the energy loss rates.
High-energy electrons spiraling down a magnetic field line with a pitch angle cosine $\mu$ lose and radiate most of their energy deep in the photosphere. For $E \lesssim$ 250 MeV (Lorentz factor $\gamma\lesssim 500$), the dominant energy losses are due to Coulomb-ionization, whereas for $E\gtrsim$ 250 MeV, the radiative losses are dominated by bremsstrahlung (over synchrotron and inverse Compton). The total loss rate can be approximated as
$$\label{lossrate}
dE/dr=(1/\mu) m_ec^2(n/N_0)[1+(\gamma/\gamma_0)^\delta]$$
with $N_0=(4\pi r_0^2\ln \Lambda)^{-1}=5\times 10^{22}\, {\rm cm}^{-2}$ (for Coulomb logarithm $\ln \Lambda=20$) and $n$ the total density. For extreme relativistic electrons $\delta\sim 1.1$ and $\gamma_0$ is the Lorentz factor where the two losses are equal. From these, and ignoring the small deviation of $\delta$ from unity, the column depth penetrated by an electron of initial Lorentz factor $\gamma$ is then $$\label{column}
N(E) = \int_R^\infty n(r)dr = \mu N_0 \gamma_0\ln (1+\gamma/\gamma_0).$$ For non-relativistic electrons and protons the Coulomb collision dominates and for both particles we have $$\label{Coulomb}
N(E)=\mu N_0(m/m_e)(E/mc^2)^2/\gamma.$$
The energy dependence of the proton loss rate is similar to that of electrons. The Coulomb losses dominate at low energies but for proton energies $E>0.3$ GeV pion production becomes significant and at $E>4.5$ GeV ($\g \gtrsim 4$) it becomes the dominant loss mechanism, and like electron bremsstrahlung, it gives $dE/ds\propto \g\ln \g$. Making the same approximation as above we get the same equations, (\[lossrate\]) and (\[column\]), but now with $N_0=6\times 10^{25}$cm$^{-2}$ and $\g_0= 4.0$ (for $\ln \Lambda=30$).
An electron of energy $E$ radiates photons of energy ${\bar \epsilon}=E/\eta <
E$ with $\eta\sim 2$. Similarly, assuming that protons of energy $E$ produce a $\pi^0$ with similar energy that decays into two photons of equal energies we can again set $\eta\sim 2$ (the exact value of $\eta$ will not change our conclusions drastically). For relativistic electrons the radiated photons will be beamed along the pitch angle of the electrons. As shown by @1990ApJ...359..541M there will be strong center-to-limb variation of gamma-ray flux, but for flares at a few degrees behind the limb this effect can be ignored.
For a flare at the center of the solar disk (helio-longitude $\phi=0$, or angle to the limb $\theta\equiv\pi/2-\phi=\pi/2$), the optical depth is $\tau(\epsilon)=N(E=\eta\epsilon)\sigma$ and increases toward the limb at a rate that depends on the ambient density profile; $N_\gamma(\epsilon, \theta)=\int_0^\infty n(r)dl$, where $ r = \sqrt{R^2 + 2Rl\sin\theta +l^2} $, and $R$ is the distance from the center of the Sun at the depth of emission $N(E)$. The photons of interest here are produced below the photosphere at column depths $N>10^{25}$ cm$^{-2}$ and densities $n>10^{17}$ cm$^{-3}$, where both quantities increase exponentially with a scale height $H \ll$ . Consequently, most of the contribution comes from within a scale height at a radius $R \sim$ corresponding to the column depth $N(\eta\epsilon)$ described above. If we define $A=R/H$ and $d\lambda=dl/R$ we get $$\label{Noftheta}
N_\gamma(\epsilon, \theta)= N(E=\eta\epsilon)A e^A \int_0^\infty
e^{-A\sqrt{1+2\lambda\sin\theta+\lambda^2}}d\lambda.$$ For occulted flares $\theta<0$. Since $A\gg 1$ most of the contribution to this integral comes from very small $\lambda$ so we can use the approximation $\sqrt{1+2\lambda\sin\theta+\lambda^2}\sim (1 + \lambda\sin\theta+ \lambda^2\cos^2(\theta)/2)$. This gives $$\label{Noftheta2}
N_\gamma(\epsilon, \pm\theta)= N(\eta\epsilon)
\sqrt{\pi A/(2\cos^2\theta)}\,e^\xi\,[1 \mp
{\rm erf}(\sqrt{\xi})],$$ where $\xi\equiv A\tan^2(\theta)/2$. Thus, we get $N_\gamma(\epsilon,
\pi/2)=N(\eta\epsilon)$ and $N_\gamma(\epsilon, 0)= N(\eta\epsilon)\sqrt{\pi A/2}$ for flares at the center and limb of the Sun. However, we are interested in behind-the-limb flares with $|\theta| \ll 1$ so that $\xi\equiv\theta^2A/2=0.1(\theta^{\circ})^2(10^3 \,{\rm km/H})$. For angles $|\theta|>3^{\circ}$ the error functions ${ \rm erf}(\sqrt{\xi})\rightarrow 1$ and $N_\gamma(\epsilon,-\theta)= 2N(\eta\epsilon)\sqrt {\pi A/2}e^{\xi}$.
We can use these expressions to calculate the optical depth. Let us consider HXRs emitted by nonrelativistic electrons. For a 50 keV photon emitted by a $\mu=0.5$ and $E=100$ keV electron (and using the Thomson cross section) we find $\tau(50\,{\rm keV}, \theta=\pi/2)< 10^{-3}$ at the center of the disk, $\tau(50\,{\rm keV}, \theta=0)\sim 0.02$ at the limb, and a rapid increase as $e^{0.1\theta^2}$ for a behind-the-limb flare. At $\theta=-10$and $H=1000$ km, the optical depth is $\gtrsim 10^{3}$.
For gamma rays the optical depth is considerably larger because they are emitted deeper in the photosphere. For a flare near the center of the solar disk the optical depth for a 100 MeV photon, emitted either by a $\sim200$ MeV electron or $>350$ MeV proton, is about 0.2 and 0.1, respectively. But for a flare at the limb these values increase by $\sqrt{\pi A/2}= 33\times(10^3\, {\rm km/H})^{1/2}$. For reasonable average pitch angles ${\bar \mu}>0.1$ and even if we include the effects of non-radial field lines this could give $\tau>1$.
Once the flare source region moves behind the limb, the optical depth increases exponentially as $e^\xi\propto e^{\theta^2A/2}$ making the detection of any flare for $|\theta|>2$impossible. This is also true for the 1 to 10 MeV BGO photons even though the protons producing them do not penetrate as deeply. Considering that the flare occurred at $\sim$10behind the limb, we conclude that this scenario is untenable.
Emission in the corona
----------------------
The key feature of this behind-the-limb flare is the detection of $>$100 MeV emission for $\sim$30 minutes. To explain this observation, we also consider the scenario where the photons are produced in the corona by high-energy particles injected promptly into a magnetic trap [e.g., @1997ApJ...487..936A] at $>10^9$ cm ( minimum height needed for a source $\sim$10$^{\circ}$ behind the limb to be visible above the limb) above the transition region. For particles to be trapped efficiently we need sufficiently strong field convergence to trap most particles and a low level of turbulence so that the scattering time would be much longer than the energy loss time. Otherwise most of the particles will be scattered into the loss cone and radiate deep in the solar atmosphere as in scenario \[sec:belowphotosphere\].
Let us first consider protons with an energy loss rate given by Eq. (\[lossrate\]) with $\delta=1, N_0=6\times 10^{25}$ cm$^{-2}$ and $\g_0= 4.0$. This gives an energy loss time for a 1 GeV proton of $\tau_0\sim 2\times 10^{15}\,
{\rm s\cdot cm}^{-3}/n$ so for the observed duration of $< 2000$ s we need a density $n> 10^{12}\, {\rm cm}^{-3}$ which is what one encounters below the occulted transition region and not at $> 10^9$ cm above it. The energy loss rate for electrons in the coronal region is dominated by Coulomb collisions at low energies and synchrotron losses for magnetic fields $B>10$ G or inverse Compton losses at lower fields. This rate is again described by Eq. (\[lossrate\]) but with $\delta=2, N_0=5\times
10^{22}$ cm$^{-2}$ and $\g_0 = 21.5 \times (n/10^{10}~{\rm cm}^{-3})^{1/2}
\times (B/100~{\rm G})^{-1}$. As shown in @2001ApJ...557..560P, this gives rise to flat spectra at low energies and a sharp cutoff at $\g\sim\g_0$ with these electrons carrying most of the energy with the longest lifetime of $\tau_0\sim \g_0N_0/(2nc)$. For the production of $>100$ MeV photons we need electrons with $\g_0\sim 300$ so that for a lifetime of 30 minutes we need $n\sim 10^{11}\,{\rm cm}^{-3}$ and $B\sim$ 25 G. While these values for the density (magnetic field) are somewhat higher (lower) than the ones found at 10$^{9}$ cm above the transition region, they cannot be fully ruled out. Also, a photon index $\Gamma\sim 0$ requires injected electrons with spectral index -1 (for a thin target case), which is much harder than those encountered at lower energies. Thus, this model requires strong convergence, low turbulence and hard spectra. In view of the LAT detection of SOL2014-09-01 flare with $\theta\sim 36^{\circ}$ (paper in preparation) that requires a trap at a height $>$10$^{10}$ cm, this model becomes less plausible.
Acceleration in CME Shocks
--------------------------
A third possibility is that particles accelerated by a shock associated with this flare originating behind the limb find their way to the photosphere visible to [*Fermi*]{}where they produce gamma-rays. This requires a magnetic connection between the acceleration site and the visible photosphere, e.g., large overlying loops. Such a connection must have been absent during the impulsive phase and for HXR-producing electrons which are most likely accelerated in smaller loops with both footpoints occulted. Otherwise we would expect a detection of HXRs from the footpoints on the visible side. Furthermore, the LAT emission error circle allows for the gamma-ray emission to occur on the visible side of the disk. This also means that the extended-phase gamma-ray producing particles were not accelerated in small loops and, like longer lasting SEPs, most likely were accelerated in the shock of the CME. Since the magnetic lines draping the CME are most likely connected to the occulted AR, this requires cross-field diffusion that allows migration of particles from the field lines connected to the AR to those connected to the visible disk. The presence of a strong and short scale turbulence capable of scattering the accelerated particles with a mean free path comparable to their gyro radii will facilitate this migration [@2003ApJ...595..493Z]. A longer trapping time of accelerated particles in the downstream region, say e.g., by converging field lines rooted at the Sun, can also help this migration. This model requires further study.
In conclusion, the multiwavelength observations of this behind-the-limb flare have provided some interesting theoretical puzzles which can be resolved by more detailed investigation of the scenarios discussed above.
The $Fermi$ LAT Collaboration acknowledges support from a number of agencies and institutes for both development and the operation of the LAT as well as scientific data analysis. These include NASA and DOE in the United States, CEA/Irfu and IN2P3/CNRS in France, ASI and INFN in Italy, MEXT, KEK, and JAXA in Japan, and the K. A. Wallenberg Foundation, the Swedish Research Council and the National Space Board in Sweden. Additional support from INAF in Italy and CNES in France for science analysis during the operations phase is also gratefully acknowledged. V.P, W.L and F.R.d.C are supported by NASA grants NNX14AG03G, NNX13AF79G and NNX12AO70G. The authors thank Eric Grove and Ron Murphy for helpful suggestions.
[40]{} natexlab\#1[\#1]{}
, M., [Ajello]{}, M., [Allafort]{}, A., [et al.]{} 2012, , 745, 144
, M., [Ajello]{}, M., [Albert]{}, A., [et al.]{} 2012, , 203, 4
, M., Ajello, M., Albert, A., [et al.]{} 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 787, 15
, M. A. A., Allafort, A., Baldini, L., [et al.]{} 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 789, 20
, M. J., [Bynum]{}, R. M., [Kosugi]{}, T., [Hudson]{}, H. S., & [Schwartz]{}, R. A. 1997, , 487, 936
, W. B.[Abdo]{}, A. A., [Ackermann]{}, M., [Ajello]{}, M., [et al.]{} 2009, , 697, 1071
, C., [Trottet]{}, G., [Vilmer]{}, N., [et al.]{} 1994, , 425, L109
, G., [McBreen]{}, S., [Connaughton]{}, V., & [Briggs]{}, M. 2012, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 8443, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, 3
, L., & [Hudson]{}, H. S. 2008, , 675, 1645
, D. J., [Vestrand]{}, W. T., [Chupp]{}, E. L., [et al.]{} 1985, International Cosmic Ray Conference, 4, 146
, G. 2012, , 749, 166
, G. D., [Aschwanden]{}, M. J., [Aurass]{}, H., [et al.]{} 2011, , 159, 107
, P., [Duijveman]{}, A., [Machado]{}, M. E., [et al.]{} 1981, , 246, L155
, G. J., [Schmahl]{}, E. J., [Schwartz]{}, R. A., [et al.]{} 2002, Solar Physics, 210, 61
, S., & [Lin]{}, R. P. 2008, , 673, 1181
, S., [White]{}, S. M., & [Lin]{}, R. P. 2007, , 669, L49
Kuznetsov, S., Kurt, V., Yushkov, B., Kudela, K., & Galkin, V. 2011, Solar Physics, 268, 175
Lemen, J., Title, A., Akin, D., [et al.]{} 2012, Solar Physics, 275, 17
, W., [Chen]{}, Q., & [Petrosian]{}, V. 2013, , 767, 168
, W., [Jiang]{}, Y. W., [Liu]{}, S., & [Petrosian]{}, V. 2004, , 611, L53
, W., [Petrosian]{}, V., [Dennis]{}, B. R., & [Jiang]{}, Y. W. 2008, , 676, 704
, J.-C., [Hudson]{}, H. S., [Hurford]{}, G. J., [et al.]{} 2012, , 753, L26
, S., [Kosugi]{}, T., [Hara]{}, H., [Tsuneta]{}, S., & [Ogawara]{}, Y. 1994, , 371, 495
Mattox, J. R., Bertsch, D. L., Chiang, J., [et al.]{} 1996, v.461, 461, 396
, J. M., & [Petrosian]{}, V. 1990, , 359, 541
, C., [Lichti]{}, G., [Bhat]{}, P. N., [et al.]{} 2009, , 702, 791
, R. J., [Dermer]{}, C. D., & [Ramaty]{}, R. 1987, , 63, 721
, N. V., [Aschwanden]{}, M. J., [Boerner]{}, P. F., [et al.]{} 2013, , 288, 241
, V. 2001, , 557, 560
, V., [Donaghy]{}, T. Q., & [McTiernan]{}, J. M. 2002, , 569, 459
, V., [McTiernan]{}, J. M., & [Marschhauser]{}, H. 1994, , 434, 747
. 2013, [<http://cdaw.gsfc.nasa.gov/CME_list/>]{}
, L., & [Holman]{}, G. D. 2003, , 596, L251
, D. J., [Bertsch]{}, D. L., [Fichtel]{}, C. E., [et al.]{} 1993, , 86, 629
, W. T., & [Wei]{}, K. 2010, , 261, 215
, W. T., & [Forrest]{}, D. J. 1993, , 409, L69
, N., [Trottet]{}, G., [Barat]{}, C., [et al.]{} 1999, , 342, 575
, S. S. 1938, Ann. Math. Stat., 9, 60
Wuelser, J., Lemen, J. R., Tarbell, T. D., [et al.]{} 2004, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series 5171 (2004)
, M., [Jokipii]{}, J. R., & [McKibben]{}, R. B. 2003, , 595, 493
[^1]: We used version 09-30-01 available from the [*Fermi*]{}Science Support Center <http://fermi.gsfc.nasa.gov/ssc/> . We selected `P7REP_SOURCE_V15` photon events from a 12$^{\circ}$ circular region centered on the Sun and within 100from the local zenith (to reduce contamination from the Earth’s limb).
[^2]: For intermediate energies we are in the Klein-Nishina regime and the cross section varies smoothly between $\sigma_0$ and $\sigma_{\rm PP}$[@1994ApJ...434..747P].
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
**DEGENERATE SELF-SIMILAR MEASURES, SPECTRAL ASYMPTOTICS**
**AND SMALL DEVIATIONS OF GAUSSIAN PROCESSES**
A.I. Nazarov[^1], I.A. Sheipak[^2]
Introduction
============
The problem of small ball behavior for the norms of Gaussian processes is intensively studied in recent years. The simplest and most explored case is that of $L_2$-norm. Let us consider a Gaussian process $X(t)$, $0\leq t\leq 1$, with zero mean and the covariance function $G_X(t,s)=EX(t)X(s)$, $s,t\in [0,1]$. Let $\mu$ be a measure on $[0,1]$. Set $$\|X\|_{\mu}=\|X\|_{L_2(0,1;\mu)}=(\int\limits_0^1 X^2(t)\ \mu(dt))^{1/2}$$ (the index $\mu$ will be omitted if $\mu$ is the Lebesgue measure). The problem is to evaluate the asymptotics of ${\mathbb P}\{\|X\|_{\mu}\leq\ep\}$ as $\ep \rightarrow 0$. Note that the case of absolutely continuous measure $\mu(dt)=\psi(t)dt$, $\psi\in L_1(0,1)$, can be easily reduced to the case of the Lebesgue measure $\psi\equiv1$ if we replace $X$ by the Gaussian process $X \sqrt{\psi}$. In general case we can assume $\mu([0,1])=1$ by rescaling. The advance of this topic starting from well-known work [@S], is reviewed in [@Lf] and [@LS]. References on later works can be found on the site [@site].
By the well-known Karhunen–Loéve expansion we have the distributional equality $$\label{KL}
\|X\|_{\mu}^2\overset{d}{=}\sum_{j=1}^\infty \lambda_j\xi_j^2,$$ where $\xi_j$, $j\in\mathbb N$, are independent standard normal r.v.’s and $\lambda_j>0$, $j\in\mathbb N$, $\sum\limits_n\lambda_n <\infty$, are the eigenvalues of the integral equation $$\label{int_eq}
\lambda y(t)=\int\limits_0^1
G_X(s,t)y(s)\mu(ds),\qquad 0\leq t\leq1.$$ Thus, we are led to the equivalent problem of studying the asymptotic behavior as $\ep \rightarrow 0$ of ${\mathbb P}\left\{\sum_{j=1}^\infty\lambda_j \xi_j^2\leq\ep ^2 \right\}$. The answer heavily depends on available information on the eigenvalues sequence $\lambda_j$. Since the explicit formulas for these eigenvalues are known only for a limited number of processes (see [@Li], [@DLL], [@LS]), the study of spectral asymptotics for integral operator (\[int\_eq\]) is of great importance.
If $G_X$ is the Green function of a boundary value problem (BVP) for ordinary differential operator then the sharp spectral asymptotics can be obtained by classical method traced back to Birkhoff, see [@Nm]. This approach developed in [@NN1], [@Na1], allowed to calculate the small ball asymptotics up to a constant for Gaussian processes of the mentioned class. Moreover, if eigenfunctions of (\[int\_eq\]) can be expressed via elementary or special functions then the sharp constants can be obtained by complex variable methods, as it was done in [@Na2], see also [@GHLT]–[@NP], [@Na1].
In a more general situation, we cannot expect to obtain the sharp asymptotics. Thus, we have to consider only **logarithmic** asymptotics (i.e. the asymptotics of $\ln {\mathbb P}\{\|X\|_{\mu}\leq \ep \}$ as $\ep\to0$). It was shown in [@NN2] that for this goal it suffices, under some assumption, to know the main term of eigenvalues asymptotics (this result was considerably generalized in recent work [@Na4]). This enables to apply quite general result established in [@BS1]. In this way the explicit logarithmic asymptotics was obtained for a wide class of processes including fractional Brownian motion, fractional Ornstein–Uhlenbeck process, the integrated versions of these processes as well as multiparameter generalization (for example, fractional Levi field). Thereby the absolutely continuous measures with arbitrary summable nonnegative densities were considered. In [@KNN] the spectral asymptotics for operators with tensor product structure were obtained. This enables to develop logarithmic asymptotics of $L_2$-small ball deviations for corresponding class of Gaussian fields.
The next class of problems deals with $\mu$ singular with respect to Lebesgue measure (it was shown in [@BS1] that if a measure contains absolutely continuous component then its singular part does not influence on the main term of asymptotics). All the results here concerned **self-similar measures**. Namely, it was shown in [@KL], [@SV] that for $G_X$ being the Green function for the simplest operator $Lu\equiv-u''$, in so-called **non-arithmetic** case the eigenvalues of (\[int\_eq\]) have the pure power asymptotics while in [**arithmetic case**]{} the asymptotics of $\lambda_j$ is more complicated; besides power term it can contain a periodic function of $\ln(j)$. This function is conjectured to be non-constant in all non-trivial cases, but this problem is still open. Only in simplest case of “Cantor ladder” this conjecture was proved in [@VSh1], [@VSh2].
The results of [@KL], [@SV] were generalized later in two directions: in [@VSh1]–[@VSh3] the more general (non-sign-definite) weight functions were considered while in [@Na3] the Green functions of ordinary differential operators of arbitrary order were examined. The logarithmic asymptotics was obtained in [@Na3] for corresponding processes as well.
Finally, in the recent paper [@VSh4] the discrete **degenerate self-similar** weights were explored. It turns out that if $G_X$ is the Green function for the operator $Lu\equiv-u''$ then the eigenvalues of (\[int\_eq\]) in this case have exponential asymptotics. Note that method applied in preceding papers and based on renewal equation fails in the case of degenerate self-similarity. For this reason the techniques of eigenvalues estimation was improved in [@VSh4].
In our paper we extend the result of [@VSh4] to the case where $G_X$ is the Green function of a boundary problem for ordinary differential operator of arbitrary even order with the main term $(-1)^{\ell}y^{(2\ell)}$. For simplicity we offer up the generality of weights and consider only discrete **measure** $\mu$ with degenerate self-similarity. As a corollary, using the result of [@Na4 Theorem 2] we establish logarithmic small ball asymptotics in $L_2$-norm for corresponding class of Gaussian process. Let us recall that this class is rather wide, it contains in particular ${\mathfrak s}$-times integrated Brownian motion and ${\mathfrak s}$-times integrated Ornstein–Uhlenbeck process.
The paper is organized as follows. Section 2 contains auxiliary information on degenerate self-similar measures. In Section 3 the result of [@VSh4] is extended to the differential operators of high order. Then, in Section 4, we derive the logarithmic small ball asymptotics for processes of the class considered and give some examples. In Appendix (Section 5) a variant of the Weyl theorem used in the proof is given.
Let us recall some notation. A function $G(s,t)$ is called the Green function of BVP for a differential operator ${\cal L}$ if it satisfies the equation ${\cal L}G=\delta(s-t)$ in the sense of distributions and satisfies the boundary conditions. The existence of the Green function is equivalent to the invertibility of operator ${\cal L}$ with given boundary conditions, and $G(s,t)$ is a kernel of the integral operator ${\cal L}^{-1}$.
$W_2^{\ell}(0,1)$ is the Hilbert space of functions $y$ having continuous derivatives up to $({\ell}-1)$-th order with $y^{({\ell}-1)}$ absolutely continuous on $[0,1]$ and $y^{({\ell})}\in L_2(0,1)$. ${\stackrel {o}{W}\!\vphantom{W}_2^{\ell}}(0,1)$ is the subspace of functions $y\in W_2^{\ell}(0,1)$ satisfying zero boundary conditions $y(0)=y(1)=\dots=y^{({\ell-1})}(0)=y^{({\ell-1})}(1)=0$.
The principles of self-adjoint operators and quadratic forms theory used in the paper can be found in the monograph [@BS2].
Various constants are denoted by $c$. We point their dependence on parameters by $c(\ldots)$ if it is necessary.
Degenerate self-similar measures
================================
Let us recall that general concept of self-similar measure was introduced in [@H]. The construction of self-similar measure on interval described in [@SV], see also [@Na3], enables to construct measures with positive Hausdorff dimension of support. Let us note, that the primitive of such measure is always a continuous function, which is self-similar in the sense of [@VSh1], [@VSh3]. On the other hand, a function $f$, self-similar in the mentioned sense, need not be continuous (the criteria of its continuity are established in [@Sh1 Sec. 3]). Moreover, under some assumptions on self-similarity parameters (see below) the derivative of $f$ in the sense of distributions is a discrete measure. This measure is not self-similar in the Hutchinson sense, so we call it [*degenerate self-similar*]{}.
Let $0=\alpha_1<\alpha_2<\ldots <\alpha_n<\alpha_{n+1}=1$, $n\ge2$, be a partition of the segment $[0,1]$. Define quantities $a_k>0$, $k=1,\ldots,n$, by the formula $a_k=\alpha_{k+1}-\alpha_k$. Consider also a Boolean vector $(e_k)$ and (for the moment arbitrary) vectors of real numbers $(d_k)$ and $(\beta_k)$, $k=1,\ldots,n$.
Now we define a family of affine transformations $$S_k(t)= a_kt+\alpha_k, \quad e_k=0;
\qquad S_k(t)=\alpha_{k+1}-a_kt, \quad e_k=1.$$ Thus, $S_k$ moves $[0,1]$ to $[\alpha_k,\alpha_{k+1}]$ (turning it over when $e_k=1$).
The affine operator ${\cal S}$ given by the formula $$\label{eq:auxto}
{\cal S}[f](t)=\sum\limits_{k=1}^n\left(d_k\cdot f(S_k^{-1}(t))+\beta_k\right)
\cdot\chi_{]\alpha_k,\alpha_{k+1}[}(t),$$ (here $\chi_E$ stands for the indicator of a set $E$) is called the **similarity operator**.
Thus, the graph of ${\cal S}(f)$ on the interval $]\alpha_k,\alpha_{k+1}[$ is a shifted and shrinked copy of the graph of $f$ on $]0,1[$.
\[st:szhim\_condition\] (see [@Sh1 Lemma 2.1] [^3]) Operator ${\cal S}$ is contractive in $L_\infty]0,1[$ iff $$\label{eq:szim1}
\max_{1\le k\le n}|d_k|<1.$$
It follows immediately from Proposition \[st:szhim\_condition\] that under assumption (\[eq:szim1\]) there exists a unique function $f\in L_\infty]0,1[$ satisfying the equation ${\cal S}(f)=f$. This function is called **self-similar with parameters** $(\alpha_k)$, $(e_k)$, $(d_k)$ and $(\beta_k)$, $k=1,2,\ldots,n$.
Let us suppose now that exactly one of quantities $d_k$, $k=1,\ldots,n$, differs from zero. We denote by $m$ the corresponding index, $1\le m\le n$. It is obvious that in this case only $m$th element of $(e_k)$ is relevant, and condition (\[eq:szim1\]) becomes $|d_m|<1$.
\[tm:schet\] Under above conditions the self-similar function $f$ is piecewise constant, has bounded variation and possesses at most countable number of values. All discontinuity points are of the first type.
Let us consider the sequence $f_0\equiv0$, $f_j={\cal S}(f_{j-1})$. By Proposition \[st:szhim\_condition\], it converges uniformly to $f$.
It is evident, that $f_1$ is a constant on all intervals $]\alpha_k,\alpha_{k+1}[$, $k=1,\ldots,n$. Further, since only one of $d_k$s differs from zero, the function $f_2$ is piecewise constant on the interval $]\alpha_m,\alpha_{m+1}[=S_m(]0,1[)$ and coincides with $f_1$ out of this interval. Analogously, $f_{j+1}$ is piecewise constant on the interval $S^j_m(]0,1[)$ and coincides with $f_j$ out of this interval. Moreover, the following evident equality is valid: $$\label{osc}
%\sup\limits_{S^j_m(]0,1[)} f_{j+1}-\inf\limits_{S^j_m(]0,1[)}f_{j+1}
\underset{S^j_m(]0,1[)}{\mbox{Var}} f_{j+1}=d_m\cdot
\underset{S^{j-1}_m(]0,1[)}{\mbox{Var}} f_j.
%\Bigl(\sup\limits_{S^{j-1}_m(]0,1[)} f_j-\inf\limits_{S^{j-1}_m(]0,1[)}f_j\Bigr).$$ Thus, the limit function $f$ is piecewise constant and has finite number of values out of any interval $S^j_m(]0,1[)$, $j\in\mathbb N$. These intervals generate a sequence contracting to a point $\widehat x$, which is singular for $f$ in a sense. However, by (\[osc\]) $f$ is continuous at $\widehat x$. The boundedness of $\underset{]0,1[}{\mbox{Var}} f$ also follows from (\[osc\]). The proof is complete.
Straightforward calculation shows that $$\label{eq:osob_tochka}
\widehat x=\dfrac{\alpha_{m+e_m}}{1-(-1)^{e_m}a_{m}}.$$ In particular, (\[eq:osob\_tochka\]) implies that $\widehat x=0$ iff $m=1$ and $e_1=0$. Similarly, $\widehat x=1$ iff $m=n$ and $e_n=0$.
Now, we exclude from consideration the trivial cases. Namely, we assume that $f$ has jumps at all points $\alpha_k$, $k=2,\ldots,n$. Further, we define $f$ at discontinuity points as left-continuous function and define degenerately self-similar discrete signed measure $\mu$ by the formula $\mu([a,b])=f(b+0)-f(a)$, $0\le a\le b\le1$.
\[tm:def\_string\] (see also [@Sh2]) The signed measure $\mu$ is a probability measure iff the following conditions are valid:
1. $d_1e_1+\beta_1=0$, $d_n(1-e_n)+\beta_n=1$;
2. $0<(-1)^{e_m}d_m<1$;
3. $\beta_k<\beta_{k+1}$, $k=1,\dots,n-1$;
4. $\beta_{m-1} <d_{m}\beta_n+\beta_{m}<\beta_{m+1}$
(for $m=1$, only right inequality in item 4 holds; for $m=n$, only left inequality holds).
Item 1 is necessary and sufficient to satisfy the equalities $f(0)=0$, $f(1)=1$, in other words, $\mu([0,1])=1$. Further, consider the sequence $f_j$ introduced in Lemma \[tm:schet\]. Obviously, item 3 is necessary for $f_1$ to increase at discontinuity points. Condition 2 is necessary for nondecreasing of $f_2\big|_{S_m(]0,1[)}$. Next, if conditions 1-3 hold then condition 4 is necessary for $f_2$ to increase while crossing points $\alpha_m$ and $\alpha_{m+1}$. Finally, items 2-4 provide the monotonicity of all functions $f_j$, $j\in\mathbb N$, and thus, the monotonicity of $f$.
Evidently, the Hausdorff dimension of $\mu$ support is equal to zero. Therefore, **the spectral dimension** of $\mu$ (see [@F], [@Na3 Sec. 5]) is also equal to zero. Note that in [@VSh4], [@Sh2] the primitive $f$ of $\mu$ is called **the self-similar function of zero spectral order**.
The figure illustrates the graph of function $f$ with self-similar parameters: $n=3$; $\alpha_1=0$, $\alpha_2=0.3$, $\alpha_3=0.8$, $\alpha_4=1$; $\beta_1=0$, $\beta_2=1/3$, $\beta_3=1$; $m=2$, $d_2=1/3$, $e_2=0$. Formula (\[eq:osob\_tochka\]) gives $\hat x=0.6$.
(300,250) (0,20)[(1,0)[250]{}]{} (0,20)[(0,1)[240]{}]{}
(0,20)[(1,0)[72]{}]{} (240,240)[(-1,0)[48]{}]{}
(72,88)[(1,0)[36]{}]{} (192,178)[(-1,0)[24]{}]{}
(108,112)[(1,0)[18]{}]{} (168,148)[(-1,0)[12]{}]{}
(126,123)[(1,0)[9]{}]{} (156,137)[(-1,0)[6]{}]{}
(135,126)[(1,0)[5]{}]{} (150,134)[(-1,0)[3]{}]{}
(140,128)[(1,0)[2.5]{}]{} (147,132)[(-1,0)[1.5]{}]{}
(142.5,129.5)[(1,0)[1.25]{}]{} (145.5,130.5)[(-1,0)[0.75]{}]{}
(0,240)(8,0)[24]{}[(1,0)[3]{}]{} (-7,237)[1]{} (240,7)[1]{} (240,18)(0,8)[28]{}[(0,1)[3]{}]{} (144.5,18)(0,7.7)[15]{}[(0,1)[3]{}]{} (138,7)[0.6]{}
(72,18)(0,8)[9]{}[(0,1)[3]{}]{}(66,7)[0.3]{} (192,18)(0,7.7)[21]{}[(0,1)[3]{}]{}(186,7)[0.8]{}
Spectral asymptotics of boundary value problems associated with degenerate self-similar measures
================================================================================================
Let us consider a self-adjoint, positive definite operator ${\cal L}$ generated by the differential expression $$\label{operator}
{\cal L}y\equiv (-1)^{\ell}y^{(2\ell)}+\left({\cal P}_{\ell-1}y^{(\ell-1)}
\right)^{(\ell-1)}+\dots+{\cal P}_0y$$ with suitable boundary conditions. Here ${\cal P}_i\in L_1(0,1)$, $i=0,\dots,\ell-1$.
We are interested in the eigenvalues asymptotic behavior of the BVP $$\label{BVP}
\lambda {\cal L}y=\mu y\quad (+\ \mbox {boundary conditions}),$$ where $\mu$ is a probability measure constructed in Section 2.
If $G_X$ is the Green function for operator ${\cal L}$ then (\[BVP\]) is equivalent to (\[int\_eq\]). We denote $\lambda_j^{({\cal L}_{\mu})}$ the eigenvalues of (\[BVP\]) enumerated in decreasing order and repeated according to their multiplicity.
Recall (see, e.g., [@BS2 Sec. 10.2]), that the counting function of eigenvalues of (\[BVP\]) can be expressed in terms of quadratic form $Q_{\cal L}$ of the operator ${\cal L}$ as follows: $$\label{quadr_form}
{\cal N}_{{\cal L}_{\mu}}(\lambda)\equiv\#\{j:\,\lambda_j^{({\cal L}_{\mu})}>\lambda\}=
\sup\dim\{{\mathfrak H}\subset {\cal D}(Q_{\cal L}):\
\lambda Q_{\cal L}(y,y)<\int\limits_0^1|y(t)|^2\mu(dt) \ \ \mbox{on}\ \ {\mathfrak H}\}.$$
Now we can formulate the main result of this section.
\[spectral\_asympt\] Given degenerate self-similar probability measure $\mu$, we have $$\label{count_func}
{\cal N}_{{\cal L}_{\mu}}(\lambda)\sim (n-1)\,\frac {\ln(\frac 1{\lambda})}{\ln(q)},
\qquad \lambda\to+0,$$ where $q=\frac 1{d_m\cdot a_m^{2\ell-1}}>1$.
For the operator ${\mathfrak L}y=-y''$ with the Dirichlet boundary conditions this theorem was proved in [@VSh4]. Moreover, more precise result on spectrum structure of operator ${\cal L}_{\mu}$ was obtained in this case. However, this result is not sufficient to receive sharp small ball asymptotics.
First, we consider a particular case of operator ${\cal L}$, without lower-order terms and with the Dirichlet boundary conditions: $$\label{operator1}
\lambda {\mathfrak L}y\equiv\lambda (-1)^{\ell}y^{(2\ell)}=\mu y, \qquad
y(0)=y(1)=\dots=y^{({\ell-1})}(0)=y^{({\ell-1})}(1)=0.$$
Denote by $\mathcal H$ the energy space of the operator $\mathfrak L$: $${\cal H} ={\stackrel {o}{W}\!\vphantom{W}_2^{\ell}}(0,1);\qquad
[y,y]_{\cal H}=Q_{\mathfrak L}(y,y)=\int\limits_0^1 |y^{(\ell)}|^2.$$ We define two subspaces in $\mathcal H$: $$\begin{gathered}
\mathcal H_1:=\{y\in\mathcal H:\ y(t)\equiv 0 \text{ if }
t\in [\alpha_{m}, \alpha_{m+1}],\; y(\alpha_k)=0,\; k=2,\ldots,n\};\\
\mathcal H_2:=\{y\in\mathcal H:\ y(t)\equiv 0 \text{ if } t\not\in [\alpha_{m}, \alpha_{m+1}]\}.\end{gathered}$$
Let $[\gamma_1,\gamma_2]$ be any subsegment in $]\alpha_m, \alpha_{m+1}[$ containing ${\rm supp} (\mu)\cap\,]\alpha_m,\alpha_{m+1}[$. For instance, one can take $$\gamma_1=\alpha_m+a_m a_{1+e_m(n-1)};\qquad
\gamma_2=\alpha_{m+1}-a_m a_{n-e_m(n-1)}.$$ We also need a subspace $\widehat{\mathcal H}\subset \mathcal H$ consisting of the order $2\ell$ polynomial splines with $n+3$ interpolation points $\alpha_k$, $k=1,\dots,n+1$, $\gamma_1$ and $\gamma_2$, satisfying the following conditions:
1\. These splines vanish in $[\gamma_1,\gamma_2]$.
2\. They have continuous derivatives up to the $(\ell-1)$-th order at $\alpha_m$, $\alpha_{m+1}$, $\gamma_1$, $\gamma_2$, and up to the $(2\ell-2)$-th order at other interpolation points.
It is easy to see that $\dim \widehat{\mathcal H}=n-1+\Delta$ where $$\Delta=2(\ell-1)\quad\mbox{as}\quad m\ne 1,n;\qquad
\Delta=\ell-1\quad\mbox{as}\quad m=1\quad\mbox{or}\quad m=n.$$ It is also easy to check that $\mathcal H=\mathcal H_1\oplus(\mathcal H_2\dotplus\widehat{\mathcal H})$.
In turn, we decompose space $\widehat{\mathcal H}$ into the orthogonal sum of subspaces $\widehat{\mathcal H}=\widehat{\mathcal H}_1\oplus\widehat{\mathcal H}_2$ where $$\widehat{\mathcal H}_1=\{y\in\widehat{\mathcal H}: y(\alpha_k)=0,\quad k=2,\ldots,n\}.
%\widehat{\mathcal H}_2=\widehat{\mathcal H}_1^\perp (\text{ â } \widehat{\mathcal H}).$$ It is easily seen that $$\label{eq:dim_perp}
\dim\widehat{\mathcal H}_1=\Delta;\qquad
\dim\widehat{\mathcal H}_2=n-1.$$
The quadratic form $\int_0^1|y(t)|^2\mu(dt)$ defines on $\mathcal H$ a compact self-adjoint operator $\cal A$. Its eigenvalues certainly coincide with $\lambda_j^{({\mathfrak L}_{\mu})}$.
Denote by ${\cal B}$ and ${\cal C}$ the restrictions of ${\cal A}$ on subspaces $\mathcal H_2$ and $\widehat{\mathcal H}_2$, respectively (obviously, by construction of $\mu$ the restrictions of this operator on $\mathcal H_1$ and $\widehat{\mathcal H}_1$ are trivial). Then, under decomposition $\mathcal H=\mathcal H_1\oplus(\mathcal H_2\dotplus (\widehat{\mathcal H}_1\oplus\widehat{\mathcal
H}_2))$, the problem (\[BVP\]) can be rewritten in matrices as follows: $$\label{eq:privodimost}
\lambda\begin{pmatrix}
I & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & I & {\cal P}_1^* & {\cal P}_2^*\\
0 & {\cal P}_1 & I & 0\\
0 & {\cal P}_2 & 0 & I
\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
u\\
x\\
y\\
z
\end{pmatrix}=
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & {\cal B} & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & {\cal C}
\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
u\\
x\\
y\\
z
\end{pmatrix},$$ where $u\in \mathcal H_1$, $x\in \mathcal H_2$, $y\in \widehat{\mathcal H}_1$, $z\in \widehat{\mathcal H}_2$, while ${\cal P}_i$ are orthoprojectors $\mathcal H_2\to \widehat{\mathcal H}_i$, $i=1,2$.
Formula (\[eq:privodimost\]) shows that, to obtain asymptotics of ${\cal N}_{\cal A}(\lambda)$, we need to consider the problem (\[BVP\]) only in the space $\mathcal H_2\dotplus \widehat{\mathcal H}_2$.
Let $z\in{\cal H}_2$. Setting $y(t)=z(S_m(t))\in{\cal H}$, by the homogeneity we have $$[z,z]_{\cal H}=a_m^{-(2\ell-1)}[y,y]_{\cal H},$$ while the self-similarity of $\mu$ gives $$[{\cal B}z,z]_{\cal H}=\int_{\alpha_m}^{\alpha_{m+1}} |z(t)|^2 \mu(dt)=d_m\int_0^1
|y(t)|^2 \mu(dt)=[{\cal A}y,y]_{\cal H}.$$ Hence (\[quadr\_form\]) implies for $\lambda>0$ $$\label{eq:mashtab}
{\cal N}_{\cal B}(\lambda)={\cal N}_{\cal A}
(q\lambda).$$
\[lem:transfer\_function\] Let $\lambda \in\mathbb{R}$ be such that the operator ${\cal C}-\lambda I$ is invertible in $\widehat{\mathcal H}_2$. Then $$\label{eq:NA<transfer_func+}
{\cal N}_{\cal A}(\lambda)\ge {\cal N}_{\widetilde{\cal B}}(\lambda)+{\cal N}_{\cal C}(\lambda),$$ where $\widetilde{\cal B}={\cal B}-\lambda^2 {\cal P}_2^*({\cal C}-\lambda I)^{-1}{\cal P}_2$.
Let $X=x+y+z$, $x\in \mathcal H_2$, $y\in \widehat{\mathcal H}_1$, $z\in \widehat{\mathcal H}_2$. From decomposition , we derive by straightforward calculation $$\label{eq:transfer_function}
[{\cal A}X,X]_{\cal H}-\lambda[X,X]_{\cal H}=
[\widetilde{\cal B}x,x]_{\cal H}-\lambda[x+y,x+y]_{\cal H}+
[{\cal C}w,w]_{\cal H}-\lambda[w,w]_{\cal H},$$ where $w=z-({\cal C}-\lambda I)^{-1}{\cal P}_2x$. The statement immediately follows from this relation.
Now we note that for any $z\in \widehat{\mathcal H}_2$, $$[{\cal C}z,z]_{\cal H}=\int_0^1 |z(t)|^2\mu(dt)=\sum\limits_{k=2}^{n}\zeta_k\cdot|z(\alpha_k)|^2,$$ where $\zeta_k=\mu(\{\alpha_k\})$. Since measure $\mu$ is assumed to be nontrivial, $\zeta_k>0$ for all $k=2\ldots,n$. This implies $\mbox{rank}({\cal C})=n-1$. By (\[eq:dim\_perp\]) this gives the invertibility of operator $\cal C$, that in turn implies $${\cal N}_{\cal C}(\lambda)\equiv n-1;\qquad \|{\cal B}-\widetilde{\cal B}\|\le c\lambda^2$$ for sufficiently small $\lambda$. In view of these formulas the inequality (\[eq:NA<transfer\_func+\]) provides the following relation for arbitrary $\varepsilon>0$ and $\lambda<\lambda_0(\ep)$: $${\cal N}_{\cal A}(\lambda)\ge{\cal N}_{\cal B}(\lambda+c\lambda^2)+n-1\ge{\cal N}_{\cal B}((1+\ep)\lambda)+n-1.$$ On the another hand, relations (\[eq:privodimost\]) and (\[eq:dim\_perp\]) give an upper estimate: $${\cal N}_{\cal A}(\lambda)\le {\cal N}_{\cal B}(\lambda)+n-1+\Delta.$$ Combining these estimates we derive, subject to (\[eq:mashtab\]), $${\cal N}_{\cal A}(q(1+\ep)\lambda)+n-1\le{\cal N}_{\cal A}(\lambda)\le
{\cal N}_{\cal A}(q\lambda)+n-1+\Delta,$$ as $\lambda<\lambda_0(\ep)$. Iterating these inequalities we obtain two-sided estimate for ${\cal N}_{\cal A}(\lambda)$: $$\label{ocenka}
(n-1)\,\frac {\ln(\frac 1{\lambda})}{\ln(q(1+\ep))}-c(\ep) \le{\cal N}_{\cal A}(\lambda)\le
(n-1+\Delta)\,\frac {\ln(\frac 1{\lambda})}{\ln(q)}+c(\ep).$$
Now we note that the primitive of $\mu$ is a fixed point not only for the similarity operator ${\mathcal S}$ but also for any its power. If one consider the original problem with replacing ${\mathcal S}$ by ${\mathcal S}^M$, the problem (\[operator1\]) doesn’t change but parameters $q$ and $n$ replace by $q^M$ and $M(n-1)+1$, respectively. Therefore, the estimate (\[ocenka\]) takes the form $$M(n-1)\,\frac {\ln(\frac 1{\lambda})}{\ln(q^M(1+\ep))}-c(\ep) \le{\cal N}_{\cal A}(\lambda)\le
(M(n-1)+\Delta)\,\frac {\ln(\frac 1{\lambda})}{\ln(q^M)}+c(\ep),$$ or $$\label{ocenka1}
(n-1)\,\frac {\ln(\frac 1{\lambda})}{\ln(q(1+\ep))}-c(\ep) \le{\cal N}_{\cal A}(\lambda)\le
(n-1+\frac {\Delta}M)\,\frac {\ln(\frac 1{\lambda})}{\ln(q)}+c(\ep).$$ By the arbitrariness of $\ep$ and $M$ this immediately provides (\[count\_func\]).
Now we consider a general case. Integrating by parts we check that the quadratic form $Q_{\cal L}$ can be written as follows: $$\label{quadrform}
\gathered
Q_{\cal L}(y,y)=\int\limits_0^1\left[\left|y^{(\ell)}\right|^2+
\sum\limits_{i=0}^{\ell-1}{\cal P}_i\left|y^{(i)}\right|^2\right]\ dt\ +\
Q_0(y,y),\\
\stackrel{ o\ } {W_2^{\ell}}(0,1)\subset {\cal D}(Q_{\cal L})\subset
W_2^{\ell}(0,1),
\endgathered$$ where the quadratic form $Q_0(y,y)$ contains boundary terms at the endpoints zero and one.
Consider auxiliary quadratic form $Q_{\widetilde {\cal L}}$ with the same formal expression as $Q_{\cal L}$ and the same domain as $Q_{\mathfrak L}$: $$Q_{\widetilde {\cal L}}(y,y)=Q_{\cal L}(y,y);\qquad {\cal D}
(Q_{\widetilde {\cal L}})={\cal D}(Q_{\mathfrak L})=\stackrel{ o\ }
{W_2^{\ell}}(0,1).$$
The difference of the operators ${\cal L}$ and $\widetilde {\cal L}$ is a finite-dimensional operator, and therefore $${\cal N}_{{\cal L}_{\mu}}(\lambda)\sim {\cal N}_
{\widetilde {\cal L}_{\mu}}(\lambda), \qquad \lambda\to+0.$$
Further, integrating by parts we can estimate the lower order terms in (\[quadrform\]): $$\left|Q_{\widetilde {\cal L}}(y,y)-Q_{\mathfrak L}(y,y)\right|
\le c\cdot\int\limits_0^1\left[\,\left|y^{(\ell-1)}y^{(\ell)}\right|+
\sum\limits_{i=0}^{\ell-1}\left|y^{(i)}\right|^2\right]\ dt.$$
This estimate shows that $Q_{\widetilde {\cal L}}$ defines a metric which is a compact perturbation of the metric in $\cal H$. It was shown in the first part of the proof that the counting function ${\cal N}_{{\cal A}}(\lambda)$ has the asymptotics (\[count\_func\]) and thus satisfies the relation (\[asymptotics2\]). By Lemma \[lem:Weyl\] we obtain $${\cal N}_{\widetilde {\cal L}_{\mu}}(\lambda)=
{\cal N}_{{\cal A}_1}(\lambda)\sim {\cal N}_{\cal A}(\lambda)=
{\cal N}_{{\mathfrak L}_{\mu}}(\lambda), \qquad \lambda\to+0,$$
and the proof is complete.
Small ball asymptotics. Examples
================================
To obtain the small ball asymptotics we use the following proposition:
([@Na4 Theorem 2]) Let the counting function of the sequence $(\lambda_j)$, $j\in\mathbb N$, has the asymptotics ${\cal N}(\lambda)\sim\varphi(\lambda)$, as $\lambda\to +0$, where $\varphi$ is slowly varying at zero, i.e. $$\lim\limits_{t\to +0}\frac {\varphi(ct)}{\varphi(t)}=1
\qquad\mbox{for any}\quad c>0.$$ Then, as $r\to +0$ $$\label{vero}
\ln{\bf P}\left\{\sum_{j=1}^\infty\lambda_j\xi_j^2\le r
\right\} \sim -\,\frac 12 \int\limits_{\frac 1u}^1 \varphi(z)\frac {dz}z,$$ where $u=u(r)$ is chosen satisfies $$\label{ur}
\frac {\varphi(\frac 1u)}{2u}\sim r, \qquad r\to +0.$$
Substituting in (\[ur\]) $\varphi(\lambda)={\mathfrak C}\cdot\ln(\frac 1\lambda)$ we obtain $$r\sim\frac {\mathfrak C}2 \ln(u) \quad \Longleftrightarrow \quad
u\sim\frac {{\mathfrak C}\ln(\frac 1r)} {2r}.$$ Therefore the replacement in (\[vero\]) $r$ by $\ep^2$ gives $$\label{vero1}
\ln{\bf P}\left\{\sum_{j=1}^\infty\lambda_j\xi_j^2\le\ep^2\right\} \sim
-\,\frac {{\mathfrak C}\ln^2(u)}{4}\sim
-\,{\mathfrak C}\ln^2\big(\frac 1\ep\big),\qquad \ep\to +0.$$
As the example of formula (\[vero\]) application, let us consider a number of well-known Gaussian processes on $[0,1]$:\
1) Wiener process $W(t)$;\
2) Brownian bridge $B(t)=W(t)-tW(1)$;\
3) centered Winer process $\overline W(t) = W(t)-\int_0^1W(s)\,ds$;\
4) centered Brownian bridge $\overline B(t) = B(t)-\int_0^1B(s)\,ds$;\
5) “elongated” Brownian bridge $W^{(u)}(t)=W(t)-utW(1)$, $u<1$ ([@BoS 4.4.20]).\
6) generalized Slepian process $\widehat W^{[c]}=W(t+c)-W(t)$, $c\ge1$ ([@Sl]). It easy to check that the covariances of these processes are the Green functions for the operator ${\cal L}y=-y''$ with various boundary conditions.
Processes closely related to mentioned above are\
7) stationary Ornstein–Uhlenbeck process $U^{(\alpha)}$, $\alpha>0$;\
8) Ornstein–Uhlenbeck process starting at zero $U^{(\alpha)}_0$, $\alpha\ne0$;\
9) the Bogolyubov process ${\cal B}^{(\alpha)}$, $\alpha>0$ ([@San], [@Pu2]).
The covariances of these processes, $$\begin{aligned}
G_{U^{(\alpha)}}(s,t)& =& \frac 1{2\alpha}\exp (-\alpha|s-t|);\\
G_{U^{(\alpha)}_0}(s,t)& =& \frac 1{2\alpha}\bigl(\exp (-\alpha|s-t|)-\exp (-\alpha(s+t))\bigr);\\
G_{{\cal B}^{(\alpha)}}(s,t)& =& \frac 1{2\alpha%\sinh(\frac {\alpha}2)
}\,\frac {\exp (\alpha|s-t|)+\exp (\alpha-\alpha|s-t|)}{\exp (\alpha)-1}
%\cosh\bigl(\alpha|s-t|-\alpha/2\bigr)\end{aligned}$$ are the Green functions for the operator ${\cal L}y=-y''+\alpha^2y$ with various boundary conditions.
\[ell=1\] Let $\mu$ be a degenerate self-similar measure described in Section 2. Let $X$ be one of the Gaussian processes listed in 1)-9). Then $$\ln {\bf P}\{||X||_{\mu}\leq\ep\}\sim -(n-1)\,\frac {\ln^2(\frac 1{\ep})}{\ln(\frac 1{d_m\cdot a_m})},
\qquad \ep\to +0.$$
The statement is a consequence of Theorem \[spectral\_asympt\] (with $\ell=1$) and formula (\[vero1\]).
Now we consider ${\mathfrak s}$-times integrated processes (here any $\beta_j$ equals either zero or one, $0\le t\le1$): $$X_{\mathfrak s}(t)\equiv X_{\mathfrak s}^{[\beta_1,\,\ldots,\,\beta_{\mathfrak s}]}(t) =
(-1)^{\beta_1+\,\dots\,+\beta_{\mathfrak s}}\underbrace {\int\limits_{\beta_{\mathfrak s}}^t\dots
\int\limits_{\beta_1}^{t_1}}_{\mathfrak s} \ \ X (s)\ ds\ dt_1\dots\, .$$
By [@NN1 Theorem 2.1], for $X$ being one of the Gaussian processes 1)-6), the covariance of the process $X_{\mathfrak s}$ is the Green function for the operator ${\cal L}y=(-1)^{{\mathfrak s}+1}y^{(2{\mathfrak s}+2)}$ with suitable boundary conditions (depending on endpoints of integration $\beta_j$). Analogously, for $X$ being one of the Gaussian processes 7)-9), the covariance of the process $X_{\mathfrak s}$ is the Green function for the operator ${\cal L}y=(-1)^{\mathfrak s}(-y^{(2{\mathfrak s}+2)}+\alpha^2y^{(2{\mathfrak s})})$ with suitable boundary conditions.
\[ell>1\] Let $\mu$ be a degenerate self-similar measure described in Section 2. Let $X$ be one of the listed Gaussian processes. Then $$\label{vero2}
\ln {\bf P}\{||X_{\mathfrak s}||_{\mu}\leq\ep\}\sim
-(n-1)\,\frac {\ln^2(\frac 1{\ep})}{\ln\big(\frac 1{d_m\cdot a_m^{2{\mathfrak s}+1}}\big)},
\qquad \ep\to +0.$$
The statement follows from Theorem \[spectral\_asympt\] (with $\ell={\mathfrak s}+1$) and formula (\[vero1\]).
We list some more well-known Gaussian process for which Proposition \[ell>1\] can be applied:\
10) “bridged” (conditional) integrated Wiener process ([@La], see also [@NN1 Proposition 5.3]) $${\mathbb B}_{\mathfrak s}(t)=(W_{\mathfrak s}(t)\bigr|\ W_j(1)=0,\ 0\le j\le {\mathfrak s});$$11) ${\mathfrak s}$-times centered-integrated Wiener process (see [@Na1 Sec. 4]), derived from $W(t)$ by alternate operations of centering and integration;\
12) ${\mathfrak s}$-times centered-integrated Brownian bridge (see [@Na1 Sec. 3]);\
13) the Matern process ${\cal M}^{({\mathfrak s}+1)}$ (see [@RW], [@Pu1]) with covariance $$G_{{\cal M}^{({\mathfrak s}+1)}}(s,t)=\frac 1{2^{2{\mathfrak s}+1}{\mathfrak s}!}\,\exp (-|s-t|)
\sum\limits_{k=0}^{\mathfrak s}\frac {({\mathfrak s}+k)!}{k!({\mathfrak s}-k)!}\,(2|s-t|)^{{\mathfrak s}-k}.$$
Appendix
========
The next Lemma is a variant of classical Weyl theorem ([@W]; see also [@BS3 Lemma 1.17]). A function $f$ is called *uniformly continuous in logarithmic scale* on a set $E\subset\mathbb R_+$, if the function $\widetilde f=\ln\circ\, f\circ\exp$ is uniformly continuous on corresponding set.
\[lem:Weyl\] Let $\cal A$ be infinite-dimensional compact self-adjoint positive operator in a Hilbert space $\cal H$.
[**1**]{}. Let the eigenvalues of ${\cal A}$ satisfy the relation $$\label{asymptotics1}
\lambda_j^{({\cal A})}\sim \psi(j),\qquad j\to\infty,$$ where $\psi$ is a function uniformly continuous in logarithmic scale on $[1,+\infty[$. Then the asymptotics (\[asymptotics1\]) does not change under compact perturbation of the metric in $\cal H$.
Namely, let ${\cal Q}$ be a compact self-adjoint positive operator in $\cal H$ such that $\min \lambda^{({\cal Q})}>-1$. Define a new scalar product in $\cal H$ by the formula $[u,v]_1=[u+{\cal Q}u,v]_{\cal H}$. Then $$\label{Weyl1}
\lambda_j^{({\cal A})}\sim \lambda_j^{({\cal A}_1)},\qquad j\to\infty,$$ where a positive compact operator ${\cal A}_1$ is given by relation $$\label{perturb}
[{\cal A}_1u,v]_1=[{\cal A}u,v]_{\cal H}.$$
[**2**]{}. Let the eigenvalues counting function of ${\cal A}$ satisfy the relation $$\label{asymptotics2}
{\cal N}_{\cal A}(\lambda)\sim \Psi(1/\lambda),\qquad \lambda\to+0,$$ where $\Psi$ is a function uniformly continuous in logarithmic scale on $[1,+\infty[$. Then the asymptotics (\[asymptotics2\]) does not change under compact perturbations of the metric in $\cal H$, i.e. $$\label{Weyl2}
{\cal N}_{\cal A}(\lambda)\sim {\cal N}_{{\cal A}_1}(\lambda),\qquad \lambda\to+0,$$ where ${\cal A}_1$ is given by (\[perturb\]).
For the power-type asymptotics both statements of Lemma are equivalent. The statement [**1**]{} works also for “slow” (sub-power) eigenvalues decreasing while [**2**]{} works in super-power case.
The second part of Lemma can be easily extracted from [@MM Theorem 3.2]. However, the techniques of [@MM] is rather complicated because a more general case of non-self-adjoint operators is considered. So, for the reader convenience we give a simple variational proof of both statements.
By compactness of $\cal Q$, for a given $\delta$, we can find a finite-dimensional subspace ${\cal H}_{\delta}$, $\dim{\cal H}_{\delta}^{\perp}=M(\delta)$, such that $$\big|[{\cal Q}u,u]_{\cal H}\big|\le\delta[u,u]_{\cal H}, \qquad
u\in{\cal H}_{\delta}.$$ If $u\in{\cal H}_{\delta}$, then $$\gathered \
[{\cal A}u,u]_{\cal H}<\lambda[u,u]_{\cal H}\quad\Longrightarrow\quad
[{\cal A}_1u,u]_1<\frac {\lambda}{1-\delta}\,[u,u]_1;\\
\ [{\cal A}u,u]_{\cal H}>\lambda[u,u]_{\cal H}\quad\Longrightarrow\quad
[{\cal A}_1u,u]_1>\frac {\lambda}{1+\delta}\,[u,u]_1.
\endgathered$$
According to the variational principle, see, e.g., [@BS3 (1.25)–(1.26)], we have $$\label{Weyl3}
\lambda_j^{({\cal A}_1)}\ge\frac {\lambda_{j+M_{\delta}}^{({\cal A})}}
{1+\delta};\qquad\qquad {\cal N}_{{\cal A}_1}(\lambda)\le
{\cal N}_{\cal A}(\lambda(1-\delta))+M_{\delta}.$$
Let the relation (\[asymptotics1\]) hold. Then, dividing the first inequality in (\[Weyl3\]) by $\psi(j)$ we obtain $$\frac {\lambda_j^{({\cal A}_1)}}{\psi(j)}\ge\frac 1{1+\delta}\cdot\frac
{\lambda_{j+M_{\delta}}^{({\cal A})}}{\psi(j+M_{\delta})}\cdot\exp
\Big(\widetilde\psi\big(\ln(j)+\ln(1+{\textstyle\frac {M_{\delta}}j})\big)-
\widetilde\psi(\ln(j))\Big).$$ Passage to the bottom limit gives $$\liminf\limits_{j\to\infty}\frac {\lambda_j^{({\cal A}_1)}}{\psi(j)}\ge
\frac 1{1+\delta}.$$ Changing ${\cal A}$ and ${\cal A}_1$ in (\[Weyl3\]) and taking $\delta\to 0$, we arrive at (\[Weyl1\]).
Now let (\[asymptotics2\]) hold. Then, dividing the second inequality in (\[Weyl3\]) by $\Psi(1/\lambda)$ we obtain $$\frac {{\cal N}_{{\cal A}_1}(\lambda)}{\Psi(1/\lambda)}\le
\frac {{\cal N}_{\cal A}(\lambda(1-\delta))}{\Psi(1/\lambda(1-\delta))}
\cdot \exp\Big(\widetilde\Psi\big(\ln(1/\lambda)+\ln(1/(1-\delta))\big)-
\widetilde\Psi(\ln(1/\lambda))\Big)+\frac {M_{\delta}}{\Psi(1/\lambda)}.$$ Passage to the top limit gives $$\limsup\limits_{\lambda\to+0} \frac {{\cal N}_{{\cal A}_1}(\lambda)}
{\Psi(1/\lambda)}\le 1+\ep,$$ where $\ep\to +0$ as $\delta\to +0$.
Changing ${\cal A}$ and ${\cal A}_1$ in (\[Weyl3\]) and taking $\delta\to 0$, we arrive at (\[Weyl2\]).
We are grateful to A.A. Vladimirov for important advice.
[AFTL]{}
[S]{} G.N. Sytaya, *On some asymptotic representations of the Gaussian measure in a Hilbert space*, Theory of Stohastic Processes, **2**, (1974), 93–104 (in Russian).
[Lf]{} M.A. Lifshits, [*Asymptotic behavior of small ball probabilities*]{}, Probab. Theory and Math. Stat., 1999. B.Grigelionis et al. (Eds), Proc. VII International Vilnius Conference (1998), VSP/TEV, 453–468.
[LS]{} W.V. Li, Q.M. Shao, [*Gaussian processes: inequalities, small ball probabilities and applications*]{}, Stochastic Processes: Theory and Methods. Handbook of Statistics, [**19**]{} (2001), C.R.Rao and D.Shanbhag (Eds), 533–597.
[site]{} [*Small Deviations for Stochastic Processes and Related Topics*]{}, Internet site, http://www.proba.jussieu.fr/pageperso/smalldev/
[Li]{} W.V. Li, [*Comparison results for the lower tail of Gaussian seminorms*]{}, J. Theor. Probab., [**5**]{} (1992), 1–31.
[DLL]{} T. Dunker, M.A. Lifshits, W. Linde, [*Small deviations of sums of independent variables*]{}, In: Proc. Conf. High Dimensional Probab., Ser. Progress in Probability, Birkhäuser, [**43**]{} (1998), 59–74.
[Nm]{} M.A. Naimark, [*Linear differential operators*]{}, Ed.2, Nauka, 1969 (in Russian). English transl. of the 1st ed.: Naimark M.A. Linear Differential Operators. Part I (1967): Elementary Theory of Linear Differential Operators. N.Y.: F. Ungar Publishing Company Co. XIII. Part II (1968): Linear differential operators in Hilbert space. N.Y.: F. Ungar Publishing Company Co. XV.
[NN1]{} A.I. Nazarov, Ya.Yu. Nikitin, [*Exact $L_2$-small ball behavior of integrated Gaussian processes and spectral asymptotics of boundary value problems*]{}, Probab. Theory and Rel. Fields, [**129**]{} (2004), 469–494.
[Na1]{} A.I. Nazarov, [*Exact $L_2$-Small Ball Asymptotics of Gaussian Processes and the Spectrum of Boundary-Value Problems*]{}, J. Theor. Probab. [**22**]{} (2009), N3, 640–665.
[Na2]{} A.I. Nazarov, *On the sharp constant in small ball asymptotics of some Gaussian processes under $L_2$-norm*, Probl. Mat. Anal. [**26**]{} (2003), 179–214 (in Russian); English transl.: J. Math. Sci. [**117**]{} (2003), N3, 4185–4210.
[GHLT]{} F. Gao, J. Hannig, T.-Y. Lee, F. Torcaso, [*Exact $L^2$-small balls of Gaussian processes*]{}, J. of Theor.Prob., [**17**]{} (2004), 503–520.
[GHLT1]{} F. Gao, J. Hannig, T.-Y. Lee, F. Torcaso, [*Laplace transforms via Hadamard factorization with applications to small ball probabilities,*]{} El. J. Probab. [**8(13)**]{} (2003), 1–20.
[NP]{} A.I. Nazarov, R.S. Pusev, *Exact $L_2$-small ball asymptotics for some weighted Gaussian processes*, Probability and statisics, ZNS POMI, [**364**]{} (2009), 166–199 (in Russian); English transl.: J. Math. Sci. [**163**]{} (2009), N4, 409–429.
[NN2]{} A.I. Nazarov, Ya.Yu. Nikitin, *Logarithmic $L_2$-small ball asymptotics for some fractional Gaussian processes*, Theor. Ver. Primen., [**49**]{} (2004), N4, 695–711 (in Russian); English transl.: Theor. Probab. Appl., [**49**]{} (2005), N4, 645–658.
[Na4]{} A.I. Nazarov, [*Log-level comparison principle for small ball probabilities*]{}, Stat. & Prob. Letters, [**79**]{} (2009), N4, 481–486.
[BS1]{} M.S. Birman, M.Z. Solomyak, [*Spectral asymptotics of weakly polar integral operators*]{}, Izv. AN SSSR, matem., [**34**]{} (1970), N6, 1143–1158 (in Russian).
[KNN]{} A. Karol’, A. Nazarov, Ya. Nikitin, [*Small ball probabilities for Gaussian random fields and tensor products of compact operators*]{}, Trans. AMS, [**360**]{} (2008), N3, 1443–1474.
[KL]{} J. Kigami, M.L. Lapidus, [*Weyl’s problem for the spectral distributions of Laplacians on p.c.f. self-similar fractals*]{}, Comm. Math. Phys. [**158**]{} (1993), 93–125.
[SV]{} M. Solomyak, E. Verbitsky, [*On a spectral problem related to self-similar measures*]{}, Bull. London Math. Soc. [**27**]{} (1995), 242–248.
[VSh1]{} A.A. Vladimirov, I.A. Sheipak, *Self-similar functions in space $L_2[0,1]$ and Sturm-Liouville problem with singular weight*, Matem. sbornik, [**197**]{} (2006), N11, 13–30 (in Russian); English transl.: Sbornik: Mathematics, 197(11), (2006), 1569–1586.
[VSh2]{} A.A. Vladimirov, I.A. Sheipak, *Special property of Neumann boundary condition for Sturm–Liouville problem with singular weight*, Int. Conf. “Diff. Eqs. and Rel. Topics” (Moscow, May 2004). Book of abstracts. P.238 (in Russian).
[VSh3]{} A.A. Vladimirov, I.A. Sheipak, *Indefinite Sturm–Liouville problem for some classes of self-similar singular weights*, Trudy MIRAN, [**255**]{}, (2006), 88–98 (in Russian); English transl.: Proceedings of the Steklov Institute of Mathematics, 2006, [**255**]{}, 1–10.
[Na3]{} A.I. Nazarov, *Logarithmic asymptotics of small deviations for some Gaussian processes in the ${L_2}$-norm with respect to a self-similar measure*, ZNS POMI, [**311**]{} (2004), 190–213 (in Russian); English transl.: J. Math. Sci., [**133**]{} (2006), N3, 1314–1327.
[VSh4]{} A.A. Vladimirov, I.A. Sheipak, *Eigenvalue asymptotics for Sturm–Liouville problem with discrete self-similar weight*, http://arxiv.org/arXiv:0709.0424 (in Russian).
[BS2]{} M.S. Birman, M.Z. Solomyak, [*Spectral theory of self-adjoint operators in Hilbert space*]{}, Leningrad Uiversity Publishers, 1980 (in Russian); English transl. in: Math. and Its Applic. Soviet Series, [**5**]{}. Dordrecht, etc.: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1987.
[H]{} J.E. Hutchinson, [*Fractals and Self Similarity*]{}, Indiana Univ. Math. Journ. [**30**]{} (1981), N5, 713–747.
[Sh1]{} I.A. Sheipak, *On the construction and some properties of self-similar functions in the spaces $L_p[0, 1]$*, Matem. zametki, [**81**]{} (2007), N6, 924–938 (in Russian); English transl.: Mathem. Notes, [**81**]{} (2007), N5-6, 827–839.
[Sh2]{} I.A. Sheipak, [*Singular Points of a Self-Similar Function of Spectral Order Zero: Self-Similar Stieltjes String*]{}, Matem. zametki, [**88**]{} (2010), N2, 303–316 (in Russian); English transl.: Mathem. Notes, [**88**]{} (2010), N2, 275–286.
[F]{} T. Fujita, [*A fractional dimension, self-similarity and a generalized diffusion operator*]{}, Taniguchi Symp. PMMP. Katata, 1985, 83–90.
[BoS]{} A.N. Borodin, P. Salminen, [*Handbook of Brownian Motion: Facts and Formulae*]{}, Birkhäuser, Basel, 1996.
[Sl]{} D. Slepian, [*First passage time for a particular Gaussian process*]{}, Ann. Math. Stat. [**32**]{} (1961), 610–612.
[San]{} D.P. Sankovich *Some properties of functional integrals with respect to the Bogoliubov measure*, Theor. Math. Phys., [**126**]{} (2001), N1, 121–135.
[Pu2]{} R.S. Pusev, *Small ball asymptotics for the Bogolyubov process in quadratic norm*, Theor. Math. Phys., 2010, to appear.
[La]{} A. Lachal, [*Bridges of certain Wiener integrals. Prediction properties, relation with polynomial interpolation and differential equations. Application to goodness-of-fit testing*]{}, In: Bolyai Math. Studies X, Limit Theorems, Balatonlelle (Hungary), 1999. Budapest, 2002, 1–51.
[RW]{} C.E. Rasmussen, C.K.I. Williams, [*Gaussian processes for machine learning*]{}, MIT Press, Cambridge, 2006.
[Pu1]{} R.S. Pusev, *Small ball asymptotics of the Matérn processes and fields in quadratic norm with weight*, Theor. Ver. Primen., [**55**]{} (2010), N1, 187–195 (in Russian). To be transl. in: Theor. Probab. Appl., [**55**]{} (2011), N1.
[W]{} H. Weyl, [*Das asymptotische Verteilungsgesetz der Eigenwerte linearer partieller Differentialgleichungen*]{}, Math. Ann. [**71**]{} (1912), 441–479.
[BS3]{} M.S. Birman, M.Z. Solomyak, *Quantitative analysis in Sobolev imbedding theorems and applications to spectral theory*. In: Proceed. of X Summer Mathematical School. Yu.A. Mitropolskii, A.F. Shestopal (Eds), 1974, 5–189 (in Russian). English transl.: AMS Translations, Series 2, 114, AMS, Providence, R.I. (1980).
[MM]{} A.S. Markus, V.I. Matsaev, *Comparison theorems for spectra of linear operators and spectral asymptotics*, Trudy MMO, **45** (1982), 133–181 (in Russian).
[^1]: Supported by grant RFBR No. 10-01-00154a and by grant of scientific school No. 4210.2010.1
[^2]: Supported by grants RFBR No. 10-01-00423a and RFBR No. 09-01-90408ukr\_f\_a
[^3]: In [@Sh1] only the transformations $S_k$ without overturn the interval were considered, but this fact doesn’t influence on proof.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Compressive sensing promises to enable bandwidth-efficient on-board compression of astronomical data by lifting the encoding complexity from the source to the receiver. The signal is recovered off-line, exploiting GPUs parallel computation capabilities to speedup the reconstruction process. However, inherent GPU hardware constraints limit the size of the recoverable signal and the speedup practically achievable. In this work, we design parallel algorithms that exploit the properties of circulant matrices for efficient GPU-accelerated sparse signals recovery. Our approach reduces the memory requirements, allowing us to recover very large signals with limited memory. In addition, it achieves a tenfold signal recovery speedup thanks to ad-hoc parallelization of matrix-vector multiplications and matrix inversions. Finally, we practically demonstrate our algorithms in a typical application of circulant matrices: deblurring a sparse astronomical image in the compressed domain.'
author:
- |
Attilio Fiandrotti, Sophie M. Fosson, Chiara Ravazzi, and Enrico Magli\
Dipartimento di Elettronica e Telecomunicazioni\
Politecnico di Torino, Italy\
[email protected], [email protected],\
[email protected], [email protected][^1]
bibliography:
- 'main.bib'
title: |
GPU-Accelerated Algorithms for\
Compressed Signals Recovery with Application to Astronomical Imagery Deblurring
---
Introduction {#sec:introduction}
============
Compressive Sensing (CS, [@candes08]) has drawn a lot of interest for a number of remote sensing applications (see [@Bob2008] and the references therein). The CS paradigm is as follows. Let $\bm{x}^{\star}=(x^{\star}_1,\dots, x^{\star}_n)$ be the *sparse* signal to be sensed, *i.e.*, at most $k \ll n$ elements of $\bm{x}^{\star}$ are different from zero. Let $\mathbf{A}$ be the $m \times n$ *sensing matrix* ($m < n$): the sensing process is expressed by the linear combination
$$\label{model}
\bm{y}=\mathbf{A}\bm{x}^{\star}$$
where $\bm{y} = (y_\textit{1}, ..., y_\textit{m})$ is the *measurements vector*. Under certain conditions, CS theory shows that $\bm{x}^{\star}$ can be exactly recovered seeking the sparsest solution that fulfills $\mathbf{A} \bm{x}^{\star} = \bm{y}$ despite $m < n$ [@can06; @can08]. In particular, CS low-complexity coding process makes it well suited for power and bandwidth-constrained applications such as spaceborne data compression [@4776452].
While CS significantly reduces the onboard sensing process complexity, such complexity is lifted to the receiver, which is tasked with recovering the signal. Finding the sparsest solution $x$ fulfilling $\bm{y} = \mathbf{A}\bm{x}$ is an NP-hard optimization problem [@fou13 Section 2.3], so approximate solutions are practically sought using the $\ell_1$-norm. Namely, such problems are typically recast in a convex form, e.g., LASSO [@tib94], that can be solved by Iterative Soft Thresholding (ISTA [@dau04; @for10]) or Alternating Direction Methods of Multipliers (ADMM, [@boy10]). Both ISTA and ADMM have been proved to converge linearly to a LASSO minimum, however ADMM requires fewer iterations to converge at the expense of slightly more complex update step and larger memory requirements (preliminarily inverting and storing a $n\times n$ matrix is required). In both cases, recovery time increases with $n$, which is an issue with very large signals.
In the last years, the use of Graphical Processing Units (GPUs) to speedup the recovery of compressively sensed signals has attracted increasing attention. A GPU is a multicore processor whose cores operate in parallel on the data stored in some dedicated GPU memory. [@blanchard2012gpu] proposed greedy algorithms to solve an $\ell_0$ formulation of the CS problem, which is however an NP-complex problem. On the contrary, the $\ell_1$ problem formulation (as in LASSO) is practically tractable in reason of its convexity. Moreover, LASSO-solving algorithms such as ISTA and ADMM are well-suited for GPU acceleration as their complexity lies in inherently parallel matrix-vector multiplications. For example [@tian2012high] experimented GPU-based radar signals recovery using an IST algorithm. In [@ber16], GPUs are exploited to accelerate the recovery in hyperspectral imaging with HYCA method (which relies on ADMM). In [@mur12; @qua15], multi-GPU systems are leveraged for CS in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).
The performance of GPU-accelerated algorithms is however hindered by some inherent hardware constraints. First and foremost, the amount of available GPU memory limits the maximum size of the recoverable signal. The memory footprint of data structures such as the sensing matrix grows in fact with the signal size $n$, so large signals may be intractable on GPUs. Second, a GPU effective degree of parallelism is upper-bounded by the bandwidth available on the bus towards the GPU memory. In fact, as data structures become larger, memory caches become ineffective and the GPU cores line up for accessing the memory over a shared bus. As large signals are increasingly commonplace in remote sensing applications, being able to practically recover such signals within the CS paradigm is becoming a relevant issue.
In this work, we leverage circulant matrices to efficiently recover large compressively sensed signals on GPUs [@yin10; @ra10]. A circulant matrix is such that each row is obtained as the circular shift of the previous row. For the problem of remotely sensing large signals, circulant matrices are attractive because (a) they are suitable sensing matrices for CS [@ra10]; (b) their memory footprint grows only linearly with $n$, fitting in low-complexity spaceborne encoders (c); they allow to handle otherwise complex inversion tasks with FFT at signal recovery time, as explained in the following.
The pivotal contributions of this work are CPADMM and CPISTA, two GPU-accelerated LASSO-solving algorithms for sparse signals recovery. Both algorithms leverage circulant sensing matrices properties to achieve a memory-efficient sensing matrix representation. Namely, CPISTA improves over the PISTA algorithm in [@pcs2013] by exploiting circulant matrices properties to speedup matrix-vector multiplications. CPADMM enjoys all the benefits of CPISTA, plus it addresses ADMM inversion complexity issue decomposing the sensing matrix as a product of a fat projection matrix and a square circulant matrix, enabling fast FFT-based inversion [@yin10]. Circulant matrices boast two advantages: on the mathematical side, they enable efficient matrix inversion in ADMM as discussed above; on the applications side, they are naturally involved in convolution problems, which occur, e.g., in radar imaging, Fourier optics [@rom09], hyperspectral imaging [@mar15], and image deblurring [@4776452], as discussed below.
We experimentally show two major advantages over reference algorithms that are agnostic of circulant matrices properties. First and foremost, our algorithms make possible to recover very large signals with just a few megabytes of GPU memory. Second, efficient GPU memory usage improves the memory caching mechanisms effectiveness, that is the key to a speedup in excess of a tenfold factor in many scenarios.
Finally, we demonstrate our algorithms in a practical application to astronomic imaging. We consider the reconstruction of night sky images, whose sparsity is much smaller than the number of pixels. Due to atmospheric turbulence and optical systems imperfections (e.g, poor focusing), acquired images may be affected by small amounts of blur. Nonlinear deblurring via inversion of a lowpass filtering is not recommended in this scenario, as it may further amplify noise. It is however known that blurring can be incorporated in a CS framework [@4776452] as a convolutional filtering, so deblurring corresponds to deconvolution with a circulant matrix [@5495801]. We leverage such finding and circulant sensing matrices properties to cast the problem so that the overall projections matrix is circulant as well. Our experiments show that the implemented algorithms enable recovering a mega pixel image with a MSE in the order of $10^\textit{-2}$ in reasonable time over a desktop NVIDIA GPU. As a final remark, our algorithms are implemented in OpenCL language albeit we experiment with NVIDIA GPUs where CUDA libraries are known to deliver better performance. However, as a key advantage our OpenCL implementation enables deploying our algorithms over different types of GPUs (e.g., ATI) and parallel processors in general (e.g., multicore CPUs, DSPs) with little effort, as we experimentally demonstrate.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. Sec. \[sec:background\] presents the relevant theoretical background on sparse signals recovery, discussing popular iterative LASSO-solving algorithms and their computational complexity. Sec. \[sec:gpu\] describes the architecture of a GPU, discussing the issue with memory access in matrix-vector multiplications. In Sec. \[sec:cs\_circulant\] we introduce circulant matrices and their properties, describing an ADMM formulation that leverages such properties and is suitable for GPU parallelization. In Sec. \[sec:algorithms\] we present CPADMM and CPISTA, two GPU-based LASSO-solving algorithms leveraging the structure of circulant sensing matrices. In Sec. \[sec:experiments\] we experiment with our algorithms in recovering different types of sparse signals while in Sec. \[sec:deblurring\] we tackle a practical problem in compressive astronomy, namely deblurring an image in the compressed domain. Finally, in Sec. \[sec:conclusions\] we draw the conclusions and outline possible further developments of this work.
Background {#sec:background}
==========
In this section, we provide a mathematical description of the recovery problem and of ISTA and ADMM algorithms, discussing their computational complexity.
Sparse Signal Recovery via LASSO
--------------------------------
The linear system in is underdetermined and has infinitely many solutions. As mentioned in Sec. \[sec:introduction\], CS theory states that imposing the sparsity constraint and with additional assumptions on the matrix $\mathbf{A}$, the following problem is well posed $$\label{eq:l_0}
\min\|\bm{x}\|_0 \quad\text{s.t. } \mathbf{A}\bm{x}=\bm{y}.$$ In fact, it can be shown [@can06] that, if $\bm{x}^{\star}$ is $k$-sparse and for every index set $\Gamma\subseteq\{1,\ldots,n\}$ with $|\Gamma|=2k$ the columns of $\mathbf{A}$ associated with $\Gamma$ are linearly independent, then $\bm{x}^{\star}$ is the unique solution to . However, this non-convex program exhibits combinatorial complexity in the size of the problem.
A popular option to solve problem is provided by convex relaxation that prescribes to minimize the following cost function, also known under the name of Least-Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator (LASSO, [@tib94]):
$$\label{Lasso}
\min_{\bm{x}\in{\mathbb{R}}^n}\|\bm{y}-\mathbf{A}\bm{x}\|_2^2+{2\alpha}\|\bm{x}\|_1,$$
where $\|\bm{y}-\mathbf{A}\bm{x}\|^2_2$ is a loss function indicating how much the vector $\bm{x}\in{\mathbb{R}}^n$ is consistent with the data $\bm{y}\in{\mathbb{R}}^m$, $\alpha>0$, and $\|\bm{x}\|_1$ is the term that promotes sparsity in the estimation. The solution to problem provides an approximation of the signal with a bounded error, which is controlled by the $\alpha$ parameter (see [@can08; @don06]). Problem can be solved via a number of methods (e.g.: interior point methods, iterative methods, etc.). In this work, we focus on iterative methods in reason of their bounded computational complexity and suitability for parallelization. Below, we review the two well known classes of iterative LASSO-solving methods, discussing the relative pros and cons.
Iterative Soft Thresholding Algorithm (ISTA) for LASSO
------------------------------------------------------
The Iterative Soft Thresholding Algorithm (ISTA) solves the LASSO problem moving at each iteration towards the steepest descent direction and applying thresholding to promote sparsity [@dau04], as described in Alg. \[algo:ISTA\]. In the rest of this work, we denote as $\bm{x}(t)$ the recovered signal as estimated at the end of the $t$-th iteration, $t \ge 1$.
Initialization: $\tau\in(0,\|\mathbf{A}\|_2^{-2})$, initial guess $\bm{x}(0)=0$ Residual vector computation: $$\bm{r}(t)=(\bm{y} - \mathbf{A}\bm{x}(t-1))$$ Gradient vector computation: $$\Delta(t)= \tau \mathbf{A}^\mathsf{T}~\bm{r}(t)$$ Soft thresholding: $$\bm{x}(t)=\eta_{\alpha}[\bm{x}(t-1)+\Delta(t)]$$
Starting from an initial guess (say $\bm{x}(0)=0$), the residual vector $\bm{r}(t)$ is computed in order to evaluate how much the current estimation is consistent with the data. The residual vector is used to compute the gradient vector: $\Delta(t)$ represents the minimizing direction of the LASSO and $\tau$ is the step-size in the update. Finally, the $\eta_{\gamma}$ operator is a thresholding function to be applied elementwise, [*i.e.* ]{} $$\label{etaS}
\eta_{\gamma}[\bm{x}]=\begin{cases}\text{sgn}(\bm{x})(|\bm{x}|-\gamma)&\text{if }|\bm{x}|>\gamma\\
0&\text{otherwise.}\end{cases}$$ In [@mal10] extensive computational experiments have been conducted to optimally select parameters $\alpha$ and $\tau$. The optimization is defined in terms of phase transitions, where the number of nonzeros at which the algorithm is successful with high probability is maximized. If $\tau<2\|\mathbf{A}\|_2^{-2}$, then, for any initial choice $\bm{x}{(0)}$, ISTA produces a sequence $\{\bm{x}(t)\}_{t\in{\mathbb{N}}}$ which converges to a minimizer $\widehat{\bm{x}}$ of .
The main ISTA complexity source is in the two matrix-vector multiplications $\mathbf{A}~\bm{x}$ and $\mathbf{A}^\mathsf{T}~\bm{r}$ at lines 3 and 4 of Alg. \[algo:ISTA\] respectively. Matrix-vector multiplications are well-suited for GPU parallelization due to the intrinsic independence of each row-vector product. However, ISTA may require a large number of iterations to converge to recover the signal. Moreover, accessing large matrices in GPU memory represents a bottleneck to the actual GPU parallelism, as we discuss in the following.
Alternating Direction Method of Multipliers (ADMM) for LASSO
------------------------------------------------------------
The Alternating Direction Method of Multipliers (ADMM, [@boy10]) is another well-known method for solving . The optimization problem is reformulated as follows:
$$\label{Lasso2}
\min_{\bm{x}\in{\mathbb{R}}^n}\|\bm{y}-\mathbf{A}\bm{x}\|_2^2+{2\alpha}\|\bm{z}\|_1,\qquad \text{s.t. }\bm{x}-\bm{z}=0.$$
ADMM attempts to blend the benefits of dual decomposition and augmented Lagrangian methods for constrained optimization by minimizing the augmented Lagrangian in a iterative way with respect to the primal variable $\bm{x}$ and the dual variables. More formally, ADMM addresses the optimization problem
$$\label{d2lp_Lag}
\min_{\bm{x}\in{\mathbb{R}}^n}\|\bm{y}-\mathbf{A}\bm{x}\|_2^2+{2\alpha}\|\bm{z}\|_1+\bm{u}^{\mathsf{T}}(\bm{x}-\bm{z})+{\rho}\|\bm{x}-\bm{z}\|^2$$
where $\bm{u}$ is the dual variable or Lagrange multiplier related to the constraint in and $\bm{z}$ is an auxiliary vector. The ADMM algorithm is summarized in pseudo-code as Alg. \[algo:ADMM\].
Initial guess $\bm{x}(0)=\bm{u}(0)=\bm{z}(0)=0$ Initial inversion: $$\mathbf{B} = (\mathbf{A}^\mathsf{T}\mathbf{A} + \rho \mathbf{I})^{-1}$$ Primal variables update: $$\bm{x}(t)= \mathbf{B} (\mathbf{A}^\mathsf{T}\bm{y} + \rho(\bm{z}(t-1) - \bm{u}(t-1)))$$ Soft thresholding step: $$\bm{z}(t)=\eta_{\alpha/\rho}[\bm{x}(t) + \bm{u}(t-1)]$$ Dual variables update: $$\bm{u}(t)=\bm{u}(t-1)+\bm{x}(t)-\bm{z}(t)$$
ADMM consists of an initial stage where matrix $\mathbf{A}^\mathsf{T}\mathbf{A} + \rho \mathbf{I}$ is inverted (line 2) and of an iterative stage (rest of the algorithm). The convergence of ADMM can be established in several ways [@boy10].
Complexity-wise, ADMM converges in fewer iterations than ISTA, while each iteration complexity is comparable. In fact, each ADMM iteration requires performing two matrix-vector multiplications at line 4 of \[algo:ADMM\] and each multiplication can be parallelized. However, ADMM initially requires inverting and storing in memory the $n\times n$ matrix $\mathbf{A}^\mathsf{T}\mathbf{A}$. The inversion complexity is $O(n^3)$, so it becomes the dominant complexity source as the sampled signal dimension $n$ increases. In the following, we show how circulant matrices can be leveraged to keep such complexity under control.
GPU Architecture {#sec:gpu}
================
This section first describes a GPU hardware architecture and the OpenCL parallel programming model. We focus in particular on matrix-vector multiplications, which are the main complexity source in the previously described LASSO-solving algorithms as discussed in the following section.
Hardware Architecture
---------------------
Figure \[fig:gpu\_architecture\] shows that a modern GPU includes two main components. The first component is the parallel processor, simply referred to as GPU in the following (dashed box in the figure). The GPU basic computing unit is the *core* and each core includes a small amount of *private* memory accessible exclusively to it (e.g., to hold temporary variables). Groups of cores are physically arranged into *multiprocessor* (MPs), and each MP includes some tens of kilobytes *local* memory accessible by all the MP cores. All MPs access a large (up to several gigabytes) off-chip *global* memory through a shared *memory bus*, which is the second main component of a GPU. GPUs typically include a second-level (L2) cache memory shared by all MPs to hide the global memory access latency (e.g., 2MB in Maxwell-based GPUs). Latency is defined here as the average time (or number of processor or bus cycles) required by a core to access an operand in the global memory. Global memory is the only memory area accessible both to the GPU and to the main CPU, also known as *host* processor. The host processor accesses the global memory via the PCI bus and can move data between the main memory, known as *host* memory, and the global memory.
OpenCL Programming Language
---------------------------
OpenCL [@opencl] is a C-like language for programming parallel computers such as GPUs. The typical OpenCL programming model follows the pattern below.\
Preliminarily, one or more OpenCL *kernels* and the relative input data (e.g., the sensing matrix and the sampled signal vector) are copied to the GPU global memory. OpenCL kernels are primitive, concurrent, functions taking care of one elementary task each: for example multiplying one row of the sensing matrix by the sampled signal vector.\
Next, the host processor issues a number of independent kernel instances called *work-items* for execution on the GPU, and waits for all the instances to yield, i.e. to complete. Each work item is a logical entity that is uniquely identified GPU-wide through its *global identifier*. A scheduler resident on the GPU distributes the work-items among the physical computing cores. In the case of a kernel performing one matrix-vector multiplications, a work-item may be issued for each row-vector multiplication. Each work-item fetches the (relevant part of the) input data from the global memory, performs the relevant computation and stores the output into the global memory. After all work-items have terminated, the host processor moves the output from the global memory back to the host memory, completing the execution of the OpenCL program.
Algorithmic Design with Circulant Sensing Matrices {#sec:cs_circulant}
==================================================
In this section we discuss the issues with accessing GPUs memory, motivating the use of circulant matrices for solving the LASSO problem and proposing an ADMM formulation that relies on circulant matrices.
The Issue with GPU Memory
-------------------------
A key issue in designing high performing GPU-accelerated algorithms is making efficient use of the GPU memory architecture described in the previous section. Other than fitting the algorithm working set in the available GPU memory, the goal is to minimize the global memory access latency, which is a major performance bottleneck. Memory access latency is especially a problem in matrix-vector multiplications, which represent the main complexity source in LASSO-solving algorithms. Consider for example the multiplication $\bm{y} = \mathbf{A} \bm{x}$ where the sensing matrix $\mathbf{A}$ is stored in global memory in standard row-major order. Let us assume that an OpenCL kernel performs the multiplication row-wise, i.e. each $i$-th work-item multiplies the $i$-th row of $\mathbf{A}$ by $\bm{x}$. Each $i$-th work-item accesses a different row of $\mathbf{A}$, i.e. a distinct consecutive set of location in the global memory. Therefore, the GPU cores will compete for accessing the global memory over the shared bus, stalling until the memory bus becomes free. The fast on-chip caches may help to buffer frequently accessed memory areas, reducing latency. However, caches are limited in size and may be unable to hold entirely large data structures such as the whole matrix $\mathbf{A}$. Namely, when the signal $n$ increases, structures such as the sensing matrix are increasingly unlikely to fit inside the GPU caches, memory access latency increases and the GPU performance drops. A number of good practices such as reducing the number of transfers between host and global memory and performing coalesced memory accesses help to this end. However, such practices cannot set completely off the memory access bottleneck in matrix-vector multiplications. In the following, we workaround such issue leveraging circulant matrices and their properties.
Circulant Sensing Matrices
--------------------------
Given a generic dense matrix $\mathbf{A}$ of size $m\times n$ and a vector $\bm{x}$ of size $n$, the product requires $O(mn)$ computations. Moreover the multiplication has to be performed over and over again with different input vectors. In order to reduce the storage and computational complexity, one can consider structured matrices which are dense but depend on only $O(n)$ parameters. In particular, circulant random matrices are almost as effective as the Gaussian random matrix for the purpose of recovering compressed signals [@ra10].
Let $\bm{v}$ be the $1 \times n$ vector corresponding to the first $\mathbf{A}$ row. In the following, we refer to vector $\bm{v}$ as *sensing vector*: $\mathbf{A}$ is circulant, so each $\mathbf{A}$ row can be expressed as a shift of the sensing vector. Namely, $\mathbf{A}_{i,j} = \bm{v}_{(j-i) \bmod(n)}$, where $\bmod$ defines the remainder operator in the rest of this manuscript. Similarly, each column of the transpose $\mathbf{A}^\mathsf{T}$ can be expressed as a shift of the sensing vector. Namely, $\mathbf{A}^\mathsf{T}_{i,j} = \mathbf{A}_{j,i}$, so $\mathbf{A}^\mathsf{T}_{i,j} = \bm{v}_{(j-i) \bmod(n)}$.
From a computational viewpoint, circulant matrices can be diagonalized using the discrete Fourier transform [@yin10]. So, the matrix-vector multiplication $y = \mathbf{A}~x$ can be efficiently performed using the Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) with a complexity of order $O(n \log(n))$. While the use of the circulant matrices reduces naturally the storage for ISTA, ADMM need still to invert and store an $n\times n$ matrix $\mathbf{A}^\mathsf{T}\mathbf{A}$. In the following we review the basic ideas for an ADMM with partial circulant matrices.
ADMM for Circulant Matrices
---------------------------
In [@yin10] a fast ADMM is proposed for partial circulant matrices. From now on we consider the Lasso problem in with random partial circulant sensing matrix. Let $\Omega\subseteq\{1,\ldots, n\}$, chosen at random, with $|\Omega|=m$, then we consider $\mathbf{A}$ of the form $\mathbf{A}=\mathbf{P}\mathbf{C}$ where $\mathbf{C}\in{\mathbb{R}}^{n\times n}$ is circulant square and $\mathbf{P}\in{\mathbb{R}}^{m\times n}$ is a binary diagonal matrix, with $P_{i,i}=1$ if $i\in\Omega$.\
The LASSO problem can be written as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{2}\left\|\bm{y}-\mathbf{P} \bm{v} \right\|_2^2 +\alpha \|\bm{z}\|_1\\
\text{s.t. }\bm{v}=\mathbf{C}\bm{x},\ \bm{z}=\bm{x}.\end{aligned}$$ Consider now the augmented Lagrangian function
$$\begin{aligned}
L(\bm{x},\bm{v},\bm{z},\bm{\mu}, \bm{\bm{\nu}})&=\frac{1}{2}\left\|\bm{y}-\mathbf{P} \bm{v} \right\|_2^2 +\alpha \|\bm{z}\|_1 +\sigma \bm{\nu}^{\mathsf{T}}(\bm{x}-\bm{z})\\
&+ \frac{\sigma}{2}\left\|\bm{x}-\bm{z}\right\|_2^2+\rho\bm{\mu}^{\mathsf{T}} (\bm{v}-\mathbf{C}\bm{x})+\frac{\rho}{2}\left\|\bm{v}-\mathbf{C}\bm{x} \right\|_2^2\end{aligned}$$
where $\bm{x}$, $\bm{v}$, $\bm{z}$ are primal variables and $\bm{\mu}$, $\bm{\nu}$ are the Lagrangian multipliers. By minimizing $L(\bm{x},\bm{v},\bm{z},\bm{\mu}, \bm{\nu})$ in an iterative fashion, we obtain the following updates: start from an initial condition $\bm{\mu}(0)=\bm{\nu}(0)=\bm{z}(0)=\bm{v}(0)=0$
$$\begin{gathered}
(\bm{x}(t+1),\bm{v}(t+1),\bm{z}(t+1))=\operatorname*{arg\,min}_{x}L(\bm{x},\bm{v},\bm{z},\bm{\mu}(t), \bm{\nu}(t))\\
\bm{\mu}(t+1)=\bm{\mu}(t)+\tau_1\nabla_{\bm{\mu}}L(\bm{x}(t+1),\bm{v}(t+1),\bm{z}(t+1),\bm{\mu}, \bm{\nu})\\
\bm{\nu}(t+1)=\bm{\nu}(t)+\tau_2\nabla_{\bm{\nu}}L(\bm{x}(t+1),\bm{v}(t+1),\bm{z}(t+1),\bm{\mu}, \bm{\nu})\end{gathered}$$
that lead to pseudocode in Algorithm \[algo:CPADMM\].
Initialization: $\bm{\mu}(0)=\bm{\nu}(0)=\bm{z}(0)=\bm{v}(0)=0$ Initial inversion: $$\mathbf{B} = (\rho \mathbf{C}^{\mathsf{T}} \mathbf{C} +\sigma \mathbf{I})^{-1},~~ \mathbf{D}=( \mathbf{P}^{\mathsf{T}} \mathbf{P} +\rho \mathbf{I})^{-1}$$ Primal variables update: $$\begin{aligned}
\bm{x}(t)&=\mathbf{B} (\rho \mathbf{C}^{\mathsf{T}} \bm{v}(t-1)+\sigma(\bm{z}(t-1)-\bm{\nu}(t-1)))\\
\bm{v}(t)&=\mathbf{D}(\rho \mathbf{C} \bm{x}(t)-\rho \bm{\mu}(t-1)+\mathbf{P}^{\mathsf{T}}y)
\end{aligned}$$ Soft-Thresholding step: $$\bm{z}(t)=\eta_{\alpha/\sigma}[\bm{x}(t)+\bm{\nu}(t-1)]$$ Dual variables update: $$\begin{aligned}
\bm{\mu}(t)&=\bm{\mu}(t-1)+\tau_1(\bm{v}(t)-\mathbf{C}\bm{x}(t))\\
\bm{\nu}(t)&=\bm{\nu}(t-1)+\tau_2(\bm{x}(t)-\bm{z}(t))\\
\bm{v}(t) &= \bm{v}(t)+\bm{\mu}(t)\end{aligned}$$
The algorithm is shown to converge for $\tau_1=\tau_2\in(0,(\sqrt{5}+1)/2)$ in [@fou13].
We recall that the inversion of both matrices $(\rho \mathbf{C}^{\mathsf{T}} \mathbf{C} +\sigma \mathbf{I})$ and $ \mathbf{P}^{\mathsf{T}} \mathbf{P} +\rho \mathbf{I}$ can be performed offline. However, we point out that $(\rho \mathbf{C}^{\mathsf{T}} \mathbf{C} +\sigma \mathbf{I})\in{\mathbb{R}}^{n\times n}$ is a square circulant matrix, so it can be inverted via FFT, which reduces the computational cost from $O(n^3)$ to $O(n\log n)$. This works around the main complexity element of ADMM as described in Alg. \[algo:CPADMM\]. $\mathbf{P}^{\mathsf{T}} \mathbf{P} -\rho \mathbf{I}$ is a diagonal matrix with $i$-th element in the diagonal equal to $1+\rho$ if $i\in\Omega$ and $\rho$ otherwise. Moreover and most important, the inverted matrices $\mathbf{B}$ and $\mathbf{D}$ are still circulant, thus they benefit from the properties of circulant matrices as described above.
We leverage such circulant matrices properties to design efficient, GPU-accelerated, matrix-vector multiplication algorithms that we discuss in detail in the next section.
GPU Algorithms {#sec:algorithms}
==============
In this section we describe CPADMM, a circulant parallel ADMM algorithm, and CPISTA, a circulant, parallel ISTA algorithm. The algorithms rely on the GPU for the most computationally-intensive tasks as illustrated in Fig. \[alg:cpista\_outline\]. Both algorithms rely on multiple distinct kernels to cope with the hardware limitations of some GPUs. Namely, multiple kernels are required to allow multiple MPs to yield and synchronize properly. Each kernel executes only one matrix-vector multiplication to guarantee the correct kernel execution order. All kernels below are described in pseudo-OpenCL language.
CPADMM {#sec:cpadmm}
------
This section describes CPADMM (Circulant Parallel ADMM), a GPU-optimized version of the Circulant ADMM algorithm we presented as Alg. \[algo:CPADMM\], as outlined as a flow-chart in Fig. \[alg:cpista\_outline\] (left).
First, the inverted matrices $\mathbf{B} = (\rho \mathbf{C}^{\mathsf{T}} \mathbf{C} +\sigma \mathbf{I})^{-1}$ and $\mathbf{D} = ( \mathbf{P}^{\mathsf{T}} \mathbf{P} +\rho \mathbf{I})^{-1}$ are computed over the CPU (line 2 of Alg. \[algo:CPADMM\]). Both $\rho \mathbf{C}^{\mathsf{T}} \mathbf{C} +\sigma \mathbf{I}$ and $\mathbf{P}^{\mathsf{T}} \mathbf{P} +\rho \mathbf{I}$ are $n \times n$ circulant matrices. It is well known that square circulant matrices are diagonalizable by the Fourier matrix, which reduces their inversion to the inversion of the associated diagonal eigenvalue matrix and two FFTs [@yin10]. Such preliminary inversions are not performed on the GPU because their FFT-complexity grows only linearly with $n$ and thus can be efficiently performed over the CPU, as we experimentally show later on. Then, $\mathbf{B}$ and $\mathbf{D}$ are $n \times n$ matrices and their footprint would grow with the square of $n$. However, $\mathbf{B}$ is circulant and is completely represented by its first row that in the following we denote as the $n$-elements vector $\bm{b}$. Similarly, $\mathbf{D}$ is diagonal, so is represented by its diagonal that we indicate as the $n$-elements vector $\bm{d}$. Therefore, at the end of line 2 in Alg. \[algo:CPADMM\] we represent $\mathbf{B}$ and $\mathbf{D}$ in the CPU memory as two $n$-elements vectors $\bm{b}$ and $\bm{d}$. Notice that $\mathbf{C}$ and $\mathbf{C}^{\mathsf{T}}$ are circulant as well, and both are represented by $\mathbf{C}$ first row that we indicate as as the $n$-elements vector $\bm{c}$.\
Next, the required input data is prepared in the GPU memory (in the following, we refer to the GPU *global* memory simply as GPU memory). First, the four $n$-elements vectors $\bm{y}$, $\bm{b}$, $\bm{c}$ and $\bm{d}$ are copied from the CPU memory to the GPU memory. Then, the $n$-elements vectors $\bm{\mu}$, $\bm{\nu}$, $\bm{z}$ and $\bm{v}$ are allocated in the GPU memory and initialized to zero. Finally, we allocate in the GPU memory one $n$-elements vector $\bm{\beta}$ to hold temporary results between successive kernel calls. Once all the required data structures are allocated in the GPU memory, the first CPADMM algorithm iteration is executed on the GPU. At each $t$-th iteration, three distinct OpenCL kernels are issued in sequence. The core of each kernel is one of the three matrix-vector multiplications required at each ADMM iteration as detailed in the following.
The Kernel in Alg. \[alg:cpadmm\_1\] takes care of the first part of the primal variables update stage at line 4 of Alg. \[algo:CPADMM\] and $n$ instances thereof are issued. Throughout the rest of this paper, we indicate a work-item *global identifier* (i.e., the unique identifier of a kernel instance as discussed in Sec. \[sec:gpu\]) with the letter $i$. Namely, at the $t$-th iteration of the algorithm, the $i$-th work-item multiplies the $i$-th row of matrix $\mathbf{C}$ (indicated as $\mathbf{C}_i$ below) by the vector $\bm{v}$ computed at the previous iteration. Matrix $\mathbf{C}$ is actually represented by $\bm{c}$ in GPU memory, so each work-item multiplies the $(i-j)\bmod(n)$-th element of $\bm{c}$ by the $j$-th element of $\bm{v}$ during the $for$ loop storing the partial results in the private accumulator $s$. Then, the kernel multiplies the accumulator by $\rho$, adds the $i$-th element of $\bm{z}$, subtracts the $i$-th element of $\bm{v}$ and stores the result back in the GPU memory as the $i$-th elements of the auxiliary vector $\bm{\beta}$. Being $\bm{\beta}$ allocated in GPU memory, it that can be accessed later on by the other kernels after all $m$ work-items of the kernel have yielded.
$i \gets {get\_global\_id}(0)$ $s \gets 0$ $s \gets s + c_{(i - j) \bmod (n)} ~ v_j(t-1)$ $\beta_i(t) \gets s~\rho + z_i(t-1) - \nu_i(t-1)$
After all work-items of the kernel in Alg. \[alg:cpadmm\_1\] have yielded, $n$ work-items of the kernel in Alg. \[alg:cpadmm\_2\] are issued. The kernel core task is performing the second multiplication required by the primal variables update stage at line 4 of Alg. \[algo:CPADMM\] and estimating the original signal $x$. Each work-item multiplies the $i$-th row of matrix $\mathbf{B}$ by the temporary vector $\bm{\beta}$ computed by kernel \[alg:cpadmm\_1\]. We recall that $\mathbf{B}$ is circulant and is represented by the $n$-elements vector $\bm{b}$. Each work-item performs the vectorial multiplication between each $j$-th element of vector $\bm{b}$ and vector $\bm{\beta}$ over a $for$ loop. Each of the $n$ work-items finally updates the $i$-th element of the estimated signal to recover $\bm{x}$ in global memory.
$i \gets {get\_global\_id}(0)$ $s \gets 0$ $s \gets s + b_{(j - i) \bmod (n)} ~ \beta_j(t)$ $x_i(t) \gets s$
Finally, $n$ work-items of the kernel in Alg. \[alg:cpadmm\_3\] are issued, completing one CPADMM iteration.\
First, each work-item multiplies the $i$-th row of matrix $\mathbf{C}$ by the recovered signal $\bm{x}$ over a $for$ loop. As $\mathbf{C}$ is circulant, the kernel actually loops over vector $\bm{c}$ elements and stores the partial results in the private accumulator $s$. Then, the $i$-th element of the dual variable $\bm{\mu}$ is subtracted from $s$ and is multiplied by $\rho$, updating $s$. Next, the kernel multiplies the $(i - j) \bmod (n)$-th element of $\bm{p}$ by the $i$-th element of $\bm{y}$ and updates $s$. Finally, the kernel multiplies $s$ by the $(i - j) \bmod (n)$-th element of $\bm{d}$, updating the $i$-th element of the primary variable $\bm{v}$ in GPU memory.\
Second, the kernel performs soft thresholding ($\eta$ operator) over $x_i + \nu_i$ and updates the $i$-th element of $\bm{z}$ in the GPU memory.\
Third and last, the kernel computes and updates the $i$-th element of vectors $\bm{\mu}$, $\bm{\nu}$ and $\bm{v}$ in GPU memory, concluding one CPADMM iteration.
$i \gets {get\_global\_id}(0)$ $s \gets 0$ $s \gets s + c_{(j - i) \bmod (n)} ~ x_j(t)$ $s \gets \rho (s - \mu_i(t-1))$ $s \gets s + (p_{(i - j) \bmod (n)}~ y_i)$ $v_i(t) \gets s~d_{(i - j) \bmod (n)}$ $z_i(t) \gets \eta_{\alpha/\sigma}~[x_i(t) + \nu_i(t-1)]$ $\mu_i(t) \gets v_i(t) - s$ $\nu_i(t) \gets x_i(t) - z_i(t)$ $v_i(t) \gets v_i(t-1) - \mu_i(t)$
CPISTA {#sec:cpista}
------
Then we describe CPISTA (Circulant Parallel ISTA), a GPU-accelerated version of the ISTA algorithm \[algo:ISTA\] that leverages circulant sensing matrices as outlined in the flow-chart in Fig. \[alg:cpista\_outline\] (right). Refraining the notation of Sec. \[sec:cs\_circulant\], we indicate the sensing matrix $A$ first row as the $n$-elements vector $\bm{v}$. First, $\bm{v}$ and the $m$-elements vector $\bm{y}$ (i.e., the sampled signal) are copied from the host memory to the GPU memory. Then, the $m$-elements vector $\bm{r}$ is allocated in the GPU memory to hold the residuals. Also, an $n$-elements vector $\bm{x}$ is allocated in global memory and initialized to zero to hold the recovered signal. Next, the first CPISTA iteration takes place.
The kernel in Alg. \[alg:cpista\_1\] takes care of computing the *residuals vector* $\bm{r}(t)$. The kernel takes in input vectors $\bm{y}$, $\bm{v}$ and $\bm{x}$, the latter holding the signal $\bm{x}(t-1)$ recovered during the previous iteration ($\bm{x}(t-1) = 0$ for $t=1$). With reference to Alg. \[algo:ISTA\], line 3, the each $i$-th work-item computes the $i$-th element of $\bm{r}(t)$. Each work-item multiplies the $i$-th row of $\mathbf{A}$ by $\bm{x}(t-1)$ and subtracts the $i$-th $\bm{y}$ component from it). So, a total of $m$ work-items are issued on the GPU to compute the residuals vector $\bm{r}(t)$. Each work-item multiplies the $j$-th element of $\bm{x}$ by the $(i+j) \bmod (n)$-th element of $\bm{v}$. Accumulator $s$ holds the partial results of the inner product computed during the $j$-indexed $for$ loop over the $n$-elements of $\mathbf{A}_i$ and $\bm{x}$. The residual vector $i$-th element $r_i$ is finally stored in global memory, so that can be accessed later on by Kernel \[alg:cpista\_2\] after all $m$ work-items have yielded.
$i \gets {get\_global\_id}(0)$ $s \gets 0$ $s \gets s + v_{i+j \bmod (n)} ~ x_j(t-1)$ $r_i(t) \gets y_i - s$
The kernel in Alg. \[alg:cpista\_2\] performs a soft thresholding and takes care of updating the gradient. The kernel takes in input vectors $\bm{v}$, $\bm{x}$ and $\bm{r}$, the latter holding the residuals $\bm{r}(t)$ computed by Alg. \[alg:cpista\_1\]. As $\bm{x}$ has dimension $n$, $n$ work-items are issued in parallel.\
First, with reference to Alg. \[algo:ISTA\] at line 4, the kernel computes the $i$-th element of the gradient vector $\Delta_i(t)$. The residual element $\Delta_i(t)$ is computed as the a vectorial multiplication between $\mathbf{A}_i^\mathsf{T}$ and the residual vector $\bm{r}(t)$. $\mathbf{A}^\mathsf{T}$ is column-circulant, so $\mathbf{A}^\mathsf{T}_{i,j} = \mathbf{A}_{j,i} = v_{(j+i) \bmod (n)}$: i.e., the kernel accesses the sensing vector $\bm{v}$ starting from position $(j+i)$. The multiplication is performed within the $for$ loop, accumulator $s$ holding the partial results. Then, $s$ is multiplied by the thresholding gradient value $\tau$, obtaining the actual $\Delta_i(t)$.\
Second, with reference to Alg. \[algo:ISTA\] at line 5, the kernel updates the estimate of the $i$-th element of the recovered signal $\bm{x}(t)$. The $i$-th element of signal $\bm{x}$ recovered at the previous iteration, $\bm{x}(t-1)$ is added to the gradient vector $i$-th element held in $s$. Then, the soft thresholding operator in is applied to accumulator $s$. The output of the thresholding operator is stored in global memory as the $i$-th element of the updated recovered signal $\bm{x}(t)$ before the kernel yields.
$i \gets {get\_global\_id}(0)$ $s \gets 0$ $s \gets s + v_{i+j \bmod (n)} ~ r_j (t)$ $s \gets s ~ \tau + x_i(t-1)$ $\widetilde {x}_i(t) \gets \eta_{\alpha}~[s] $
With respect to the PISTA algorithm we described in [@pcs2013], CPISTA boasts the same degree of nominal parallelism but leverages the properties of circulant matrices with the advantages shown in the next section.
PADMM {#sec:padmm}
-----
Finally, we describe PADMM, a hybrid GPU-CPU parallel embodiment of Alg. \[algo:ADMM\] that we use to benchmark CPADMM. Differently from CPADMM, PADMM does not leverage circulant matrices for efficient representation in GPU memory, but otherwise boasts the same degree of nominal parallelism. Therefore, PADMM allows to assess the impact of efficient circulant matrices representation in GPU memory for the same degree of execution parallelism. First, the vectors corresponding to the initial solution $\bm{u}(0) = \bm{z}(0) = 0$ are initialized by the CPU and moved to the GPU memory. Next, the $n \times n$ symmetric positive definite matrix $\mathbf{B} = \mathbf{A}^\mathsf{T} \mathbf{A}+\rho \mathbf{I}$ (line 1 of Alg. \[algo:ADMM\]) is precomputed on the CPU and is stored in the GPU memory. Then, vector $\mathbf{A}^\mathsf{T}~\bm{y}$ (line 4) is constant over time so is precomputed on the GPU and stored in GPU memory. Similarly, $\mathbf{A}^\mathsf{T}\bm{y} + \rho (\bm{z}(t-1) - \bm{u}(t-1))$ (line 4) is precomputed on the CPU and stored in the GPU memory as the $n \times 1$ vector $\mathbf{C}(t)$. As the initial solution is $\bm{u}(0) = \bm{z}(0) = 0$, we have that $\mathbf{C}(0) = \mathbf{A}^\mathsf{T} \bm{y}$.
PADMM implements the rest of Alg. \[algo:ADMM\] on the GPU via two OpenCL kernels as follows.\
The first kernel takes as input matrix $\mathbf{B}$, vector $\mathbf{C}(t)$ and the dual variables computed at the previous iteration $\bm{u}(t-1)$, $\bm{z}(t-1)$. A number of $n$ work-items of the kernel are issued in parallel. The kernel updates the $i$-th element of the recovered signal $x_i(t)$ and of the dual variables $u_i(t)$ and $z_i(t)$.\
The second kernel updates vector $\mathbf{C}(t)$, computing the $i$-the element of $\mathbf{C}$ as $\mathbf{C}_i = \rho~(z_i - u_i)~~+~~(\mathbf{A}^\mathsf{T}~\bm{y})_i$. A number of $n$ work-items of the kernel are issued in parallel.
Experiments {#sec:experiments}
===========
In this section, we experiment with our proposed algorithms recovering a sparse signal $\bm{x}^{\star}$ of size $n$ where $\bm{x}^{\star}$ is randomly generated so that $k \le n$ elements are different from zero, and each of them is drawn from a Gaussian distribution. Signal $\bm{x}^{\star}$ is sampled as $\bm{y} = \mathbf{A}\bm{x}^{\star}$, where $\mathbf{A}$ is an $m \times n$ circulant matrix with entries drawn from a standard Gaussian distribution. In all of the following experiments, we consider $m = \frac{n}{2}$ and $k \simeq \frac{n}{10}$.
Our experimental testbed is a four-way workstation for a total of 32 CPU cores and equipped with 32 GB of RAM. The workstation is also equipped with an OpenCL-capable NVIDIA Titan X GPU, which includes 3072 CUDA cores based on the *Maxwell* microarchitecture and 12 GB of memory. In our experiments we consider multiple performance metrics. First, we use as recovery error metrics the mean square error (MSE), which is defined as:
$$\text{MSE}=\frac{\left\|\bm{x}^{\star}-\bm{x} \right\|_2^2}{n}$$ where $\bm{x}$ is the estimated recovered signal. We consider the signal *recovered* when the recovery error falls below a target error equal to $10^{-4}$. Therefore, we define *recovery time* the time required to recover the signal with an MSE equal or lower to $10^{-4}$. Second, we define *memory footprint* the amount of GPU memory required by a particular algorithm to recover our test signal. The footprint is logged at runtime using the *nvidia-smi* tool, which measures the actual amount of allocated GPU memory. In all the following experiments, we set $\alpha=10^{-4}$ and $\sigma=\tau=10^{-1}$, which enables a reasonable tradeoff between probability to recover the signal and recovery speed. In all the below experiments, CPADMM identifies our parallel, circulant-enabled, ADMM version we proposed in Sec. \[sec:cpadmm\]. The PADMM curve corresponds instead to the parallel, circulant-unaware, ADMM reference implementation we described in Sec. \[sec:padmm\]. Similarly,the CPISTA curve corresponds to our parallel, circulant-enabled, ISTA version we proposed in Sec. \[sec:cpista\]. The PISTA curve finally corresponds to the parallel, circulant-unaware, ISTA version we proposed in [@pcs2013].
To start with, Fig. \[fig:footprint\] compares the algorithms memory footprint as a function of the signal size $n$. We recall that in our implementations all numbers are represented over 4-bytes floats and nvidia-smi reports that about 112 MB of GPU memory are allocated during the initialization stage of each algorithm. The experiment verifies that PISTA and PADMM footprint increases quadratically with $n$. In fact, PADMM footprint is driven mainly by matrix $\mathbf{B}$ footprint, which increases as $n^2$. Similarly, PISTA stores in GPU memory the $m~\times~n$ sensing matrix $\mathbf{A}$ and its transpose $\mathbf{A}^{\mathsf{T}}$, so its footprint grows nearly as $n^2$. For example, recovering a VGA image (640$\times$480 pixels, i.e. $n \simeq 2^{18}$) with ISTA or ADMM would require more than the 16 GigaBytes of GPU memory available on our Titan X board. Conversely, CPADMM and CPISTA footprint grows only linearly with $n$ (namely, it is equal to $4n$ for CPISTA and $10n$ for CPADMM in our implementations). For example, recovering a VGA image with CPADMM or CPISTA would takes only about 5 and 12 megabytes of GPU memory respectively.\
Concluding, we showed that circulant matrices allow CPADMM and CPISTA to recover large signals that standard PADMM and ISTA would simply be unable to deal with due to their inherent memory requirements.
Next, Fig. \[fig:recovery\_time\_admm\] shows ADMM recovery time as a function of the sampled signal size $n$. First, we measure the recovery time without accounting for the initial inversions time (PADMM and CPADMM curves). CPADMM recovers the signal on the GPU about 10 times faster than PADMM. CPADMM and ADMM boast the same degree of GPU parallelism, so CPADMM performance gain is due to its efficient memory representation of circulant matrices. Efficient access to circulant matrices in GPU memory reduces the number of accesses to unique memory locations, improving the GPU caching mechanism efficiency and reducing recovery time.\
Next, the PADMM-I and CPADMM-I curves account also for the initial inversion time. We recall that in both cases inversions are performed on the CPU. However, PADMM performs a complete inversion whereas CPADMM relies on a fast FFT-based inversion. The large gap between PADMM and PADMM-I curves shows that complete matrix inversion impacts heavily on the overall recovery time (the recovery time increase is over a tenfold factor). Conversely, the gap between CPADMM and CPADMM-I curves shows that the FFT-based matrix inversion complexity is negligible (less than 1 s even for large $n$ values). A comparison between CPADMM-I and PADMM-I also shows that CPADMM overall speedup over PADMM ranges between a 10-fold and an 1000-fold factor depending on $n$.\
Concluding, CPADMM largely outperforms a reference ADMM thanks to efficient inversion and representation in memory of circulant matrices.
Similarly, Fig. \[fig:recovery\_time\_ista\] shows ISTA recovery time as a function of $n$. As a further reference, the figure includes *SIMD-ISTA*, a single-core, CPU-only, ISTA implementation that exploits the SSE SIMD instructions of the x64 architecture (i.e., it offers data-level parallelism on the CPU). PISTA recovery time grows more than linearly with $n$: as the footprint increases, the GPU caching mechanism becomes less effective and memory latency increases. As $n$ increases, the gap between PISTA and SIMD-ISTA becomes thinner, i.e. the GPU effective level of parallelism drops when memory latency increases to the point where a GPU-based version is only marginally better than a CPU-based reference. Conversely, CPISTA recovery time grows almost linearly with $n$ due to the reduced memory footprint that enables efficient use of GPU caching mechanism. Overall, CPISTA logs a 10-fold recovery time reduction over PISTA for large $n$ values.\
Concluding, the experiments show that our CPISTA version significantly speedup the ISTA algorithm increase thanks to efficient representation of circulant matrices in GPU memory.
Fig. \[fig:dista\_time\] shows the ISTA and ADMM algorithmic throughput expressed as number of iterations per second as a function of the signal size $n$. The left graph shows the throughput of our algorithms as measured on our NVIDIA TitanX GPU. The graph provides an insight on why CPADMM and CPISTA iterate faster than their PADMM and PISTA counterparts as shown in Fig.\[fig:recovery\_time\_admm\]. Because of the fewer memory accesses, CPADMM and CPISTA complete each iteration in less time than their counterparts PADMM and PISTA, delivering higher throughput.\
As our OpenCL algorithmic implementation enables us to experiment over different devices simply by switching to the appropriate backend, in the right graph we benchmarked our algorithms over a quad-socket Intel E5-2690 server (eight x64 cores per socket, for a total of 32 x64 cores). The graph shows that the use of circulant matrices improves the ISTA and ADMM performance also over x64 CPUs, albeit the CPUs lower degree of parallelism yields lower overall performance than GPUs.
To acquire a further insight in the role of circulant matrices role in improving the performance of our algorithms, we experimented with CUDA. CUDA is NVIDIA framework for GPU programming and includes highly-optimized libraries for matrix operations such as the *cuBLAS* library. Namely we evaluate the performance of matrix-vector multiplication $\mathbf{A}~\bm{b}$, which are the major sources of ISTA and ADMM complexity where $\mathbf{A}$ is an $n \times n$ matrix of single precision floating point numbers. We consider three different schemes. The Reference scheme is such that for each of the $n$ rows of $\mathbf{A}$, one OpenCL thread is issued. The thread multiplies each element of the i-th row of $\mathbf{A}$ by the i-th element of vector $\bm{b}$ over a for loop, accumulates the partial results in a private accumulator and eventually stores the result back in global memory. In the *Circulant* scheme, $\mathbf{A}$ is assumed to be circulant and therefore each *i*-th thread accesses only the first $\mathbf{A}$ row starting from the *i*-th column and wrapping around the matrix boundary. Finally, in the CUDA scheme the $\mathbf{A}~\bm{b}$ multiplication is executed leveraging the *cublasSgemm()* function provided by *cuBLAS*. We point out that the Reference and CUDA schemes access the same number of unique addresses in global memory during the fetch stage, which is equal to $2n+n$. Conversely, the Circulant scheme accesses only $2n$ unique locations in global memory. Fig. \[fig:cuda\] shows the average time required by each matrix multiplication for each considered scheme. The CUDA scheme performs better than Reference for any $n$ and performs better than Circulant for small $n$ values. However, as $n$ increases, the Circulant scheme performs increasingly better than CUDA due to the fewer accesses to global memory. Concluding, a straightforward matrix-vector multiplication scheme that leverages the properties of circulant matrices outperforms highly efficient matrix-vector implementation as the algorithm working set increases in reason to the fewer accesses to the global memory.
Finally, Fig. \[fig:graph\_ista\_vs\_admm\] shows the recovery error of our algorithms over time for a fixed signal size $n = 2^{15}$. Notice that for PADMM and CPADMM, we account also for the initial inversion time. CPADMM and CPISTA error decreases faster than PADMM and PISTA for the reasons explained above. ADMM is such that the recovery error remains constant until the initial inversions is completed, as the actual signal recovery begins only afterwards. Conversely, CPISTA error starts to decrease immediately, and for targets MSE above 0.05, CPISTA converges faster than CPADMM in this experiment.\
This experiment suggest that, depending on the considered target error, CPISTA may recover the signal (i.e., achieve the target error rate) faster than CPADMM, albeit the latter converges faster to very small target error values.
An Application: Compressed Image Deblurring {#sec:deblurring}
===========================================
In this section we demonstrate the CPADMM algorithm in deblurring a compressed astronomical image. Astronomical images are often affected by blurring due to the atmospheric turbulence [@ami13], thus deblurring is required. Generally speaking, blur can be modeled as the convolution between a blurring filter $\mathbf{B}$ and image $\bm{x}$: the result is the observed blurred image. Deblurring the image may be achieved by inverse-recovering the signal $\bm{x}$ convolved with filter $\mathbf{B}$, but such practice is not recommended for it may amplify the noise.
Several convolutional filters can be however represented by circulant matrices. Considering a filter of order $L$, the blurring matrix $\mathbf{B}$ is obtained by right-circulating a vector with the first $L$ components equal to $\frac{1}{L}$ and zero otherwise. Let the blurring matrix $\mathbf{B}$ be a $n \times n$ circulant matrix: we can multiply it by a circulant $m \times n$ sensing matrix $\mathbf{C} (m < n)$, and obtain a circulant $m \times n$ matrix $\mathbf{A}=\mathbf{C}\mathbf{B}$. If image $\bm{x}$ is sparse as many astronomical images are, the problem of recovering $\bm{x}$ given $\bm{y}=\mathbf{A}\bm{x}$ can be recast as a CS problem where $\mathbf{A}$ is a circulant sensing matrix. In other words, we can jointly sparse-sample and deblur the observed signal to perform a *compressed deblurring*, for example solving the LASSO problem.
Fig. \[fig:deblurring\_a\] (*a*) shows the $1024 \times 1024$ pixel image used for the experiment: it depicts *Abell 2744* (also known as *Pandora’s box*) cluster as captured by the Hubble telescope. The image is represented as vector $\bm{x}$ of size $n \simeq 10^6$ and is naturally sparse, as many pixel are almost black, with a sparsity of about $10\%$ of the signal size. We apply a one-dimensional blurring filter $\mathbf{B}$ of order $L=5$ obtaining a blurred image representing the same scene as observed on Earth accounting for atmospheric turbulence. Fig. \[fig:deblurring\_b\] (*b*) shows the same image as acquired from a hypothetical observer on Earth: the blurring effect is visible with the naked eye. We sparse-sample the blurred image with $m = \frac{n}{2}$ and process the samples with the CPADMM algorithm ($\alpha = 10^{-2}$). Fig. \[fig:deblurring\_c\] (*c*) shows the image as recovered via CPADMM after about 300 iterations and 3 hours of processing (the original-recovered MSE is in the order of $10^{-2}$, and the corresponding normalized MSE is in the order of $10^{-4}$). A comparison with Fig. \[fig:deblurring\_a\] (*a*) reveals that the recovered image is more crisp than the acquired image thanks to the removal of the blurring artifacts. Fig. \[fig:deblurring\_d\] (*d*) additionally shows the pixel-wise absolute error between the recovered image and the original image normalized with respect to the original image mean intensity value (its mean value is equal to 0.0157). A comparison of the original and the recovered images shows that no portions of the recovered image are significantly degraded, and thus the recovery process is satisfying from a perceptual perspective. Finally, the corresponding memory footprint is equal to 163 Mbytes, that is our CPADMM only required 163 Mbytes of GPU memory to recover this image.Such figure is well within the capabilities of modern desktop-class GPUs, which enables to recover of large imaging signals even with consumer-grade electronics.
Conclusions and Lessons Learned {#sec:conclusions}
===============================
We described CPISTA and CPADMM, two parallel algorithms for sparse image recovery that leverage the properties of circulant matrices to speedup the signal recovery process. Namely, the properties of circulant matrices are key to reduce the number of sequential accesses to global memory, increasing the algorithms practically attainable level of parallelism. Our algorithms are implemented in OpenCL language, enabling straightforward deployment on GPUs and multicore CPUs. Our experiments showed up to tenfold gains over reference algorithms that do not leverage circulant matrices properties. Finally, we practically demonstrated deblurring a megapixel ($10^6$ pixel) image on a desktop GPU, showing that circulant matrices enable recovering even large signal with limited hardware requirements.
[^1]: This work was supported by the European Research Council under FP7 / ERC, Grant agreement n.279848 - CRISP project.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
In preparation for a set of hydrodynamical simulations of core-collapse supernovae and protoneutron star winds, we investigate the rates of production and thermalization of $\nu_\mu$ and $\nu_\tau$ neutrinos in dense nuclear matter. Included are contributions from electron scattering, electron-positron annihilation, nucleon-nucleon bremsstrahlung, and nucleon scattering. We find that nucleon scattering dominates electron scattering as a thermalization process at neutrino energies greater than $\sim$15 MeV. In addition, nucleon-nucleon bremsstrahlung dominates electron-positron annihilation as a production mechanism at low neutrino energies, near and below the $\nu_\mu$ and $\nu_\tau$ neutrinosphere.
Furthermore, we have begun a study of steady-state general relativistic protoneutron star winds employing simple neutrino heating and cooling terms. From this analysis we obtain acceleration profiles as well as asymptotic lepton fractions and baryon entropies essential in assessing the wind as a potential site for $r$-process nucleosynthesis.
address:
- 'Department of Physics, The University of Arizona, Tucson 85721'
- 'Steward Observatory and Department of Astronomy, The University of Arizona, Tucson 85721'
author:
- 'Todd A. Thompson [^1] and Adam Burrows [^2]'
title: Neutrino Processes in Supernovae and the Physics of Protoneutron Star Winds
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
The cores of protoneutron stars and core-collapse supernovae are unique environments in nature. They are characterized by mass densities of order $\sim 10^{11}-10^{15}$ g cm$^{-3}$ and temperatures that range from $\sim 1$ to $50$ MeV. At these temperatures and densities neutrinos of all species are produced in proliferation via electron-positron annihilation ($e^+e^-\leftrightarrow \nu\bar{\nu}$), nucleon-nucleon bremsstrahlung, and plasmon decay ($\gamma_{pl}\leftrightarrow\nu\bar{\nu}$). While these processes contribute for the electron types ($\nu_e$s and $\bar{\nu}_e$s), for them the charged-current absorption and emission processes $\nu_e n\leftrightarrow p e^-$ and $\bar{\nu}_ep\leftrightarrow ne^+$ dominate. Neutrino-electron and neutrino-nucleon scattering also contribute to the total opacity. All of these interactions combine to couple the neutrinos to dense nuclear matter, affecting energy transport from the core where the neutrinos are diffusive to the more tenuous outer layers where the neutrinos begin to free-stream. Indeed, the neutrino heating in the semi-transparent region behind the shock is now thought to be an essential ingredient in igniting the supernova explosion itself [@colgate; @bethe; @bhf_1995]. Furthermore, a neutrino-driven protoneutron star wind is thought to be a general feature of the core-collapse phenomenon and has been proposed as a site for $r$-process nucleosynthesis.
Essential in understanding the mechanism of Type-II supernovae is an accurate prediction of the production spectrum for each neutrino species. To this end, in §2 we present results of a thermalization and equilibration study of $\mu$ and $\tau$ neutrinos in dense matter.
Separately, in §3 we present preliminary results from calculations of steady-state protoneutron star winds in general relativity. We include velocity profiles, asymptotic entropies, and expansion timescales central in assessing this site as a candidate for $r$-process nucleosynthesis.
Thermalization and Production
=============================
For $\nu_\mu$ and $\nu_\tau$ neutrino types (collectively ‘$\nu_\mu$s’), which carry away 50$-$60% of the $\sim 2-3\times 10^{53}$ ergs liberated during collapse and explosion, the prevailing opacity and production sources are $\nu_\mu$-electron scattering, $\nu_\mu$-nucleon scattering, $e^+e^-$ annihilation, and nucleon-nucleon bremsstrahlung. The charged-current reactions dominate the electron-type transport so completely that we do not consider them here. Our focus is on (1) the role of $\nu_\mu$-nucleon scattering relative to $\nu_\mu$-electron scattering in thermalizing $\nu_\mu$ neutrinos and (2) the importance of bremsstrahlung as compared with $e^+e^-$ annihilation as a producer of $\nu_\mu\bar{\nu}_\mu$ pairs.
Supernova theorists had long held [@lamb_pethick] that $\nu_\mu$-nucleon scattering did not aid in thermalizing any neutrino species. While the process was included as a source of opacity [@bhf_1995; @bruenn_1985] it served only to redistribute the neutrinos in space, not in energy. In contrast, $\nu_\mu$-electron scattering was thought to dominate as a thermalizer of $\nu_\mu$s. In addition, the only $\nu_\mu\bar{\nu}_\mu$ pair production mechanisms employed in full supernova calculations were $e^+e^-\leftrightarrow \nu_\mu\bar{\nu}_\mu$ and plasmon decay ($\gamma_{\rm pl}\leftrightarrow \nu_\mu\bar{\nu}_\mu$) [@bruenn_1985]. Nucleon-nucleon bremsstrahlung, while recognized as a late-time cooling mechanism for more mature neutron stars [@fsb_1975; @friman], was neglected in supernova theory. Recent developments, however, call both these practices into question and motivate a re-evaluation of these processes in the supernova context. In the last few years, analytic formulae for $\nu_\mu$-nucleon have been derived that include the full kinematics and final-state Pauli blocking, at arbitrary nucleon degeneracy, at the temperatures and densities encountered in the core of a core-collapse supernova [@reddy_1998; @burrows_sawyer; @bs_1999; @reddy_1999]. These efforts reveal that the average energy transfer in $\nu_\mu$-nucleon scattering may surpass previous estimates by an order of magnitude and, hence, that this process may compete with $\nu_\mu$-electron scattering as an equilibration mechanism [@keil_1995; @janka_1996; @raffelt_seckel; @sigl_1997]. Similarly, estimates of the nucleon-nucleon bremsstrahlung rate have been obtained [@fsb_1975; @friman; @burrows_1999; @hannestad] which indicate that this process can compete with $e^+e^-$ annihilation in the dense core.
In order to compare these scattering and production processes directly, we solve the Boltzmann equation for the time evolution of the neutrino phase-space distribution function (${\cal F}_\nu$) in an idealized system with no spatial or angular gradients. We consider an isotropic homogeneous thermal bath of scatterers and absorbers held at constant temperature, density, and electron fraction. For the scattering processes, we begin the equilibration calculation at $t=0$ with a $\nu_\mu$ distribution function with a characteristic temperature of twice that of the surrounding matter. We then evolve this distribution function using the full collision integral of the Boltzmann equation, with the structure function formalism of Burrows and Sawyer (1998) [@burrows_sawyer] and Reddy [*et al.*]{} (1998) [@reddy_1998]. When equilibrium is reached the final distribution is Fermi-Dirac, at the temperature of the surrounding matter, with chemical potential set by the initial neutrino number density ($n_\nu$), conserved to better than 0.0001% throughout the calculation. For the production and absorption processes we begin with zero phase-space occupancy for both $\nu_\mu$ and $\bar{\nu}_\mu$ at all energies and let bremsstrahlung and $e^+e^-$ annihilation each build an equilibrium distribution of neutrinos and anti-neutrinos. $e^+e^-$ annihilation is calculated in a Legendre polynomial expansion [@bruenn_1985]. The production rate via nucleon-nucleon bremsstrahlung is calculated in a one-pion exchange model with arbitrary nucleon degeneracy [@brinkmann; @thompson_2000]. As a check to the calculation, the final distribution should have a characteristic temperature of the ambient matter with zero neutrino chemical potential.
The left panel of Fig. \[one\] shows the thermalization rates for $\nu_\mu n$ and $\nu_\mu e^-$ scattering, defined in terms of the average energy transfer ($\omega$) at that energy, in equilibrium. The calculation was performed with $T\simeq6.1$ MeV and $\rho\simeq1.1\times10^{12}$ g cm$^{-3}$. These thermodynamic conditions are representative of the $\nu_\mu$ neutrinosphere, the semi-transparent regime where the neutrinos begin to decouple from the matter and free-stream to infinity. Most noticeable in this graph is the fact that while $\nu_\mu e^-$ scattering dominates at low energies ($< 10$ MeV), at modest and high energies $\nu_\mu n$ scattering competes with or dominates thermalization. Throughout our calculations, at a variety of densities, temperatures, and compositions, we find this behavior to be generic for the two scattering processes. Indeed, the point where $\nu_\mu n$ scattering begins to overwhelm $\nu_\mu e^-$ scattering seems always to fall between approximately 10 and 20 MeV.
The right panel of Fig. \[one\] reveals the same type of systematics for the production and absorption processes. In this case, however, we plot the total differential emissivity for nucleon-nucleon bremsstrahlung and $e^+e^-$ annihilation in equilibrium for two different thermodynamic points taken from a one-dimensional core-collapse simulation [@bhf_1995; @thompson_2000]. Bremsstrahlung is clearly the dominant production mechanism at low neutrino energies. In the interior, at densities of order 10$^{13}$ g cm$^{-3}$, $e^+e^-$ annihilation begins to compete only at neutrino energies above 50 MeV. In our time-dependent calculations, we find that bremsstrahlung always dominates production below 10-20 MeV at all points in a representative collapse profile.
Neutrino-Driven Protoneutron Star Winds
=======================================
A complete and self-consistent theory of the origin of all the elements has been the grand program of nuclear astrophysics since the field’s inception. The $r$-process, or rapid neutron capture process, is a mechanism for nucleosynthesis by which seed nuclei neutron capture on timescales shorter than those for $\beta^-$ decay. With a sufficient neutron flux, capture continues to very neutron-rich isotopes and to the heaviest elements (e.g., Eu, Dy, Th, and U) producing unique abundance peaks at $A\sim80$, 130, and 195 [@burbidge; @wallerstein; @meyer_1994]. The $r$-process is only quelled when photodisintegration timescales approach those for neutron capture. After the intense neutron flux lessens, $\beta^-$ decay populates the primary stable isobar for a given atomic number. While the relevant nuclear physics is fairly well understood, the astrophysical site, which must exist in order to produce the elemental abundances we find in nature, is not known. The viability of a site for $r$-process nucleosynthesis hinges on three characteristics: the asymptotic entropy per baryon ($s_f$), the electron fraction ($Y_e$), and the dynamical timescale ($\tau_{\rm dyn}$). One proposed site is the protoneutron star wind that emerges after core collapse and shock reheating during a supernova [@bhf_1995; @meyer_1992; @woosley_hoffman].
Both numerical and analytic studies of the conditions in this neutrino-driven wind have been carried out previously [@dsw; @qian_woosley]. Early calculations based on realistic supernova models produced interesting nucleosynthesis and appreciable $r$-process yields, but overproduced nuclei near $N=50$ ($^{88}$Sr, $^{89}$Y, and $^{90}$Zr) [@woosley_94; @takahashi_94]. This problem was overcome by fine-tuning $Y_e$ in these simulations [@hoffman_1996a], but no consensus on the other parameters (particularly, $s_f$) has yet been reached. The pioneering analytic work of ref. [@qian_woosley] using simple wind models showed that entropies fell short by a factor of $\sim2-3$ of those needed for the dynamic timescales and lepton fractions achieved. In other studies $s_f$ was artificially enhanced by a factor of $\sim5$ to achieve proper solar $r$-process abundances [@takahashi_94]. The fact that these calculations indicate an $s_f$ too low for $r$-process nucleosynthesis does not exclude the wind as a potential site. A slight increase in energy deposition after the wind’s acceleration phase [@qian_woosley] or the effects of general relativity have been shown to decrease $\tau_{\rm dyn}$ and increase $s_f$ [@cardall], both favorable to nucleosynthesis. Recent general relativistic steady-state and hydrodynamical studies indicate that winds can generate all three $r$-process abundance peaks only when the protoneutron star is quite massive $\sim2\,M_\odot$ [@otsuki; @sumiyoshi] and the total neutrino luminosity large ($\sim10^{52}$ erg s$^{-1}$). These condition produce modest entropies ($\sim130$ baryon$^{-1}$ k$_{\rm B}^{-1}$), but short $\tau_{\rm dyn}\sim6$ ms.
The wind equations can be reduced to three ordinary coupled, critical differential equations for the evolution of temperature ($T$), mass density ($\rho$), and velocity ($v$) in radius. $Y_e$ is held constant. Solving these equations constitutes an eigenvalue problem. The eigenvalue sought is the mass outflow rate $\dot{M}=4\pi r^2 \rho v$, or, alternatively, the critical radius ($R_c$) where $v(R_c)=c_s$, the local speed of sound. In practice, we impose two boundary conditions at the protoneutron star surface ($R_o$), which we take to be the $\nu_e$ neutrinosphere: (1) $T(R_o)=T_{\nu_e}$ and (2) $\tau_\nu(R_o)=-\int\kappa_\nu\rho\,dr=2/3$, where $\tau_\nu$ is the neutrino optical depth. A third constraint must be imposed if we are to close the system of equations. This we take to be the critical condition, $v(R_c)=c_s$, which defines the outer radial boundary. The system, now well-posed, can be solved using a relaxation technique on an adaptive radial grid [@london]. The code then adjusts the radial mesh in a Newton-Raphson sense in order to fulfill all boundary conditions simultaneously. Once the critical point is determined, we use l’Hospital’s rule to bridge it and then integrate to infinity using a simple Runga-Kutta scheme.
The results of a preliminary and representative general relativistic calculation are shown in Fig. \[two\]. The left panel shows velocity profiles for a variety of $\bar{\nu}_e$ luminosities, for a protoneutron star mass $M=1.4M_\odot$ and radius $R_o=10$ km. This range of neutrino luminosities is indicative of the first $\sim8-10$ seconds of the protoneutron star’s life. The right panel is a plot of the asymptotic entropy per baryon per Boltzmann constant versus $\tau_{\rm dyn}$ for the same protoneutron star. Note that these calculations were carried out with constant $Y_e=0.302$.
In general, we find that higher entropies and shorter dynamical timescales result from the use of general relativity instead of Newtonian gravity. For the 1.4 $M_\odot$ object we consider here, however, we do not achieve entropies and timescales appropriate for $r$-process nucleosynthesis [@hoffman_1996a; @otsuki; @sumiyoshi].
Summary and Conclusions
=======================
Our results for equilibration via $\nu_\mu$-electron scattering and $\nu_\mu$-nucleon scattering demonstrate that the latter competes with or dominates the former as a thermalizer for neutrino energies $>10$ MeV for $\rho>1\times10^{11}$ g cm$^{-3}$ at all temperatures. At neutrino energies $>30$ MeV, the difference at all densities and temperatures is approximately an order of magnitude. For the production and absorption processes, we find that nucleon-nucleon bremsstrahlung, at the average energy of an equilibrium Fermi-Dirac distribution at the local temperature, is 2 orders of magnitude faster than $e^+e^-$ annihilation at $T\sim15$ MeV and $\rho\sim10^{13}$ g cm$^{-3}$. Only for $\rho\sim10^{12}$ g cm$^{-3}$ and $T\sim6$ MeV does $e^+e^-\leftrightarrow\nu_\mu\bar{\nu}_\mu$ begin to compete with bremsstrahlung at all energies. We conclude from this study that the emergent $\nu_\mu$ and $\nu_\tau$ spectrum is (1) brighter and (2) softer than previously estimated [@burrows_1999]. The former results from the inclusion of the new pair emission process, nucleon-nucleon bremsstrahlung. The latter is a consequence of both the increased energy coupling between the nuclear and neutrino fluids through $\nu_\mu$-nucleon scattering and the fact that bremsstrahlung dominates $e^+e^-$ annihilation near the neutrinospheres at the lowest neutrino energies.
In addition, our first step in the calculation of realistic protoneutron star wind models has been successful; we have created a robust technique for solving the steady-state eigenvalue problem and have confirmed the results of other researchers qualitatively. We plan to explore the parameter space of protoneutron star winds exhaustively with an eye toward implementing full neutrino transport in a hydrodynamic simulation of wind emergence and evolution.
Acknowledgments
===============
The authors would like to thank the Nuclei in the Cosmos, 2000, organizing committee. T.A.T. acknowledges the support of a NASA GSRP grant.
[9]{} S. A. Colgate and R. H. White, Astrophys. J. [**143**]{}, 626 (1966). H. Bethe and J. R. Wilson, Astrophys. J. [**295**]{}, 14 (1985). A. Burrows, J. Hayes, and B. A. Fryxell, Astrophys. J., [**450**]{}, 830 (1995). D. Lamb and C. Pethick, Astrophys. J., [**209**]{}, L77 (1976). S. Bruenn, Astrophys. J. Supp., [bf 58]{}, 771 (1985). E. G. Flowers, P. G. Sutherland, and J. R. Bond, Phys. Rev. D, [**12**]{}, 2 (1975). B. L. Friman and O.V. Maxwell, Astrophys. J., [**232**]{}, 541 (1979). S. Reddy, M. Prakash, and J. M. Lattimer, Phys. Rev. D, [**58**]{}, 013009 (1998). A. Burrows and R. Sawyer, Phys. Rev. C, [**58**]{}, 554 (1998). A. Burrows and R. Sawyer, Phys. Rev. C, [**59**]{}, 510 (1999). S. Reddy, M. Prakash, J. M. Lattimer, and J. A. Pons, Phys. Rev C [**59**]{}, 2888 (1999). W. Keil, H.-T. Janka, and G. G. Raffelt, Phys. Rev. D, [**51**]{}, 6635 (1995). H.-T. Janka, W. Keil, G. Raffelt, and D. Seckel, Phys. Rev Lett. [**76**]{}, 2621 (1996). G. Raffelt and D. Seckel, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**69**]{}, 2605 (1998). G. Sigl, Phys. Rev. D [**56**]{}, 3179 (1997). A. Burrows, T. Young, P. Pinto, R. Eastman, and T. A. Thompson, Astrophys. J., [**539**]{}, 865 (2000). S. Hannestad and G. Raffelt, Astrophys. J., [**507**]{}, 339 (1998). R. P. Brinkmann and M. S. Turner, Phys. Rev. D, [**38**]{}, 8, 2338 (1988). T. A. Thompson, A. Burrows, and J. E. Horvath, Phys. Rev. C, [**62**]{}, 035802 (2000). E. M. Burbidge, G. R. Burbidge, W. A. Fowler, and F. Hoyle, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**29**]{}, 547 (1957). G. Wallerstein, I. Iben, P. Parker, A. M. Boesgaard, G. M. Hale, A. E. Champagne, C. A. Barnes, F. Käppeler, V. V. Smith, R. D. Hoffman, F. X. Timmes, C. Sneden, R. N. Boyd, B. S. Meyer, and D. L. Lambert, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**69**]{}, 995 (1997). B. S. Meyer, Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. [**32**]{}, 153 (1994). B. S. Meyer, W. M. Howard, G. J. Mathews, S. E. Woosley, and R. D. Hoffman, Astrophys. J. [**399**]{}, 656 (1992). S. E. Woosley and R. D. Hoffman, Astrophys. J. [**395**]{}, 202 (1992). R. C. Duncan, S. L. Shapiro, and I. Wasserman, Astrophys. J. [**309**]{}, 141 (1986). Y.-Z. Qian and S. E. Woosley, Astrophys. J. [**471**]{}, 331 (1996). S. E. Woosley, J. R. Wilson, G. J. Matthews, R. D. Hoffman, and B. S. Meyer, Astrophys. J. [**433**]{}, 229 (1994). K. Takahashi, J. Witti, and H.-T. Janka, Astron. Astrophys. [**286**]{}, 857 (1994). R. D. Hoffman, S. E. Woosley, G. M. Fuller, and B. S. Meyer, Astrophys. J. [**460**]{}, 478 (1996). C. Y. Cardall and G. M. Fuller, Astrophys. J. [**486**]{}, L111 (1997). K. Otsuki, H. Tagoshi, T. Kajino, and S. Wanajo, Astrophys. J., [**533**]{} (2000). K. Sumiyoshi, H. Suzuki, K. Otsuki, M. Terasawa, and S. Yamada, astro-ph/9912156 (1999). R. A. London and B. P. Flannery, Astrophys. J., [**258**]{} (1982).
to
to
[^1]: Electronic Address: [email protected]
[^2]: Electronic Address: [email protected]
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: '[*The Heat theorem reveals the second law of equilibrium Thermodynamics (i.e.existence of Entropy) as a manifestation of a general property of Hamiltonian Mechanics and of the Ergodic Hypothesis, valid for $1$ as well as $10^{23}$ degrees of freedom systems, [*i.e.*]{} for simple as well as very complex systems, and reflecting the Hamiltonian nature of the microscopic motion. In Nonequilibrium Thermodynamics theorems of comparable generality do not seem to be available. Yet it is possible to find general, model independent, properties valid even for simple chaotic systems ([*i.e.*]{} the hyperbolic ones), which acquire special interest for large systems: the Chaotic Hypothesis leads to the Fluctuation Theorem which provides general properties of certain very large fluctuations and reflects the time-reversal symmetry. Implications on Fluids and Quantum systems are briefly hinted. The physical meaning of the Chaotic Hypothesis, of SRB distributions and of the Fluctuation Theorem is discussed in the context of their interpretation and relevance in terms of Coarse Grained Partitions of phase space. This review is written taking some care that each section and appendix is readable either independently of the rest or with only few cross references.*]{}'
author:
- |
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Giovanni Gallavotti</span>[^1]\
Dipartimento di Fisica and INFN\
Università di Roma [*La Sapienza*]{}\
P. A. Moro 2, 00185, Roma, Italy\
`[email protected]`
bibliography:
- '0Bibcaos.bib'
title: |
**Heat and Fluctuations from\
Order to Chaos**
---
The Heat Theorem {#sec1}
================
An important contribution of Boltzmann to Physics as well as to research methods in Physics has been the [*Heat Theorem*]{}.
Summarizing here an intellectual development, spanning about twenty years of work, the [*Heat Theorem*]{} for systems of particles of positions $\V q$ and momenta $\V p$, whose dynamics is modeled by a Hamiltonian of the form $H=K(\V p)+ W(\V q)$, $K=\frac1{2m}\V p^2$, can be formulated as follows
\(a) Identification of $T$ with the average kinetic energy had been for Boltzmann a starting point, assumed a priori, from the works of Krönig and Clausius of a few years earlier (all apparently unaware, as everybody else, of the works of Bernoulli, Herapath, Waterstone, [@Br03]).\
(b) Connection with observations is made by identifying curves in parameter space, $t\to\Ba(t)$, with [*reversible processes*]{}. And in an infinitesimal process, defined by a line element $d\Ba$, the quantity $pdV$ is identified with the work the system performs, $dU$ with the energy variation and $dQ=dU+pdV$ as the heat absorbed. Then relation Eq.(\[1.1\]) implies that Carnot machines have the highest efficiency. The latter is one of the forms of the second law, which leads to the existence of entropy as a function of state in macroscopic Thermodynamics, [@Ze68].\
(c) Eq.(\[1.1\]), combined with the (independent) assumption that heat extracted at a fixed temperature cannot be fully transformed into work, implies that in any process $\frac{dQ}T\le dS$. Hence in isolated systems changing equilibrium state cannot make entropy decrease, or in colorful language the [*entropy of the Universe cannot decrease*]{}, [@Fe63 p. I-44-12]. Actually by suitably defining what is meant by irreversible process it is possible to reach the conclusion that, unless the change of equilibrium state is achieved via a reversible process, the entropy of an isolated system does increase strictly, [@Ze68]. Conceptually, however, this is an addition to the second law, [@Fe63 p. I-44-13].
Examples of control parameters are simply $U,V$, or $T,V$, or $p,V$. The theorem holds under some hypotheses which evolved from
\(a) all motions are periodic (1866)\
(b) aperiodic motions can be considered periodic with infinite period (!), [@Bo66].\
(c) motion visits all phase space of given total energy: in modern terminology this is the [*ergodic hypothesis*]{} (1868-1884), [@Bo884].
The guiding idea was that Eq.(\[1.1\]) would be true for all systems described by a Hamiltonian $H=K+W$: [*no matter whether having few or many degrees of freedom*]{}, as long as the ergodic hypothesis could be supposed true.
In other words Eq.(\[1.1\]) should be considered as a consequence of the Hamiltonian nature of motions: it is true for all systems whether with one degree of freedom (as in the 1866 paper by Boltzmann) or with $10^{19}$ degrees of freedom (as in the 1884 paper by Boltzmann).
It is, in a sense, a property of the particular Hamiltonian structure of Newton’s equations (Hamiltonian given as sum of kinetc plus potential energy with kinetic energy equal to $\sum_i\frac12{\V
p}_i^2$ and potential energy purely positional). True for all (ergodic) systems: trivial for $1$ degree of freedom, a surprising curiosity for few degrees and an important law of Nature for $10^{19}$ degrees of freedom (as in $1\,cm^3$ of ${\rm H_2}$).
The aspect of Boltzmann’s approach that will be retained here is that some universal laws merely reflect basic properties of the equations of motion which may have deep consequences in large systems: the roots of the second Law can be found, [@Bo66], in the simple properties of the pendulum motion.
Realizing the mechanical meaning of the second law induced the birth of the theory of ensembles, developed by Boltzmann between 1871 (as recognized by Gibbs in the introduction to his treatise) and 1884, hence of Statistical Mechanics.
Another example of the kind are the reciprocal relations of Onsager, which reflect time reversal symmetry of the Hamiltonian systems considered above. Reciprocity relations are a first step towards understanding non equilibrium properties. They impose strong constraints on transport coefficients, [*i.e.*]{} on the $\V
E$-derivatives of various average currents induced by external forces of intensities $\V E=(E_1,\ldots,E_n)$, which disturb the system from an equilibrium state into a new [*stationary state*]{}. The derivation leads to the quantitative form of reciprocity which is expressed by the “Fluctuation-Dissipation Theorems”, [*i.e.*]{} by the Green-Kubo formulae, expressing the transport coefficient of a current in terms of the mean square fluctuations of its long time averages.
In the above Boltzmann’s papers (as well as in several other of his works) Thermodynamics is derived on the assumption that motions are periodic, hence very regular: see the above mentioned ergodic hypothesis. Nevertheless heat is commonly regarded as associated with the chaotic motions of molecules and thermal phenomena are associated with fluctuations due to chaotic motions at molecular level. A theme that is pursued in this paper it to investigate how to reconcile opposites like order and chaos within a unified approach so general to cover not only equilibrium Statistical Mechanics, but many aspects of nonequilibrium stationary states. An overview is in the first thiteen sections, while the appendices enter into technical details, still keeping at a heuristic level in discusing a matter that is often given little conideration by Physicists because of its widespread reputation of being just abstract Mathematics: hopefully this will help to divulge a theory which is not only simple conceptually nut it seems promising of further developments.
The above comment is meant also to explain the meaning of the title of this paper.
Time Reversal Symmetry {#sec2}
======================
In a way transport coefficients are still equilibrium properties and nothing is implied by reciprocity when $\V E$ is strictly $\ne\V 0$.
It is certainly interesting to investigate whether time reversal has important implications in systems which are really out of equilibrium, [*i.e.*]{} subject to non conservative forces which generate currents (transporting mass, or charge, or heat or several of such quantities).
There have been many attempts in this direction: it is important to quote the reference [@BK81a] which summarizes a series of works by a Russian school and completes them. In this paper an extension of the Fluctuation-Dissipation theorem, as a reflection of time reversal, is presented, deriving relations which, after having been further developed, have become known as “work theorems” and/or “transient fluctuation theorems” for transformations of systems out of equilibrium, [@Ja97; @Ja99; @ES94; @Cr99; @CG99; @Ga06b].
For definiteness it is worth recalling that a dynamical system with equations $\dot x= f(x)$ in phase space, whose motions will be given by maps $t\to S_t x$, is called “reversible” if there is a smooth ([*i.e.*]{} continuously differentiable) isometry $I$ of phase space, anticommuting with $S_t$ and involutory, [*i.e.*]{}
I S\_t=S\_[-t]{}I,I\^2=1\[2.1\]Usually, if $x=(\V p,\V q)$, time reversal is simply $I(\V p,\V q)=(-\V
p,\V q)$.
The main difficulty in studying nonequilibrium statistical Mechanics is that, after realizing that one should first understand the properties of stationary states, considered as natural extensions of the equilibrium states, it becomes clear that the microscopic description [*cannot be Hamiltonian*]{}.
This is because a current arising from the action of a nonconservative force continuously generates “heat” in the system. Heat has to be taken out to allow reaching a steady state. This is empirically done by putting the system in contact with one or more thermostats. In models, thermostats are just forces which act performing work balancing, at least in average, that produced by the external forces, [*i.e.*]{} they “model heat extraction”.
It is not obvious how to model a thermostat; and any thermostat model is bound to be considered “unphysical” in some respects. This is not surprising, but it is expected that most models introduced to describe a given physical phenomenon should be “equivalent”.
Sometimes it is claimed that the only physically meaningful thermostats for nonequilibrium systems (in stationary states) are made by infinite ($3$-dimensional) systems which, asymptotically at infinity, are in statistical equilibrium. In the latter cases it is not even necessary to introduce [*ad hoc*]{} forces to remove the heat: [*motion remains Hamiltonian*]{} and heat flows towards infinity.
Although the latter is certainly a good and interesting model, as underlined already in [@FV63], it should be stressed that it is mathematically intractable unless the infinite systems are “free”. [*i.e.*]{} without internal interaction other than linear, [@FV63; @HL73b; @EPR99; @APJP06; @HI05].
And one can hardly consider such assumption more physical than the one of finite thermostats. Furthermore it is not really clear whether a linear external dynamics can be faithful to Physics, as shown by the simple one dimensional XY-models, see [@ABGM72] where a linear thermostat dynamics with a single temperature leads a system to a stationary state, as expected, but the state is not a Gibbs state (at any temperature). The method followed in [@ABGM72], based on [@BD69], can be used to illustrate some problems which can arise when thermostats are classical free systems, see Appendix A4.
Point of view {#sec3}
=============
The restriction to finite thermostats, followed here, is not chosen because infinite thermostats should be considered unphysical, but rather because it is a fact that the recent progress in nonequilibrium theory can be traced to
\(a) the realization of the interest of restricting attention to [*stationary states*]{}, or [*steady states*]{}, reached under forcing (rather than discussing approach to equilibrium, or to stationarity).
\(b) the simulations on steady states performed in the 80’s after the essential role played by [*finite thermostats*]{} was fully realized.
Therefore investigating finite thermostat models is still particularly important. This makes in my view interesting to confine attention on them and to review their conceptual role in the developments that took place in the last thirty years or so.
Finite thermostats can be modeled in several ways: but in constructing models it is desirable that the models keep as many features as possible of the dynamics of the infinite thermostats. As realized in [@BK81a p.452] it is certainly important to maintain the [*time reversibility*]{}. Time reversibility expressed by Eq. (\[2.1\]), [*i.e.*]{} existence of a smooth conjugation between past and future, is a fundamental symmetry of nature which (replaced by TCP) even “survives” the so called time reversal violation; hence it is desirable that it is saved in models. An example will be discussed later.
\(1) The second law of equilibrium Thermodynamics, stating existence of the state function entropy, can be derived without reference to the microscopic dynamics by assuming that heat absorbed at a single temperature cannot be cyclically converted into work, [@Ze68]. In statistical Mechanics equilibrium, states are identified with probability distributions on phase space: they depend on control parameters (usually two, for instance energy and volume) and processes are identified with sequences of equilibrium states, [*i.e.*]{} as curves in the parameters space interpreted as [*reversible processes*]{}. The problem of how the situation, in which averages are represented by a probability distribution, develops starting from an initial configuration [*is not part of the equilibrium theory*]{}. In this context the second law arises as a theorem in Mechanics (subject to asssumptions) and, again, just says that entropy exists (the heat theorem).\
(2) As noted in Sec.\[sec1\], if the scope of the theory is enlarged admitting processes that cannot be represented as sequences of equilibria, called “irreversible processes”, then the postulate of impossibility to convert heat into work extracting it from a single thermostat implies, again without involving microscopic dynamics, the inequality often stated as “the entropy of the Universe” cannot decrease in passing from an equilibrium state to another. And, after properly defining what is meant by irreversible process [@Ze68], actually strictly increases if in the transformation an irreversible process is involved; however perhaps it is best to acknowledge explicitly that such a strict increase is a further assumption, [@Fe63 p. I-44-13] leaving aside a lengthy, [@Ze68], and possibly not exhaustive analysis of how in detail an irreversible transformation looks like. Also this second statement, under suitable assumptions, can become a theorem in Mechanics, [@Le93; @Ga01], but here this will not be discussed.\
(3) Therefore studying macroscopic properties for systems out of equilibrium can be divided into an “easier” problem, which is the proper generalization of equilibrium statistical Mechanics: namely studying stationary states identified with corresponding probability distributions yielding, by integration, the average values of the few observables of relevance. And the problem of approach to a stationary state which is of course more difficult. The recent progress in nonequilibrium has been spurred by restricting research to the easier problem.
The Chaotic Hypothesis (CH) {#sec4}
===========================
Following Boltzmann and Onsager we can ask whether there are general relations holding among time averages of selected observables and for all systems that can be modeled by time reversible mechanical equations $\dot x=f(x)$.
The difficulty is that in presence of dissipation it is by no means clear which is the probability distribution $\m_\Ba$ which provides the average values of observables, at given control parameters $\Ba$.
In finite thermostat models dissipation is manifested by the nonvanishing of the divergence, $\s(x)\defi-\sum \partial_{x_i}
f_i(x)$, of the equations of motion and of its time average $\s_+$.
If $\s_+>0$[^2], it is not possible that the distributions $\m_\Ba$ be of the form $\r_\Ba(x)dx$, “absolutely continuous with respect to the phase space volume”: since volume contracts, the probability distributions that, by integration, provide the averages of the observables must be concentrated on sets, “attractors”, of $0$ volume in phase space.
This means that there is no obvious substitute of the ergodic hypothesis: which, however, was essential in equilibrium statistical Mechanics to indicate that the “statistics” $\m_\Ba$, [*i.e.*]{} the distribution $\m_\Ba$ such that
\_[T]{}1T\_0\^T F(S\_tx)dt=\_(dy) F(y)\[4.1\]for all $x$ except a set of zero volume, exists and is given by the Liouville volume (appropriately normalized to $1$) on the surfaces of given energy $U$ (which is therefore one of the parameters $\Ba$ on which the averages depend).[^3] It is well known that identifying $\m_\Ba$ with the Liouville volume does not allow us to derive the values of the averages (aside from a few very simple cases, like the free gas): but it allows us to write the averages as explicit integrals, [@Ga00], which are well suited to deduce relations holding between certain averages, like the second law Eq.(\[1.1\]) or Onsager reciprocity and the more general Fluctuation Dissipation Theorems.
The problem of finding a useful representation of the statistics of the stationary states in systems which are not in equilibrium arose in the more restricted context of fluid Mechanics earlier than in statistical Mechanics. And through a critique of earlier attempts, [@Ru78b], in 1973 Ruelle proposed that one should take advantage of the empirical fact that motions of turbulent systems are “chaotic” and suppose that their mathematical model should be a “hyperbolic system”, in the same spirit in which the ergodic hypothesis should be regarded: namely [*while one would be very happy to prove ergodicity because it would justify the use of Gibbs’ microcanonical ensemble, real systems perhaps are not ergodic but behave nevertheless in much the same way and are well described by Gibbs’ ensemble...*]{}, [@Ru73].
The idea has been extended in [@GC95; @Ga00] to nonequilibrium statistical Mechanics in the form
The hypothesis was formulated to explain the result of the experiment in [@ECM93]. In [@GC95] it was remarked that the CH could be adequate for the purpose.
“Free” implications of the Chaotic Hypothesis {#sec5}
=============================================
Smooth transitive hyperbolic systems share, independently of the number of degrees of freedom, remarkable properties, [@GBG04].
\(1) their motions can be considered paradigmatic chaotic evolutions, whose theory is, nevertheless, very well understood to the point that they can play for chaotic motions a role alike to the one played by harmonic oscillators for ordered motions, [@Ga95a].
\(2) there is a [*unique*]{} distribution $\m$ on phase space such that
\_1\_0\^F(S\_tx)dt=(dy) F(y) \[5.1\]for all smooth $F$ and for all but a zero volume set of initial data $x$, [@Si72; @BR75; @Ga00; @GBG04], see Appendix A1. The distribution $\m$ is called the [*SRB probability distribution*]{}, see Appendix A2.
\(3) averages satisfy a [*large deviations rule*]{}: [*i.e.*]{} if the point $x$ in $f=\frac1\t\int_0^\t F(S_tx)\,dt$ is sampled with distribution $\m$, then
\_ 1Prob\_(f)= \_[f]{} \_F(f)\[5.2\]is an asymptotic value that controls the probability that the finite time average of $F$ falls in an interval $\D=[u,v], \,u<v$, subset of the interval $(a_F,b_F)$ of definition of $\z_F$. In the interval of definition $\z_F(f)$ is convex and analytic in $f$, [@Si72; @Si77]. Outside $[a_F,b_F]$ the function $\z_F(f)$ can be defined to have value $-\infty$ (which means that values of $f$ in intervals outside $[a_F,b_F]$ can possibly be observed only with a probability tending to $0$ faster than exponentially), [@Si72; @Si77].
\(4) A more precise form of Eq.(\[5.2\]) yields also the rate at which the limit is reached: $Prob_\m(f\in\D)= e^{\t\,\max_{f\in\D}
\z_F(f)+ O(1)}$ with $O(1)$ bounded uniformly in $\t$, at fixed distance of $\D$ from the extremes $a_F,b_F$. This is ofteen written in a not very precise but mnemocnically convenient form, as long as its real meaning is kept in mind, as
P\_(f)=e\^[\_F(f)+O(1)]{}\[5.3\]
\(5) The fluctuations described by (\[5.2\]) are very large fluctuations as they have size of order $\t$ rather than $O(\sqrt{\t})$: in fact if the maximum of $\z_F(f)$ is at a point $f_0\in(a_F,b_F)$ and is a nondegenerate quadratic maximum, then Eq. (\[5.2\]) implies that $\sqrt{\t}(f-f_0)$ has an asymptotically Gaussian distribution. This means that the motion can be regarded to be so chaotic that the values of $F(S_tx)$ are independent enough so that the finite time average deviations from the mean value $f_0$ are Gaussian on the scale of $\sqrt\t$.
\(6) A natural extension to (\[5.2\]) in which several observables $F_1,\ldots,F_n$ are simultaneously considered is obtained by defining $f_i=\frac1\t\int_0^\t F_i(S_tx)dt$. Then there exists a convex closed set $C\subset {\cal R} ^n$ and function $\z_{\V F}(\V f)$ analytic in $\V
f=(f_1,\ldots,f_n)$ in the interior of $C$ and, given an open set $\BD\subset C$,
\_ 1Prob\_(f)= \_[f]{}\_[F]{}(f)\[5.4\]and $\z_{\V F}(\V f)$ could be defined as $-\infty$ outside $C$, with the meaning mentioned in remark (2). If the function $\z_{\V F}(\V f)$ attains its maximum in a point $\V f_0$ in the interior of $C$ and the maximum is quadratic and nondegenerate, then the [*joint fluctuations*]{} of $\Bf=\sqrt\t(\V f-\V f_0)$ are asymptotically Gaussian, which means that have a probability density $\frac1{\sqrt{\p^n\det \DD}} e^{-\frac12 (\Bf\cdot \DD^{-1}\Bf)}$ with $\DD$ a positive definite $n\times n$ matrix.
\(7) The probability distribution $\m$ depends on the control parameters $\Ba$ of the initial data and therefore as $\Ba$ varies one obtains a collection of probability distributions: this leads to a natural [*extension of the ensembles of equilibrium statistical Mechanics*]{}, [@Ga00].
\(8) The most remarkable property, root of all the above, is that the SRB probability distribution $\m$, can be given a concrete formal representation, in spite of being a distribution concentrated on a set of zero volume, [@Si72; @Si77], see Appendix A1,A2. This raises hopes to use it to derive general relations between averages of observables. As in equilibrium, the averages with respect to $\m$ are destined to remain not computable except, possibly, under approximations (aside very few exactly soluble cases): their formal expressions could nevertheless be used to establish general mutual relations and properties.
\(9) Given the importance of the existence and representability of the SRB distribution, Appendix A1,A2 will be entirely devoted to the formulation (A1) and to the physical interpretation of the derivation of its expression: this could be useful for readers who want to understand the technical aspects of what follows, because some may find not satisfactory skipping the technical details even at a heuristic level. The aim of the non technical discussion that follows, preceding the appendices, is to make it worth to invest some time on the technical details.
\(10) Applied to a system in equilibrium the CH implies the ergodic hypothesis so that it is a genuine extension of the latter and any results that follow from it will be necessarily compatible with those of equilibrium statistical Mechanics, [@Ga00].
\(11) For very simple systems the distribution $\m$ can be constructed explicitly and time averages of some observables computed. The systems are the discrete time evolutions corresponding to linear hyperbolic maps of tori, [@GBG04], or the continuous time geodesic motion on a surface of constant negative curvature. The latter systems are rigorously hyperbolic and the SRB distribution can be effectively computed for them [*as well as for their small perturbations*]{}.
\(12) A frequent remark about the chaotic hypothesis is that it does not seem to keep the right viewpoint on nonequilibrium Thermodynamics. It should be stressed that the hypothesis is analogous to the ergodic hypothesis, which ([*as well known*]{}) cannot be taken as the foundation of equilibrium statistical Mechanics, even though it leads to the correct Maxwell Boltzmann statistics, because the latter “holds for other reasons”. Namely it holds because in most of phase space (measuring sizes by the Liouville measure) the few interesting macroscopic observables have the same value, [@Th74], see also [@Le93].
Paradigms of Statistical Mechanics and CH {#sec6}
=========================================
In relation to the last comment is useful to go back to the Heat Theorem of Sec.1 and to a closer examination of the basic paper of Boltzmann [@Bo884], in which the theory of equilibrium ensembles is developed and may offer arguments for further meditation. The paper starts by illustrating an important, and today almost forgotten, remark by Helmoltz showing that very simple systems (“monocyclic systems”) can be used to construct mechanical models of Thermodynamics: and the example chosen by Boltzmann is [*really extreme by all standards*]{}.
He shows that the motion of a [*Saturn ring*]{} of mass $m$ on Keplerian orbits of major semiaxis $a$ in a gravitational field of strength $g$ can be used to build a model of Thermodynamics. In the sense that one can call “volume” $V$ the gravitational constant $g$,\
“temperature” $T$ the average kinetic energy,\
“energy” $U$ the energy and\
“pressure” $p$ the average potential energy $m k a^{-1}$, then one infers that by varying, [*at fixed eccentricity*]{}, the parameters $U,V$ the relation $(dU+pdV)/T=\,\hbox{\it exact}$ holds. Clearly this [*could*]{} be regarded as a curiosity, see [@Ga00 Appendix 1.A1, Appendix 9.A3].
However Boltzmann (following Helmoltz?[^4]) took it seriously and proceeded to infer that under the ergodic hypothesis [*any system*]{} small or large provides us with a model of Thermodynamics (being “monocyclic” in the sense of Helmoltz): for instance he showed that the canonical ensemble verifies exactly the second law of equilibrium Thermodynamics (in the form $(dU+p\,dV)/T=\, \hbox{\it
exact}$) [*without any need to take thermodynamic limits*]{}, [@Bo884], [@Ga00]. The same could be said of the microcanonical ensemble (here, however, he had to change “slightly” the definition of heat to make things work without finite size corrections).
He realized that the Ergodic Hypothesis could not possibly account for the correctness of the canonical (or microcanonical) ensembles; this is clear at least from his (later) paper in response to Zermelo’s criticism, [@Bo96]. Nor it could account for the observed time scales of approach to equilibrium. Nevertheless he called the theorem he had proved the [*heat theorem*]{} and never seemed to doubt that it provided evidence for the correctness of the use of the equilibrium ensembles for equilibrium statistical Mechanics.
Hence there are two points to consider: first certain relations among mechanical quantities [*hold no matter how large*]{} is the size of the system and, secondly, they can be seen and tested not only in small systems, by direct measurements, but even in large systems, because in large systems such mechanical quantities acquire a macroscopic thermodynamic meaning and their relations are “typical” [*i.e.*]{} they hold in most of phase space.
The first point has a close analogy in that the consequences of the Chaotic Hypothesis stem from the properties of small dimension hyperbolic systems (the best understood) which play here the role of Helmoltz’ monocyclic systems of which Boltzmann’s Saturn ring ([@Bo884]) is a special case. They are remarkable consequences because they provide us with [*parameter free relations*]{} (namely the Fluctuation Theorem, to be discussed below, and its consequences): but clearly it cannot be hoped that a theory of nonequilibrium statistical Mechanics be founded solely upon them, by the same reasons why the validity of the second law for monocyclic systems had in principle no reason to imply the theory of ensembles.
Thus what is missing are arguments similar to those used by Boltzmann to justify the use of ensembles, [*independently*]{} of the ergodic hypothesis: an hypothesis which in the end may appear (and still does appear to many) as having only suggested them “by accident”. The missing arguments should justify the CH on the basis of an extreme likelihood of its predictions in systems that are very large and that may be not hyperbolic in the mathematical sense. I see no reason, now, why this should prove impossible [*a priori*]{} or in the future. See Sect.\[sec12\] for some of the difficulties that can be met in experiments testing the CH through its consequence discussed in Sec.\[sec7\].
In the meantime it seems interesting to take the same philosophical viewpoint adopted by Boltzmann: not to consider a chance that [ *all*]{} chaotic systems share some selected, and remarkable, properties and try to see if such properties help us achieving a better understanding of nonequilibrium. After all it seems that Boltzmann himself took a rather long time to realize the interplay of the just mentioned two basic points behind the equilibrium ensembles and to propose a solution harmonizing them. “All it remains to do” is to explore if the hypothesis has implications more interesting or deeper than the few known and presented in the following.
The Fluctuation Theorem (FT) {#sec7}
============================
The idea of looking into time reversibility to explain the experimental results of [@ECM93] is clearly expressed in the same paper. The CH allows us to use effectively time reversal symmetry to obtain what has been called in [@GC95; @Ga95b; @GC95b] the “[*Fluctuation Theorem*]{}”. In fact a simple property holds for all transitive hyperbolic systems which admit a time reversal symmetry.
The property deals with the key observable $\s(x)$, which is the above introduced divergence of the equations of motion, or “phase space contraction rate”. Assuming the average phase space contraction to be positive, $\s_+>0$, let $p=\frac1\t\int_0^\t \frac{\s(S_t x)}{\s_+}dt$ be the “dimensionless phase space contraction”; let $\z(p)$ be the large deviation rate function introduced in §\[sec5\], see Eq.(\[5.2\]), for $F(x)=\frac{\s(x)}{\s_+}$. By time reversal symmetry the interval of analyticity of $\z(p)$ is centered at the origin and will be denoted $(-p^*,p^*)$; furthermore $p^*\ge1$, because the average of $p$ is $1$. Then, [@GC95],
\
(1) In terms of the notation in Eq.(\[5.3\]) the FT is
=e\^[p\_++O(1)]{}\[7.2\]which is the form in which it is often written.\
(2) The theorem has been developed, in [@GC95], to understand the results of a simulation, [@ECM93], whose Authors had correctly pointed out that the SRB distribution together with the time reversibility could possibly explain the observations.\
(3) Unfortunately the same name, introduced in [@GC95; @Ga95b; @GC95b] where FT has been proved, has been [*subsequently*]{} picked up and attributed to other statements, superficially related to the above FT. Enormous confusion ensued (and sometimes even errors), see [@CG99; @GC04; @GZG05]. A more appropriate name for such other, and different, statements has been suggested to be “transient fluctuation theorems”. The above FT should be distinguished also from the results in [@BK81a] which were the first [*transient*]{} fluctuations results, later extended and successfully applied, see [@Ja97; @Ja99]. It is claimed that the difference between the above FT and the transient statements is just an exchange of limits: the point is that it is a nontrivial one, see counterexamples in [@CG99], and assumptions are needed, which have a physical meaning; the CH is the simplest.\
(4) The FT theorem has been proved first for discrete time evolutions, [*i.e.*]{} for maps: in this case the averages over time are expressed by sums rather than by integrals. Hyperbolic maps are simpler to study than the corresponding continuous time systems, which we consider here, because smooth hyperbolic maps do not have a trivial Lyapunov exponent (the vanishing one associated with the phase space flow direction); but the techniques to extend the analysis to continuous time systems are the same as those developed in [@Ge98] for proving the FT for hyperbolic flows and in this review I shall not distinguish between the two kinds of evolutions since the properties considered here do not really differ in the two cases.\
(5) The condition $\s_+>0$, [*i.e.*]{} dissipativity, is [ *essential*]{} even to define $p$ itself. When the forcing intensity $E$ vanishes also $\s_+\to0$ and the FR loses meaning because $p$ does. Neverheless by appropriately dividing both sides of Eq. (\[7.1\]) by $\s_+$, and then taking the limit, a nontrivial limit can be found and it can be shown, at least heuristically, to give the Green-Kubo relation for the “current” $J\defi\media{\frac{\partial\s}{\partial E}}_{\m}=\media{j}_\m$, [@Ga96a; @Ga00], generated by the forcing, namely
|\_[E=0]{}=12\_[-]{}\^\_[E=0]{}dt\[7.3\]which is a general Fluctuation-Dissipation theorem.\
(6) The necessity of a bound $p^*$ in FT has attracted undue attention: it is [*obvious*]{} that it is there since $\s(x)$ is bounded, if CH holds. It also true that the role of $p^*$ is discussed in the paper [@Ga95b], which is a formal and [ *contemporary*]{} version of the earlier [@GC95] and of part of the later [@GC95b] written for a different audience in mind.\
It is therefore surprising that this is sometimes ignored in the literature and the original papers are faulted for not mentioning this (obvious) point, which in any event is fully discussed in [@Ga95b]. A proof which also discusses $p^*$ is in [@Ru99]. It is also obvious that for $p\ge p^*$ the function $\z(p)$ can be naturally set to be $-\infty$, as commented in remark (6) to the CH in Sec.\[sec4\], and for this reason Eq. (\[7.1\]) is often written without any restiction on $p$. This is another point whose misunderstanding has led to errors. For readers familiar with statistical Mechanics there is nothing misterious about $p^*$. It is analogous the “close packing density” in systems with hard cores: it is clear that there is a well defined maximum density but its value is not always explicitly computable; and for hiher density many thermodynamic functions may be considered defined but as having an infinite value.
Note that the [*r.h.s.*]{} of Eq.(\[7.4\]) [*does not depend on $f_2,\ldots,f_n$*]{}. The independence has been exploited in [@Ga96a] to show that when the forcing on the system is due to several forces of respective intensities $E_1,\ldots,E_s$ then by taking $F_1=
\frac{\s(x)}{\s_+},\, F_2=\partial_{E_k}\s(x)$, the Eq.(\[7.4\]) implies, setting $j_k(x)=\partial_{E_k}\s(x)$ and $J_k=\media{j_k}_\m$, the Green Kubo relations (hence Onsager reciprocity)
L\_[hk]{}=\_[E\_h]{} J\_k|\_[E=0]{}=12\_[-]{}\^\_[E=0]{}dt=L\_[kh]{}.\[7.5\]Therefore FT can be regarded as an [*extension*]{} to a nonlinear regime of Onsager reciprocity and of the Fluctuation-Dissipation theorems. Such a relation was pointed out in the context of volume preserving dynamics (hence in absence of dissipation), see comments in [@BK81a p.452] in particular. But it is not clear how to obtain from [@BK81a] the dissipative case results in Eq.(\[7.1\]),(\[7.4\]),(\[7.5\]) without the CH.
Fluctuation Patterns, Onsager-Machlup Theory {#sec8}
============================================
The last comment makes it natural to inquire whether there are more direct and physical interpretations of the FT (hence of the meaning of CH) when the external forcing is really different from the value $0$ (the value always assumed in Onsager’s theory).
The proof of the FT allows, as well, to deduce, [@Ga99], an apparently more general statement (closely related to a relation recently found in the theory of the Kraichnan model of $2$-dimensional turbulence and called “multiplicative” fluctuation theorem, [@CDG07]) which can be regarded as an extension to nonequilibrium of the Onsager-Machlup theory of fluctuation patterns.
Consider observables $\V F=(F_1\defi {\s}/{\s_+},\ldots,F_n)$ which have a well defined time reversal parity: $F_i(Ix)=\e_{F_i} F_i(x)$, with $\e_{F_i}=\pm1$. Let $F_{i+}$ be their time average ([*i.e.*]{} their SRB average) and let $t\to \Bf(t)=(\f_1(t),\ldots,$ $\f_n(t))$ be a smooth bounded function. Look at the probability, relative to the SRB distribution ([*i.e.*]{} in the “natural stationary state”) that $F_i(S_t x)$ is $\f_i(t)$ for $t\in [-\frac\t2,\frac\t2]$: we say that $\V F$ “follows the fluctuation pattern” $\Bf$ in the time interval $t\in [-\frac\t2,\frac\t2]$.
No assumption on the fluctuation size, nor on the size of the forces keeping the system out of equilibrium, will be made. Besides the CH we assume, however, that the evolution is time reversible [*also*]{} out of equilibrium and that the phase space contraction rate $\s_+$ is not zero (the results hold no matter how small $\s_+$ is and, appropriately interpreted, they make sense even if $\s_+=0$, but in that case they become trivial).
We denote $\z(p,\Bf)$ the [*large deviation function*]{} for observing in the time interval $[-\frac\t2,\frac\t2]$ an average phase space contraction $\s_\t\defi\frac1\t\int_{-\t/2}^{\t/2}\s(S_tx)dt= p\s_+$ and at the same time a fluctuation pattern $\V F(S_tx)=\Bf(t)$. This means that the probability that the [*dimensionless phase space contraction rate*]{} $p$ is in a closed set $\D$ and $F$ is in a closed neighborhood of an assigned $\Bps$,[^5] denoted $U_{\Bps,\,\e}$, is given by:
(\_[p,U\_[,]{}]{} [(p,)]{})\[8.1\]to leading order as $\t\to\infty$ ([*i.e.*]{} the logarithm of the mentioned probability divided by $\tau$ converges as $\t\to\infty$ to $\sup_{p\in\D,\Bf\in U_{\Bps,\e}} \z(p,\Bf)$). Needless to say $p$ and $\Bf$ have to be “possible” otherwise $\z$ has to be set $-\infty$, as in the FT case in Sec.\[sec6\], comment (6).
Given a reversible, dissipative, transitive Anosov flow the fluctuation pattern $t\to\Bf(t)$ and the time reversed pattern $t\to\e_F\Bf(-t)$ are then related by the following:
It will appear, in Sec.\[sec9\], that the phase space contraction rate should be identified with a macroscopic quantity, the [*entropy creation rate*]{}. Then the last theorem can be interpreted as saying, in other words, that while it is very difficult, in the considered systems, to see an “anomalous” average entropy creation rate during a time $\t$ ([*e.g.*]{} $p=-1$), it is also true that “that is the hardest thing to see”. Once we see it, [*all the observables will behave strangely*]{} and the relative probabilities of time reversed patterns will become as likely as those of the corresponding direct patterns under “normal” average entropy creation regime.
“A waterfall will go up, as likely as we expect to see it going down, in a world in which for some reason the entropy creation rate has changed sign during a long enough time.” We can also say that the motion on an attractor is reversible, even in presence of dissipation, once the dissipation is fixed.
The result in Eq.(\[8.2\]) is a “[*relation*]{}” rather than a theorem because, even in the hyperbolic cases, the precise restrictions on the “allowed” test functions $\f_i(t)$ have not been discussed in [@Ga99] from a strict mathematical viewpoint and it would be interesting to formulate them explicitly and investigate their generality.[^6]
The result can be informally stated in a only apparently stronger form, for $|p|<p^*$, and with the warnings in remark (4) preceding the analogous Eq.(\[5.3\]), as
=e\^[p\_+ +O(1)]{},\[8.3\]where $P_\t$ is the SRB probability, [*provided the phase space contraction $\s(x)$ is a function of the observables $\V F$*]{}. This is certainly the case if $\s$ is one of the $F_i$, for instance if $\s=F_1$. Here $F_j(S_tx)\sim \f_j(t)$ means $|F_j(S_tx)-\f_j(t)|$ small for $t\in[-\frac\t2,\frac\t2]$.
\
(1) A relation of this type has been remarked recently in the context of the theory of Lagrangian trajectories in the Kraichnan flow, [@CDG07].\
(2) One should note that in applications results like Eq.(\[8.3\]) will be used under the CH and therefore other errors may arise because of its approximate validity (the hypothesis in fact essentially states that “things go as if” the system was hyperbolic): they may depend on the number $N$ of degrees of freedom and we do not control them except for the fact that, if present, their relative value should tend to $0$ as $N\to\infty$: there may be (and there are) cases in which the chaotic hypotesis is not reasonable for small $N$ ([*e.g.*]{} systems like the Fermi-Pasta-Ulam chains) but it might be correct for large $N$. We also mention that, on the other hand, for some systems with small $N$ the CH may be already regarded as valid ([*e.g.*]{} for the models in [@CELS93], [@ECM93; @BGG97]).\
(3) The proofs of FT and the corollaries are not difficult. Once their meaning in terms of coarse graining is understood, the a priori rather misterious SRB distribution $\m$ is represented, surprisingly, as a Gibbs distribution for a $1$–dimensional spin system, which is elementary and well understood. In Appendix A1,A2 some details are given about the nature of coarse graining and in Appendix A3 the steps of the proof of FT are illustrated.
In conclusion the FT is a general parameterless relation valid, in time reversible systems, independently of the number of degrees of freedom: the CH allows us to consider it as a manifestation of time reversal symmetry.
Reversible thermostats and Entropy Creation {#sec9}
===========================================
Recalling that kinetic theory developed soon after the time average of a mechanical quantity, namely kinetic energy, was understood to have the meaning of absolute temperature, it is tempting to consider quite important that, from the last three decades of research on nonequilibrium statistical Mechanics, an interpretation emerged of the physical meaning of the mechanical quantity $\s$ = phase space contraction.
A system in contact with thermostats can generate entropy in the sense that it can send amounts of heat into the thermostats thus increasing their entropy by the ratio of the heat to the temperature, because the thermostats must be considered in thermal equilibrium.
Furthermore if phase space contraction can be identified with a physical quantity, accessible by means of calorimetric/thermometric measurements, then the FT prediction becomes relevant and observable and the CH can be subjected to tests, [*independently on the microscopic model that one may decide to assume*]{}, which therefore become possible also in real experiments.
It turns out that in very general thermostat models entropy production rate can be identified with phase space contraction [*up to a “total time derivative”*]{}: and since additive total time derivatives (as we shall see) do not affect the asympotic distribution of time averages, one can derive a FR for the entropy production (a quantity accessible to measurement) from a FR for phase space contraction (a quantity, in general, [*not accessible*]{} except in numerical simulations, because it requires a precise model for the system, as a rule not available).
As an example, of rather general nature, consider the following one, obtained by imagining a system which is in contact with thermostats that are “external” to it. The particles of the system $\CC_0$ are enclosed in a container, also called $\CC_0$, with elastic boundary conditions surrounded by a few thermostats which consist of particles, all of unit mass for simplicity, interacting with the system via short range interactions, through a portion $\partial_i{\CC_0}$ of the surface of ${\CC_0}$, and subject to the constraint that the total kinetic energy of the $N_i$ particles in the $i$-th thermostat is $K_i=\frac{1}2 \dot{\V X}_i^2=\frac32 N_i k_B T_i$. A symbolic illustration is in Fig.1.
The equations of motion will be (all masses equal for simplicity)
\[9.1\]with $\a_i$ such that $K_i$ is a constant. Here $W_{0,i}$ is the interaction potential between particles in $\CC_i$ and in $\CC_0$, while $U_0,U_i$ are the internal energies of the particles in $\CC_0,\CC_i$ respectively. We imagine that the energies $W_{0,j},U_j$ are due to [*smooth*]{} translation invariant pair potentials; repulsion from the boundaries of the containers will be elastic reflection.
It is assumed, in Eq.(\[9.1\]), that there is no direct interaction between different thermostats: their particles interact directly only with the ones in $\CC_0$. Here $\V E({\V X}_0)$ denotes possibly present external positional forces stirring the particles in $\CC_0$. The contraints on the thermostats kinetic energies give
\_iK\_iconst32 N\_i k\_B T\_i\[9.2\]where $Q_i$ is the work per unit time that particles outside the thermostat $\CC_i$ (hence in $\CC_0$) exercise on the particles in it, namely
Q\_i-\_i\_[[X]{}\_[i]{}]{}W\_[0,i]{}(X\_[0]{},[X]{}\_i)\[9.3\] and it will be interpreted as the “[*amount of heat*]{}” $Q_i$ entering the thermostat $\CC_i$ per unit time.
The main feature of the model is that the thermostats are external to the system proper: this makes the model suitable for the study of situations in which no dissipation occurs in the interior of a system but it occurs only on the boundary.
The [*divergence*]{} $-\s(\dot{\V X},\V X)$ of the equations of motion, which gives the rate of contraction of volume elements around $d\dot{\V X}d\V X$, does not vanish and can be computed in the model in Fig.1; simple algebra yields, remarkably,
\[9.4\]where $\e(\V{{\dot X}},\V X)$ can be interpreted as the [*entropy production rate*]{}, because of the meaning of $Q_i$ in Eq.(\[9.3\]).[^7] This is an interesting result because of its generality: it has implications for the thermostated system considered in Fig.1, for instance. It is remarkable that the quantity $p$ has a simple physical interpretation: Eq.(\[9.1\]) shows that the functions $\z_\s(p)$ and $\z_\e(p)$ are [*identical*]{} because, since $R$ is bounded by our assumption of smoothness, Eqs. (\[9.2\]) and (\[9.3\]) imply
1\_0\^dt 1\_0\^dt +,\[9.5\]so that
\_+=\_1\_0\^(S\_t(,X))dt \_1\_0\^(S\_t(,X))dt=\_+ \[9.6\]and the asmptotic distributions of
p’=1\_0\^ dt, p=1\_0\^ dt\[9.7\][*are the same*]{}. The Eq.(\[9.1\]) are time reversible (with $I(\dot{\V X},\V
X)=(-\dot{\V X},\V X)$): then under the CH the large deviations rate $\z(p)$ for the observable $\frac{\s}{\s_+}$ satisfies the “[*fluctuation relation*]{}”, Eq.(\[7.1\]). It also follows that the large deviations rate for $\frac{\e}{\e_+}$, identical to $\z(p)$, satisfies it as well.
The point is that $\e$ is measurable by “calorimetric and thermometric measurements”, given its interpretation of entropy increase of the thermostats. Therefore the CH can be subjected to test or it can be used to “predict” the frequency of occurence of unlikely fluctuations.
This is a rather general example of thermostats action, but it is just an example. For instance it can be generalized further by imagining that the system is thermostatted in its interior. A situation that arises naturally in the theory of electric conduction. In the latter case the electrons move across the lattice of the metal atoms and the lattice oscillations, [*i.e.*]{} the phonons, absorb or give energy. This can be modeled by adding a “inner” thermostat force $-\a_0\dot{\V x}_i$, acting on the particles in $\CC_0$, which fixes the temperature of the electron gas. Actualy a very similar model appeared in the early days of Statistical Mechanics, in Drude’s theory of electric conductivity, [@Be64]. Other examples can be found in [@Ga06c].
Fluids {#sec10}
======
The attempt to put fluids and turbulence within the context provided by the ideas exposed in the previous sections forces to consider cases in which dissipation takes place irreversibly. This leads us to a few conjectures and remarks.
To bypass the obstacle due to the nonreversibility of the fluid equations which, therefore, seem quite far from the equations controlling the thermostated systems just considered, the following “equivalence conjecture”, [@Ga02], has been formulated. Consider the two equations for an incompressible flow with velocity field $\V u(\V x,t)$, $\BDpr\cdot\V u=0$, in periodic boundary condition for simplicity,
\[10.1\]where $\a(\V u)=\frac{\int \V u\cdot \V g\,d\V x}{\int (\partial \V u)^2
\,d\V x}$ is a “Lagrange multiplier” determined so that the total energy $\EE\defi \int \V u^2\,d\V x$ is exactly constant.
Note that velocity reversal $I:\,\V u(\V x)\to -\V u(\V x)$ anticommutes, in the sense of Eq. (\[2.1\]), with the time evolution generated by the second equation (because $\a(I\V u)=-\a(\V u)$), which means that “fluid elements” retrace their paths with opposite velocity.
Introduce the “local observables” $F(\V u)$ as functions depending only upon finitely many Fourier components of $\V u$, [*i.e.*]{} on the “large scale” properties of the velocity field $\V u$. Then, [*conjecture*]{}, [@Ga97b], the two equations should have “same large scale statistics” in the limit $R\to+\infty$. If $\m_\n$ and $\wt\m_\EE$ denote the respective SRB distributions of the first and the second equations in Eq. (\[10.2\]), by [*“same statistics”*]{} as $R\to\infty$ it is meant that
\(1) if the total energy $\EE$ of the initial datum $\V u(0)$ for the second equation is chosen equal to the average $\media{\int \V
u^2\,d\V x}_{\m_\n}$ for the SRB distribution $\m_\n$ of the first equation, then\
(2) the two SRB distributions $\m_\n$ and $\wt\m_\EE$ are such that, in the limit $R\to\infty$, the difference $\media{F}_{\m_\n}-\media{F}_{{\wt\m}_\EE}\tende{R\to+\infty}0$.
So far [*only numerical tests*]{} of the conjecture, in strongly cut off $2$-dimensional equations, have been attempted ([@RS99]).
An analogy with the termodynamic limit appears naturally: namely the Reynolds number plays the role of the volume, locality of observables becomes locality in $\V k$-space, and $\n,\EE$ play the role of canonical temperature and microcanonical energy of the SRB distributions of the two different equations in (\[10.1\]), respectively $\m_\n$ and $\wt\m_\EE$.
The analogy suggests to question whether reversibility of the second equation in Eq.(\[10.1\]) can be detected. In fact to be able to see for a large time a viscosity opposite to the value $\n$ would be very unphysical and would be against the spirit of the conjecture.
If the CH is supposed to hold it is possible to use the FT, which is a consequence of reversibility, to estimate the probability that, say, the value of $\a$ equals $-\n$. For this purpose we have to first determine the attracting set.
Assuming the K41, [@Ga02], theory of turbulence the attracting set will be taken to be the set of fields with Fourier components $\V
u_{\V k}=0$ unless $|\V k|\le R^{\frac34}$.
Then the expected identity $\media{\a}=\n$, between the average friction $\media\a$ in the second of Eq.(\[10.1\]) and the viscosity $\n$ in the first, implies that the divergence of the evolution in the second of Eq.(\[10.1\]) is in average
\~\_[|k|R\^[3/4]{}]{}2|k|\^2\~(L)\^2 5 R\^[15/4]{}\[10.2\] By FT the SRB-probability to see, in motions following the second equation in Eq. (\[10.2\]), a “[*wrong*]{}” average friction $-\n$ for a time $\t$ is
\_[srb]{}\~ e\^[-g]{}\[10.3\]It can be estimated in the situation considered below for a flow in air:
{.\[10.4\]where the first line are data of an example of fluid motion and the other two lines follow from Eq.(\[10.3\]). They show that, by FT, viscosity can be $-\n$ during $10^{-6}s$ ([*say*]{}) with probability $P$ as in Eq.(\[10.4\]): unlikelyhood is similar in spirit to the estimates about Poincaré’s recurrences, [@Ga02].
\(2) If we imagine that the particles are so many that the system can be well described by a macroscopic equation, like for instance the NS equation, then there will be two ways of computing the entropy creation rate. The first would be the classic one described for instance in [@DGM84], and the second would simply be the divergence of the microscopic equations of motion in the model of Fig.1, under the assumption that the motion is closely described by macroscopic equations for a fluid in local thermodynamic equilibrium, like the NS equations. This can be correct in the limit in which space and time are rescaled by $\e$ and $\e^2$ and the velocity field by $\e$, and $\e$ is small. Since local equilibrium is supposed, it will make sense to define a local entropy density $s(\V x)$ and a total entropy of the fluid $S=\int s(\V x)\,d\V x$.
The evaluation of the expression for the entropy creation rate as a divergence $\s$ of the microscopic equations of motion leads to, [@Ga06], a value $\media\e$ with average (over a microscopically long time short with respect to the time scale of the fluid evolution) related to the classical entropy creation rate in a NS fluid as
\[10.5\]where $\W{\Bt}'$ is the tensor $(\partial_i u_j+\partial_j u_i)$ and $\h$ is the dynamic viscosity, so that the two expressions differ by the time derivative of an observable, which equals the total equilibrium entropy of the fluid $S=\int s(\V x)\, d\V x$ where $s $ is the thermodynamical entropy density in the assumption of local equilibrium; see comment on additive total derivatives preceding Fig.1.
Quantum Systems {#sec11}
===============
Recent experiments deal with properties on mesoscopic and atomic scale. In such cases the quantum nature of the systems may not always be neglected, paricularly at low temperature, and the question is whether a fluctuation analysis parallel to the one just seen in the classical case can be performed in studying quantum phenomena.
Thermostats have, usually, a macroscopic phenomenological nature: in a way they should be regarded as classical macroscopic objects in which no quantum phenomena occur. Therefore it seems natural to model them as such and define their temperature as the average kinetic energy of their constituent particles so that the question of how to define it does not arise.
Consider the system in Fig.1 when the quantum nature of the particles in $\CC_0$ cannot be neglected. Suppose for simplicity (see [@Ga07]) that the nonconservative force $\V E(\V X_0)$ acting on $\CC_0$ vanishes, [*i.e.*]{} consider the problem of heat flow through $\CC_0$. Let $H$ be the operator on $L_2(\CC_0^{3N_0})$, space of symmetric or antisymmetric wave functions $\Ps(\V X_0)$,
H= -\_[X\_0]{}+ U\_0(X\_0)+\_[j>0]{}(U\_[0j]{}(X\_0,X\_j)+U\_j(X\_j)+K\_j)\[11.1\]where $\D_{\V X_0}$ is the Laplacian, and note that its spectrum consists of eigenvalues $E_n=E_n(\{\V X_j\}_{j>0})$, for $\V X_j$ fixed (because the system in $\CC_0$ has finite size).
A system–reservoirs model can be the [*dynamical system*]{} on the space of the variables $\big(\Ps,(\{\V X_j\},$ $\{\V{{\dot
X}}_j\})_{j>0}\big)$ defined by the equations (where $\media{\cdot}_\Ps\,=$ expectation in the state $\Ps$)
\[11.2\] here the first equation is Schrödinger’s equation, the second is an equation of motion for the thermostats particles similar to the one in Fig.1, (whose notation for the particles labels is adopted here too). The model has no pretention of providing a physically correct representation of the motions in the thermostats nor of the interaction system thermostats, see comments at the end of this section.
Evolution maintains the thermostats kinetic energies $K_j\equiv
\frac12\V{{\dot X}}_j^2$ exactly constant, so that they will be used to define the thermostats temperatures $T_j$ via $K_j=\frac32 k_B T_j
N_j$, as in the classical case.
Let $\m_0(\{d\Ps\})$ be the [*formal*]{} measure on $L_2(\CC_0^{3N_0})$
(\_[X\_0]{} d\_r(X\_0)d\_i(X\_0) )(\_[\_0]{} |(Y)|\^2 dY-1) \[11.3\]with $\Ps_r,\Ps_i$ real and imaginary parts of $\Ps$. The meaning of (\[11.3\]) can be understood by imagining to introduce an orthonormal basis in the Hilbert space and to “cut it off” by retaining a large but finite number $M$ of its elements, thus turning the space into a high dimensional space $C^M$ (with $2M$ real dimensions) in which $d\Ps=d\Ps_r(\V X_0)\,d\Ps_i(\V X_0)$ is simply interpreted as the normalized euclidean volume in $C^M$.
The formal phase space volume element $\m_0(\{d\Ps\})\times\n(d\V
X\,d\V{{\dot X}})$ with
(dXd)\_[j>0]{} ((\^2\_j-3N\_jk\_B T\_j)dX\_jd\_j) \[11.4\]is conserved, by the unitary property of the wave functions evolution, just as in the classical case, [*up to the volume contraction in the thermostats*]{}, [@Ga06c].
If $Q_j\defi\media{W_j}_\Ps$ and $R$ is as in Eq.(\[9.4\]), then the contraction rate $\s$ of the volume element in Eq.(\[11.4\]) can be computed and is (again) given by Eq.(\[9.4\]) with $\e$, that will be called [*entropy production rate*]{}: setting $R(\V X)\defi \sum_{j>0} \frac{U_j(\V X_j)}{k_B T_j}$, it is
(,,X)=(,,X)+R(X),(,, X)=\_[j>0]{} , \[11.5\]
In general solutions of Eq.(\[11.2\]) [*will not be quasi periodic*]{} and the Chaotic Hypothesis, [@GC95b; @Ga00; @Ga07], can be assumed: if so the dynamics should select an SRB distribution $\m$. The distribution $\m$ will give the statistical properties of the stationary states reached starting the motion in a thermostat configuration $(\V X_j,\V{{\dot X}}_j)_{j>0}$, randomly chosen with “uniform distribution” $\n$ on the spheres $m\V{{\dot X}}_j^2=3N_jk_B
T_j$ and in a random eigenstate of $H$. The distribution $\m$, if existing and unique, could be named the [*SRB distribution*]{} corresponding to the chaotic motions of Eq.(\[11.2\]).
In the case of a system [*interacting with a single thermostat*]{} at temperature $T_1$ the latter distribution should be equivalent to the canonical distribution, up to boundary terms.
Hence an important consistency check, for proposing Eq.(\[11.2\]) as a model of a thermostated quantum system, is that there should exist at least one stationary distribution equivalent to the canonical distribution at the appropriate temperature $T_1$ associated with the (constant) kinetic energy of the thermostat: $K_1=\frac32 k_B
T_1\,N_1$. In the corresponding classical case this is an established result, [@EM90; @Ga00; @Ga06c].
A natural candidate for a stationary distribution could be to attribute a probability proportional to $d\Ps\,d\V X_1\,d \dot{\V
X}_1$ times
\_[n=1]{}\^e\^[-\_1 E\_n]{}(-\_n(X\_1)e\^[i\_n]{})[d\_n]{}(\_1\^2-2K\_1)\[11.6\]where $\b_1=1/k_B T_1$, $\Ps$ are wave functions for the system in $\CC_0$, ${\dot {\V X}_1, \V X_1}$ are positions and velocities of the thermostat particles and $\f_n\in [0,2\p]$ is a phase, $E_n=E_n(\V
X_1)$ is the $n$-th level of $H(\V X_1)$, with $\Ps_n(\V X_1)$ the corresponding eigenfunction. The average value of an observable $O$ for the system in $\CC_0$ in the distribution $\m$ in (\[11.6\]) would be
\_=Z\^[-1]{} (e\^[-H(X\_1)]{} O)(\_1\^2-2K\_1)dX\_1d \_1\[11.7\]where $Z$ is the integral in (\[11.7\]) with $1$ replacing $O$, (normalization factor). Here one recognizes that $\m$ attributes to observables the average values corresponding to a Gibbs state at temperature $T_1$ with a random boundary condition $\V X_1$.
However Eq.(\[11.6\]) [*is not invariant*]{} under the evolution Eq.(\[11.2\]) and it seems difficult to exhibit explicitly an invariant distribution. Therefore one can say that the SRB distribution for the evolution in (\[11.2\]) is equivalent to the Gibbs distribution at temperature $T_1$ only as a conjecture.
Nevertheless it is interesting to remark that under the [*adiabatic approximation*]{} the eigenstates of the Hamiltonian at time $0$ evolve by simply following the variations of the Hamiltonian $H(\V X(t))$ due to the motion of the thermostats particles, without changing quantum numbers (rather than evolving following the Schrödinger equation and becoming, therefore, different from the eigenfunctions of $H(\V
X(t))$).
In the adiabatic limit in which the classical motion of the thermostat particles takes place on a time scale much slower than the quantum evolution of the system the distribution (\[11.6\]) [*is invariant*]{}.
This can be checked by first order perturbation analysis which shows that, to first order in $t$, the variation of the energy levels (supposed non degenerate) is compensated by the phase space contraction in the thermostat, [@Ga07]. Under time evolution, $\V X_1$ changes, at time $t>0$, into $\V X_1+t
\V{{\dot X}}_1+O(t^2)$ and, assuming non degeneracy, the eigenvalue $E_n(\V X_1)$ changes, by perturbation analysis, into $E_n+t \,
e_n+O(t^2)$ with
e\_nt\_[\_n]{}+t \_1\_[X\_1]{} U\_[1]{}=-t(\_[\_n]{}+R\_1)=-1[\_1]{}\_1.\[11.8\] Hence the Gibbs factor changes by $e^{-\b t e_n}$ and at the same time phase space contracts by $e^{t \frac{3 N_1 e_n}{2K_1}}$, as it follows from the expression of the divergence in Eq.(\[11.5\]). [*Therefore if $\b$ is chosen such that $\b=(k_B T_1)^{-1}$ the state with distribution Eq.(\[11.6\]) is stationary*]{}, (recall that for simplicity $O(1/N)$, see footnote${}^{\ref{footnote7}}$ on p. is neglected). This shows that, [*in the adiabatic approximation*]{}, interaction with only one thermostat at temperature $T_1$ admits at least one stationary state. The latter is, by construction, a Gibbs state of thermodynamic equilibrium with a special kind (random $\V
X_1,\V{{\dot X}}_1$) of boundary condition and temperature $T_1$.
\(1) The interest of the example is to show that even in quantum systems the chaotic hypothesis makes sense and the intepretation of the phase space contraction in terms of entropy production remains unchanged. In general, under the chaotic hypothesis, the SRB distribution of (\[11.2\]) (which in presence of forcing, or of more than one thermostat is certainly quite not trivial, as in the classical Mechanics cases) will satisfy the fluctuation relation because the fluctuation theorem only depends on reversibility: so the model (\[11.2\]) might be suitable (given its chaoticity) to simulate the steady states of a quantum system in contact with thermostats.
\(2) It is certainly unsatisfactory that a stationary distribution cannot be explicitly exhibited for the single thermostat case (unless the adiabatic approximation is invoked). However, according to the proposed extension of the CH, the model does have a stationary distribution which should be equivalent (in the sense of ensembles equivalence) to a Gibbs distribution at the same temperature.
\(3) The non quantum nature of the thermostat considered here and the specific choice of the interaction term between system and thermostats should not be important: the very notion of thermostat for a quantum system is not at all well defined and it is natural to think that in the end a thermostat is realized by interaction with a reservoir where quantum effects are not important. Therefore what the analysis really suggests is that in experiments in which really microscopic systems are studied the heat exchanges of the system with the external world should fulfill a FR.
\(4) The conjecture can probably be tested with present day technology. If verified it could be used to develop a “Fluctuation Thermometer” to perform temperature measurements which are [*device independent*]{} in the same sense in which the gas thermometers are device independent ([*i.e.*]{} do not require “calibration” of a scale and “comparison” procedures).\
Consider a system in a stationary state, and imagine inducing small currents and measuring the average heat output rate $Q_+$ and the fluctuations in the finite time average heat output rate, generated by inducing small currents, [*i.e.*]{} fluctuations of $p=\frac1\t\int_0^\t \frac{Q(t)}{Q_+}dt$ obtaining the rate function of $\z(p)$.\
Then it becomes possible to read from the slope of $\z(p)-\z(-p)$, equal to $\frac{Q_+}{k_B T}$ by the FR, directly the inverse temperature that the thermostat in contact with the system has: this could be useful particularly in very small systems (classical or quantum). The idea is inspired by a similar earlier proposal for using fluctuation measurements to define temperature in spin glasses, [@CKP97], [@CR03 p.216].
Experiments ?
=============
\[sec12\]
The (partial) test of the chaotic hypothesis via its implication on large fluctuations probabilities ([*i.e.*]{} the fluctuation relation) is quite difficult. The main reason is that if the forcing is small the relation degenerates (because $\e_+\to0$) and it can be shown, [@Ga96a], that to lowest nontrivial order in the size of the forcing it reduces to the Green-Kubo formula, which is (believed to be) well established so that the fluctuation relation will not be significant, being “true for other reasons”, [@DGM84]. See Sec.3.
Hence one has to consider large forcing. However, under large forcing, large fluctuations of $p$ become very rare, hence their statistics is difficult to observe. Furthermore the statistics seems to remain Gaussian for $p$, in a region around $p=1$ where the data can be considered reliably unbiased (see below), and until rather large values of the forcing field or values of $|p-1|$ large compared to the root mean square deviation $\frac{D}{\sqrt\t}={\langle
(p-1)^2\rangle^{1/2}}$ are reached. Hence $\z(p)=-\frac1{2D^2} (p-1)^2$ and linearity in $p$ of $\z(p)-\z(-p)$ is trivial. [*Nevertheless*]{}, in this regime, it follows that $\frac2{D^2}=\s_+$ which is a nontrivial relation and therefore a simple test of the fluctuation relation.
The FR was empirically observed first in such a situation in [@ECM93], in a simulation, and the first dedicated tests, after recognizing its link with the CH, were still performed in a Gaussian regime, so that they were really only tests of $\frac2{D^2}=\s_+$ and of the Gaussian nature of the observed fluctuations.
Of course in simulations the forcing can be pushed to “arbitrarily large” values so that the fluctuation relation can, in principle, be tested in a regime in which $\z(p)$ is sensibly non Gaussian, see [@LLP98]. But far more interesting will be cases in which the distribution $\z(p)$ is sensibly not Gaussian and which deal with laboratory experiments rather than simulations. Skepticism towards the CH is mainly based on the supposed non measurability of the function $\z(p)$ in the large deviation domain ([*i.e.*]{} $|p-1|\gg
\sqrt{\langle(p-1)^2\rangle}$).
In experimental tests several other matters are worrysome, among which:
\(a) is reversibility realized? This is a rather stringent and difficult point to understand on a case by case basis, because irreversibility creeps in, inevitably, in dissipative phenomena.
\(b) is it allowed to consider $R$, [*i.e.*]{} the “entropy production remainder” in (\[9.3\]), bounded? if not there will be corrections to FR to study (which in some cases, [@CV03a; @BGGZ05], can be studied quite in detail).
\(c) does one introduce any bias in the attempts to see statistically large deviations? for instance in trying to take $\t$ large one may be forced to look at a restricted class of motions, typically the ones that remain observable for so long a time. It is easy to imagine that motions observed by optical means, for instance, will remain within the field of the camera only for a characteristic time $\t_0$ so that any statistics on motions that are observed for times $\t>\t_0$ will be biased (for it would deal with untypical events).
\(d) chaotic motions may occur under influence of stochastic perturbations, so that extensions of FT to stochastic systems may need to be considered. This is not really a problem because a random perturbation can be imagined as generated by coupling of the system to another dynamical system (which, for instance, in simulations would be the random number generator from which the noise is drawn), nevertheless it demands careful analysis, [@BGG07].
\(e) Nonconvex shape of $\z(p)$, at $|p-1|$ beyond the root mean square deviation, see Fig.3, is seen often, possibly always, in the experiments that have been attempted to study large deviations. Therefore the interpretation of the nonconvexity, via well understood corrections to FR, seems to be a forced path towards a full test of the FR, beyond the Gaussian regime, [@BGGZ05].
All the above questions arise in the recent experiment by Bandi-Cressman-Goldburg, [@BCG07]. It encounters all the related difficulties and to some extent provides the first evidence for the FR (hence the CH) in a system in which the predictions of the FR are not the result of a theoretical model which can be solved exactly. The interpretation of the results is difficult and further investigations are under way.
The experiment outcome is not incompatible with FR and, in any event, it proves that good statistics can be obtained for fluctuations that extend quite far beyond the root mean square deviation of $p-1$: an asset of the results in view of more refined experiments.
A very promising field for experimental tests of the CH and the FR is granular materials: in granular materials collisions are not elastic, nevertheless an experiment is proposed in [@BGGZ06]. See comment (6) in Sec.13 and comment (4) to Eq. (\[11.8\]) for other hints at possible experiments and applications.
Comments
========
\[sec13\]
\(1) In the context of the finite thermostats approach, besides systems of particles subject to deterministic evolution, stochastically evolving systems can be considered and the FT can be extended to cover the new situations, [@Ku98; @LS99; @Ma99; @CDG07; @BGG07].\
(2) Alternative quantum models have also been considered in the literature, [@Ku00] (stochastic Langevin thermostats), or infinite thermostats (free and interacting, and possibly with further noise sources) [@FV63; @JP02b; @HI05; @APJP06; @JOP07].\
(3) Many simulations have been performed, starting with the experiment which showed data that inspired the FT, [@ECM93], and continuing after the proof of FT and the formulation of the CH, [*e.g.*]{} [@BGG97]: a few had the purpose of testing the Fr in a nongaussian regime for the fluctuations of the variable $p$, [@LLP98]. In some cases the results had to be examined closely to understand what was considered at discrepancy with the FT, [@BGGZ05], (and was not).\
(4) The physical relevance of the particular quantum thermostat model remains an open question and essentially depends on the conjecture that the (unknown) SRB distribution for the model in the single thermostat case is equivalent to the Gibbs distribution at the same temperature (a property valid in the corresponding classical cases). Hence the main interest of the model is that it shows that a FR is in principle possible in finite thermostated quantum systems in stationary state.\
(5) Few experiments have so far been performed (besides numerical simulations) to investigate CH and FT: extensions to randomly forced systems are possible, [@Ku98; @LS99; @Ma99], and can be applied to systems that can be studied in laboratory, [@CDGS04; @BCG07]: the first experiment designed to test the FR in a laboratory experiment is the recent work [@BCG07]. The results are consistent with the FR and indicate a promising direction of research.\
(6) An interesting consequence of the FT is that
\_[srb]{} \_[srb]{}= O(1) \[13.1\] in the sense that the logarithms of both sides divided by $\t$ agree in the limit $\t\to\infty$ ([*i.e.*]{} $\lim_{\t\to+\infty}\frac1\t\log \media{e^{\D S/k_B}}=0$) with corrections of order $O(\frac1\t)$. This has been pointed out by Bonetto, see [@Ga00], and could have applications in the same biophysics contexts in which the work theorems, [@Ja97; @Ja99], have been applied: for instance one could study stationary heat exchanges is systems out of equilibrium (rather than measure free energy differences between equilibrium states at the same temperature as in [@Ja97; @Ja99]). The boundedness of the l.h.s. of Eq. (\[13.1\]) implied by (\[13.1\]) can be used to test whether some heat emissions have gone undetected (which would imply that the l.h.s. of Eq.(\[13.1\]) tends to $0$, rather than staying of $O(1)$). This is particularly relevant as in biophysics one often studies systems in stationary states while actively busy at exchanging heat with the sourroundings.\
(7) Another property, which is not as well known as it deserves, is that for hyperbolic systems, and by the Chaotic Hypothesis of Sec. 2, virtually for all chaotic evolutions, it is possible to develop a rigorous theory of coarse graining, [@BG97; @Ga06b]. It leads to interpreting the SRB distributions as uniform distributions on the attractor; hence to a variational principle and to the existence of a Lyapunov function describing the approach to the stationary state, [*i.e.*]{} giving a measure of the distance from it, [@Ga01; @Ga06].\
However it also seems to lead to the conclusion that [*entropy*]{} of a stationary state [*cannot be defined*]{} if one requires that it should have properties closely analogous to the equilibrium entropy. For instance once coarse graining has been properly introduced, it is tempting to define the entropy of a stationary state as $k_B$ times the logarithm of the number of “microcells” into which the attractor is decomposed, see Appendix A1,A2.\
This quantity can be used as a Lyapunov function, see [@Ga06], but it depends on the size of the microcells in a nontrivial way: changing their size, the variation of the so defined entropy does not change by an additive constant depending only on the scale of the coarse graining ([*at difference with respect to the equilibrium case*]{}), but by a quantity that depends also on the control parameters ([*e.g.*]{} temperature, volume [*etc. *]{}), [@Ga01].\
Given the interest of coarse graining, in Appendix A1 mathematical details about it are discussed in the context of the SRB distribution and CH; and a physical interpretation is presented in Appendix A2; hopefully they will also clarify the physical meaning of the two.\
(8) Finally it is often said that the FR should hold [*always*]{} or, if not, it is incorrect. In this respect it has to be stressed that the key assumption is the CH, which implies the FR [*exactly*]{} in time reversible situations. However it is clear that CH is an idealization and the correct attitude is to interpret deviations from FR in terms of corrections to the CH. For instance:
CH implies exponential decay of time correlations. But in some cases there are physical reasons for long range time correlations.\
Or the CH implies that observables have values in a finite range. But there are cases in which phase space is not bounded and observables can take unbounded values (or such for practical purposes).\
Time reversal is necessary. But there are cases in which it is violated.\
The pdf of $p$ should be log-convex: but it is seldom so. What is interesting is that it appears that starting from CH and examining the features responsible for its violations it may be possible to compute even quantitatively the corrections to FR. Examples of such corrections already exist, [@CV03a; @BGGZ05; @Za06]. It would be interesting to have a concrete experiment, designed to test FR and try to understand the observed deviations; the BCG experiment in Sec.\[sec12\] offers, if further developed, the possibility of simple tests making use the existing experimental apparatus and of the observations that it has proved to be accessible.
I am grateful to M. Bandi, A. Giuliani, W. Goldburg and F. Zamponi for countless comments and suggestions and to M. Bandi, W. Goldburg for providing their data, partially reported in Fig.3. Partially supported also by Institut des Hautes Etudes Scientifiques, by Institut Henri Poincaré and by Rutgers University.
A1: Coarse Graining, SRB and $1D$ Ising Models
==============================================
\[secA1\]
In equilibrium phase space volume is conserved and it is natural to imagine it divided into tiny “cells”, in which all observables of interest are constant. The equilibrium distribution can be constructed simply by imagining to have divided phase space $\Si$ (“energy surface”) into cells of equal Liouville volume, small enough so that every interesting physical observable $F$ is constant in each cell. Then the dynamics is a cyclic permutation of the cells ([*ergodic hypothesis*]{}) so that the stationary distribution is just the volume distribution.
In a way, this is an “accident”, based on what appears to be a fundamentally incorrect premise, which leads to various difficulties as it is often considered in the context of attempts to put on firm grounds the notion of a “coarse grained” description of the dynamics. Confusion is also added by the simulations: the latter are sometimes interpreted as [*de facto*]{} coarse grained descriptions. It seems, however, essential to distinguish between coarse graining and representation of the dynamics as a permutation of small but finite cells.
[*Undoubtedly*]{} dynamics can be represented by a permutation of small phase space volumes, as any simulation program effectively does. But it is also clear that the cells used in the simulations are [*far too small*]{} ([*i.e.*]{} of the size determined by the computer resolution, typically of double precision reals) to be identified with the coarse cells employed in phenomenological studies of statistical Mechanics.
On the other hand if coarse grain cells are introduced which are not as tiny as needed in simulations the [*dynamics will deform*]{} them to an extent that after a short time it will no longer be possible to identify which cell has become which other cell! And this applies even to equilibrium states.
In this respect it looks as an accident the fact that, nevertheless, at least in equilibrium a coarse grained representation of time evolution appears possible. And easily so, with small cells subject to the only condition of having equal volume; but the huge amount of literature on attempts at establishing a theory of coarse graining did not lead to a precise notion, nor to any agreement between different proposals.
Under the CH systems are hyperbolic and a precise analysis of coarse graining seems doable, see [@Ga01; @Ga95a] and [@Ga04b]. The key is that it is possible to distinguish between “microcells”, so tiny that evolution is well approximated by a permutation on them, and “cells” which are still so small that the (few) interesting observables have constant value on them. The latter cells can be identified with “coarse grain cells”; yet they are very large compared to the microcells and time evolution [*cannot*]{} be represented as their permutation. [*Neither in equilibrium nor out of equilibrium.*]{}
That SRB distribution cannot be considered a permutation of naively defined coarse cells [*seems*]{} to be well known and to have been considered a drawback of the SRB distributions: it partly accounts for the skepticism that often, still now, accompanies them.
[*The point that will be made, [see the review [@Ga04b]]{}, is that hyperbolicity provides us with a natural definition of coarse grained cells. At the same time it tells us which is the weight to be given to each cell which, in turn, implies that each cell can be imagined containing many “microcells” whose evolution is a simple permutation of them [(just as in numerical simulations)]{}.*]{}
In this appendix we consider for simplicity discrete time systems: in this case hyperbolic systems are described by a smooth map $S$, transitive and smoothly invertible, with the property that every phase space point $x$ is a “saddle point”. Out of $x$ emerge the stable and the unstable manifolds $W^s(x),W^u(x)$ of complementary dimension. The expansion and contraction that take place near every point $x$ can be captured by the matrices $\partial S_u(x)$, $\partial S_s(x)$ obtained by restricting the matrix ([*Jacobian matrix*]{}) $\partial S(x)$, of the derivatives of $S$, to its action on the vectors tangent to the unstable and stable manifolds through $x$: the evolution $S$ maps $W^u(x)$,$W^s(x)$ to $W^u(Sx),W^s(Sx)$, respectively, and its derivative ([*i.e.*]{} its linearization) maps tangent vectors at $x$ into tangent vectors at $Sx$.
A quantitative expression of the expansion and contraction is given by the “local expansion” or “local contraction” rates defined by Ł\^u\_1(x)|(S)\_u(x)|,Ł\^s\_1(x)-|(S)\_s(x)|.\[14.1\] Since time is now discrete, phase space contraction is now defined as $\s(x)=-\log|\det(\partial S)|$ and related to $\L^u_1(x),\L^s_1(x)$ by
(x)=-Ł\_1\^u(x)+Ł\_1\^s(x)-,\[14.2\]where $\d(x)$ is the angle (in the metric chosen in phase space) between $W^s(x),W^u(x)$ (which is bounded away from $0$ and $\p$ by the smoothness of the hyperbolic evolution $S$).
This suggests to imagine constructing a partition $\PP$ of phase space into closed regions ${\cal P}=(P_1,\ldots,P_m)$ with pairwise disjoint interiors, each of which is a “rectangle” defined as follows.
The rectangle $P_i$, see the following Fig.5 for a visual guide, has a center $\k_i$ out of which emerge portions $C\subset
W^s(\k_i),D\subset W^u(\k_i)$ of its stable and unstable manifolds, small compared to their curvature, which form the “axes” of $P_i$, see Fig.5. The set $P_i$, then, consists of the points $x$ obtained by taking a point $p$ in the axis $D$ and a point $q$ in the axis $C$ and setting $x{\buildrel c\over =}W^s(p)\cap W^u(q)$, just as in an ordinary rectangle a point is determined by the intersection of the lines through any two points on the axes and perpendicular to them, see Fig.5. The symbol ${\buildrel c\over =}$ means that $x$ is the point closest to $p$ and to $q$ along paths in $W^s(p)$ and, respectively $W^u(q)$.[^8]
Note that in a rectangle [*anyone*]{} of its points $\Bk$ could be the center in the above sense with a proper choice of $C,D$, so that $\k_i$ does not play a special role and essentially serves as a label identifying the rectangle. In dimension higher than $2$ the rectangles may (and will) have rather rough (non differentiable) boundaries, [@Bo78].
It is a key property of hyperbolicity (hence of systems for which the CH can be assumed) that the partition ${\cal P}$ can be built to enjoy of a very special property.
Consider the sequence, [*history of $x$*]{}, $\Bx(x)\defi\{\x_i\}_{i=-\infty}^\infty$ of symbols telling into which of the sets of ${\cal P}$ the point $S^ix$ is, [*i.e.*]{} where $x$ is found at time $i$, or $S^ix\in P_{\x_i}$. This is unambiguous aside from the zero volume set $\cal B$ of the points that in their evolution fall on the common boundary of two $P_\x$’s.
Define the matrix $Q$ to be $Q_{\x,\x'}=0$, unless there is an interior point in $P_{\x}$ whose image is in the interior of $P_{\x'}$: and in the latter case set $Q_{\x,\x'}=1$. Then the history of a point $x$, which in its evolution does not visit a boundary common to two $P_\x$’s, must be a sequence $\Bx$ verifying the property, called [*compatibility*]{}, that, $Q_{\x_k,\x_{k+1}}=1$ for all times $k$.
The matrix $Q$ tells us which sets $P_{\x'}$ can be reached from points in $P_\x$ in one time step. Then transitive hyperbolic maps admit a partition (in fact infinitely many) of phase space into rectangles ${\cal P}=(P_1,\ldots,P_m)$, so that
\(1) if $\Bx$ is a compatible sequence then there is a point $x$ such that $S^k x\in P_{\x_k}$, see (for instance) Ch. 9 in [@Ga00], (“[*compatibility*]{}”). The points $x$ outside the exceptional set $\cal B$ (of zero volume) determine uniquely the corresponding sequence $\Bx$.
\(2) the diameter of the set of points $E(\x_{-\frac12T},\ldots,\x_{\frac12T})$ consisting of all points which between time $-\frac12T$ and $\frac12T$ visit, in their evolution, the sets $P_{\x_i}$ is bounded above by $c\, e^{-c' T}$ for some $c,c'>0$ ([*i.e.*]{} the code $\V\x\to x$ determines $x$ “[*with exponential precision*]{}”).
\(3) there is a power $k$ of $Q$ such that $Q^k_{\x\x'}>0$ for all $\x,\x'$ (“[*transitivity*]{}”).
Hence points $x$ can be identified with sequences of symbols $\V\x$ verifying the compatibility property and the sequences of symbols determine, with exponential rapidity, the point $x$ which they represent.
The partitions ${\cal P}$ are called [*Markov partitions*]{}. Existence of ${\cal P}$ is nontrivial and rests on the chaoticity of motions: because the compatibility of all successive pairs implies that the full sequence is actually the history of a point (a clearly false statement for general partitions).[^9]
If the map $S$ has a time reversal symmetry $I$ ([*i.e*]{} a smooth involution $I$, such that $IS=S^{-1}I$, see Eq.(\[2.1\])) the partition $\PP$ can be so built that $I\PP=\PP$, hence $I
P_i=P_{I(i)}$ for some $I(i)$. This is done simply by replacing $\PP$ by the finer partition whose elements are $P_i\cap IP_j$, because if $\PP,\PP_1$ and $\PP_2$ are Markovian partitions also the partition $I\PP$ is such, as well as the partition $\PP_1\vee\PP_2$ formed by intersecting all pairs $P\in \PP_1$, $P'\in\PP_2$ (this is best seen from the geometric interpretation in footonote$^{\ref{footnote9}}$ and from the time reversal property that $I W_u(x)=W_s(Ix)$).
A Markov partition such that $I\PP=\PP$ is called “reversible” and histories on it have the simple property that $(\Bx(Ix))_i=(\Bx(x))_{-I(i)}$.
Markov partitions, when existing, allow us to think of the phase space points as the configurations of a “$1$-dimensional spin system”, [*i.e.*]{} as sequences of finitely many symbols $\x\in\{1,2,\ldots,m\}$ subject to the “hard core” constraint that $Q_{\x_i,\x_{i+1}}=1$. Hence probability distributions on phase space which give $0$ probability to the boundaries of the elements of the Markov partitions (where history may be ambiguous) can be regarded as stochastic processes on the configurations of a $1$-dimensional Ising model (with finite spin $m$), and functions on phase space can be regarded as functions on the space of compatible sequences.[^10]
The remarkable discovery, see reviews in [@Si72; @Si77], is that the SRB distribution not only can be regarded as a stochastic processes, but it [*is a short range Gibbs distribution*]{} if considered as a probability on the space of the compatible symbolic sequences $\Bx$ on $\PP$, and with a potential function $A(\Bx)=-\L_1^u(x( \Bx))$, see below and [@GBG04].
The sequences $\Bx$ are therefore much more natural, given the dynamics $S$, than the sequence of decimal digits that are normally used to identify the points $x$ via their cartesian coordinates.[^11]
Define the [*forward*]{} and [*backward*]{} expansion and contraction rates as
U\^[T/2]{}\_[u,]{}(x)=\_[j=0]{}\^[T/2]{} Ł\_1\^u(S\^jx),U\^[T/2]{}\_[s,]{}(x)=\_[j=0]{}\^[T/2]{} Ł\_1\^s(S\^jx)\[14.5\]and select a point $\Bk(\Bx)\in E_{\Bx}$ for each $\Bx$. Then the SRB distribution $\m_{SRB}$ and the volume distribution $\m_L$ on the phase space $\O$, which we suppose to have Liouville volume, footnote p., $V(\O)$, attribute to the [*nonempty*]{} sets $E_{\V\x}$ the respective probabilities $\m$ and $\m_L$
()\_[SRB]{}(E\_)\_[L]{}()\[14.6\] if $V(E)$ denotes the Liouville volume of $E$. The distributions $\m,\m_L$ are shown, [@GBG04; @Ga00], to be defined by
\[14.7\] where $\k(\Bx)\in E_\Bx$ is the center of $P_{\x_0}$ and $h^T_{u,u}(\Bx)$, $h^T_{s,u}(\Bx)$ are suitable functions of $\Bx$, [*uniformly bounded*]{} as $\Bx$ and $T$ vary and which are mildly dependent on $\Bx$; so that they can be regarded as constants for the purpose of the present discussion, [*cfr.*]{} Ch. 9 in [@Ga00].
If $\g$ is a scale below which all interesting observables are (for practical purposes) constant, then choosing $T=O(\log\g^{-1})$ the sets $E_\Bx$ are a coarse graining of phase space suitable for computing time averages as weighted sums over the elements of the partition.
And both in equilibrium and out of equilibrium the SRB distribution [*will not attribute equal weight*]{} to the sets $E_\Bx$. The weight will be instead proportional to $e^{\big(-U_{u,-}^{T/2}(\k(\Bx))-U^{T/2}_{u,+}(\k(\Bx))\big)}$, [*i.e.*]{} to the inverse of the exponential of the expansion rate of the map $S^T$ along the unstable manifold and as a map of $S^{-\frac{T}2}\k(\Bx)$ to $S^{\frac{T}2}\k(\Bx)$. The more unstable the cells are the less weight they have. Given Eq. (\[14.7\]) the connection with the Gibbs state with potential energy $A(\Bx)=\L_1^u(\Bx)$ appears, see [@GBG04 Sec.4.3 and Ch. 5,6].
The sets $E_{\Bx}$ represent macroscopic states, being just small enough so that the physically interesting observables have a constant value within them; and we would like to think that they provide us with a model for a “[*coarse grained*]{}” description of the microscopic states. The notion of coarse graining is, here, precise and, nevertheless, quite flexible because it contains a free “resolution parameter” $\g$. Should one decide that the resolution $\g$ is not good enough because one wants to study the system with higher accuracy then one simply chooses a smaller $\g $ (and, correspondingly, a larger $T$).
A2: SRB and Coarse Graining: a physicist’s view {#secA2}
===============================================
How can the analysis of Appendix A1 be reconciled with the numerical simulations, and with the naive view of motion, as a permutation of cells? The phase space volume will generally contract with time: yet we want to describe the evolution in terms of an evolution permuting microscopic states. Also because this would allow us to count the microscopic states relevant for a given stationary state of the system and possibly lead to extending to stationary nonequilibria Boltzmann’s definition of entropy.
Therefore we divide phase space into [*equal*]{} parallelepipedal [*microcells*]{} $\D$ of side size $\e\ll \g $ and try to discuss time evolution in terms of them: we shall call such cells “microscopic” cells, as we do not associate them with any particular observable; they represent the highest microscopic resolution.
The new microcells should be considered as realizations of objects alike to those arising in computer simulations: in simulations the cells $\D$ are the “digitally represented” points with coordinates given by a set of integers and the evolution $S$ is a [*program*]{} or [*code*]{} simulating the solution of equations of motion suitable for the model under study. The code operates [*exactly*]{} on the coordinates (the deterministic round offs, enforced by the particular computer hardware and software, should be considered part of the program).
The simulation will produce (generically) a chaotic evolution “for all practical purposes”, [*i.e.*]{}\
(1) if we only look at “macroscopic observables” which are constant on the coarse graining scale $\g=e^{-\frac12\lis\l T}\ell_0$ of the partition ${\cal P}^T$, where $\ell_0$ is the phase space size and $\lis\l>0$ is the least contractive line element exponent (which therefore fixes the scale of the coarse graining, by the last definition);[^12] and\
(2) if we look at phenomena on time scales far shorter than the recurrence times (always finite in finite representations of motion, but of size usually so long to make the recurrence phenomenon irrelevant).[^13]
The latter conclusion can be reached by realizing that
\(a) there has to be a small enough division into microcells that allows us to describe evolution as a map (otherwise numerical simulations would not make sense);
\(b) however the evolution map cannot be, in general, a permutation. In simulations it will happen, [*essentially always*]{}, that it ([*i.e.*]{} the software program) will send two distinct microcells into the same one. It does certainly happen in nonequilibrium systems in which phase space contracts in the average;[^14]
\(c) even though the map will not be one-to-one, nevertheless it will be such [*eventually*]{}: because any map on a finite space is a permutation of the points which are recurrent. This set is the [*attractor*]{} of the motions, that we call $\AA$ and which will be imagined as a the collection of microcells approximating the unstable manifold and intersecting it. All such microcells will be considered taking part in the permutation: but this is not an innocent assumption and in the end is the reason why the SRB is unique, see below.
\(d) every permutation can be decomposed into cycles: each cycle will visit each coarse cell with the same frequency (unless there are more than one stationary distributions describing the asymptotics of a set of microcells initially distributed uniformly, a case that we exclude because of the transitivity assumption). Hence it is not restrictive to suppose that there is only one cycle (“ergodicity” on the attractor).
[*Then*]{} consistency between the expansion of the unstable directions and the existence of a cyclic permutation of the microcells in the attractor $\AA$ [*demands that the number of microcells in each coarse grained cell $E_\Bx$, Eq.(\[14.3\]), must be inversely proportional to the expansion rate*]{}, [*i.e.*]{} it has to be given by the first of Eq. (\[14.7\]).
More precisely we imagine, developing a heuristic argument, that the attractor in each coarse cell $\EE(\Bx)$ will appear as a stack of a few portions of unstable manifolds, the “layers” of footnote$^{\ref{footnote9}}$, whose union form the (disconnected) surface $\D(\Bx)$ intersection between $\EE(\Bx)$ and the attractor. Below $\D(\Bx)$ will be used to denote both the set and its surface, as the context demands. The stack of connected surfaces $\D(\Bx)$ is imagined covered uniformly by $N(\Bx)$ microcells, see Fig.4.
Let $t\defi T+1$. Transitivity implies that there is a smallest integer $m\ge0$ such that $S^{t+m}\EE(\Bx)$ intersects all other $\EE(\Bx')$: the integer $m$ is $t$-independent (and equal to the minimum $m$ such that $Q^m_{\s,\s'}>0$). In $t+m$ time steps each coarse cell will have visitied all the others and the layers describing the approximate attractor in a single coarse cell will have been expanded [*to cover the entire attractor*]{} for the map $S^{t+m}$.[^15] The latter coincides with the attractor for $S$ because $S^j$ is transitive for all $j$ if it is such for $j=1$ and this property has to be reflected by the discretized dynamics at least if $j$ is very small compared to the (enormous) recurrence time on the discrete attractor as $t$ is, being a time on the coarse grain scale. Suppose first that $m=0$, hence $S^t\D(\Bx)$ is the entire attractor for all $\Bx$. This is an assumption useful to exhibit the idea but unrealistic for invertible maps: basically this is realized in the closely related SRB theory for a class of non invertible expansive maps of the unit interval).
So the density of microcells will be $\r(\Bx)=\frac{N(\Bx)}{\D(\Bx)}$ and under time evolution $S^t$ the unstable layers $\D(\Bx')$ in $\EE(\Bx)$ expand and cover all the layers in the cells $\EE(\Bx')$. If the coarse cell $\EE(\Bx)$ is visited, in $t=T+1$ time steps, by points in the coarse cells $\Bx'$, a property that will be symbolically denoted $\EE_{\Bx'}\in S^{-t}\EE(\Bx)$, a fraction $\n_{\Bx,\Bx'}$ of the $N(\Bx')$ microcells will end in the coarse cell $\EE(\Bx)$, and $\sum_{\Bx}\n_{\Bx,\Bx'}=1$. Then consistency with evolution as a cyclic permutation demands
N()=\_[’]{} 1[e\^[Ł\_[u,T]{}(’)]{}]{}() (N)(), \[15.1\]because the density of the microcells on the images of $\D(\Bx')$ decreases by the expansion factor $e^{\L_{u,T}(\Bx')}$, so that $\n_{\Bx,\Bx'}= \frac{\D(\Bx)}{\D(\Bx')}\frac1{e^{\L_{u,T}(\Bx')}}$.
As a side remark it is interesting to point out that for the density $\r(\Bx)$ Eq.(\[15.1\]) becomes simply $\r(\Bx)=\sum_{\Bx'}
e^{-\L_{u,T}(\Bx')}\r(\Bx')$, closely related to the similar equation for invariant densities of Markovian surjectiive maps of the unit interval, [@GBG04].
The matrix $\LL$ has all elements $>0$ (because $m=0$) and therefore has a simple eigenvector $v$ with positive components to which corresponds the eigenvalue $\l$ with maximum modulus: $v=\l\,\LL(v)$ (the “Perron-Frobenius theorem”) with $\l=1$ (because $\sum_{\Bx}\n_{\Bx,\Bx'}=1$). It follows that the consistency requirement uniquely determines $N(\Bx)$ as proportional to $v_\Bx$. Furthermore $S^{t}\D(\Bx)$ is the entire attractor; then its surface is $\Bx$ independent and equal to $e^{\L_{u,T}(\Bx)}\D(\Bx)$: therefore $N(\Bx)=\,const\, e^{-\L_{u,T}(\Bx)}$.
The general case is discussed by considering $S^{t+m}$ instead of $S^{t}$: this requires taking advantage of the properties of the ratios $e^{\L_{u,T}(\Bx)}/e^{\L_{u,T+m}(\Bx)}$. Which are not only uniformly bounded in $T$ but also only dependent on the sequence $\Bx=(\x_{-\frac12T},\ldots,\x_{\frac12T})$ through a few symbols with labels near $-\frac12T$ and $\frac12T$: this correction can be considered part of the factors $h^T_{u,u}$ in the rigorous formula Eq.(\[14.7\]).
Note that $e^{\L_{u,T}(\Bx)}\D(\Bx)=$ constant reflects Pesin’s formula, [@GBG04], for the approximate dynamics considered here.
So the SRB distribution arises naturally from assuming that dynamics can be discretized on a regular array of point (“microcells”) and become a one cycle permutation of the microcells on the attractor. This is so under the CH and holds whether the dynamics is conservative (Hamiltonian) or dissipative.
It is well known that hyperbolic systems admit (uncountably) many invariant probability distributions, besides the SRB. This can be seen by noting that the space of the configurations is identified with a space of compatible sequences. On such a space one can define uncountably many stochastic processes, for instance by assigning an arbitrary short range translation invariant potential, and regarding the corresponding Gibbs state as a probability distribution on phase space. However the analysis just presented apparently singles out SRB as the unique invariant distribution. This is due to our assumption that, in the discretization, microcells are regularly spaced and centered on a regular discrete lattice and evolution eventually permutes them in a (single, by transitivity) cycle consisting of the microcells located on the attractor (and therefore locally evenly spaced, as inherited from the regularity of the phase space discretization).
Other invariant distributions can be obtained by custom made discretizations of phase space which will not cover the attractor in a regular way. This is what is done when other distributions, “not absolutely continuous with respect to the phase space volume”, are to be studied in simulations. A paradigmatic example is given by the map $x\to 3x \, {\rm mod}\, 1$: it has an invariant distribution attributing zero probability to the points $x$ that, in base $3$, lack the digit $2$: to find it one has to write a program in which data have this property and make sure that the round off errors will not destroy it. Almost any “naive” code that simulates this dynamics using double precision reals represented in base $2$ will generate, instead, the corresponding SRB distribution which is simply the Lebesgue measure on the unit interval (which is the Bernoulli process on the symbolic dynamics giving equal probability $\frac13$ to each digit).
The physical representation of the SRB distribution just obbtained, see [@Ga95a; @Ga00], shows that there is no conceptual difference between stationary states in equilibrium and out of equilibrium. In both cases, if motions are chaotic they are permutations of microcells and the [*SRB distribution is simply equidistribution over the recurrent microcells*]{}. In equilibrium this gives the Gibbs microcanonical distribution and out of equilibrium it gives the SRB distribution (of which the Gibbs one is a very special case).
The above heuristic argument is an interpretation of the mathematical proofs behind the SRB distribution which can be found in [@Bo75; @GBG04], (and heuristically is a proof in itself). Once Eq. (\[14.7\]) is given, the expectation values of the observables in the SRB distributions can be formally written as sums over suitably small coarse cells and symmetry properties inherited from symmetries of the dynamic become transparent. The Fluctuation Theorem is a simple consequence of Eq. (\[14.7\]), see Appendix A3: however it is conceptually interesting because of the surprising unification of equilibrium and nonequilibrium behind it.
The discrete repesentation, in terms of coarse grain cells and microcells leads to the possibility of counting the number $\NN$ of the microcells and therefore to define a kind of entropy function: see [@Ga01] where the detailed analysis of the counting is performed and the difficulties arising in defining an entropy function as $k_B\log \NN$ are critically examined.
A3: Why does FT hold?
=====================
\[secA3\]
As mentioned the proof of FT in quite simple, [@GC95]. By the first of Eq. (\[14.5\]), (\[14.7\]) and by the theory of $1D$-short range Ising models, see [@Ga95b] for details, the probability that $p$ is in a small interval centered at $p$ compared to the probability that it is in the opposite interval is
= \[16.1\]where $\sum_{i \to p\s_+\t}$ is sum over the centers $\k_i$ of the rectangles $E_i$ labeled by $i\defi(\x_{-\t/2},\ldots,\x_{\t/2})$ with the property
\_[k=-/2]{}\^[/2]{} (S\^k\_i)+B(i,)p\_+\[16.2\]where $\simeq$ means that the left hand side is contained in a very small interval (of size of order $O(1)$, [@Ga95b], call it $b$) centered at $p\s_+\t$; the $B(i,\t)$ is a term of order $1$ (a boundary term in the language of the Ising model interpretation of the SRB distribution): $|B(i,\t)|\le b<+\infty$: and it takes also into account the adjustments to be made because of the arbitrariness of the choice of $\k_i$.[^16] Independence on $i,\t$ of the bound on $B(i,\t)$ reflects smoothness of $S$ and elementary properties of short range $1D$ Ising chains, [@Ga95b].
Suppose that the symbolic dynamics has been chosen time reversible, [*i.e.*]{} the time reversal map $I$ maps $P_i$ into $IP_i=P_{I(i)}$ for some $I(i)$: this is not a restriction as discussed in Appendix A1. Then the above ratio of sums can be rewritten as a ratio of sums over the same set of labels,
=. \[16.3\]Remark that $\L^u_1(Ix)=-\L^s_1(x)$ (by time reversal symmetry) and that (by Eq. (\[14.3\])) $ \sum_{k=-\t/2}^{\t/2}
(\L^u_1(S^k(x))+\L^s_1(S^{-k}(x)))$ can be written as
\_[k=-/2]{}\^[/2]{} (Ł\^u\_1(S\^k(x))+Ł\^s\_1(S\^[k]{}(x)))=\_[k=-/2]{}\^[/2]{} (S\^kx)+B(x,)\[16.4\]with $B(x,\t)\le b$ (again by the smoothness of $S$), possibly redefining $b$.
Therefore the ratio of corresponding terms in the numerator and denominator ([*i.e.*]{} terms bearing the same summation label $i$) is precisely $p\s_+\t$ up to $\pm3b$. Hence
e\^[\_+p-3b]{}< e\^[\_+p+3b]{} \[16.5\]so that FT holds for finite $\t$ with an error $\pm\frac{3b}\t$, infinitesimal as $\t\to+\infty$. For a detailed discussion of the error bounds see [@Ga95b].
[*Of course*]{} for all this to make sense the value of $p$ must be among those which not only are possible but also such that the values close enough to possible values are possible. This means that $p$ has to be an internal point to an interval of values that contains limit points of $\lim_{\t\to+\infty} \frac1\t\sum_{k=0}^{\t} \frac{\s(S^k
x)}{\s_+}$ for a set of $x$’s with positive SRB probability: the value $p^*$ in FT is the supremum among the value of $p$ with this property, [@Ga95b] (contrary to statements in the literature this physically obvious remark is explicitly present in the original papers: and one should not consider the three contemporary references, [@GC95; @Ga95b; @GC95b], has having been influenced by the doubts on this point raised much later.)
The assumptions have been: (a) existence of a Markovian partition, [*i.e.*]{} the possibility of a well controlled symbolic dynamics representation of the motion; (b) smooth evolution $S$ and (c) smooth time reversal symmetry: the properties (a),(b) are equivalent to the CH. Of course positivity of $\s_+$ is [*essential*]{}, in spite of contrary statements; if $\s_+=0$ the leading terms would come from what has been bounded in the remainder terms and, in any event the analysis world be trivial, with or without chaoticity assumptions, [@BGGZ05].
Since Lorenz, [@Lo63], symbolic dynamics is employed to represent chaos and many simulations make currently use of it; smoothness has always been supposed in studying natural phenomena (lack of it being interpreted as a sign of breakdown of the theory and of necessity of a more accurate one); time reversal is a fundamental symmetry of nature (realized as $T$ or $TCP$ in the Physics notations). Hence in spite of the ease in exhibiting examples of systems which are not smooth, not hyperbolic, not time reversal symmetric (or any subset thereof) the CH still seems a good guide to understand chaos.
A4: Harmonic Thermostats
========================
\[secA4\]
Here the “efficiency” of a harmonic thermostat is discussed. It turns out that in general a thermostat consisting of infinite free systems is a very simple kind of Hamiltonian thermostat, but it has to be considered with caution as it can be inefficient in the sense that it might not drive a system towards equilibrium (i.e. towards a Gibbs distribution). In the example given below a system in interaction with an infinite harmonic reservoir at inverse temperature $\b$ is considered. It is shown that the interaction can lead to a stationary state, of the system plus reservoir, which is not the Gibbs state at temperature $\b^{-1}$. The following is a repetition of the analysis in [@ABGM72], adapting it to the situation considered here.
A simple model is a $1$-dimensional harmonic oscillators chain, of bosons or fermions, initially in a Gibbs state at temperature $\b^{-1}$. The Hamiltonian for the equilibrium [*initial*]{} state will be
H\_0=\_[x=1]{}\^[N-1]{} -\_[q\_x]{}+\_[x=1]{}\^[N-1]{}2 q\_x\^2+\_[x=1]{}\^N2 (q\_x-q\_[x-1]{})\^2\[17.1\]with boundary conditions $q_0=q_N=0$ and $\hbar,m,\o^2,\m^2>0$. The initial state will be supposed to have a density matrix $\r_0=\frac{e^{-\b H_0}}{{\rm Tr}\, e^{-\b H_0}}$. Time evolution will be governed by a [*different*]{} Hamiltonian
H\_ł=H\_0+2 q\_1\^2,ł+ø\^2>0\[17.2\]The question of “thermostat efficiency” is: does $\r_t\defi
e^{\frac{i}{\hbar} t H_\l}\r_0 e^{-\frac{i}{\hbar} t H_\l}$ converge as $t\to+\infty$ to $\r_\infty=\frac{e^{-\b H_\l}}{{\rm Tr}\, e^{-\b
H_\l}}$. Or: does the system consisting in the oscillators labeled $2,3,\ldots$ succeed in bringing up to the new equilibrium state the oscillator labeled $1$? Convergence means that the limit $\media{A}_{\r_t}\tende{t\to+\infty}$ $\media{A}_{\r_\infty}$ exists, at least for the observables $A$ essentially localized in a finite region.
The Hamiltonian in Eq.(\[17.2\]) can be diagonalized by studying the matrix
V\_ł=mV\_0+łm P\_1\[17.3\]The normalized eigenstates and respective eigenvalues of $V_0$ are
\^0\_k(x)Nx, Ł\^0\_[k]{}=m(ø\^2+[2\^2(1-N)]{})\[17.4\]and the vectors $\Ps^0_k$ will be also denoted $\ket{k}$ or $\ket{\Ps^0_k}$.
To solve the characteristic equation for $V_\l$, call $\Ps$ a generic normalized eigenvector with eigenvalue $\L$; the eigenvalue equation is
(Ł\^0\_[k]{}-Ł)+łmk =0\[17.5\]where $\BO$ is the vector $\BO=(1,0,\ldots,0)\in\CC^{N-1}$, so that $P_1=\ket\BO \brav\BO$. Hence, noting that $\bra{\BO}\ket{\Ps}$ cannot be $0$ because this would imply that $\L=\L^0_{k}$ for some $k$ and therefore $\ket{\Psi}=\ket{k}$ which contradicts $\bra\BO\ket\Ps=0$, it is
=-łm \[17.6\]and the compatibitity condition that has to be satisfied is
= \_[k=1]{}\^[N-1]{} = \_[k=1]{}\^[N-1]{}.\[17.7\]Once Eq.(\[17.7\]) is satisfied, Eq.(\[17.6\]) imply that the eigenvalue equation, Eq.(\[17.5\]), is satisfied, and by a $\ket\Psi\ne0$ (determined up to a factor).
The Eq.(\[17.7\]) has $N-1$ solutions, corresponding to the $N-1$ eigenvalues of $V_\l$. This follows by comparing the graph of $y(\L)\equiv\frac1{\l m}$ with the graph of the function of $\L$ in the intermediate term of Eq.(\[17.7\]). One of the solutions remains isolated in the limit $N\to\infty$, because the equation
1=\_0\^ d,Ł\^0()m(ø\^2+4\^2\^22)\[17.8\]has, uniformly in $N$, only one isolated solution for $\L<\inf \L^0(\k)=m
\o^2$ if $\l<0$, or for $\L>\sup \L^0(\k)$ if $\l<0$. Suppose for definiteness that $\l<0$.
Let $\Ps^\l_k(x),\,k=1,\ldots,N-1$, be the corresponding eigenfunctions. The matrices $ U_{\l;k,x}=\Ps^\l_k(x)$ are unitary and $(U_\l)_{\l=0}\equiv U_0$. It is $U_{0;k,x}=\sqrt{\frac2{N}}\sin
\frac{\p k}N x$ and $\bra{\Ps^0_k}\ket{\Ps^\l_{k'}}=\frac{\bra{k}\ket\BO}{Z_N(k')(\L^\l_{k'}-\L^0_k)}$ with $Z_N(k')^2=\sum_{k}
\frac{|\bra{k}\ket\BO|^2}{(\L^\l_{k'}-\L^0_k)^2}$ by Eq.(\[17.6\]). Then setting $\a^\pm_x= \frac{p_x\pm
iq_x}{\sqrt2}$ let
a\^+\_[ł;k]{} (U\_ł\^+)\_k, a\^-\_[ł;k]{}= (\^-U\_ł\^\*)\_k \[17.9\]where $U^*$ is the adjoint of $U$ (so that $UU^*=1$ if $U$ is unitary). It is
\^+\_[x]{}=\_k U\_[ł;k,x]{} a\^+\_[ł;k]{},a\^+\_[ł;k ]{}= \_[h,y]{} U\_[ł;k,y]{}U\_[0;h,y]{} a\^+\_[0;h]{} \[17.10\]if the overbars denote complex conjugation.
The operators $a^\pm_{\l,k}$ will be creation and annihilation operators for quanta with energy $\hbar
\sqrt\frac{\L^\l_k}{m}\defi E_\l(k)$. So a state with $n_k=0,1,\ldots$ quanta in state $k$ will have energy $\sum_k E_\l(k)(n_k+\frac12)$.
Consider the observable $a^+_{\l,1}a^-_{\l,1}=A$. Its average is [*time independent*]{}, in the evolution generated by $H_\l$, and if $W\defi U_\l U^*_0$ it is equal to
\[17.11\]where $n_f=1$ if the statistics of the quanta is fermionic (this was the case in [@ABGM72]) or $n_f=+\infty$ if it is bosonic. In the two cases the result is
\_k|W\_[1,k]{}|\^21[e\^[E\_0(k)]{}1]{}\[17.12\]If the system reached thermal equilibrium, setting $\r_\l(k)\defi\frac1{e^{\b E_\l(k)}\pm1}$, this should be $\r_\l(1)$, which is impossible, as it can be checked by letting $\b\to+\infty$ and remarking that it is $E_\l(1)<E_0(1)$ with a difference positive uniformly in $N$. Furthermore the observable $A$ is localized near the site $x=1$: because the wave function of the lowest eigenvalue is $\frac1{Z_N(1)}\sum_h
\frac{\bra{h}\ket\BO}{\L^0_h-\L^\l_k}\ket{\Ps^0_h}$ so that
\^ł\_1(x)=1[Z\_N(1)]{}\_h 1[Z\_]{} 2\_0\^d\[17.13\] and the integral tends to $0$ as $x\to\infty$ faster than any power, so that $0<Z_\infty<\infty$ and $\Ps^\l_1$ is normalizable.
Therefore the thermostatic action of the system in the sites $2,3,\ldots$ on the site $1$ is [*not efficient*]{} and the state does not evolve towards the Gibbs state at temperature $\b^{-1}$, not even in the limit $N\to+\infty$.
This result should be contrasted with the closely related case in which the system oscillator at $1$ plus the others is started in a equilibrium state for $H_\l$ and at time $0$ is evolved with Hamiltonian $H_0$. In this case the system thermalizes properly, see the analogous analysis in [@ABGM72], see also [@HL73b] for a large class of related examples.
Of course the question of effectiveness of a thermostat could be discussed also for non linear theormostats, finite or infinite. It seems that, under mild assumptions, non linear thermostat models should be efficient, [*i.e.*]{} generate proper heat exchanges even when acting only at the boundary as in the case of the thermostats considered in Sec.\[sec9\]. The analysis in [@GG07] gives some preliminary evidence in this direction.
Harmonic thermostats are nevertheless very interesting, provided the above pathologies are excluded by a careful formulation of the models: see for instance [@HL73b], see also [@HI05]. It is also clear that the pathologies seem to be related to the fact that the thermostats constituents are “not interacting” or “linearly interacting”: their origin in the above analysis is shown to be related to the existence of isolated eigenvalues of the Hamiltonian at the bottom of the spectrum and this is the property that should be excluded. The pathologies are likely to be absent in models in which there is nonlinear interaction within the thermostats constituents so that such models should be perfectly well behavng ([*i.e.*]{} efficient in the sense of this paper). However the latter models are also highly nontrivial even at a purely mathematical level.
A5: Bohmian Quantum Systems {#secA5}
===========================
Consider the system in Fig.1 and suppose, as in Sec.\[sec10\], that the nonconservative force $\V E(\V X_0)$ acting on the system vanishes, [*i.e.*]{} consider the problem of heat flow through $\CC_0$. Let $H$ be the operator on $L_2(\CC_0^{3N_0})$, space of symmetric or antisymmetric wave functions $\Ps$,
H\_[X]{}= -\_[X\_0]{}+ U\_0(X\_0)+\_[j>0]{}(U\_[0j]{}(X\_0,X\_j)+U\_j(X\_j)+K\_j)\[18.1\]where $\D_{\V X_0}$ is the Laplacian, and note that its spectrum consists of eigenvalues $E_n=E_n(\{\V X_j\}_{j>0})$, depending on the configuration $\V X\defi\{\V X_j\}_{j>0}$,
Thermostats will be modeled as assemblies of classical particles as in Sec.\[sec9\]: thus their temperature can be defined as the average kinetic energy of their particles and the question of how to define it does not arise.
The viewpoint of Bohm on quantum theory seems quite well adapted to the kind of systems considered here. A system–reservoirs model can be the [*dynamical system*]{} on the variables $\big(\Ps,\V X_0,(\{\V X_j\},$ $\{\V{{\dot X}}_j\})_{j>0}\big)$ defined by
\[18.2\] here the first equation is Schrödinger’s equation, the second is the vlocity of the Bohmian particles carried by the wave $\Ps$, the others are equations of motion for the thermostats particles analogous to the one in Eq.(\[9.1\]), (whose notation for the particles labels is adopted here too). Evolution maintains the thermostats kinetic energies $K_j\equiv \frac12\V{{\dot X}}_j^2$ exactly constant so that they will be used to define the thermostats temperatures $T_j$ via $K_j=\frac32 k_B T_j N_j$, as in the classical case.
Note that if there is no coupling between system and thermostats, [*i.e.*]{} the system is “isolated”, then there are many invariant distributions: [*e.g.*]{} the probability distributions $\m$ proportional to
\_[n=1]{}\^e\^[-\_0 E\_n]{}(-\_ne\^[i\_n]{})|(X\_0)|\^2 [d\_n]{}dX\_0\_j(\_j\^2-2K\_j) ddX\_j \[18.3\]where $E_n$ and $\Ps_n$ are time independent, under the assumed absence of interaction between system and thermostats, and are the eigenvalues and the correspoding eigenvectors of $H$. Then the distributions $\m$ are invariant under the time evolution.
Time invariance of this kind of distributions is discussed in [@DGZ92 Sec.4], where it appears as an instance of what is called there a “quantum equilibrium”. The average value of an observable $O(\V X_0)$, which depends only on position $\V X_0$, will be the “usual” Gibbs average
\_=Z\^[-1]{}(e\^[-\_0 H]{}O))\[18.4\] For studying nonequilibrium stationary states consider several thermostats with interaction energy with $\CC_0$, $W_j(\V X_0,\V
X_j)$, as in Eq. (\[9.1\]). The equations of motion should be Eq. (\[18.2\])
In general solutions of Eq.(\[18.2\]) [*will not be quasi periodic*]{} and the Chaotic Hypothesis, [@GC95b; @Ga00; @Ga07], can be assumed: if so the dynamics should select an invariant distribution $\m$. The distribution $\m$ will give the statistical properties of the stationary states reached starting the motion in a thermostat configuration $(\V X_j,\V{{\dot X}}_j)_{j>0}$, randomly chosen with “uniform distribution” $\n$ on the spheres $m\V{{\dot X}}_j^2=3N_jk_B
T_j$ and in a random eigenstate of $H$. The distribution $\m$, if existing and unique, could be named the [*SRB distribution*]{} corresponding to the chaotic motions of Eq.(\[18.2\]).
In the case of a system [*interacting with a single thermostat*]{} the latter distribution should be equivalent to the canonical distribution. As in Sec.\[sec11\] an important consistency check for the model just proposed in Eq.(\[18.2\]) is that there should exist at least one stationary distribution $\m$ equivalent to the canonical distribution at the appropriate temperature $T_1$ associated with the (constant) kinetic energy of the thermostat: $K_1=\frac32 k_B
T_1\,N_1$. However also in this case, as already in Sec.\[sec11\], it does not seem possible to define a simple invariant distribution, not even in the adiabatic approximation. As in Sec.\[sec11\], equivalence between $\m$ and a Gibbs distribution at temperature $T_1$ can only be conjectured.
Furthermore it is not clear how to define phase space contraction, hence how to formulate a FT, although the equations are reversible. \[secRef\]
=0
=1Ge.bbl
[^1]: Review
[^2]: As intuition suggests $\s_+$ cannot be $<0$, [@Ru97], when motion takes place in a bounded region of phase space, as it is supposed here.
[^3]: By Liouville volume we mean the measure $\d(K(\V p)+ W(\V q)-U)d\V p d\V q$, on the manifold of constant energy or, in dissipative cases discussed later, the measure $d\V p d\V q$.\[2\]\[footnote2\]
[^4]: The relation between the two on this subject should be more studied. Boltzmann’s paper of 1884, [@Bo884], is a natural follow up and completion of his earlier work [@Bo871b] which followed [@Bo868; @Bo66]. It seems that the four extremely long papers by Helmoltz, also dated 1884, [@He884a; @He884b], might have at most just stimulated Boltzmann to revisit his earlier works and led him achieve the completion of the mechanical explanation of the second law. Certainly Boltzmann attributes a strong credit to Helmoltz, and one wonders if this might be partly due to the failed project that Boltzmann had to move to Berlin under the auspices of Helmoltz.
[^5]: By “closed neighborhood” $U_{\Bps,\e}$, $\e>0$, around $\Bps$, we mean that $|F_i(S_tx)-\ps_i(t)|\le\e$ for $t\in[-\frac\t2,\frac\t2]$.
[^6]: A sufficient condition should be that $\f_i(t)$ are bounded and smooth.
[^7]: Eq.(\[9.4\]) are correct up to $O(N^{-1})$ if $N=\min N_j$ because the addends should contain also a factor $(1-\frac1{3 N_j})$ to be exact: for simplicity $O(1/N)$ corrections will be ignored here and in he following (their inclusion would imply trivial changes without affecting the physical interpretation), [@Ga06c].\[7\]\[footnote7\]
[^8]: This proviso is needed because often, and certainly in transitive hyperbolic maps, the full manifolds $W^s(p),W^u(q)$ are dense in phase space and intersect infinitely many times, [@Si72; @Si77].
[^9]: The Markovian property has a geometrical meaning: imagine each $P_i$ as the “stack” of the connected unstable manifolds portions $\d(x)$, intersections of $P_i$ with the unstable manifolds of its points $x$, which will be called unstable “layers” in $P_i$. Then if $Q_{i,j}=1$, the expanding layers in each $P_i$ expand under the action of $S$ and their images [*fully cover*]{} the layers of $P_j$ which they touch. Formally let $P_i\in\PP$ and $x\in P_i$, $\d(x){\buildrel c\over=} P_i\cap W_u(x)$: the if $Q_{i,j}=1$, [*i.e.*]{} if $SP_i$ visits $P_j$, it is $\d(Sx)\subset S\d(x)$.\[footnote9\]
[^10]: It is worth also stressing that the ambiguity of the histories for the points which visit the boundaries of the sets of a Markovian partition is very familiar in the decimal representation of coordinates: it corresponds to the ambiguity in representing a decimal number as ending in infinitely many $0$’s or in infinitely many $9$’s.
[^11]: If the phase space points are considered as sequences $\Bx$ then the dynamics becomes a “trivial” left shift of histories. This happens always in symbolic dynamics, but in general it is of little interest unless compatibility can be decided by a “hard core condition” involving only nearest neighbors (in general compatibility is a global condition involving all symbols, [*i.e.*]{} as a hard core it is one with infinite range). [*Furthermore*]{} also the statistics of the motion becomes very well understood, because short range $1D$ Gibbs distributions are elementary and well understood.
[^12]: Here it is essential that the CH holds, otherwise if the system has long time tails the analysis becomes much more incolved and so far it can be dealt, even if only qualitatively, on a case by case basis.
[^13]: To get an idea of the orders of magnitude consider a gas of $N$ particles of density $\r$ at temperature $T$: the metric on phase space will be $ds^2=\sum_i(\frac{d\V p_i^2}{k_B
T}+\frac{d\V q_i^2}{\r^{-2/3}})$; hence the size of a microcell will be $\sqrt{O(N)}\,\d_0$ if $\d_0$ is the precision with which the coordinates are imagined determined (in simulations $\d_0\simeq
10^{-14}$ in double precision) as all contributions to $ds^2$ are taken of order $O(1)$. Coarse grained cells contain, in all proposals, many particles, $O(N)$, so that their size will contain a factor $\d$ rather than $\d_0$ and will be $\d/\d_0=O(N^{1/3})$ larger.
[^14]: With extreme care it is sometimes, and in equilibrium, possible to represent evolution with a code which is a true permutation: the only example that I know, dealing with a physically relevant model, is in [@LV93].
[^15]: To see this it is convenient to remark that the $S^{t+m}$-image of a layer $\d(x)\subset \D(\Bx)$ of the attractor will cover some of the layers of $\D(\Bx)$, because $S^t\EE(\Bx)$ visits and fully covers all coarse cells $\EE(\Bx')$, see footnote$^{\ref{footnote9}}$. Hence $S^{t+m}\D(\Bx)$ will fully cover at least part of the layers of the attractor in $\EE(\Bx)$. Actually [*it will cover the whole of*]{} $\D(\Bx)$, because if a layer of $\D(\Bx)$ was left out then it will be left out of all the iterates of $S^{t+m}$ and a nontrivial invariant subset of the attractor for $S^t$ would exist.
[^16]: Which is taken here $\Bk_i=\,$the center of $P_{\x_0}$, but which could equivalently made by choosing other points in $E_\Bx$, for instance by continuing the string $i=(\x_{-\t/2},\ldots,\x_{\t/2})$ to the right and to the left, according to an a priori fixed rule depending only on $\x_{\t/2}$ and $\x_{-\t/2}$ respectively. Thus turning it to a biinfinite compatible string $\Bx_i$ which therefore fixes a new point $\Bk'_i$.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Quantum observables can be identified with vector fields on the sphere of normalized states. Consequently, the uncertainty relations for quantum observables become geometric statements. In the Letter the familiar uncertainty relation follows from the following stronger statement: Of all parallelograms with given sides the rectangle has the largest area.'
author:
- 'A.'
title: Geometric derivation of quantum uncertainty
---
Quantum observables can be identified with vector fields on the space of states. Namely, given a self-adjoint operator ${\widehat A}$ on a Hilbert space $L_{2}$ of square-integrable functions one can introduce the associated linear vector field $A_{\varphi}$ on $L_{2}$ by $$\label{vector}
A_{\varphi}=-i{\widehat A}\varphi.$$ This field is defined on a dense subset $D$ in $L_{2}$ on which the operator ${\widehat A}$ itself is defined. Clearly, to know the vector field $A_{\varphi}$ is the same as to know the operator ${\widehat A}$ itself. Moreover, the commutator of observables and the commutator (Lie bracket) of the corresponding vector fields are related in a simple way: $$\label{comm}
[A_{\varphi},B_{\varphi}]=[{\widehat A},{\widehat B}]\varphi.$$
The field $A_{\varphi}$ associated with an observable, being restricted to the sphere $S^{L_{2}}$ of unit normalized states, is tangent to the sphere. Indeed, the equation for the integral curves of $A_{\varphi}$ has the form $$\label{SchroedA}
\frac{d \varphi_{\tau}}{d\tau}=-i{\widehat A}\varphi_{\tau}.$$ The solution to (\[SchroedA\]) through initial point $\varphi_{0}$ is given by $\varphi_{\tau}=e^{-i{\widehat A}\tau}\varphi_{0}$. Here $e^{-i{\widehat A}\tau}$ denotes the one-parameter group of unitary transformations generated by $-i{\widehat A}$, as described by Stone’s theorem. It follows that the integral curve through $\varphi_{0} \in S^{L_{2}}$ will stay on the sphere. One concludes that, modulo the domain issues, the restriction of the vector field $A_{\varphi}$ to the sphere $S^{L_{2}}$ is a vector field on the sphere.
Under the embedding, the inner product on the Hilbert space $L_{2}$ gives rise to a Riemannian metric (i.e., point-dependent real-valued inner product) on the sphere $S^{L_{2}}$. For this one considers the realization $L_{2R}$ of the Hilbert space $L_{2}$, i.e., the real vector space of pairs $X=({\mathrm Re} \psi, {\mathrm Im} \psi)$ with $\psi$ in $L_{2}$. If $\xi, \eta$ are vector fields on $S^{L_{2}}$, one can define a Riemannian metric $G_{\varphi}: T_{R\varphi}S^{L_{2}}\times T_{R\varphi}S^{L_{2}} \longrightarrow R$ on the sphere by $$\label{Riem}
G_{\varphi}(X,Y)={\mathrm Re} (\xi, \eta).$$ Here the tangent space $T_{R\varphi}S^{L_{2}}$ to $S^{L_{2}}$ at a point $\varphi$ is identified with an affine subspace in $L_{2R}$, $X=({\mathrm Re} \xi, {\mathrm Im} \xi)$, $Y=({\mathrm Re} \eta, {\mathrm Im} \eta)$ and $(\xi, \eta)$ denotes the $L_{2}$-inner product of $\xi, \eta$. Note that the obtained Riemannian metric $G_{\varphi}$ is [*strong*]{} in the sense that it yields an isomorphism ${\widehat G}:T_{R\varphi}S^{L_{2}}\longrightarrow \left (T_{R\varphi}S^{L_{2}}\right)^{\ast}$ of dual spaces.
The Riemannian metric on $S^{L_{2}}$ yields a (strong) Riemannian metric on the projective space $CP^{L_{2}}$. For this one defines the metric on $CP^{L_{2}}$ so that the bundle projection $\pi: S^{L_{2}} \longrightarrow CP^{L_{2}}$ would be a Riemannian submersion. The resulting metric on $CP^{L_{2}}$ is called the Fubini-Study metric. To put it simply, an arbitrary tangent vector $X \in T_{R\varphi}S^{L_{2}}$ can be decomposed into two components: tangent and orthogonal to the fibre $\{\varphi\}$ through $\varphi$ (i.e., to the plane $C^{1}$ containing the circle $S^{1}=\{\varphi\}$). The differential $d\pi$ maps the tangent component to zero-vector. The orthogonal component of $X$ can be then identified with $d\pi(X)$. If two vectors $X,Y$ are orthogonal to the fibre $\{\varphi\}$, the inner product of $d\pi(X)$ and $d\pi(Y)$ in the Fubini-Study metric is equal to the inner product of $X$ and $Y$ in the metric $G_{\varphi}$. Note that the obtained Riemannian metrics on $S^{L_{2}}$ and $CP^{L_{2}}$ are invariant under the induced action of the group of unitary transformations on $L_{2}$.
Having a Riemannian metric on the manifolds $S^{L_{2}}$ and $CP^{L_{2}}$ opens a way for formulating the unitary and non-unitary processes in quantum mechanics in geometrical terms. Namely, as shown in Refs.[@Kryukov]-[@Kryukov2] (see also Ref.[@Kryukov3] for the mathematical considerations), both the Schr[ö]{}dinger evolution and the process of collapse of a state can be thought of as geodesic motions on the sphere of states furnished with an appropriate strong Riemannian metric. Such a geometrization of quantum dynamics goes beyond the existing methods of geometrical quantum mechanics pioneered in Refs.[@Gun],[@Kib] (see Refs.[@Abbie]-[@Stulp] for extension of these ideas and review of other recent developments), and the geometric considerations related to Berry’s phase (Refs.[@Berry]-[@Simon] amongst many others). Indeed, in those papers the metric on spaces of states is fixed and, consequently, is not dynamical.
The goal of this work is to demonstrate that the more basic notions of expected value, variance and uncertainty relation also have a clear geometric interpretation. This interpretation is based directly on the association of observables with vector fields on the sphere of states and does not employ the Hamiltonian formalism on the phase space. This makes the interpretation particularly transparent and naturally leads one to a geometric uncertainty identity.
Let’s begin with the standard uncertainty relation for observables ${\widehat A}, {\widehat B}$: $$\label{uncert}
\Delta A \Delta B \ge \frac{1}{2}\left |\left(\varphi, [{\widehat A},{\widehat B}]\varphi\right)\right|.$$ Here $\Delta A^{2}=(\varphi, {\widehat A}^{2}\varphi)-(\varphi, {\widehat A}\varphi)^{2}$ and similarly for $\Delta B^{2}$ and $\varphi$ is the state of the system under consideration. It is implicit in (\[uncert\]) that the state $\varphi$ is in the domain of all operators involved. As an immediate corollary of the relation one sees that, in general, the standard deviations $\Delta A, \Delta B$ of non-commuting observables cannot be made arbitrarily small at the same time (i.e., for the same state $\varphi$). This constitutes a version of the famous uncertainty principle of Heisenberg [^1].
In light of the identification (\[vector\]) of observables with vector fields on the sphere of states $S^{L_{2}}\subset L_{2}$, each term in (\[uncert\]) obtains a simple geometric interpretation. Namely, the equality $${\overline A} \equiv (\varphi, {\widehat A}\varphi)=(-i\varphi, -i{\widehat A}\varphi),$$ signifies that the expected value of an observable ${\widehat A}$ in the state $\varphi$ is the projection of the vector $-i{\widehat A}\varphi \in T_{\varphi}S^{L_{2}}$ on the vector $-i\varphi=-i I \varphi \in T_{\varphi}S^{L_{2}}$, associated with the identity operator $I$. Because $$(\varphi, {\widehat A}^{2}\varphi)=({\widehat A}\varphi, {\widehat A}\varphi)=(-i{\widehat A}\varphi, -i{\widehat A}\varphi),$$ the term $(\varphi, {\widehat A}^{2}\varphi)$ is just the norm of the vector $-i{\widehat A}\varphi$ squared. Note that the expected value $(\varphi, {\widehat A}_{\bot}\varphi)$ of the operator ${\widehat A}_{\bot} \equiv {\widehat A}-{\overline A}I$ in the state $\varphi$ is zero. Therefore, the vector $-i{\widehat A}_{\bot}\varphi=-i{\widehat A}\varphi-(-i{\overline A}\varphi)$, which is the component of $-i{\widehat A}\varphi$ orthogonal to $-i\varphi$ is orthogonal to the entire fibre $\{\varphi\}$. Accordingly, the variance $$\Delta A^{2}=(\varphi, ({\widehat A}-{\overline A}I)^{2}\varphi)=(\varphi, {\widehat A}_{\bot}^{2}\varphi)=(-i{\widehat A}_{\bot}\varphi, -i{\widehat A}_{\bot}\varphi)$$ is the norm squared of the component $-i{\widehat A}_{\bot}\varphi$. As discussed, the image of this vector under $d\pi$ can be identified with the vector itself. It follows that the norm of $-i{\widehat A}_{\bot}\varphi$ in the Fubini-Study metric coincides with its norm in the Riemannian metric on $S^{L_{2}}$ (and in the original $L_{2}$-metric).
Consider the evolution equation $$\label{evoll}
\frac{d\varphi_{t}}{dt}=-i{\widehat A}\varphi_{t}$$ for the state $\varphi_{t}$ with the initial condition $\left.\varphi_{t}\right|_{t=0}=\varphi$. By projecting both sides of this equation by $d\pi$, one obtains $$\label{ddt}
\frac{d\{\varphi_{t}\}}{dt}=-i{\widehat A}_{\bot}\varphi_{t}.$$ The left hand side of (\[ddt\]) at $t=0$ is the velocity of evolution of the projection of $\varphi_{t}$ at the point $\{\varphi\}\in CP^{L_{2}}$. By the above, the norm of the right hand side at $t=0$ is the uncertainty of ${\widehat A}$ in the state $\varphi$: $$\label{speed}
\|-i{\widehat A}_{\bot}\varphi\|=\Delta A.$$ So the uncertainty $\Delta A$ is equal to the speed of the state $\{\varphi_{t}\}$ at the point $\{\varphi\}$ under the evolution (\[evoll\]). In the case when ${\widehat A}$ is equal to the Hamiltonian ${\widehat h}$ of the system, one obtains the result of Ref.[@AA]: the energy uncertainty is the speed of evolution of the state in the projective space.
One concludes that the left hand side of (\[uncert\]) is the product of norms of the projections of vectors $ -i{\widehat A}\varphi$, $-i{\widehat B}\varphi$ onto $T_{\{\varphi\}}CP^{L_{2}}$. In geometric terms, the left hand side is therefore the area $A_{|XY|}$ of a rectangle with sides of lengths $\|-i{\widehat A}_{\bot}\varphi\|$, $\|-i{\widehat B}_{\bot}\varphi\|$. Let’s show that the right hand side of (\[uncert\]) can be estimated via the area of parallelogram formed by vectors $-i{\widehat A}_{\bot}\varphi$, $-i{\widehat B}_{\bot}\varphi$. For this note that $[{\widehat A}, {\widehat B}]=[{\widehat A}_{\bot}, {\widehat B}_{\bot}]$ and, therefore, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{im}
\nonumber
(\varphi, [{\widehat A}, {\widehat B}]\varphi)=
({\widehat A}_{\bot}\varphi, {\widehat B}_{\bot}\varphi)
-({\widehat B}_{\bot}\varphi, {\widehat A}_{\bot}\varphi) \\
=2i {\mathrm Im}({\widehat A}_{\bot}\varphi, {\widehat B}_{\bot}\varphi)
=2i {\mathrm Im}(-i{\widehat A}_{\bot}\varphi, -i{\widehat B}_{\bot}\varphi).\end{aligned}$$ The form ${\mathrm Im}(\xi,\eta)$ is an anti-symmetric 2-form on vectors $\xi,\eta$. Let $\{e_{k}\}$ be an orthonormal basis in $L_{2}$, such that $e_{1}=-i{\widehat A}_{\bot}\varphi$ and the vector $-i{\widehat B}_{\bot}\varphi$ is in the linear envelop $C^{2}$ of the vectors $e_{1}, e_{2}$. Let $E_{1}=e_{1}$, $E_{2}=ie_{1}$, $E_{3}=e_{2}$, $E_{4}=ie_{2}, \ ...$ be the corresponding orthonormal basis in the realization $L_{2R}$. Note that the linear envelop $R^{4}$ of the vectors $E_{1}, E_{2}, E_{3}, E_{4}$ is a subspace of the tangent space $T_{R\varphi}S^{L_{2}}$ and the Riemannian metric on the sphere yields the Euclidean metric on $R^{4}$. Let’s denote the realization of the vectors $\xi=-i{\widehat A}_{\bot}\varphi, \eta=-i{\widehat B}_{\bot}\varphi$ by $X$ and $Y$ and let’s denote the components of $X$ and $Y$ in the basis $\{E_{k}\}$ by $x_{k}$ and $y_{k}$ respectively. Because $x_{k}=y_{k}=0$ for $k>4$, one has $${\mathrm Im}(\xi,\eta)={\mathrm Im}\sum_{k}\xi_{k} {\overline \eta}_{k}=(x_{2}y_{1}-x_{1}y_{2})+(x_{4}y_{3}-x_{3}y_{4}),$$ and so the right hand side of (\[uncert\]) is equal to $$\label{ima}
%\frac{1}{2}\left |\left(\varphi, [{\widehat A},{\widehat B}]\varphi\right)\right|=
|(x_{1}y_{2}-x_{2}y_{1})+(x_{3}y_{4}-x_{4}y_{3})|.$$ On the other hand, the area squared $A^{2}_{XY}$ of the parallelogram on vectors $X$, $Y$ is equal to $$\begin{aligned}
\label{1n}
\nonumber
(x_{1}y_{2}-x_{2}y_{1})^{2}+(x_{1}y_{3}-x_{3}y_{1})^{2}+(x_{1}y_{4}-x_{4}y_{1})^{2}\\
+(x_{2}y_{3}-x_{3}y_{2})^{2}+(x_{2}y_{4}-x_{4}y_{2})^{2}+(x_{3}y_{4}-x_{4}y_{3})^{2}.\end{aligned}$$ By the choice of $\{E_{k}\}$, we have $x_{2}=x_{3}=x_{4}=0$. By comparing (\[ima\]) and (\[1n\]) one concludes that $$\label{areaEst}
A_{XY} \ge \frac{1}{2}\left |\left(\varphi, [{\widehat A},{\widehat B}]\varphi\right)\right|.$$ As a result, the obvious geometric inequality $$\label{obv}
A_{|XY|} \ge A_{XY},$$ implies the uncertainty relation (\[uncert\]).
It is well known that the uncertainty relation (\[uncert\]) can be somewhat strengthened to take the form $$\label{uncertS}
\Delta A^{2} \Delta B^{2} \ge \frac{1}{4}\left |\left(\varphi, [{\widehat A},{\widehat B}]\varphi\right)\right|^{2}+\frac{1}{4}\left |\left(\varphi, \{{\widehat A}_{\bot},{\widehat B}_{\bot}\}\varphi\right)\right|^{2},$$ where $\{{\widehat A}_{\bot},{\widehat B}_{\bot}\}$ stands for the anticommutator of the operators ${\widehat A}_{\bot},{\widehat B}_{\bot}$. Note that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{re}
\nonumber
(\varphi, \{{\widehat A}_{\bot},{\widehat B}_{
\bot}\}\varphi)=
({\widehat A}_{\bot}\varphi, {\widehat B}_{\bot}\varphi)+({\widehat B}_{\bot}\varphi, {\widehat A}_{\bot}\varphi) \\
=2 {\mathrm Re}({\widehat A}_{\bot}\varphi, {\widehat B}_{\bot}\varphi)
=2 {\mathrm Re}(-i{\widehat A}_{\bot}\varphi, -i{\widehat B}_{\bot}\varphi).\end{aligned}$$ So the second term on the right of (\[uncertS\]) is simply the square of Riemannian inner product of vectors $-i{\widehat A}_{\bot}\varphi$, $-i{\widehat B}_{\bot}\varphi$. With the help of (\[im\]) one can now identify the right hand side of (\[uncertS\]) with $|(-i{\widehat A}_{\bot}\varphi, -i{\widehat B}_{\bot}\varphi)|^{2}$. Using (\[speed\]), one concludes that (\[uncertS\]) is simply the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality $$\|-i{\widehat A}_{\bot}\varphi \|^{2}\|-i{\widehat B}_{\bot}\varphi\|^{2} \ge |(-i{\widehat A}_{\bot}\varphi, -i{\widehat B}_{\bot}\varphi)|^{2}$$ for the vectors $-i{\widehat A}_{\bot}\varphi, -i{\widehat B}_{\bot}\varphi$.
Recall that the left hand side of the uncertainty relations (\[uncert\]), (\[obv\]), (\[uncertS\]) is the product of lengths of vectors $X, Y$. In particular, in the basis $E_{k}$ one has: $$\label{4}
\Delta A^{2} \Delta B^{2}=x^{2}_{1}(y^{2}_{1}+y^{2}_{2}+y^{2}_{3}+y^{2}_{4}).$$ Note that the right hand sides of the uncertainty relations (\[uncert\]), (\[obv\]) and (\[uncertS\]) are formed by the terms of (\[4\]). In particular, these uncertainty relations follow from (\[4\]). Moreover, the right hand side of (\[4\]) is exactly the sum of the Riemannian inner product term squared $\left ({\mathrm Re} (-i{\widehat A}_{\bot}\varphi, -i{\widehat B}_{\bot}\varphi)\right)^{2}=G^{2}_{\varphi} (X, Y)=x^{2}_{1}y^{2}_{1}$ and the area term squared $A^{2}_{XY}=x^{2}_{1}(y^{2}_{2}+y^{2}_{3}+y^{2}_{4})$. It follows that the uncertainty relation can be written in the form of the “uncertainty identity” $$\label{Pyth}
\Delta A^{2} \Delta B^{2}=A^{2}_{XY}+ G^{2}_{\varphi} (X, Y),$$ with $X=-i{\widehat A}_{\bot}\varphi$ and $Y=-i{\widehat B}_{\bot}\varphi$.
One concludes, once again, that $A_{XY}=0$ is a necessary condition for vanishing uncertainty $\Delta A \Delta B$. This condition is satisfied when vectors $-i{\widehat A}_{\bot}\varphi$ and $-i{\widehat B}_{\bot}\varphi$ are linearly dependent over ${\mathrm R}$. Another necessary condition that follows from (\[Pyth\]) is the condition of orthogonality of the vectors $-i{\widehat A}_{\bot}\varphi$ and $-i{\widehat B}_{\bot}\varphi$ in the Riemannian metric. The necessary and sufficient condition for $\Delta A \Delta B=0$ is the vanishing of both terms on the right hand side of (\[Pyth\]). In particular, for bounded operators ${\widehat A}, {\widehat B}$, the uncertainty $\Delta A \Delta B$ vanishes iff at least one of the vectors $-i{\widehat A}_{\bot}\varphi$, $-i{\widehat B}_{\bot}\varphi$ vanishes. That is, iff $\varphi$ is an eigenstate of either ${\widehat A}$ or ${\widehat B}$. For example, for the Pauli matrices, $\Delta \sigma_{x} \Delta \sigma_{y}=0$ iff $\varphi$ is an eigenstate of either ${\widehat \sigma}_{x}$ or ${\widehat \sigma}_{y}$.
Assume now that $[{\widehat A}, {\widehat B}]=cI$, where $c$ is a number. Recall that $A_{XY} \ge \frac{1}{2}\left|\left(\varphi, [{\widehat A}, {\widehat B}] \varphi \right) \right|$ and so the first term on the right of (\[Pyth\]) is at least $|c/2|$. Therefore, the uncertainty $\Delta A \Delta B$ is at least $|c/2|$. This minimal value of the uncertainty can only be achieved if $A_{XY}=|c/2|$ and $G_{\varphi} (X, Y)=0$. Recall that in the basis $E_{k}$ one has $A^{2}_{XY}=x^{2}_{1}\left(y^{2}_{2}+y^{2}_{3}+y^{2}_{4}\right)$ and $\frac{1}{2}\left|\left(\varphi, [{\widehat A}, {\widehat B}] \varphi \right) \right|=|x_{1}y_{2}|$. Therefore, to achieve the minimum value one must have $y^{2}_{3}+y^{2}_{4}=0$. It follows that $-i{\widehat B}\varphi=\lambda \left (-i{\widehat A}\varphi \right )$ for some complex $\lambda$. The condition $G_{\varphi} (X, Y)=0$ reads in the basis $E_{k}$ as $x_{1}y_{1}=0$. It follows that $y_{1}$ must be zero, which means that the constant $\lambda$ is purely imaginary. In particular, for the momentum and position operators ${\widehat p}$ and ${\widehat x}$ these conditions yield Gaussian states for which $\Delta p \Delta x =\hbar /2$.
Note that the terms on the right of (\[Pyth\]) can be written as $\left \|X\right\|^{2}\left \|Y\right\|^{2}\sin^{2}\theta$ and $\left \|X\right\|^{2}\left \|Y\right\|^{2}\cos^{2}\theta$, where $\theta$ is the angle between the vectors $X$ and $Y$. In particular, when $\theta=0$ the uncertainty comes from the inner product term $G_{\varphi} (X, Y)$ only and when $\theta=\pi/2$, the uncertainty is due to the area term. By replacing ${\widehat B}$ with a real linear combination of the operators ${\widehat A}$, ${\widehat B}$, one can change $\theta$ in any desirable way while preserving the uncertainty $\Delta A \Delta B$.
The standard uncertainty relations (\[uncert\]), (\[uncertS\]), the derived geometric uncertainty relation (\[obv\]) and the uncertainty identity (\[Pyth\]) are mathematical statements. The mystery of the uncertainty principle lies not so much in these statements, but rather in a physical interpretation of operators and states entering the statements. So, what is the significance of the provided derivation in this respect?
The quantum evolution of a system yields a path on the sphere of states. The projection $\pi: S^{L_{2}} \longrightarrow CP^{L_{2}}$ gives then a path on the projective space $CP^{L_{2}}$ of physical states. As advocated in Refs.[@Kryukov]-[@Kryukov2], the evolution of state along the manifolds $S^{L_{2}}$ and $CP^{L_{2}}$ should be treated as a fundamental physical process, rather than just a way of describing changes in probability distributions of measured quantities. As shown in Ref.[@Kryukov2], by choosing an appropriate Riemannian metric on the sphere $S^{L_{2}}$, one can ensure that the Schr[ö]{}dinger path of the state is a geodesic on the sphere. Moreover, at least in the finite dimensional spaces of states, the process of collapse can be also modeled by a geodesic motion of the state in the metric perturbed by the measuring device. The Born rule for probability of collapse can be derived from simple additional assumptions (see Ref.[@Kryukov2]).
One is faced then with a new point of view on quantum mechanics that makes that theory quite similar to Einstein’s general relativity, but considered on a manifold of states rather than on space-time. The approach turns out to be fruitful in explaining various paradoxical results in quantum theory via the geometry of the manifold of states. Moreover, the formalism allows one to naturally embed the physics of macroscopic particles on the classical Riemannian space into the theory (see Ref.[@Kryukov]). In light of this, the provided geometric derivation of the uncertainty relation and the uncertainty identity seems to be another piece of the puzzle falling into place.
What is the physical interpretation of quantum uncertainty in the the new geometrical setting? The answer depends on the one’s definition of the uncertainty. Here are some possible definitions together with their geometric interpretation.
($\alpha$) Note first of all that the set of eigenstates of two non-commuting observables ${\widehat A}, {\widehat B}$ form two non-identical (often, non-overlapping) subsets $S_{A}, S_{B}$ of the sphere of states. If the intersection $S_{A}\cap S_{B}$ is empty, the state cannot belong to both of them at once. If the state is close in the Riemannian metric to one of these subsets, it cannot be arbitrarily close to the other one, hence, the uncertainty principle.
Mathematically, the principle can be formulated in this case via the triangle inequality on the sphere of states. Namely, if $\varphi$ is the state of the system and $d(\varphi, S_{A})$, $d(\varphi, S_{B})$, $d(S_{A}, S_{B})$ are the distances in the Riemannian metric between $\varphi$ and $S_{A}$, $\varphi$ and $S_{B}$, $S_{A}$ and $S_{B}$ respectively, then $$\label{uncert-dAB}
d(\varphi, S_{A})+d(\varphi, S_{B})\ge d(S_{A}, S_{B}).$$ By projecting on $CP^{L_{2}}$, one obtains a similar inequality for physical states.
In such an interpretation the uncertainty of an observable ${\widehat A}$ is the [*distance*]{} from the state to the set of eigenstates of ${\widehat A}$ in the Riemannian metric. The uncertainty relation (\[uncert-dAB\]) shows that for two observables with no common eigenvectors the state cannot be made arbitrarily close to both $S_{A}$ and $S_{B}$ at once. For example, for spin states $\varphi$ of a non-relativistic electron one has $d(\{\varphi\}, \{S_{ \sigma_{x}}\})+d(\{\varphi\}, \{S_{ \sigma_{y}}\})\ge \frac{\pi}{2}$.
($\beta$) More commonly, the uncertainty of an observable ${\widehat A}$ in state $\varphi$ is defined as the [*standard deviation*]{} $\Delta A$. Recall that $\Delta A$ is the norm of the velocity vector $-i{\widehat A}_{\bot}\varphi$ of the evolution $\frac{d\{\varphi_{t}\}}{dt}=-i{\widehat A}_{\bot}\varphi_{t}$. The velocity vector vanishes at the eigenstates (and only at the eigenstates) of the operator ${\widehat A}$. Therefore, the uncertainty $\Delta A$ vanishes only at the eigenstates as well.
Note that in the case of the space $CP^{1}$ of spin states of a non-relativistic electron, the standard deviation $\Delta A$ of any observable ${\widehat A}$ with $-i {\widehat A} \in su(2)$ can be identified with the distance $d(\{\varphi\}, \{S_{A}\})$ between the state and the set of eigenstates of ${\widehat A}$ (see Ref.[@Kryukov2]). In other words, the speed of evolution of the state in $CP^{1}$ is proportional to the distance $d(\{\varphi\}, \{S_{A}\})$. In this particular case the definitions ($\alpha$) and ($\beta$) coincide.
($\gamma$) The uncertainty can be understood as the product $\Delta A \Delta B$ of standard deviations of two observables for a system in a given state $\varphi$ (or, in some cases, as the infimum of the set of such products for all possible states). Suppose that the velocity vectors $-i{\widehat A}_{\bot}\varphi$, $-i{\widehat B}_{\bot}\varphi$, considered as vectors in the real space $L_{2R}$, are linearly dependent. Then the area of the parallelogram based on these vectors vanishes. In this case the right hand side of the geometric uncertainty relation (\[obv\]) also vanishes. This provides one with a simple geometrical [*necessary*]{} condition for vanishing $\Delta A \Delta B$.
($\delta$) A related and most common understanding of quantum uncertainty is based on the standard uncertainty relation (\[uncert\]). This relation is often used to identify quantum uncertainty in the sense ($\gamma$) with non-commutativity of quantum observables under consideration. Note however that according to (\[uncertS\]), the lower bound of the product of standard deviations of two commuting observables on a given set of states may be positive [^2]. Conversely, even if two observables do not commute, they could still have a common eigenvector so that the standard deviations of both observables on this vector would vanish. In other words, the non-commutativity of observables ${\widehat A}, {\widehat B}$ is neither necessary nor sufficient for a nontrivial uncertainty relation.
It is a pleasure to thank Malcolm Forster for numerous discussions that helped shaping this paper.
[99]{}
C. G[ü]{}nter, [*Int. J. Theor. Phys.*]{} [**16**]{}, 447 (1977)
T.W.B. Kibble, [*Commun. Math. Phys.*]{} [**65**]{}, 189 (1979)
A. Ashtekar and T.A. Schilling, in [*On Einstein’s Path*]{}, edited by A. Harvey (Springer, Berlin, 1998)
L.P. Hughston, in [*Twistor Theory*]{}, edited by S. Huggett (New York, Marcel Dekker, 1995)
D.C. Brody and L.P. Hughston, [*Proc. Roy. Soc. London*]{} [**A 458**]{}, 1117 (2002)
I. Bjelakovi[ć]{} and W. Stulpe, [*Int. J. Theor. Phys.*]{} [**44**]{}, 2041 (2005)
M. V. Berry, [*Proc. Roy. Soc. London*]{} [**A 392**]{}, 45 (1984)
J. Anandan & Y. Aharonov, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**65**]{}, 1697 (1990)
B. Simon, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**51**]{}, 2167 (1983)
A. Kryukov, [*Found. Phys.*]{} [**34**]{}, 1225 (2004)
A. Kryukov, [*Found. Phys.*]{} [**36**]{}, 175 (2006)
A. Kryukov, [*Found. Phys.*]{} [**37**]{}, 3 (2007)
A. Kryukov, [*Int. J. Math. & Math. Sci.*]{} [**14**]{}, 2241 (2005)
[^1]: In the original Heisenberg formulation of the principle the issue of [*simultaneous*]{} measurements of observables is central. The mathematically derived uncertainty relations are not about such measurements, but rather about the standard deviations (or the like measures) of the observables measured separately on the same state.
[^2]: Of course, the lower bound of the product of standard deviations of two commuting observables over the [*entire*]{} sphere of states is zero. However, it is an unnecessary limitation to consider this case only.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'In analogy to various fermions of electrons in topological semimetals, topological mechanical states with two type of bosons, Dirac and Weyl bosons, were reported in some macroscopic systems of kHz frequency and those with a type of doubly-Weyl phonons in atomic vibrational framework of THz frequency of solid crystals were recently predicted. However, to date no three-component bosons of phonon has been reported. Here, through first-principles calculations, we have reported that the phonon spectra of the WC-type TiS, ZrSe, and HfTe commonly host the unique triply degenerate nodal points (TDNPs) and single two-component Weyl points (WPs) in THz frequency. Quasiparticle excitations near TDNPs of phonons are three-component bosons, beyond the conventional and known classifications of Dirac, Weyl and doubly-Weyl phonons. [Moreover, we have found that both TiS and ZrSe have five pairs of type-I Weyl phonons and a pair of type-II Weyl phonons, whereas HfTe only has four pairs of type-I Weyl phonons. They carry non-zero topological charges. On the (10$\bar{1}$0) crystal surfaces, we observe topological protected surface arc states connecting two WPs with opposite charges, which host modes that propagate nearly in one direction on the surface.]{}'
author:
- Jiangxu Li
- Qing Xie
- Sami Ullah
- Ronghan Li
- Hui Ma
- Dianzhong Li
- Yiyi Li
- 'Xing-Qiu Chen'
title: '[Coexisted Three-component Bosons and Two-component Weyl Bosons]{} in TiS, ZrSe and HfTe'
---
Introductions
=============
Topological semimetals [@H.Weng2016; @Y.B2016; @C.K2016; @A.Bansil2016; @S.Rao] are one of the fast growing families in the frontier of material sciences and condensed matter physics due to their unique density of states, transport properties and novel topological surface states as well as their potential for use in quantum computers, spintronics and novel physics. It has been well-known that topological semimetals highlight several main types of interesting fermions in crystal solids, such as three-dimensional (3D) Dirac cones [@Z.Wang2012; @Cheng.X2014; @Young2012; @Liu.Z2014; @Xu2015; @Z.W2013; @Z.K2014; @Neupane2014; @Du.Y2015; @J.Hul; @B.J2014], Weyl nodes[@S.Murakami2007; @X.Wan2011; @G.Xu2011; @S.Y2015; @Shekhar2015; @S.Y_02015; @H.Weng2015; @S.M2014; @B.Q2015; @B.Q_02015; @S.-Y2015; @L.Yang2015; @Y.Zhang2016; @A.A2015; @Xu; @SY2016; @Chang2016; @Yang2016; @Singh2012; @Ruan2016], Dirac nodal lines[@Fang.C2016; @Ryu2002; @Heikkila2011; @Burkov.A2011; @Ronghan2016; @Weng.H.M2015; @Yu.R2015; @Kim2015; @Xie.L2015; @M.G.Zeng2015; @Mullen2015], triply degenerate nodal points[@B.Bradlyn2016; @G.W2016; @H.Weng_02016; @H.Weng_12016; @Zhu2016; @G.Chang2016; @He.J2017; @Ding.H2017; @H.Yang2017; @J.Yu2017], and even beyond[@B.Bradlyn2016]. In addition, their realization in crystal solids is also important because they provide the ways to study elementary particles, which were long-sought and predicted ones, in high-energy physics. Importantly, in similarity to various fermions of electrons, the exciting progresses of the bosons (vibrational phonons) have been also predicted [@Lu.L2013] or observed in the 3D momentum space of solid crystals with the topological vibrational states, such as Dirac, Weyl and line-node phonons in photonic crystals only with macroscopic systems of kHz frequency [@Lu.L2013; @Lu.L2015; @Huber.S2016; @Prodan.E2009; @Chen.B2014; @Yang.Z2015; @Wang.P2015; @Xiao.M2015; @Nash.L2015; @Susstrunk2015; @Mousavi2015; @Fleury2016; @Rocklin2016; @He2016; @Susstrunk2016; @Lifeng2017] and, even most recently, theoretically predicted doubly-Weyl phonons in transition-metal monosilicides with atomic vibrations at THz frequency [@Zhang.T2017]. However, to date no three-component bosons have been reported, although three-component fermions have been experimentally discovered in the most recent work of MoP [@Ding.H2017].
The three-component bosons would possibly occur in atomic solid crystals because three-fold degeneracy can be protected by lattice symmetries, such as symmorphic rotation combined with mirror symmetries and non-symmorphic symmetries, as what was already demonstrated to be triply degenerated points of electronic fermions in the solid crystals [@B.Bradlyn2016; @G.W2016; @H.Weng_02016; @H.Weng_12016; @Zhu2016; @G.Chang2016; @He.J2017; @Ding.H2017]. In addition to the importance of seeking the new type of three-component bosons, the topological phononic states will be extremely interesting because they could certainly enable materials to exhibit novel heat transfer, phonon scattering and electron-phonon interactions, as well as other properties related with vibrational modes, such as thermodynamics. [In the first, in similarity to topological properties of electrons, the topological effects of phonons can induce the one-way edge phonon states (the topologically protected boundary states). These states will conduct phonon with little or no scattering[@He2016; @Mousavi2015], highlighting possible applications for designing phononic circuits[@Liuduan2016]. Utilizing the one-way edge phonon states an ideal phonon diode [@Liuduan2016] with fully 100% efficiency becomes potential in a multi-terminal transport system. In the second, in different from that of electrons, as one of bosons, phonons, are not limited by the Pauli exclusion principle. This fact demonstrates that the whole frequency zone of phonon spectrum can be physically probed. It was even theoretically demonstrated that the chiral phonons excited by polarized photons can be detected by a valley phonon Hall effect in monolayer hexagonal lattices [@Zhanglifa2015]. Within this context, through first-principles calculations we report on the novel coexistence of the triply degenerate nodal points (TDNPs) and type-I and type-II Weyl nodes (WPs) of phonons in three compounds of TiS, ZrSe and HfTe. Interestingly, these three materials simultaneously still exhibit three-component fermions and two-component Weyl fermions from their electronic structures. The coexistence of three-component bosons, two-component Weyl bosons, three-component fermions and two-component Weyl fermions provide attractive candidates to study the interplays between topological phonons and topological fermions in the same solid crystals.]{}
Methods
=======
Within the framework of the density functional theory (DFT) [@Hohenberg.P1964; @Kohn.W1965] and the density functional perturbation theory (DFPT) [@Baroni.S2001], we have performed the calculations on the structural optimization, the electronic band structures, the phonon calculations and surface electronic band structures. Both DFT and DFPT calculations have been performed by employing the Vienna *ab initio* Simulation Package (VASP) [@G.Kresse1993; @G.Kresse1994; @G.Kresse1996], with the projector augmented wave (PAW) pseudopotens [@P.E1994; @G.Kresse1999] and the generalized gradient approximation (GGA) within the Perdew-Burke-Ernzerhof (PBE) exchange-correlation functional[@J.P1996]. The adopted PAW-PBE pseudopotentials of all elements treat semi-core valence electrons as valence electrons. A very accurate optimization of structural parameters have been calculated by minimizing the interionic forces below 0.0001 eV/Å. The cut-off energy for the expansion of the wave function into the plane waves was 500 eV. The Brillouin zone integrations were performed on the Monkhorst-Pack k-meshes (21$\times$21$\times$23) and were sampled with a resolution of 2$\pi$ $\times$ 0.014Å$^{-1}$. The band structures, either with or without the inclusion of spin-orbit coupling (SOC), have been performed by the Gaussian smearing method with a width of smearing at 0.01 eV. Furthermore, the tight-binding (TB) through Green’s function methodology [@M.P1985; @Weng2014; @Weng2015] were used to investigate the surface states. We have calculated the Hamiltonian of tight-binding (TB) approach through maximally-localized Wannier functions (MLWFs) [@N.Marzari1997; @I.Souza2001] by using the Wannier 90code [@A.A2008]. To calculate phonon dispersions, force constants are generated based on finite displacement method within the 4$\times$4$\times$4 supercells using the VASP code and their dispersions have been further derived by Phononpy code [@L.Chaput2011]. We have also computed the phonon dispersions by including the SOC effect, which has been turned out to be no any influence in them. [Furthermore, the force constants are used as the tight-binding parameters to build the dynamic matrices. We determine the topological charges of the WPs by using the Wilson-loop method [@Soluyanov2011; @add1]. The surface phonon DOSs are obtained by using the iteration Green’s function method [@M.P1985].]{}
Results and Discussions
=======================
Crystal structure and structural stabilities of the *MX* compounds
------------------------------------------------------------------
Recently, the type of WC-type materials (Fig. \[fig1\](a)), including ZrTe, TaN, MoP and WC, has been theoretically reported to host the coexistence of the TDNPs and WPs in their electronic structures. This type of coexisted fermions of electronic TDNPs and WPs have been recently confirmed in MoP [@Ding.H2017]. We further extended this family by proposing eight compounds (TiS, TiSe, TiTe, ZrS, ZrSe, HfS, HfSe and HfTe), which are isoelectronic and isostructural to ZrTe. Among these compounds, five compounds of TiS, ZrS, ZrSe$_{0.90}$, and Hf$_{0.92}$Se as well as ZrTe were experimentally reported to have the same WC-type structure [@Hahn_01959; @Harry1957; @Steiger1970; @Hahn1959; @Schewe1994; @Sodeck1979; @G.O2001; @G.O2014]. [No any experimental data is available for the remaining four compounds of TiSe, TiTe, HfS, and HfTe. Here, in order to systematically investigate their electronic structures and phonon spectra and to compare their differences, we have considered that all these nine compounds crystallize in the same WC-type structure.]{} For five experimentally known compounds TiS, ZrS, ZrSe, ZrTe and HfSe, our DFT calculations yield the good agreement of their equilibrium lattice parameters with the experimental data (see supplementary Table S1). Their enthalpies of formation are derived in supplementary Table S1, indicating their stabilities in the thermodynamics and their phonon dispersions have no any imaginary frequencies, revealing the stabilities in the atomic mechanical vibrations.
![[WC-type crystal structure and its Brilliouin zone of *MX*]{}(*M* = Ti, Zr, Hf; *X* = S, Se, Te). These materials crystallize in the simple hexagonal crystal structure with the space group of $P\bar{6}m2$ (No. 187). $M$ occupies the 1$a$ Wyckoff site (0, 0, 0) and $X$ locates at the 1$d$ (1/3, 2/3, 1/2) site. Panel (**a**) shows the phonon vertical vibrational mode (Mode$_\perp^z$) along the $k_z$ direction at the boundary – the high-symmetry A (0, 0, $\pi$/2) point – of the Brilliouin zone (BZ). Panel (**b**) denotes the phonon planar vibrational mode (Mode$_{=}^{x}$) along the $k_x$ direction, which is two-fold degenerate (Mode$_{=}^{x,y}$ = Mode$_{=}^{x}$ = Mode$_{=}^{y}$) because of its C$_{3v}$ rotational symmetry. Panel (**c**) The BZ in which the closed loops around each $K$ point denotes the Dirac nodal lines (DNLs) of electrons around the Fermi level when SOC is ignored. With the SOC inclusion each DNL is broken into two Weyl points with the opposite chirality, marked as blue (WP-) and red (WP+) balls and they coexist with the triply degenerate nodal point (TDNP) of electronic structure (namely, three-component fermion). Panel (**d**) shows the triply degenerate nodal point (TDNP) of phonon dispersions ( three-component boson) along the $\Gamma$-A direction in the BZ.[]{data-label="fig1"}](Figure1.eps){height="45.00000%"}
{height="37.00000%"}
Three-component fermions and two-component Weyl fermions in the electronic structures
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[We have elucidated the electronic band structures of these nine compounds. Interestingly, they are in similarity to the case of ZrTe in Ref. . As an example, the electronic band structure of ZrSe is given in the supplementary Fig. S1, indicating the coexisted fermions, TDNPs and WPs, whose coordinators are further compiled in Fig. \[fig1\]c. Of course, the similar electronic behaviors can be observed for other compounds. But, TiS is unique. Because of its rather weak spin-orbit coupling (SOC) effect, TiS exhibits the coexistence of the six DNLs and the two six-fold degenerate nodal points of its electronic structure in the BZ. This situation is exactly what happens for other eight compounds when the SOC effect is ignored. Basically, the appearance of these two types of fermions, TDNPs and WPs, in this family share the same physics, as previously discussed for ZrTe[@H.Weng_12016]. The details of their electronic structures and their topologically protected non-trivial surface states refer to the supplementary Figs. S1, S2, S3, and S4 as well as the corresponding supplementary texts.]{}
Triply degenerate nodal points (TDNPs) of the phonons in TiS, ZrSe and HfTe
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have found that the presence of the triply degenerate nodal points (TDNPs) of the phonons in three compounds of TiS, ZrSe and HfTe after a systemical analysis of their phonon dispersions (supplementary Fig. S5). Because each primitive cell contains two atoms (Fig. \[fig1\](a)), their phonon dispersions have six branches consisting of three acoustic and three optical ones, respectively. As compared with the computed phonon dispersions in Fig. \[fig2\](a, b, and c) and their phonon densities of states in Fig. \[fig2\](d, e, and f) of the isoelectronic ZrS, ZrSe and ZrTe compounds, a well-separated acoustic-optical gap can be observed in both ZrS and ZrTe with the smallest direct gap at the A point (0, 0, $\pi$/2) on the boundary of the BZ. The specified analysis uncovered that for both ZrS and ZrTe compounds the top phonon band of the gap at the A point is comprised with the doubly degenerate vibrational mode of phonons in which both Zr and S (or Te) atoms, oppositely and collinearly, displace along either $x$ or $y$ direction (Mode$_{=}^{x,y}$ as marked in Fig. \[fig1\](b)). The vibrational amplitude of the Mode$_{=}^{x,y}$ are contributed nearly 100% by the Zr atom, rather than by S (or Te) atoms. The bottom phononic band of the gap at the A point is a singlet state originated from the vibrational mode at which both Zr and S (or Te) atoms collinearly move in the same $k_z$ direction (Mode$_{\perp}^{z}$ as marked in Fig. \[fig1\](a)). But its amplitude of this Mode$_{\perp}^{z}$ are almost fully dominated by the displacement of S (or Te) atoms.
In contrast to both ZrS and ZrTe in Fig. \[fig2\], the case of ZrSe shows no acoustic-optical gap (Fig. \[fig2\](b)), as illustrated by its phonon density of states in \[fig2\](e)). It has been noted that the planar Mode$_{=}^{x,y}$ at the A point becomes now lower in frequency than the Mode$_{\perp}^{z}$. Accordingly, this fact corresponds to the occurrence of phonon band inversion at the A point. It means the unusual fact that around A point the optical phonon bands inverts below the acoustic band which normally should have a lower frequency. Physically, within the (quasi)harmonic approximation the vibrational frequency, $\omega$, have to be proportional to $\sqrt{\beta/m}$ at the boundary of the BZ. Here, $\beta$ is the second-order force constant – the second derivative of the energy following a given vibrational mode as a function of the displacement and $m$ the atomic mass. Therefore, as seen in Fig. \[fig2\](b) for ZrSe the occurrence of the phonon band inversion at the boundary A point is certainly induced by both $\beta$ and $m$ which are determined by the planar Mode$_{=}^{x,y}$ and the Mode$_{\perp}^{z}$ at the A point. Following this consideration, we have defined the dimensionless ratio $\tau$ as follows, $$\tau = \frac{\sqrt{\beta_=/m_=}}{\sqrt{\beta_\perp/m_\perp}},$$ where $\tau$ specifies the comparison between the frequencies of both Mode$_{=}^{x,y}$ and Mode$_{\perp}^z$. With $\tau$ $>$ 1 the material shows no band inversion, thereby indicating no TDNPs. When $\tau$ $<$ 1 implies the appearance of the phonon band inversion with the TDNPs in the acoustic and optical gap. With such a definition, we further plot the $\beta$ with the sequence of ZrS, ZrSe and ZrTe in Fig. \[fig3\](a). It has been found that, only with the second-order force constants of $\beta_{=}$ and $\beta_{\perp}$ (Fig. \[fig3\](a)) it is not enough to induce the phonon band inversion. This fact is in agreement with the Eq. (1) although the $\beta_{=}$-$\beta_{\perp}$ difference is the smallest in ZrSe among them in Fig. \[fig3\](a). Furthermore, for all nine compounds in this family we compiled their $\tau$ values as a function of the ratio ($\delta$) of the atomic masses related with Mode$_{=}^{x,y}$ over Mode$_{\perp}^z$ (namely, $\delta$ = $m$(Mode$_{=}^{x,y}$)/$m$(Mode$_{\perp}^{z}$)) in Fig. \[fig3\](b). [With increasing the ratio of the atomic masses, the $\tau$ value increases in a nearly linear manner. This implies that, if the atomic masses of constituents in a targeted material highly differ, the possibility to have TDNPs in the acoustic and optical gap of its phonon dispersion is extremely low. However, if they have the comparable atomic masses with the $\delta$ ratio close to 1 the possibility to have TDNPs is high in the acoustic and optical gap. Following this model, we have further uncovered that, because the $\tau$ value is smaller than 1, both TiS and HfTe have similar property as what ZrSe does (Fig. \[fig3\](b)). The findings for both TiS and HfTe are in accordance with the DFT-derived phonon dispersions in supplementary Fig. S5. However, there is no TDNP in the acoustic and optical gap of the other members. These facts imply that in these materials the difference between the atomic masses of constituents in compound plays a key role in inducing the phonon band inversion for the appearance of TDNPs in the acoustic and optical gap, as seen for three cases of TiS, ZrSe and HfTe whose $\delta$ value are all around 1.]{}
{height="37.00000%"}
Importantly, as accompanying with the occurrence of the phonon band inversion, the TDNPs, featured by a linear crossing of the frequencies between the acoustic and optical bands, unavoidably appear at (0, 0, $k_z$ = $\pm$0.40769) along the $\Gamma$-A direction in the BZ (Fig. \[fig2\](b) and Fig. \[fig3\]) for ZrSe. Their appearance of the TDNPs in the acoustic and optical gap is indeed protected by the C$_{3z}$ rotation and mirror symmetries along the $\Gamma$-A direction because C$_{3z}$ allows the coexistence of two-fold (Mode$_{=}^{x,y}$) and one-fold (Mode$_{\perp}^Z$) representations, in similarity to their electronic band structures as discussed above. To elucidate the underlying mechanism of the phonon TDNPs in the acoustic and optical gap, it still needs to be emphasized that, on the one hand, the rotation and mirror symmetries substantially provide the prerequisite to produce these two competing modes (two-fold Mode$_{=}^{x,y}$ and one-fold Mode$_{\perp}^Z$) and, on the other hand, the comparable atomic masses of constituent elements are another ingredient to trigger the phononic band inversion. Of course, at this TDNP it still implies that the planar Mode$_{=}^{x,y}$ and the Mode$_{\perp}^Z$ at (0, 0, $k_z$ = $\pm$0.40769) locate at the strictly same frequency of 183.9 cm$^{-1}$. The TDNPs locate at (0, 0, $k_z$ = $\pm$0.40382) with the frequency of 293.4 cm $^{-1}$ for TiS and at (0, 0, $k_z$ = $\pm$0.43045) with the frequency of 133.3 cm $^{-1}$ for HfTe. To elucidate the 3D TDNP shape of ZrSe, we also plot the zoom-in dispersions on both $k_{z}$ = 0 and $k_y$ = 0 planes of BZ in Fig. \[fig3\]. From both Fig. \[fig3\](c) and \[fig3\](d) in the $k_{z}$ = 0 the TDNP in the acoustic and optical gap can be clearly visualized to have an isotropic shape. However, in the $k_y$ = 0 plane the phonon bands around the TDNPs are highly complex with the helicoid shape (Fig. \[fig3\](e) and \[fig3\](f)).
Two-component Weyl phonons in TiS, ZrSe and HfTe
------------------------------------------------
[Besides the existence of the TDNPs in TiS, ZrSe and HfTe, the calculations revealed the occurrence of the two-component Weyl nodes (WPs) in their phonon spectra. As evidenced in Fig. \[fig4\](a) for TiS, the phonon bands have five different band crossings (from C1 to C5) at the high-symmetry K point and a band crossing at the H point. In particular, because these crossings are not constrained by any mirror symmetry, they result in the appearance of six pairs of WPs (Table \[tab1\]). Among them, the band crossings from C1 to C5 confirm the five pairs of type-I WPs from WP1 to WP5 and the C6 crossing gives rise to the sixth pair of type-II WP6 one. The phonon dispersions of type-I and type-II WPs are shown in Fig. \[fig4\]h and Fig. \[fig4\]i, respectively. To identify their topological non-trivial properties, we have calculated the topological charge of each Weyl node, which is defined by the integration of Berry curvature using a closed surface surrounding a node within the framework of the Wilson-loop method [@Soluyanov2011; @add1]. For instance, Fig. \[fig4\](d and e) shows the Wannier center evolutions around WP3+ and WP2- with the topological positive and negative charges, respectively. Their corresponding Berry curvatures are shown in Fig. \[fig4\](f and g), indicating that the positive and negative charges, WP3+ and WP2-, have different winding directions of their Berry curvatures. Furthermore, we determine the charges of all the WPs of TiS in Table I. In similarity, ZrSe shares the same six pairs of WPs (5 pairs for type-I ones and a pair for type-II one) in Fig. \[fig4\]b whereas HfTe only has four pairs of type-I WPs in Fig. \[fig4\]c, whose coordinators are given in Table \[tab1\]. This difference is mainly because in HfTe the phonon dispersions from K to H are lacking of two band crossings, C3 at K and C6 at H.]{}
{height="70.00000%"}
{width="100.00000%"}
{width="100.00000%"}
[Certainly, the existence of these WPs gives rise to the topologically protected non-trivial surface states (TPSSs) of the surface phonon dispersions. As shown in Fig. \[fig5\](a, b and c), we have calculated the surface phonon spectrum of the (10$\bar{1}$0) surface of TiS along the high-symmetry momentum paths in the surface BZ. In particular, in order to see the projections of all WPs on the (10$\bar{1}$0) surface, we have plot the surface phonon dispersions (Fig. \[fig5\](b and c)) along the $\bar{K}$-$\bar{H}$ direction, as defined in the (10$\bar{1}$0) surface BZ (Fig. \[fig5\]d). This $\bar{K}$-$\bar{H}$ direction indeed is the projection of the K-H direction in the bulk BZ. As evidenced in Fig. \[fig5\]b, the three type-I WPs, WP1, WP2, and WP3, are clearly demonstrated and the other two type-I WP4 and WP5 as well as another type-II WP6 can be apparently seen in the Fig. \[fig5\]c. Accordingly, we have observed the interesting TPSSs, which are typically connecting each WP in \[fig5\](b and c). We further plot their 2D visualization of their phonon density of states (PDOSs) in Fig. \[fig5\](d to i) using the exact frequencies with 361.22 cm$^{-1}$ of WP1, 349.10 cm$^{-1}$ of WP2, 289.21 cm$^{-1}$ of WP3, 242.05 cm$^{-1}$ of WP4, 238.37 cm$^{-1}$ of WP5, and 231.30 cm$^{-1}$ of WP6, respectively. Interestingly, at each frequency for the (10$\bar{1}$0) surface in Fig. \[fig5\](d to i), the TPSSs featured by the broken surface arcs connecting two WPs with opposite charges for WP1, WP2, WP3 and WP6 can be clearly visualized. However, it is a bit difficult to observe the broken arcs states connecting WP4 and WP5 on the (10$\bar{1}$0) surface because they are heavily overlapped with the projections of bulk phonon states. The case of ZrSe also exhibits the quite similar arc states of surface phonon on its (10$\bar{1}$0) surface (not shown here).]{}
[As compared with both cases of both TiS and ZrSe, HfTe exhibits some differences. HfTe only has four pairs of type-I WPs as marked in Fig. \[fig4\]c and no type-II WPs. Fig. \[fig6\] shows its phonon spectrum of the (10$\bar{1}$0) surface and the 2D visualizations of the PDOSs with the frequencies of 172.95 cm$^{-1}$ of WP1, 169.95 cm$^{-1}$ of WP2, 101.67 cm$^{-1}$ of WP4, and 94.99 cm$^{-1}$ of WP5, respectively. The bulk WPs are also projected onto the (10$\bar{1}$0) surface. As shown Fig. \[fig6\]b, the broken arc states of the TPSSs are clearly linked to the pair of WP1 with opposite topological charges, and only partial for both WP2 and WP4 in Fig. \[fig6\](c and d), and not observable for WP5 due to its overlapping with the projected states of bulk phonon dispersions in Fig. \[fig6\]e. In addition, it still needs to be emphasized that the arc states can be certainly observed on some other planes which are paralleling to the bulk H-K direction, such as the (01$\bar{1}$0) plane. However, note that the arc states connecting Weyl nodes cannot be observable on the (0001) surface because, on it, the projections of the K-H direction coincide at the same surface momentum, and their topological charges cancel to each other.]{}
WPs [$k_z$]{} [$\omega$ (cm$^{-1}$)]{} [Charge]{} [Type]{} [$k_z$]{} [$\omega$ (cm$^{-1}$)]{} [Charge]{} [Type]{} [$k_z$]{} [$\omega$ (cm$^{-1}$)]{} [Charge]{} [Type]{}
----- ----------- -------------------------- ------------ ---------- ----------- -------------------------- ------------ ---------- ----------- -------------------------- ------------ ----------
WP1 0.1919 361.22 $+$ I 0.1485 227.76 $+$ I 0.1739 172.95 $+$ I
WP2 0.3628 349.07 $-$ I 0.2600 221.91 $-$ I 0.2798 169.95 $-$ I
WP3 0.0517 289.21 $+$ I 0.0371 194.93 $+$ I
WP4 0.2741 242.05 $-$ I 0.2569 150.52 $-$ I 0.2803 101.67 $-$ I
WP5 0.2533 238.37 $+$ I 0.2486 149.22 $+$ I 0.2205 94.99 $+$ I
WP6 0.3265 231.30 $+$ II 0.2977 142.84 $+$ II
Discussions
===========
[Through the DFT-derived results, these three materials of TiS, ZrSe and HfTe are highly attractive because of the occurrence of the coexisted TDNPs and WPs. In the first, the TDNPs of their phonons are interesting because (i) they provide a good platform to study the behaviors of the basic triple degenerate boson, one of elementary particles, in the real materials, (ii) they are highly robust, which are locked by the threefold rotational symmetry of the hexagonal lattices, and (iii) they exactly occur in the optical-acoustic gap and do not overlap with other phonon bands. Perhaps, the thermal-excited signals related with these TDNPs will not be interfered by other vibrational modes, thereby highlight the viable cases to experimentally probe the TDNP-related properties.]{}
[In the second, it is well-known that in the electronic structures the WPs and their associated topological invariants enable the corresponding materials to exhibit a variety of novel properties, such as robust surface states and chiral anomaly [@S.Murakami2007; @X.Wan2011; @G.Xu2011; @S.Y2015; @Shekhar2015; @S.Y_02015; @H.Weng2015; @S.M2014; @B.Q2015; @B.Q_02015; @S.-Y2015; @L.Yang2015; @Y.Zhang2016; @A.A2015; @Xu; @SY2016; @Chang2016; @Yang2016; @Singh2012; @Ruan2016]. In our current cases, the existence of the bulk phononic WPs and their robust TPSSs render them to be very charming for possible applications, because these states can not be backscattered. In particular, as evidenced in Fig. \[fig5\]j the surface broken arc states connecting a pair of WP1 nodes in TiS exhibit an nearly one-way propagation. Its evolution further extends and shift to the zone boundary with increasing the frequencies in a relatively wide region of frequency in Fig. \[fig5\]j. In similarity, the nearly one-way arc states connecting a pair of WP1 nodes in HfTe can be clearly visualized in Fig. \[fig6\]f. However, the evolution of the surface arc states connecting a pair of type-II WP6 in TiS cannot be fully visualized because most of them are overlapped with the projections of the bulk phonon states in Fig. \[fig5\]k.]{}
SUMMARY
=======
[Summarizing, through first-principles calculations we have revealed that three WC-type materials of TiS, ZrSe and HfTe not only host three-component bosons featured by TDNPs and two-component Weyl bosons featured by WPs in their phonon spectra. In both TiS and ZrSe, there exist six pairs of bulk WPs (five type-I nodes and one type-II node) locating at the K-H line in the BZ, whereas in HfTe only four pairs of type-I WPs exist. We have demonstrated that their phonon spectra of these three cases are topological in nature, exhibiting that the topologically protected non-trivial surface arc states of phonons. These non-trivial states are directly linked with various WPs with opposite chirality. Interestingly, these three cases still exhibit three-component fermions featured by TDNPs and six pairs of two-component Weyl fermions (WPs) in their electronic structures of the bulk crystals. The novel coexistence of the main features of (*i*) three-component bosons, (*ii*) two-component Weyl bosons, and three-component fermions, and (*iii*) two-component Weyl fermions and, in particular, both three-component bosons and three-component fermions at the nearly same momentum (Fig. \[fig1\](c and d)) along the $\Gamma$-A direction could couple to each other through electron-phonon interactions. They hence highlight a wonderful platform to study the interplays between different types of topological electron excitations and topological phonons within the atomistic scale for potential multi-functionality quantum-mechanical properties.]{}
[18]{}
Weng, H.M., Dai, X., & Fang, Z. Topological semimetals predicted from first-principles calculations, *J. Phys. Condens. Matter.* **28**,303001 (2016).
Yan, B.H. & Felser, C. Topological Materials: Weyl semimetals, Annu. Rev. *Condens. Matter Phys.* **8**, 337–354 (2016).
Chiu, C.-K., Teo, J. C. Y., Schnyder, A. P. & Ryu, S. Classification of topological quantum matter with symmetries, *Rev. Mod. Phys.* **88**, 035005 (2016).
Bansil, A., Lin, H., & Das, T. Colloquium: Topological band theory, *Rev. Mod. Phys.* **88**, 021004 (2016).
Rao, S. Weyl semi-metals: A short review, arXiv:1603.02821 (2016).
Wang, Z. J., Sun, Y., Chen, X.-Q., Franchini, C., Xu, G., Weng,H. M., Dai, X. & Fang, Z. Dirac semimetal and topological phase transitions in A$_{3}$Bi (A = Na, K, Rb), *Phys. Rev. B* **85**, 195320 (2012).
Young, S. M., Zaheer, S., Teo, J. C. Y., Kane, C. L., Mele, E. J.& Rappe, A. M. Dirac Semimetal in Three Dimension. *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **108**, 140405 (2012).
Wang,Z. ,Weng, H. , Wu, Q.,Dai, X. & Fang, Z. Three dimensional Dirac semimetal and quantum transport in Cd$_3$As$_2$, *Phys. Rev. B* **88**, 125427 (2013).
Cheng, X. Y., Li, R. H., Sun, Y., Chen, X.-Q., Li, D. Z. & Li, Y. Y. Ground-state phase in the three-dimensional topological Dirac semimetal Na$_3$Bi. *Phys. Rev. B* **89**, 245201 (2014).
Neupane, M., Xu, S. Y., Sankar, R., Alidoust, N., Bian, G., Liu, C., Belopolski, I., Chang, T. R., Jeng, H. T., Lin, H., Bansil, A., Chou, F. & Hasan, M. Z. Observation of a three-dimensional topological Dirac semimetal phase in high-mobility Cd$_3$As$_2$. *Nat. Commun.* **5**, 3786 (2014).
Liu, Z. K., Jiang, J., Zhou, B., Wang, Z.J., Zhang, Y., Weng, H. M., Prabhakaran, D., Mo, S.-K., Peng, H., Dudin, P., Kim, T., Hoesch, M., Fang, Z., Dai, X., Shen, Z. X., Feng, D. L., Hussain, Z., & Chen, Y. L. A stable three-dimensional topological Dirac semimetal Cd$_3$As$_2$. *Nature Mater.* **13**, 677 (2014).
Liu, Z. K., Zhou, B., Zhang, Y., Wang, Z. J., Weng, H. M., Prabhakaran, D., Mo, S.-K., Shen, Z. X., Fang, Z., Dai, X., Hussain,Z. & Chen, Y. L. Discovery of a Three-Dimensional Topological Dirac Semimetal, Na$_3$Bi. *Science* **343**, 864-867 (2014).
Yang, B. J. & Nagaosa, N. Classification of stable three dimensional Dirac semimetals with nontrivial topology, *Nat. Commun.* **5**, 4898 (2014).
Xu, S.-Y., Liu, C., Kushwaha, S. K., Sankar, R., Krizan, J. W., Belopolski, I., Neupane, M., Bian, G., Alidoust, N., Chang, T. R., Jeng, H. T., Huang, C. Y., Tsai, W. F., Lin, H., Shibayev, P. P.,Chou, F. C., Cava, R. J. & Hasan. M. Z. Observation of Fermi arc surface states in a topological metal. *Science* **347**, 294-298 (2015).
Du, Y., Wan, B., Wang, D., Sheng, L., Duan, C.G., & Wan, X.G. Dirac and Weyl Semimetal in XYBi (X= Ba, Eu; Y= Cu, Ag and Au). *Sci. Rep.* **5**, 14423 (2015).
Hu, J., Zhu, Y.L., Graf, D., Tang, Z.J., Liu, J.Y., & Mao, Z.Q. Quantum oscillation studies of topological semimetal candidate ZrGeM (M=S, Se, Te), *Phys. Rev. B* **95**,205134 (2017).
Murakami, S. Phase transition between the quantum spin Hall and insulator phases in 3d: Emergence of a topological gapless phase, *New J. Phys.* **9**, 356 (2007).
Wan, X.G., Turner, A. M., Vishwanath, A. & Savrasov, S. Y. Topological semimetal and Fermi-arc surface states in the electronic structure of pyrochlore iridates, *Phys. Rev. B* **83**,205101 (2011).
Xu, G., Weng H., Wang,Z.,Dai, X.& Fang, Z. Chern Semimetal and the Quantized Anomalous Hall Effect in HgCr$_2$Se$_4$, *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **107**, 186806 (2011).
Xu, S.-Y., Alidoust, N., Belopolski, I., Yuan, Z., Bian, G., Chang, T.-R., Zheng, H., Strocov, V. N., Sanchez, D. S., Chang, G., Zhang, C., Mou, D., Wu, Y., Huang, L., Lee, C.-C., Huang, S.-M., Wang, B., Bansil, A., Jeng, H.-T., Neupert, T., Kaminski, A., Lin, H., Jia, S. & Hasan, M. Z. Discovery of a Weyl fermion state with Fermi arcs in niobium arsenide. *Nature Phys.* **11**, 748-754 (2015).
Shekhar, C., Nayak, A. K., Sun, Y., Schmidt, M., Nicklas, M., Leermakers, I., Zeitler, U., Skourski,Y., Wosnitza, J., Liu, Z.K., Chen,Y.L., Schnelle, W., Borrmann,H., Grin, Y., & Felser, C. & Yan, B.H. Extremely large magnetoresistanceand ultrahigh mobility in the topological Weyl semimetal candidate NbP. *Nature Phys.* **11**, 645-649 (2015)
Xu, S.-Y., Belopolski, I., Sanchez, D. S., Guo, C., Chang, G., Zhang, C., Bian, G., Yuan, Z., Lu, H., Feng, Y., Chang, T.-R., Shibayev, P. P., Prokopovych, M. L., Alidoust N., Zheng, H., Lee, C.-C., Huang, S.-M., Sankar, R., Chou, F., Hsu,C.-H., Jeng, H.-T., Bansil, A., Neupert,T., Strocov, V. N., Lin, H., Jia, S. & Hasan, M. Z. Experimental discovery of a topological Weyl semimetal state in TaP. *Sci. Adv.* **1**, e1501092 (2015).
Weng, H.M., Fang, C., Fang, Z., Bernevig, B. A. & Dai,X. Weyl Semimetal Phase in Noncentrosymmetric Transition-Metal Monophosphides, *Phys. Rev. X* **5**, 011029 (2015).
Huang, S.M., Xu, S.Y., Belopolski, I., Lee, C.C., Chang, G., Wang, B.K., Alidoust, N., Bian, G., Neupane, M., Zhang, C., Jia, S., Bansil, A., Lin, H.& Hasan, M.Z. AWeyl Fermion semimetal with surface Fermi arcs in the transition metal monopnictide TaAs class, *Nat. Commun.* **6**, 7373 (2015).
Lv, B.Q., Weng, H. M., Fu, B.B., Wang, X. P., Miao, H., Ma, J., Richard, P., Huang, X. C., Zhao, L. X., Chen, G. F., Fang, Z., Dai, X., Qian, T. & Ding, H. Experimental Discovery of Weyl Semimetal TaAs, *Phys. Rev. X* **5**, 031013 (2015).
Lv, B.Q., Xu, N., Weng, H. M., Ma, J. Z., Richard, P., Huang, X.C., Zhao, L.X., Chen, G.F., Matt, C.E., Bisti, F., Strocov V.N., Mesot, J., Fang, Z., Dai, X., Qian, T., Shi, M. & Ding, H. Observation of Weyl nodes in TaAs, *Nature Phys.* **11**, 724-728 (2015).
Xu, S.-Y., Belopolski, I., Alidoust, N., Neupane, M., Bian, G., Zhang, C., Sankar, R., Chang, G., Yuan, Z., Lee, C.-C., Huang, S.-M., Zheng, H., Ma, J., Sanchez, D. S., Wang, B. , Bansil, A., ChouF., Shibayev, P.P., Lin, H., Jia, S. & Hasan, M. Z. Discovery of a Weyl fermion semimetal and topological Fermi arcs, *Science* **349**, 613-617 (2015).
Yang, L., Liu, Z., Sun, Y., Peng, H., Yang, H., Zhang, T., Zhou, B., Zhang, Y., Guo, Y., Rahn, M., Prabhakaran, D., Hussain, Z., Mo, S.-K., Felser, C., Yan, B.H. & Chen, Y.L. Weyl semimetal phase in the non-centrosymmetric compound TaAs, *Nature Phys.* **11**, 728-734 (2015).
Zhang, Y., Bulmash, D., Hosur, P., Potter, A. C. & Vishwanath, A. Quantum oscillations from generic surface Fermi arcs and bulk chiral modes in Weyl semimetals, *Sci. Rep.* **6**, 23741 (2016).
Soluyanov, A. A, Gresch,D ., Wang, Z.J., Wu, Q.,Troyer, M., Dai, X. & Bernevig, B A. Type-II Weyl semimetals, *Nature* **527**, 495-498 (2015).
Xu, S.Y., Alidoust, N., Chang, G., Lu, H., Singh, B., Belopolski, I., Sanchez, D., Zhang, X., Bian, G., Zheng, H., & Husanu, M.A. Discovery of Lorentz-violating Weyl fermion semimetal state in LaAlGe materials. arXiv preprint arXiv:1603.07318, (2016).
Chang, G., Singh, B., Xu, S.Y., Bian, G., Huang, S.M., Hsu, CH., Belopolski, I., Alidoust, N., Sanchez, D.S., Zheng, H., & Lu, H. Magnetic and noncentrosymmetric Weyl fermion semimetals in the RAlX family of compounds (R= rare earth, Al= aluminium, X= Si, Ge). arXiv preprint arXiv:1604.02124, (2016).
Yang,H., Sun,Y., Zhang,Y., Shi,W.J., Parkin,S.S., & Yan, B.H. Topological Weyl semimetals in the chiral antiferromagnetic materials Mn$_3$Ge and Mn$_3$Sn. *New J. Phys.* **19**, 015008 (2017).
Singh, B., Sharma,A., Lin, H., Hasan, M.Z., Prasad, R., & Bansil, A. Topological electronic structure and Weyl semimetal in the TlBiSe$_2$ class of semiconductors. *Phys. Rev. B.* **86**, 115208 (2012).
Ruan, J., Jian, S.K., Yao, H., Zhang, H., Zhang, S.C.& Xing, D. Symmetry-protected ideal Weyl semimetal in HgTe-class materials. *Nat. Commun.* **7**, 11136 (2016).
Son, D.T., & Spivak, B. Z. Chiral anomaly and classical negative magnetoresistance of Weyl metals, *Phys. Rev. B* **88**, 104412 (2013).
Huang, X., Zhao, L., Long, Y., Wang, P., Chen, D., Yang, Z., Liang, H., Xue, M., Weng, H., Fang, Z., Dai, X. & Chen, G. Observation of the Chiral-Anomaly-Induced Negative Magnetoresistance in 3D Weyl Semimetal TaAs, *Phys. Rev. X* **5**, 031023 (2015).
Hosur, P.& Qi, X. Recent developments in transport phenomena in Weyl semimetals, *C. R. Phys.* **14**, 857-870 (2013).
Fang, C., Weng, H. M., Dai, X. & Fang, Z. Topological nodal line semimetals. *Chin. Phys. B* **25**, 117106 (2016).
Ryu, S. & Hatsugai, Y. Topological Origin of Zero-Energy Edge States in Particle-Hole Symmetric Systems. *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **89**, 077002 (2002).
Heikkilä, T. T. & Volovik, G. E. Dimensional crossover in topological matter: Evolution of the multiple Dirac point in the layered system to the flat band on the surface. *JETP Lett.* **93**, 59-65 (2011).
Burkov, A. A., Hook, M. D. & Balents, L. Topological nodal semimetals. *Phys. Rev. B* **84**, 235126 (2011).
Li, R. H., Ma, H., Cheng, X. Y., Wang, S. L., Li, D. Z., Zhang, Z.Y., Li, Y. Y. & Chen, X.-Q. Dirac node lines in pure alkali earth metals. *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **117**, 096401 (2016).
Weng, H. M., Liang, Y. Y., Xu, Q. N., Yu, R., Fang, Z., Dai,X. & Kawazoe, Y. Topological node-line semimetal in three dimensional graphene networks. *Phys. Rev. B* **92**, 045108 (2015).
Yu, R., Weng, H. M., Fang, Z., Dai, X. & Hu, X. Topological Node-Line Semimetal and Dirac Semimetal State in Antiperovskite.Cu$_3$PdN. *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **115**, 036807 (2015).
Kim, Y., Wieder, B. J., Kane, C. L. & Rappe, A. M. Dirac Line Nodes in Inversion-Symmetric Crystals. *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **115**, 036806 (2015).
Xie, L. S., Schoop, L. M., Seibel, E. M., Gibson, Q. D., Xie, W. W. & Cava, R. J. A new form of Ca$_3$P$_2$ with a ring of Dirac nodes. *APL Materials* **3**, 083602 (2015).
Zeng, M. G., Fang, C., Chang, G. Q., Chen, Y.-A., Hsieh, T., Bansil, A., Lin, H. & Fu, L. Topological semimetals and topological insulators in rare earth monopnictides. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/1504.03492 (2015).
Mullen, K., Uchoa, B. & Glatzhofer, D. T. Line of Dirac Nodes in Hyperhoneycomb Lattices. *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **115**, 026403 (2015).
Gan, L.-Y., Wang, R., Jin, Y. J., Ling, D. B., Zhao, J. Z., Xu, W.P., Liu, J. F. & Xu, H. Pressure-induced Topological Node-Line Semimetals in Alkaline-Earth Hexaborides XB$_6$ (X=Ca, Sr, Ba). Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/1611.06386 (2016).
Kawakami, T. & Hu, X. Symmetry-Guaranteed and Accidental Nodal-Line Semimetals in FCC Lattice. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/1611.07342 (2016).
Yang, B., Zhou, H. C., Zhang, X. M., Liu, X. B. & Zhao, M. W. Dirac cones and highly anisotropic electronic structure of supergraphyne. *Carbon* **113**, 40-45 (2017).
Li, J.X., Ma, H., Feng, S., Ullah, S., Li, R., Dong, J. & Chen, X.-Q. Topological nodal line states and a potential catalyst of hydrogen evolution in the TiSi family. arXiv preprint arXiv:1704.07043 (2017).
Bradlyn,B., Cano,J., Wang, Z., Vergniory, M. G., Felser, C., Cava, R. J. & Bernevig, B. A. Beyond Dirac and Weyl fermions: Unconventional quasiparticles in conventional crystals, *Science* **353**, 558 (2016).
Winkler, G. W., Wu, Q., Troyer, M., Krogstrup, P.& Soluyanov, A. A. Topological Phases in InAs$_{1-x}$Sb$_{x}$ : From Novel Topological Semimetal to Majorana Wire, *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **117**, 076403 (2016).
Weng, H., Fang, C., Fang, Z.& Dai, X. Topological semimetals with triply degenerate nodal points in $\theta$-phase tantalum nitride, *Phys. Rev. B* **93**, 241202 (2016).
Weng, H., Fang, C., Fang, Z. & Dai, X. Coexistence of Weyl fermion and massless triply degenerate nodal points, *Phys. Rev. B* **94**, 165201 (2016).
Zhu, Z., Winkler, G. W. ,Wu, Q. S., Li, J. & Soluyanov, A. A. Triple point topological metals. *Phys. Rev. X* **6**, 031003 (2016).
Chang, G., Xu, S.Y., Huang, S.M., Sanchez, D.S., Hsu, C.H, Bian, G., Yu, Z.M., Belopolski, I., Alidoust, N., Zheng, H.,Chang, T.R., Jeng, H.J., Yang, S.A., Neupert, T., Lin, H. & Hasan, M.Z. New fermions on the line in topological symmorphic metals. *Sci. Rep.* **7**, 1688 (2017).
He, J. B., Chen, D., Zhu, W. L.,Zhang, S. ,Zhao, L. X., Ren, Z. A.& Chen, G. F. . Magnetotransport properties of the triply degenerate node topological semimetal: tungsten carbide. *Phys. Rev. B* **95**, 195165 (2017)
Lv, B.Q., Feng, Z.L., Xu, Q.N., Gao, X., Ma, J.Z., Kong, L.K., Richard, P., Huang, Y.B., Strocov, V. N., Fang, C., Weng, H.M., Shi, Y.G., Qian, T., & Ding, H. Observation of three-component fermions in the topological semimetal molybdenum phosphide, *Nature* **546**, 627-631 (2017).
Yang, H., Yu, J.B., Parkin, S.S.P., Felser, C., Liu, C.-X. & Yan, B.H., Prediction of triple point fermions in simple half-Heusler topological insulators, *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **119**, 136401 (2016).
Yu, J.B., Yan, B.H. & Liu, C.-X. Model Hamiltonian and time reversal breaking topological phases of anti-ferromagnetic half-Heusler Materials, *Phys. Rev. B* **95**, 235158 (2017)
Lu, L., Fu, L., Joannopoulos, J. D. & Solja$\breve{c}$i$\acute{c}$, M. Weyl points and line nodes in gyroid photonic crystals. *Nature Photon.* **7**, 294-299 (2013).
Lu, L., Wang, Z., Ye, D., Ran, L., Fu, L., Joannopoulos, J. D. & Soljacic, M. Experimental observation of Weyl points, *Science* **349**, 622 (2015).
Huber, S.D. Topological mechanics. *Nature Phys.* **12**, 621-623 (2016).
Prodan, E. & Prodan, C. Topological phonon modes and their role in dynamic instability of microtubules, *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **103**, 248101 (2009).
Chen, B.G.G., Upadhyaya, N. & Vitelli, V. Nonlinear conduction via solitons in a topological mechanical insulator. *Proc Natl Acad Sci.* **111**, 13004-13009 (2014).
Yang, Z., Gao, F., Shi, X., Lin, X. , Gao, Z., Chong, Y.& Zhang, B. Topological acoustics. *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **114**, 114301 (2015).
Wang, P., Lu, L. & Bertoldi, K. Topological phononic crystals with one-way elastic edge waves. *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **115**, 104302 (2015).
Xiao, M., Chen, W.J., He, W.Y.& Chan, C. T. Synthetic gauge flux and Weyl points in acoustic systems. *Nature Phys.* **11**, 920 (2015).
Nash, L. M., Kleckner, D., Read, A. , Vitelli, V., Turner, A. M. & Irvine, W. T. Topological mechanics of gyroscopic metamaterials. *Proc Natl Acad Sci.* **112**, 14495-14500 (2015).
Susstrunk, R. & Huber, S. D. Observation of phononic helical edge states in a mechanical topological insulator, *Science* **349**, 47-50 (2015).
Mousavi, S. H., Khanikaev, A. B. & Wang, Z. Topologically protected elastic waves in phononic metamaterials. *Nat. Commun.* **6**, 8682 (2015).
Fleury, R., Khanikaev, A. B. & AlRu, A. Floquet topological insulators for sound, *Nat. Commun.* **7**, 11744 (2016).
Rocklin, D. Z., Chen, B.G.G., Falk, M., Vitelli, V. & Lubensky,T. Mechanical weyl modes in topological maxwell lattices. *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **116**, 135503 (2016).
He, C., Ni, X., Ge, H., Sun, X.C., Chen, Y.B., Lu, M.-H., Liu, X.P. & Chen, Y.-F. Acoustic topological insulator and robust one-way sound transport. *Nature Phys.* **12**, 1124–1129 (2016).
Susstrunk, R. & Huber, S. D. Classification of topological phonons in linear mechanical metamaterials. *Proc Natl Acad Sci.* **113**, E4767-E4775 (2016).
Li, F., Huang, X.Q., Lu, J.Y., Ma, J.H., & Liu, Z.Y., Weyl points and Fermi arcs in a chiral phononic crystal, Nat. Phys. DOI: 10.1038/NPYS42675 (2017).
Zhang, T.T., Song, Z.D., Alexandradinata, A., Weng, H.M., Fang, C., Lu, L.& Fang, Z. Double-Weyl phonons in traisition-metal monosilicides, arXiv: 1705.07244 (2017).
Zhang, L.F. & Niu, Q., Chiral phonons at high-symmetry points in monolayer hexagonal lattices, *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **115**, 115502 (2015).
Liu, Y., Xu, Y., Zhang, S.-C., & Duan W. H., Model for topological phononics and phonon diode, *Phys. Rev. B* **96**, 064106 (2017).
Hohenberg, P. & Kohn, W. Inhomogeneous Electron Gas, *Phys. Rev.* **136**, B864-B871 (1964).
W. Kohn, and L. J. Sham, Self-Consistent Equations Including Exchange and Correlation Effects, *Phys. Rev.* **140**, A1133 (1965).
Baroni, S., Gironcoli, S.D., Corso, A.D. & Giannozzi, P. Phonons and related crystal properties from density-functional perturbation theory, *Rev. Mod. Phys.* **73**, 515 (2001).
Kresse, G. & Hafner, J. Ab initio molecular dynamics for liquid metals. *Phys. Rev. B* **47**, 558-561 (1993).
Kresse, G. & Hafner, J. Ab initio molecular-dynamics simulation of the liquid-metal amorphous-semiconductor transition in germanium. *Phys. Rev. B* **49**, 14251-14269 (1994).
Kresse, G. & Furthmüller, J. Efficiency of ab-initio total energy calculations for metals and semiconductors using a plane-wave basis set. *Comput. Mater. Sci* **6**, 15-50 (1996).
Perdew, J. P.& Wang, Y. Accurate and simple analytic representation of the electron-gas correlation energy, *Phys. Rev. B* **45**, 13244-13249 (1992).
Perdew, J. P., Burke, K.& Ernzerhof, M. Generalized Gradient Approximation Made Simple, *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **77**, 3865-3868 (1996).
Blöhl, P. E. Projector augmented-wave method, *Phys. Rev. B* **50**, 17953-17979 (1994).
Kresse, G. & Joubert, D. From ultrasoft pseudopotentials to the projector augmented-wave method *Phys. Rev. B* **59**, 1758-1775 (1999).
Sancho, M. P., Sancho, J. M. & Rubio, J. Highly convergent schemes for the calculation of bulk and surface Green functions, *J. Phys. F: Met. Phys.* **15**, 851-858 (1985).
Weng, H.M., Dai, X. & Fang, Z. Exploration and prediction of topological electronic materials based on first-principles calculations, *MRS Bull.* **39**, 849-858 (2014).
Weng, H.M., Yu, R., Hu, X., Dai, X. & Fang, Z. Quantum anomalous Hall effect and related topological electronic states, *Adv. Phys.* **64**, 227-282 (2015).
Marzari, N. & Vanderbilt, D. Maximally localized generalized Wannier functions for composite energy bands, *Phys. Rev. B* **56**,12847-12865 (1997).
Souza, I., Marzari, N. & Vanderbilt, D. Maximally localized Wannier functions for entangled energy bands, *Phys. Rev. B* **65**, 035109 (2001).
Mostofi, A. A., Yates, J. R., Lee, Y.S., Souza, I., Vanderbilt, D.& Marzari, N. Wannier90: A tool for obtaining maximally-localised Wannier functions, *Comput. Phys. Commun.* **178**, 685-699 (2008).
Chaput, L., Togo, A., Tanaka, I. & Hug, G. Phonon-phonon interactions in transition metals, *Phys. Rev. B* **84**, 094302 (2011).
Hahn, H.& Ness, P. Über Subchalkogenidphasen des Titans. *Z. Anorg. Allg. Chem.* **302**, 17-36 (1959).
Hahn. H., Harder, B., Mutschke, U.& Ness P. Zur Kristallstruktur einiger Verbindungen und Phasen des Systems Zirkon/Schwefel. *Z. Anorg. Allg. Chem.* **292**, 82-96 (1957).
Steiger, R.P.& Cater, E.D. Preparation and identification of the ZrS phase in the zirconium-sulfur system. *High Temp. Sci.* **2**, 398-401 (1970).
Hahn, H. & Ness, P. Über das System Zirkon/Selen. *Z. Anorg. Allg. Chem.* **302** , 37-49 (1959).
Schewe-Miller, I. M. & Young, V. G. Hf$_2$Se$_3$, a new structure in the binary Hf-Se system. *J. Alloys Compd.* **216**, 113-115 (1994).
Sodeck, H., Mikler, H.& Komarek, K. L. Transition metal-chalcogen systems, VI: The zirconium-tellurium phase diagram. *Monatsh Chem.* **110**, 1-8 (1979).
Örlygsson,G.& Harbrecht, B. Structure, properties, and bonding of ZrTe (MnP type), a low-symmetry, high-temperature modification of ZrTe (WC type), *J. Am. Chem. Soc.* **123**, 4168-4173 (2001).
Örlygsson,G.& Harbrecht, B. The crystal structure of WC type ZrTe. Advantages in chemical bonding as contrasted to NiAs type ZrTe, *Z. Naturforsch. B* **54**, 1125-1128 (1999).
Yu, R., Qi, X. L., Bernevig, A., Fang, Z.& Dai, X. Equivalent expression of Z$_2$ topological invariant for band insulators using the non-Abelian Berry connection, *Phys. Rev. B* **84**, 075119 (2011).
Soluyanov, A. A., & Vanderbilt, D., Computing topological invariants without inversion symmetry, *Phys. Rev. B* **83**, 235401 (2011).
[**Acknowledgments**]{}
We thank H. M. Weng for valuable discussions. Work was supported by the National Science Fund for Distinguished Young Scholars (No. 51725103), by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos. 51671193 and 51474202), and by the Science Challenging Project No. TZ2016004. All calculations have been performed on the high-performance computational cluster in the Shenyang National University Science and Technology Park and the National Supercomputing Center in Guangzhou (TH-2 system) with special program for applied research of the NSFC-Guangdong Joint Fund (the second phase) under Grant No.U1501501.
**Supplemental Materials: ”Coexisted Three-component and Two-component Weyl bosons in the topological semimetals of TiS, ZrSe and HfTe”**
Jiangxu Li$^{1}$, Qing Xie$^{1,2}$, Sami Ullah$^{1,2}$, Ronghan Li$^1$, Hui Ma$^1$, Dianzhong Li$^1$, Yiyi Li$^1$, Xing-Qiu Chen$^1,\textcolor{blue}{*}$\
$^1$ *Shenyang National Laboratory for Materials Science, Institute of Metal Research, Chinese Academy of Science, School of Materials Science and Engineering, University of Science and Technology of China, 110016, Shenyang, China*\
$^2$ *University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, 100049, China*\
Corresponding author:[ (X.-Q. C.)]{}
[**Supplementary Materials**]{}
1. **Table S1**: Optimized lattice parameters of $MX$
2. **Figure S1**: Electronic structures of ZrSe
3. **Figure S2**: Evolution of the electronic structure around the Weyl points (WPs) in ZrSe
4. **Figure S3**: Surface electronic band structures of (0001) and (10$\bar{1}$0) surfaces of ZrSe
5. **Figure S4**: Fermi surfaces of the (0001) and (10$\bar{1}$0) surfaces of ZrSe
6. **Figure S5**: DFT-derived phonon dispersions of the nine $MX$ compounds
Supplementary Table S1
----------------------
We have optimized the lattice structures of nine $MX$ compounds with the WC-type structure. Table S1 summarizes all optimized lattice constants as compared with the available experimental data. Among these nine compounds, five compounds of TiS, ZrS, ZrSe$_{0.90}$, and Hf$_{0.92}$Se as well as ZrTe were experimentally reported to have the same WC-type structure [@Hahn_01959; @Harry1957; @Steiger1970; @Hahn1959; @Schewe1994; @Sodeck1979; @G.O2001; @G.O2014]. Because of no any experimental data available for the remaining four compounds of TiSe, TiTe, HfS, and HfTe, here we have assumed that they also crystallizes in the same WC-type structure. For five experimentally known compounds TiS, ZrS, ZrSe, ZrTe and HfSe, our DFT calculations yield the good agreement of their equilibrium lattice parameters with the experimental data as shown in Table S1. Furthermore, their enthalpies of formation are derived in Table S1, indicating their stabilities in the thermodynamics.
Electronic band structures
--------------------------
To elucidate the electronic band structure of these compounds, we have first repeated the calculations of ZrTe and obtained the electronic band structures are very similar to the reported data in Ref. , indicating the reliability of our current calculations. Remarkably, the derived electronic band structures of other compounds in this family are all similar to that of ZrTe.
We have elucidated the electronic band structures of these nine compounds. Interestingly, their electronic structures are in similarity to the case of ZrTe in Ref. . We have selected ZrSe as a prototypical example to show the crucial feature of electronic structures (details refer to Fig. S1-S3 in supplementary materials). Without the spin-orbit coupling (SOC) effect the two main features can be observed: In the first, a Dirac nodal line (DNL as marked in Fig. \[fig1\](c) in the main text) centered at each $K$ point in the $K_z$ = 0 plane is formed around the Fermi level due to the linear crossing of the inverted bands between the Zr $d_{xz}$+$d_{yz}$ orbitals and Zr d$_{x^2-y^2}$+d$_{xy}$ orbitals (Fig. s1(a)). In the second, a six-fold degenerate nodal point (Fig. s1(a)) locating at (0, 0, 0.3025) along the $\Gamma$-A direction around the Fermi level due to another band inversion between the doubly degenerate Zr $d_{xz}$+$d_{yz}$ and the Zr $d_{z^2}$-like orbitals at the A point of the BZ. Because the masses of both Zr and Se are not so light that their SOC effects can not be ignored. With the SOC inclusion, the derived electronic band structure clearly exhibits the apparent changes around the Fermi level: Firstly, due to the lack of inversion symmetry the spin splitting bands appears and each DNL around the K point is indeed broken into two Weyl points (WPs) with the opposite chirality (see WP+ and WP- as marked in Fig. s1(c)). In total, there are six pairs of WPs locating at both $k_z$ = $\pm$0.01628 plane slightly above and below the $k_z$ = 0 planes. All these twelve WPs have the same energy level (Fig. s1(d)). Secondly, the SOC inclusion splits each six-fold generated nodal point into two triply degenerate nodal points (TDNP1 (0, 0, 0.2904) and TDNP2 (0, 0, 0.3146) as marked in Fig. s1(c) (their specified locations are marked in Fig. \[fig1\](c) in the main text) along the $\Gamma$ to $A$ direction. Their appearance is protected by the C$_{3z}$ rotation and mirror symmetries, being the same as both ZrTe and TaN cases have [@H.Weng_02016; @H.Weng_12016].
The evolution of the derived electronic band structures around one of WPs for ZrSe is illustrated in supplementary Fig. S1(a,b,c) and it can be clearly seen that the WP appears around the Fermi level in supplementary Fig. S2c. Their non-trivial topological property of the electronic bands can be identified using the Wilson loop method [@add1] (see Fig. S2). As shown in Fig. S2(d and e), the calculated evolution of the Wannier centers formed along the k$_y$ direction in the two k$_z$ = 0 and $\pi$ planes. It can be seen that the Z$_2$ numbers (namely, counting the times of Wannier center crosses a reference line) of both these planes are odd, indicating their topological non-trivial feature. We have also derived the topological non-trivial (0001) and (10$\bar{1}$0) Fermi-arc surface states in Figs. S3 and S4, showing the very similar non-trivial surface states to ZrTe [@H.Weng_12016]. Besides ZrSe and ZrTe, the other seven members in this family all exhibit the similar electronic structures featured with the coexisted TDNPs and WPs in their electronic structures of bulk phases.
*a* *c* $ \Delta$H
--------------- -------- -------- ------------ ------------
TiS 3.287 3.210 Expt. Ref.
3.267 3.223 -1.50 Calc.
TiSe 3.419 3.402 -1.28 Calc.
TiTe 3.669 3.656 -0.64 Calc.
ZrS 3.446 3.445 Exp. Ref.
3.460 3.475 -1.65 Calc.
ZrSe$_{0.90}$ 3.551 3.615 Exp. Ref.
ZrSe 3.584 3.649 -1.49 Calc.
ZrTe 3.760 3.860 Exp. Ref.
3.798 3.895 -0.91 Calc.
HfS 3.395 3.447 -1.54 Calc.
Hf$_{0.92}$Se 3.4958 3.6069 Exp. Ref.
3.5173 3.6365 -1.32 Calc.
HfTe 3.739 3.885 -0.68 Cal.
: DFT-derived lattice constants $a$ (Å) and $c$ (Å) and enthalpy of formation (eV/atom) of single crystals, in comparison with available experimental data. \[tab2\]
{height="48.00000%"}
![Electronic band structures around the WP node at $K_z$ = 0.005 in panel (a), 0.010 in panel (b), and 0.01628 (exactly corresponding to the WP node) in panel (c), respectively. Panels (d and e) denote the derived Wilson loops of ZrSe which show the $k_y$ evaluation of the Berry phases of all occupied bands along the $k_x$ direction in both $k_z$ = 0 and $k_z$ = $\pi$ planes, respectively. []{data-label="fig3s"}](Figure2s.eps){height="35.00000%"}
To further clarify the topological feature in ZrSe, we have calculated the surface electronic structures on its (0001) and (10$\bar{1}$0) surfaces (see supplementary Fig. S2), clearly indicating the topological surface states. In addition, we also plot the Fermi surface of both surfaces in supplementary Fig. S3. On the (0001) Fermi surface the two TDNPs along $\Gamma$ to $A$ direction in its bulk phase are both projected onto the $\bar{\Gamma}$ point, becoming invisible due to the overlapping with the projection of the bulk electronic bands. Each pair of WPs above and below the $k_z$ = 0 plane which have different chirality in the bulk phase will be projected onto the same point, totally forming six projected nodes. These six projected nodes on the (0001) surface are further connected by Fermi arcs, resulting in the appearance of two triangle-like loops, as illustrated in supplementary Fig. S3(a). It is impossible to see these six projected nodes in supplementary Fig. S3(a) because their energy is 155 meV above the Fermi level. By changing the chemical potential to 155 meV, the Fermi surface gives rise to the clear visualization of six projected nodes in supplementary Fig. S3(c). In order to visualize the Weyl nodes, we further calculated (10$\bar{1}$0) Fermi surface at the energy level of 155 meV above the Fermi level in supplementary Fig. S3(d). On this surface, the six pairs of WPs with opposite chirality are projected to different positions. Two WPs with same chirality are projected to the same point on the (10$\bar{1}$0) surface (called WP1) and the projected points of other WPs are labeled as WP2. It can be clearly seen that the projected Weyl points are connected by Fermi arcs. For each WP1 point, there is one arc connecting it by going through the $\bar{\Gamma}$ - $\bar{M}$ path, whereas, for each WP2 there are two arcs connecting them in supplementary Fig. S3(d). In addition, on both (0001) and (10$\bar{1}$0) surfaces it is impossible to see TDNPs because the projection of TDNPs are all overlapped with bulk electronic bands, as illustrated in Fig. supplementary Fig. S3(c).
{height="35.00000%"}
{height="80.00000%"}
Through our calculations the other eight members in this family all exhibit the similar electronic structures with the coexisted TDNPs and WPs in their bulk phases, except for TiS. Because of the weak SOC effect, TiS is highly unique with the coexisted six Dirac nodal lines (DNLs) and two six-degenerated nodal points, which is exactly what happened for ZrSe without the SOC effect.
Phonon dispersions of MX
------------------------
Supplementary Figure S4 compiles the DFT-derived phonon dispersions of all nine $MX$ compounds. Among them, only three compounds of TiS, ZrSe and HfTe exhibit the non-trivial topological phonon states with the appearance of the triply degenerate nodal points (TDNPs as marked in supplementary Figure S4, which refers to three-component bosons.
{height="80.00000%"}
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We prove that it is NP-complete to decide whether a given string can be factored into palindromes that are each unique in the factorization.'
address:
- 'Department of Informatics, Kyushu University, Japan\'
- 'Diego Portales University, Chile\'
- 'Department of Informatics, Kyushu University, Japan\'
- |
Department of Computer Science and Helsinki Institute for Information Technology HIIT,\
University of Helsinki, Finland\
- 'Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science, Nicolaus Copernicus University, Poland\'
- 'Department of Informatics, Kyushu University, Japan\'
author:
- Hideo Bannai
- Travis Gagie
- Shunsuke Inenaga
- Juha Kärkkäinen
- Dominik Kempa
- Marcin Pitkowski
- Shiho Sugimoto
bibliography:
- 'diverse.bib'
title: 'Diverse Palindromic Factorization is NP-Complete'
---
Introduction {#sec:introduction}
============
Given a string (or word) $S = S[1..n] = S[1]S[2]\ldots S[n]$ of $n$ symbols (or characters) drawn from an alphabet $\Sigma$, a [*factorization*]{} of $S$ partitions $S$ into substrings (or [*factors*]{}) $F_1,F_2, \ldots F_t$, such that $S = F_1F_2\ldots
F_t$. Several papers have appeared recently on the subject of [*palindromic factorization*]{}; that is, factorizations where every factor is a palindrome. For example, a palindromic factorization of the 10-symbol string $S = abaaaaabaa$ would be $aba$, $aa$, $aabaa$.
The palindromic length of a string is the minimum number of palindromic substrings into which the string can be factored. Notice that, since a single symbol is a palindrome, the palindromic length of a string is always defined and at most the length of the string. For our example string above, $abaaaaaba$, $a$ is the palindromic factorization of minimum length. Ravsky [@Rav03] proved a tight bound on the maximum palindromic length of a binary string in terms of its length. Frid, Puzynina, and Zamboni [@FPZ13] conjectured that any infinite string in which the palindromic length of any finite substring is bounded, is ultimately periodic. Their work led other researchers to consider how to efficiently compute a string’s palindromic length and give a minimum palindromic factorization. It is not difficult to design a quadratic-time algorithm that uses linear space, but doing better than that seems to require some string combinatorics.
Alatabbi, Iliopoulos and Rahman [@AIR13] first gave a linear-time algorithm for computing a minimum factorization into maximal palindromes, if such a factorization exists. Notice that $a b a c a$ cannot be factored into maximal palindromes, for example, because its maximal palindromes are $a$, $a b a$, $a$, $a c a$ and $a$. Fici, Gagie, Kärkkäinen and Kempa [@FGKK14] and I, Sugimoto, Inenaga, Bannai and Takeda [@ISIBT14] independently then described essentially the same ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}\!\left({n \log n}\right)}}$-time algorithm for computing a minimum palindromic factorization. Shortly thereafter, Kosolobov, Rubinchik and Shur [@KRS15] gave an algorithm for recognizing strings with a given palindromic length. Their result can be used to compute the palindromic length $\ell$ of a string of length $n$ in ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{O}\!\left({n \ell \log \ell}\right)}}$ time. We also note that Gawrychowski, Merkurev, Shur and Uznanski [@GMSU16] used similar techniques as Fici et al. and I et al., for finding approximately the longest palindrome in a stream.
We call a factorization [*diverse*]{} if each of the factors is unique. Some well-known factorizations, such as the LZ77 [@ZL77] and LZ78 [@ZL78] parses, are diverse (except that the last factor may have appeared before). Fernau, Manea, Mercaş and Schmid [@FMMS15] recently proved that it is NP-complete to determine whether a given string has a diverse factorization of at least a given size, and Schmid [@Sch16] has investigated related questions. It seems natural to consider the problem of determining whether a given string has a diverse factorization into palindromes. For example, $bgikkpps$ and $bgikpspk$ each have exactly one such factorization — i.e., $(b,\ g,\ i,\ kk,\ pp,\ s)$ and $(b,\ g,\
i,\ kpspk)$, respectively — but $bgkpispk$ has none. This problem is obviously in NP and in this paper we prove that it is NP-hard and, thus, NP-complete.
We also show — proving a conjecture from the conference version of this paper [@BGIKKPPS15] — that it is NP-complete for any fixed $k$ to decide whether a given string can be factored into palindromes that each appear at most $k$ times in the factorization; we call such a factorization *$k$-diverse*. Finally, since several recent papers (e.g., [@BS14; @CFGGS16; @HLR16]) consider the effect of alphabet size on the difficulty of various string problems, we show that the problems remain NP-complete even if the string is restricted to be binary.
Outline {#sec:outline}
=======
In complexity theory, a Boolean circuit is formally a directed acyclic graph in which each node is either a source or one of a specified set of logic gates. The gates are usually AND, OR and NOT, with AND and OR gates each having in-degree at least 2 and NOT gates each having in-degree 1. A gate’s predecessors and successors are called its inputs and outputs, and sources and sinks are called the circuit’s inputs and outputs. A circuit with a single output is said to be satisfiable if and only if it is possible to assign each gate a value true or false such that the output is true and all the gates’ semantics are respected: e.g., each AND gate is true if and only if all its inputs are true, each OR gate is true if and only if at least one of its inputs is true, and each NOT gate is true if and only if its unique input is false. Notice that with these semantics, a truth assignment to the circuit’s inputs determines the truth values of all the gates.
The circuit satisfiability problem [@Lev73] (see also, e.g., [@GJ79]) is to determine whether a given single-output Boolean circuit $C$ is satisfiable. It was one of the first problems proven NP-complete and is often the first such problem taught in undergraduate courses. We will show how to build, in time linear in the size of $C$, a string that has a diverse palindromic factorization if and only if $C$ is satisfiable. It follows that diverse palindromic factorization is also NP-hard. Our construction is similar to the Tseitin Transform [@Tse68] from Boolean circuits to CNF formulas.
[ccc]{} [NOT]{} & [AND]{} & [OR]{}\
\(i) at (0.75,0) ; (b1) \[branch\] at (1.25,0) ; (g1) \[nand gate US, draw, thick\] at (2,0) ; (o) at (3,0) ;
\(i) – (b1); (b1) – ($(g1.north west)!.5!(g1.input 1)$); (b1) – ($(g1.south west)!.5!(g1.input 2)$); (g1.output) – (o);
&
(i1) at (0.25,0.7) ; (i2) at (0.25,0.3) ; (g1) \[nand gate US, draw, thick\] at (1,0.5) ; (b1) \[branch\] at (1.75,0.5) ; (g2) \[nand gate US, draw, thick\] at (2.5,0.5) ; (o) at (3.5,0.5) ;
(i1) – ($(g1.north west)!.5!(g1.input 1)$); (i2) – ($(g1.south west)!.5!(g1.input 2)$); (g1.output) – (b1); (b1) – ($(g2.north west)!.5!(g2.input 1)$); (b1) – ($(g2.south west)!.5!(g2.input 2)$); (g2.output) – (o);
&
(i1) at (0.75,1) ; (i2) at (0.75,0) ; (b1) \[branch\] at (1.25,1) ; (b2) \[branch\] at (1.25,0) ; (g1) \[nand gate US, draw, thick\] at (2,1) ; (g2) \[nand gate US, draw, thick\] at (2,0) ; (g3) \[nand gate US, draw, thick\] at (3.25,0.5) ; (o) at (4.25,0.5) ;
(i1) – (b1); (i2) – (b2); (b1) – ($(g1.north west)!.5!(g1.input 1)$); (b1) – ($(g1.south west)!.5!(g1.input 2)$); (b2) – ($(g2.north west)!.5!(g2.input 1)$); (b2) – ($(g2.south west)!.5!(g2.input 2)$); (g1.output) – ($(g3.north west)!.5!(g3.input 1)$); (g2.output) – ($(g3.south west)!.5!(g3.input 2)$); (g3.output) – (o);
We can make each AND or OR gate’s in-degree 2 and each gate’s out-degree 1 at the cost of at most a logarithmic increase in the size and depth of the circuit, using splitter gates with one input and two outputs that should have the same truth value as the input. A NAND gate is true if and only if at least one of its inputs is false. AND, OR and NOT gates can be implemented with a constant number of NAND gates (see Fig. \[f:gates-nand-constr\]), so we assume without loss of generality that $C$ is composed only of NAND gates with two inputs and one output each and splitter gates. Boolean circuits are a model for real circuits, so henceforth we assume the gates’ semantics are respected, call the graph’s edges wires, say each splitter divides one wire in two, and discuss wires’ truth values instead of discussing the truth values of the gates at which those wires originate.
We assume each wire in $C$ is labelled with a unique symbol (considering a split to be the end of an incoming wire and the beginning of two new wires, so all three wires have different labels). For each such symbol $a$, and some auxiliary symbols we introduce during our construction, we use as characters in our construction three related symbols: $a$ itself, $\bar{a}$ and $x_a$. We indicate an auxiliary symbol related to $a$ by writing $a'$ or $a''$. We write $x_a^j$ to denote $j$ copies of $x_a$. We emphasize that, despite their visual similarity, $a$ and $\bar{a}$ are separate characters, which play complementary roles in our reduction. We use $\$$ and $\#$ as generic separator symbols, [*which we consider to be distinct (from each other an from all other symbols) for each use*]{}; to prevent confusion, we add different superscripts to their different uses within the same part of the construction.
We can build a sequence $C_0, \ldots, C_t$ of subcircuits such that $C_0$ is empty, $C_t = C$ and, for $1 \leq i \leq t$, we obtain $C_i$ from $C_{i - 1}$ by one of the following operations (see Fig. \[f:ex-circuit\] for an example):
- adding a new wire (which is both an input and an output in $C_i$),
- splitting an output of $C_{i - 1}$ into two outputs,
- making two outputs of $C_{i - 1}$ the inputs of a new NAND gate.
(i1) at (0.5,1.7) ; (i2) at (0.5,-0.2) ; (b1) \[branch\] at (1.5,1.7) ; (b2) \[branch\] at (1.5,-0.2) ; (g1) \[nand gate US, draw, thick\] at (3,0.75) [$A$]{}; (b3) \[branch\] at (4.5,0.75) ; (g2) \[nand gate US, draw, thick\] at (6,1.5) [$B$]{}; (g3) \[nand gate US, draw, thick\] at (6,0) [$C$]{}; (g4) \[nand gate US, draw, thick\] at (7.5,0.75) [$D$]{}; (o) at (9,0.75) ;
(i1) – (b1) node \[above,midway\] [$a$]{}; (i2) – (b2)node \[below,midway\] [$b$]{}; (b1) – ($(g2.north west)!.5!(g2.input 1)$) node \[above,midway\] [$c$]{}; (b1) – ($(g1.north west)!.5!(g1.input 1)$) node \[below,midway\] [$d$]{}; (b2) – ($(g3.south west)!.5!(g3.input 2)$) node \[below,midway\] [$f$]{}; (b2) – ($(g1.south west)!.5!(g1.input 2)$) node \[above,midway\] [$e$]{}; (g1.output) – (b3) node \[above,midway\] [$g$]{}; (b3) – ($(g2.south west)!.5!(g2.input 2)$) node \[above,midway\] [$h$]{}; (b3) – ($(g3.north west)!.5!(g3.input 1)$) node \[below,midway\] [$i$]{}; (g2.output) – ($(g4.north west)!.5!(g4.input 1)$) node \[above,midway\] [$j$]{}; (g3.output) – ($(g4.south west)!.5!(g4.input 2)$) node \[below,midway\] [$k$]{}; (g4.output) – (o) node \[above,midway\] [$l$]{};
We will show how to build in time linear in the size of $C$, inductively and in turn, a sequence of strings $S_1, \ldots, S_t$ such that $S_i$ represents $C_i$ according to the following definitions:
\[def:encoding\] A diverse palindromic factorization $P$ of a string $S_i$ [*encodes*]{} an assignment $\tau$ to the inputs of a circuit $C_i$ if the following conditions hold:
- if $\tau$ makes an output of $C_i$ labelled $a$ true, then $a$, $x_a$ and $x_a \bar{a} x_a$ are complete factors in $P$ but $\bar{a}$, $x_a a x_a$ and $x_a^j$ are not for $j > 1$;
- if $\tau$ makes an output of $C_i$ labelled $a$ false, then $\bar{a}$, $x_a$ and $x_a a x_a$ are complete factors in $P$ but $a$, $x_a \bar{a} x_a$ and $x_a^j$ are not for $j > 1$;
- if $a$ is a label in $C$ but not in $C_i$, then none of $a$, $\bar{a}$, $x_a a x_a$, $x_a \bar{a} x_a$ and $x_a^j$ for $j \geq 1$ are complete factors in $P$.
We say “complete factor” to emphasize the difference between factors in the factorization and their proper substrings; unfortunately, “factor” is sometimes used in the literature as a synonym for “substring”.
\[def:representing\] A string $S_i$ [*represents*]{} a circuit $C_i$ if each assignment to the inputs of $C_i$ is encoded by some diverse palindromic factorization of $S_i$, and each diverse palindromic factorization of $S_i$ encodes some assignment to the inputs of $C_i$.
Once we have $S_t$, we can easily build in constant time a string $S$ that has a diverse palindromic factorization if and only if $C$ is satisfiable. To do this, we append $\$ \#\,x_a a x_a$ to $S_t$, where $\$$ and $\#$ are symbols not occurring in $S_t$ and $a$ is the label on $C$’s output. Since $\$$ and $\#$ do not occur in $S_t$ and occur as a pair of consecutive characters in $S$, they must each be complete factors in any palindromic factorization of $S$. It follows that there is a diverse palindromic factorization of $S$ if and only if there is a diverse palindromic factorization of $S_t$ in which $x_a a x_a$ is not a factor, which is the case if and only if there is an assignment to the inputs of $C$ that makes its output true.
Adding a Wire {#sec:adding}
=============
Suppose $C_i$ is obtained from $C_{i - 1}$ by adding a new wire labelled $a$. If $i = 1$ then we set $S_i = x_a a x_a \bar{a} x_a$, whose two diverse palindromic factorizations $(x_a,\ a,\ x_a \bar{a} x_a)$ and $(x_a a x_a,\ \bar{a},\ x_a)$ encode the assignments true and false to the wire labelled $a$, which is both the input and output in $C_i$. If $i > 1$ then we set $$S_i = S_{i - 1}\,\$ \#\,x_a a x_a \bar{a} x_a\,,$$ where $\$$ and $\#$ are symbols not occurring in $S_{i - 1}$ and not equal to $a'$, $\overline{a'}$ or $x_{a'}$ for any label $a'$ in $C$.
Since $\$$ and $\#$ do not occur in $S_{i - 1}$ and occur as a pair of consecutive characters in $S_i$, they must each be complete factors in any palindromic factorization of $S_i$. Therefore, any diverse palindromic factorization of $S_i$ is the concatenation of a diverse palindromic factorization of $S_{i - 1}$ and either $(\$,\ \#,\ x_a,\ a,\ x_a \bar{a} x_a)$ or $(\$,\ \#,\ x_a a x_a,\ \bar{a},\ x_a)$. Conversely, any diverse palindromic factorization of $S_{i - 1}$ can be extended to a diverse palindromic factorization of $S_i$ by appending either $(\$,\ \#,\ x_a,\ a,\ x_a \bar{a} x_a)$ or $(\$,\ \#,\ x_a a x_a,\ \bar{a},\ x_a)$.
Assume $S_{i - 1}$ represents $C_{i - 1}$. Let $\tau$ be an assignment to the inputs of $C_i$ and let $P$ be a diverse palindromic factorization of $S_{i - 1}$ encoding $\tau$ restricted to the inputs of $C_{i - 1}$. If $\tau$ makes the input (and output) of $C_i$ labelled $a$ true, then $P$ concatenated with $(\$,\ \#,\ x_a,\ a,\ x_a \bar{a} x_a)$ is a diverse palindromic factorization of $S_i$ that encodes $\tau$. If $\tau$ makes that input false, then $P$ concatenated with $(\$,\ \#,\ x_a a x_a,\ \bar{a},\ x_a)$ is a diverse palindromic factorization of $S_i$ that encodes $\tau$. Therefore, each assignment to the inputs of $C_i$ is encoded by some diverse palindromic factorization of $S_i$.
Now let $P$ be a diverse palindromic factorization of $S_i$ and let $\tau$ be the assignment to the inputs of $C_{i - 1}$ that is encoded by a prefix of $P$. If $P$ ends with $(\$,\ \#,\ x_a,\ a,\ x_a \bar{a} x_a)$ then $P$ encodes the assignment to the inputs of $C_i$ that makes the input labelled $a$ true and makes the other inputs true or false according to $\tau$. If $P$ ends with $(\$,\ \#,\ x_a a x_a,\ \bar{a},\ x_a)$ then $P$ encodes the assignment to the inputs of $C_i$ that makes the input labelled $a$ false and makes the other inputs true or false according to $\tau$. Therefore, each diverse palindromic factorization of $S_i$ encodes some assignment to the inputs of $C_i$.
\[lem:adding\] We can build a string $S_1$ that represents $C_1$. If we have a string $S_{i - 1}$ that represents $C_{i - 1}$ and $C_i$ is obtained from $C_{i - 1}$ by adding a new wire, then in constant time we can append symbols to $S_{i - 1}$ to obtain a string $S_i$ that represents $C_i$.
Splitting a Wire {#sec:splitting}
================
Now suppose $C_i$ is obtained from $C_{i - 1}$ by splitting an output of $C_{i - 1}$ labelled $a$ into two outputs labelled $b$ and $c$. We set $$S_i' = S_{i - 1}\,\$ \#\,x_a^3 b' x_a a x_a c' x_a^5\,\$' \#'\,x_a^7 \overline{b'} x_a \bar{a} x_a \overline{c'} x_a^9\,,$$ where $\$$, $\$'$, $\#$, $\#'$, $b'$, $\overline{b'}$, $c'$ and $\overline{c'}$ are symbols not occurring in $S_{i - 1}$ and not equal to $a'$, $\overline{a'}$ or $x_{a'}$ for any label $a'$ in $C$.
Since $\$$, $\$'$, $\#$ and $\#'$ do not occur in $S_{i - 1}$ and occur as pairs of consecutive characters in $S_i'$, they must each be complete factors in any palindromic factorization of $S_i'$. Therefore, a simple case analysis shows that any diverse palindromic factorization of $S_i'$ is the concatenation of a diverse palindromic factorization of $S_{i - 1}$ and one of $$\begin{aligned}
&& (\$,\ \#,\ x_a^3,\ b',\ x_a a x_a,\ c',\ x_a^5,\ \$',\ \#',\ x_a^2,\ x_a^4,\ x_a \overline{b'} x_a,\ \bar{a},\ x_a \overline{c'} x_a,\ x_a^8)\,,\\
&& (\$,\ \#,\ x_a^3,\ b',\ x_a a x_a,\ c',\ x_a^5,\ \$',\ \#',\ x_a^4,\ x_a^2,\ x_a \overline{b'} x_a,\ \bar{a},\ x_a \overline{c'} x_a,\ x_a^8)\,,\\
&& (\$,\ \#,\ x_a^3,\ b',\ x_a a x_a,\ c',\ x_a^5,\ \$',\ \#',\ x_a^6,\ x_a \overline{b'} x_a,\ \bar{a},\ x_a \overline{c'} x_a,\ x_a^8)\,,\\
&& (\$,\ \#,\ x_a^2,\ x_a b' x_a,\ a,\ x_a c' x_a,\ x_a^4,\ \$',\ \#',\ x_a^7,\ \overline{b'},\ x_a \bar{a} x_a,\ \overline{c'},\ x_a^3,\ x_a^6)\,,\\
&& (\$,\ \#,\ x_a^2,\ x_a b' x_a,\ a,\ x_a c' x_a,\ x_a^4,\ \$',\ \#',\ x_a^7,\ \overline{b'},\ x_a \bar{a} x_a,\ \overline{c'},\ x_a^6,\ x_a^3)\,,\\
&& (\$,\ \#,\ x_a^2,\ x_a b' x_a,\ a,\ x_a c' x_a,\ x_a^4,\ \$',\ \#',\ x_a^7,\ \overline{b'},\ x_a \bar{a} x_a,\ \overline{c'},\ x_a^9)\,.\end{aligned}$$ In any diverse palindromic factorization of $S_i'$, therefore, either $b'$ and $c'$ are complete factors but $\overline{b'}$ and $\overline{c'}$ are not, or vice versa.
Conversely, any diverse palindromic factorization of $S_{i - 1}$ in which $a$, $x_a$ and $x_a \bar{a} x_a$ are complete factors but $\bar{a}$, $x_a a x_a$ and $x_a^j$ are not for $j > 1$, can be extended to a diverse palindromic factorization of $S_i'$ by appending either of $$\begin{aligned}
&& (\$,\ \#,\ x_a^3,\ b',\ x_a a x_a,\ c',\ x_a^5,\ \$',\ \#',\ x_a^2,\ x_a^4,\ x_a \overline{b'} x_a,\ \bar{a},\ x_a \overline{c'} x_a,\ x_a^8)\,,\\
&& (\$,\ \#,\ x_a^3,\ b',\ x_a a x_a,\ c',\ x_a^5,\ \$',\ \#',\ x_a^6,\ x_a \overline{b'} x_a,\ \bar{a},\ x_a \overline{c'} x_a,\ x_a^8)\,;\end{aligned}$$ any diverse palindromic factorization of $S_{i - 1}$ in which $\bar{a}$, $x_a$ and $x_a a x_a$ are complete factors but $a$, $x_a \bar{a} x_a$ and $x_a^j$ are not for $j > 1$, can be extended to a diverse palindromic factorization of $S_i'$ by appending either of $$\begin{aligned}
&& (\$,\ \#,\ x_a^2,\ x_a b' x_a,\ a,\ x_a c' x_a,\ x_a^4,\ \$',\ \#',\ x_a^7,\ \overline{b'},\ x_a \bar{a} x_a,\ \overline{c'},\ x_a^3,\ x_a^6)\,,\\
&& (\$,\ \#,\ x_a^2,\ x_a b' x_a,\ a,\ x_a c' x_a,\ x_a^4,\ \$',\ \#',\ x_a^7,\ \overline{b'},\ x_a \bar{a} x_a,\ \overline{c'},\ x_a^9)\,.\end{aligned}$$
We set $$S_i = S_i'\,\$'' \#''\,x_b b x_b b' x_b \overline{b'} x_b \bar{b} x_b\,\$''' \#'''\,x_c c x_c c' x_c \overline{c'} x_c \bar{c} x_c\,,$$ where $\$''$, $\$'''$, $\#''$ and $\#'''$ are symbols not occurring in $S_i'$ and not equal to $a'$, $\overline{a'}$ or $x_{a'}$ for any label $a'$ in $C$. Since $\$''$, $\$'''$, $\#''$ and $\#'''$ do not occur in $S_i'$ and occur as pairs of consecutive characters in $S_i'$, they must each be complete factors in any palindromic factorization of $S_i$. Therefore, any diverse palindromic factorization of $S_i$ is the concatenation of a diverse palindromic factorization of $S_i'$ and one of $$\begin{aligned}
&& (\$'',\ \#'',\ x_b,\ b,\ x_b b' x_b,\ \overline{b'},\ x_b \bar{b} x_b,\ \$''',\ \#''',\ x_c,\ c,\ x_c c' x_c,\ \overline{c'},\ x_c \bar{c} x_c)\,,\\
&& (\$'',\ \#'',\ x_b b x_b,\ b',\ x_b \overline{b'} x_b,\ \bar{b},\ x_b,\ \$''',\ \#''',\ x_c c x_c,\ c',\ x_c \overline{c'} x_c,\ \bar{c},\ x_c)\,. \end{aligned}$$
Conversely, any diverse palindromic factorization of $S_i'$ in which $b'$ and $c'$ are complete factors but $\overline{b'}$ and $\overline{c'}$ are not, can be extended to a diverse palindromic factorization of $S_i$ by appending $$(\$'',\ \#'',\ x_b,\ b,\ x_b b' x_b,\ \overline{b'},\ x_b \bar{b} x_b,\ \$''',\ \#''',\ x_c,\ c,\ x_c c' x_c,\ \overline{c'},\ x_c \bar{c} x_c)\,;$$ any diverse palindromic factorization of $S_i'$ in which $\overline{b'}$ and $\overline{c'}$ are complete factors but $b'$ and $c'$ are not, can be extended to a diverse palindromic factorization of $S_i$ by appending $$(\$'',\ \#'',\ x_b b x_b,\ b',\ x_b \overline{b'} x_b,\ \bar{b},\ x_b,\ \$''',\ \#''',\ x_c c x_c,\ c',\ x_c \overline{c'} x_c,\ \bar{c},\ x_c)\,.$$
Assume $S_{i - 1}$ represents $C_{i - 1}$. Let $\tau$ be an assignment to the inputs of $C_{i - 1}$ and let $P$ be a diverse palindromic factorization of $S_{i - 1}$ encoding $\tau$. If $\tau$ makes the output of $C_{i - 1}$ labelled $a$ true, then $P$ concatenated with, e.g., $$\begin{aligned}
&& (\$,\ \#,\ x_a^3,\ b',\ x_a a x_a,\ c',\ x_a^5,\ \$',\ \#',\ x_a^2,\ x_a^4,\ x_a \overline{b'} x_a,\ \bar{a},\ x_a \overline{c'} x_a,\ x_a^8,\\
&& \$'',\ \#'',\ x_b,\ b,\ x_b b' x_b,\ \overline{b'},\ x_b \bar{b} x_b,\ \$''',\ \#''',\ x_c,\ c,\ x_c c' x_c,\ \overline{c'},\ x_c \bar{c} x_c)\end{aligned}$$ is a diverse palindromic factorization of $S_i$. Notice $b$, $c$, $x_b$, $x_c$, $x_b \bar{b} x_b$ and $x_c \bar{c} x_c$ are complete factors but $\bar{b}$, $\bar{c}$, $x_b b x_b$, $x_c c x_c$, $x_b^j$ and $x_c^j$ for $j > 1$ are not. Therefore, this concatenation encodes the assignment to the inputs of $C_i$ that makes them true or false according to $\tau$.
If $\tau$ makes the output of $C_{i - 1}$ labelled $a$ false, then $P$ concatenated with, e.g., $$\begin{aligned}
&& (\$,\ \#,\ x_a^2,\ x_a b' x_a,\ a,\ x_a c' x_a,\ x_a^4,\ \$',\ \#',\ x_a^7,\ \overline{b'},\ x_a \bar{a} x_a,\ \overline{c'},\ x_a^3,\ x_a^6,\\
&& \$'',\ \#'',\ x_b b x_b,\ b',\ x_b \overline{b'} x_b,\ \bar{b},\ x_b,\ \$''',\ \#''',\ x_c c x_c,\ c',\ x_c \overline{c'} x_c,\ \bar{c},\ x_c)\end{aligned}$$ is a diverse palindromic factorization of $S_i$. Notice $\bar{b}$, $\bar{c}$, $x_b$, $x_c$, $x_b b x_b$ and $x_c c x_c$ are complete factors but $b$, $c$, $x_b \bar{b} x_b$, $x_c \bar{c} x_c$, $x_b^j$ and $x_c^j$ for $j > 1$ are not. Therefore, this concatenation encodes the assignment to the inputs of $C_i$ that makes them true or false according to $\tau$. Since $C_{i - 1}$ and $C_i$ have the same inputs, each assignment to the inputs of $C_i$ is encoded by some diverse palindromic factorization of $S_i$.
Now let $P$ be a diverse palindromic factorization of $S_i$ and let $\tau$ be the assignment to the inputs of $C_{i - 1}$ that is encoded by a prefix of $P$. If $P$ ends with any of $$\begin{aligned}
&& (\$,\ \#,\ x_a^3,\ b',\ x_a a x_a,\ c',\ x_a^5,\ \$',\ \#',\ x_a^2,\ x_a^4,\ x_a \overline{b'} x_a,\ \bar{a},\ x_a \overline{c'} x_a,\ x_a^8)\,,\\
&& (\$,\ \#,\ x_a^3,\ b',\ x_a a x_a,\ c',\ x_a^5,\ \$',\ \#',\ x_a^4,\ x_a^2,\ x_a \overline{b'} x_a,\ \bar{a},\ x_a \overline{c'} x_a,\ x_a^8)\,,\\
&& (\$,\ \#,\ x_a^3,\ b',\ x_a a x_a,\ c',\ x_a^5,\ \$',\ \#',\ x_a^6,\ x_a \overline{b'} x_a,\ \bar{a},\ x_a \overline{c'} x_a,\ x_a^8)\end{aligned}$$ followed by $$(\$'',\ \#'',\ x_b,\ b,\ x_b b' x_b,\ \overline{b'},\ x_b \bar{b} x_b,\ \$''',\ \#''',\ x_c,\ c,\ x_c c' x_c,\ \overline{c'},\ x_c \bar{c} x_c)\,,$$ then $a$ must be a complete factor in the prefix of $P$ encoding $\tau$, so $\tau$ must make the output of $C_{i - 1}$ labelled $a$ true. Since $b$, $c$, $x_b$, $x_c$, $x_b \bar{b} x_b$ and $x_c \bar{c} x_c$ are complete factors in $P$ but $\bar{b}$, $\bar{c}$, $x_b b x_b$, $x_c c x_c$, $x_b^j$ and $x_c^j$ for $j > 1$ are not, $P$ encodes the assignment to the inputs of $C_i$ that makes them true or false according to $\tau$.
If $P$ ends with any of $$\begin{aligned}
&& (\$,\ \#,\ x_a^2,\ x_a b' x_a,\ a,\ x_a c' x_a,\ x_a^4,\ \$',\ \#',\ x_a^7,\ \overline{b'},\ x_a \bar{a} x_a,\ \overline{c'},\ x_a^3,\ x_a^6)\,,\\
&& (\$,\ \#,\ x_a^2,\ x_a b' x_a,\ a,\ x_a c' x_a,\ x_a^4,\ \$',\ \#',\ x_a^7,\ \overline{b'},\ x_a \bar{a} x_a,\ \overline{c'},\ x_a^6,\ x_a^3)\,,\\
&& (\$,\ \#,\ x_a^2,\ x_a b' x_a,\ a,\ x_a c' x_a,\ x_a^4,\ \$',\ \#',\ x_a^7,\ \overline{b'},\ x_a \bar{a} x_a,\ \overline{c'},\ x_a^9)\end{aligned}$$ followed by $$(\$'',\ \#'',\ x_b b x_b,\ b',\ x_b \overline{b'} x_b,\ \bar{b},\ x_b,\ \$''',\ \#''',\ x_c c x_c,\ c',\ x_c \overline{c'} x_c,\ \bar{c},\ x_c)\,,$$ then $\bar{a}$ must be a complete factor in the prefix of $P$ encoding $\tau$, so $\tau$ must make the output of $C_{i - 1}$ labelled $a$ false. Since $\bar{b}$, $\bar{c}$, $x_b$, $x_c$, $x_b b x_b$ and $x_c c x_c$ are complete factors but $b$, $c$, $x_b \bar{b} x_b$, $x_c \bar{c} x_c$, $x_b^j$ and $x_c^j$ for $j > 1$ are not, $P$ encodes the assignment to the inputs of $C_i$ that makes them true or false according to $\tau$.
Since these are all the possibilities for how $P$ can end, each diverse palindromic factorization of $S_i$ encodes some assignment to the inputs of $C_i$. This gives us the following lemma:
\[lem:splitting\] If we have a string $S_{i - 1}$ that represents $C_{i - 1}$ and $C_i$ is obtained from $C_{i - 1}$ by splitting an output of $C_{i - 1}$ into two outputs, then in constant time we can append symbols to $S_{i - 1}$ to obtain a string $S_i$ that represents $C_i$.
Adding a NAND Gate {#sec:nanding}
==================
Finally, suppose $C_i$ is obtained from $C_{i - 1}$ by making two outputs of $C_{i - 1}$ labelled $a$ and $b$ the inputs of a new NAND gate whose output is labelled $c$. Let $C_{i - 1}'$ be the circuit obtained from $C_{i - 1}$ by splitting the output of $C_{i - 1}$ labelled $a$ into two outputs labelled $a_1$ and $a_2$, where $a_1$ and $a_2$ are symbols we use only here. Assuming $S_{i - 1}$ represents $C_{i - 1}$, we can use Lemma \[lem:splitting\] to build in constant time a string $S_{i - 1}'$ representing $C_{i - 1}'$. We set $$\begin{aligned}
S_i'
& = & S_{i - 1}'\,\$ \#\,x_{c'}^3 a_1' x_{c'} a_1 x_{c'} \overline{a_1} x_{c'} \overline{a_1'} x_{c'}^5\\
&& \$' \#'\,x_{c'}^7 a_2' x_{c'} a_2 x_{c'} \overline{a_2} x_{c'} \overline{a_2'} x_{c'}^9\\
&& \$'' \#''\,x_{c'}^{11} b' x_{c'} b x_{c'} \bar{b} x_{c'} \overline{b'} x_{c'}^{13}\,,\end{aligned}$$ where all of the symbols in the suffix after $S_{i - 1}'$ are ones we use only here.
Since $\$$, $\$'$, $\$''$, $\$'''$, $\#$ and $\#'$ do not occur in $S_{i - 1}$ and occur as pairs of consecutive characters in $S_i'$, they must each be complete factors in any palindromic factorization of $S_i'$. Therefore, any diverse palindromic factorization of $S_i'$ consists of
1. a diverse palindromic factorization of $S_{i - 1}'$,
2. $(\$,\ \#)$,
3. a diverse palindromic factorization of $x_{c'}^3 a_1' x_{c'} a_1 x_{c'} \overline{a_1} x_{c'} \overline{a_1'} x_{c'}^5$,
4. $(\$',\ \#')$,
5. a diverse palindromic factorization of $x_{c'}^7 a_2' x_{c'} a_2 x_{c'} \overline{a_2} x_{c'} \overline{a_2'} x_{c'}^9$,
6. $(\$'',\ \#'')$,
7. a diverse palindromic factorization of $x_{c'}^{11} b' x_{c'} b x_{c'} \bar{b} x_{c'} \overline{b'} x_{c'}^{13}$.
If $a_1$ is a complete factor in the factorization of $S_{i - 1}'$, then the diverse palindromic factorization of $$x_{c'}^3 a_1' x_{c'} a_1 x_{c'} \overline{a_1} x_{c'} \overline{a_1'} x_{c'}^5$$ must include either $$(a_1',\ x_{c'} a_1 x_{c'},\ \overline{a_1},\ x_{c'} \overline{a_1'} x_{c'})
\hspace{5ex} \mbox{or} \hspace{5ex}
(a_1',\ x_{c'} a_1 x_{c'},\ \overline{a_1},\ x_{c'},\ \overline{a_1'})\,.$$ Notice that in the former case, the factorization need not contain $x_{c'}$. If $\overline{a_1}$ is a complete factor in the factorization of $S_{i - 1}'$, then the diverse palindromic factorization of $$x_{c'}^3 a_1' x_{c'} a_1 x_{c'} \overline{a_1} x_{c'} \overline{a_1'} x_{c'}^5$$ must include either $$(x_{c'} a_1' x_{c'},\ a_1,\ x_{c'} \overline{a_1} x_{c'},\ \overline{a_1'})
\hspace{5ex} \mbox{or} \hspace{5ex}
(a_1',\ x_{c'},\ a_1,\ x_{c'} \overline{a_1} x_{c'},\ \overline{a_1'})\,.$$ Again, in the former case, the factorization need not contain $x_{c'}$. Symmetric propositions hold for $a_2$ and $b$.
We set $$S_i''
= S_i'\,\$^\dagger \#^\dagger\,x_{c'}^{15} \overline{a_1'} x_{c'} c' x_{c'} \overline{b'} x_{c'}^{17}\,
\$^{\dagger \dagger} \#^{\dagger \dagger}\,x_{c'}^{19} \overline{a_2'} x_{c'} d x_{c'} b' x_{c'}^{21}\,,$$ where $\$^\dagger$, $\#^\dagger$, $\$^{\dagger \dagger}$, $\#^{\dagger \dagger}$, $c'$ and $d$ are symbols we use only here. Any diverse palindromic factorization of $S_i''$ consists of
1. a diverse palindromic factorization of $S_i'$,
2. $(\$^\dagger,\ \#^\dagger)$,
3. a diverse palindromic factorization of $x_{c'}^{15} \overline{a_1'} x_{c'} c' x_{c'} \overline{b'} x_{c'}^{17}$,
4. $(\$^{\dagger \dagger},\ \#^{\dagger \dagger})$,
5. a diverse palindromic factorization of $x_{c'}^{19} \overline{a_2'} x_{c'} d x_{c'} b' x_{c'}^{21}$.
Since $a_1$ and $a_2$ label outputs in $C_{i - 1}'$ split from the same output in $C_{i - 1}$, it follows that $a_1$ is a complete factor in a diverse palindromic factorization of $S_{i - 1}'$ if and only if $a_2$ is. Therefore, we need consider only four cases:
**Case 1:** The factorization of $S_{i - 1}'$ includes $a_1$, $a_2$ and $b$ as complete factors, so the factorization of $S_i'$ includes as complete factors either $x_{c'} \overline{a_1'} x_{c'}$, or $\overline{a_1'}$ and $x_{c'}$; either $x_{c'} \overline{a_2'} x_{c'}$, or $\overline{a_2'}$ and $x_{c'}$; either $x_{c'} \overline{b'} x_{c'}$, or $\overline{b'}$ and $x_{c'}$; and $b'$. Trying all the combinations — there are only four, since $x_{c'}$ can appear as a complete factor at most once — shows that any diverse palindromic factorization of $S_i''$ includes one of $$\begin{aligned}
&& (\overline{a_1'},\ x_{c'} c' x_{c'},\ \overline{b'},\ \ldots,\ \overline{a_2'},\ x_{c'},\ d,\ x_{c'} b' x_{c'})\,,\\
&& (\overline{a_1'},\ x_{c'} c' x_{c'},\ \overline{b'},\ \ldots,\ \ x_{c'} \overline{a_2'} x_{c'},\ d,\ x_{c'} b' x_{c'})\,,\end{aligned}$$ with the latter only possible if $x_{c'}$ appears earlier in the factorization.
**Case 2:** The factorization of $S_{i - 1}'$ includes $a_1$, $a_2$ and $\overline{b}$ as complete factors, so the factorization of $S_i'$ includes as complete factors either $x_{c'} \overline{a_1'} x_{c'}$, or $\overline{a_1'}$ and $x_{c'}$; either $x_{c'} \overline{a_2'} x_{c'}$, or $\overline{a_2'}$ and $x_{c'}$; $\overline{b'}$; and either $x_{c'} b' x_{c'}$, or $b'$ and $x_{c'}$. Trying all the combinations shows that any diverse palindromic factorization of $S_i''$ includes one of $$\begin{aligned}
&& (\overline{a_1'},\ x_{c'},\ c',\ x_{c'} \overline{b'} x_{c'},\ \ldots,\ \overline{a_2'},\ x_{c'} d x_{c'},\ b')\,,\\
&& (x_{c'} \overline{a_1'} x_{c'},\ c',\ x_{c'} \overline{b'} x_{c'},\ \ldots,\ \overline{a_2'},\ x_{c'} d x_{c'},\ b')\,,\end{aligned}$$ with the latter only possible if $x_{c'}$ appears earlier in the factorization.
**Case 3:** The factorization of $S_{i - 1}'$ includes $\overline{a_1}$, $\overline{a_2}$ and $b$ as complete factors, so the factorization of $S_i'$ includes as complete factors $\overline{a_1'}$; $\overline{a_2'}$; either $x_{c'} \overline{b'} x_{c'}$, or $\overline{b'}$ and $x_{c'}$; and $b'$. Trying all the combinations shows that any diverse palindromic factorization of $S_i''$ includes one of $$\begin{aligned}
&& (x_{c'} \overline{a_1'} x_{c'},\ c',\ x_{c'},\ \overline{b'},\ \ldots,\ x_{c'} \overline{a_2'} x_{c'},\ d,\ x_{c'} b' x_{c'})\,,\\
&& (x_{c'} \overline{a_1'} x_{c'},\ c',\ x_{c'} \overline{b'} x_{c'},\ \ldots,\ x_{c'} \overline{a_2'} x_{c'},\ d,\ x_{c'} b' x_{c'})\,,\end{aligned}$$ with the latter only possible if $x_{c'}$ appears earlier in the factorization.
**Case 4:** The factorization of $S_{i - 1}'$ includes $\overline{a_1}$, $\overline{a_2}$ and $\overline{b}$ as complete factors, so the factorization of $S_i'$ includes as complete factors $\overline{a_1'}$; $\overline{a_2'}$; $\overline{b'}$; and either $x_{c'} b' x_{c'}$, or $b'$ and $x_{c'}$. Trying all the combinations shows that any diverse palindromic factorization of $S_i''$ that extends the factorization of $S_i'$ includes one of $$\begin{aligned}
&& (x_{c'} \overline{a_1'} x_{c'},\ c',\ x_{c'} \overline{b'} x_{c'},\ \ldots,\ x_{c'} \overline{a_2'} x_{c'},\ d,\ x_{c'},\ b')\,,\\
&& (x_{c'} \overline{a_1'} x_{c'},\ c',\ x_{c'} \overline{b'} x_{c'},\ \ldots,\ x_{c'} \overline{a_2'} x_{c'},\ d,\ x_{c'} b' x_{c'})\,,\end{aligned}$$ with the latter only possible if $x_{c'}$ appears earlier in the factorization. Summing up, any diverse palindromic factorization of $S_i''$ always includes $x_{c'}$ and includes either $x_{c'} c' x_{c'}$ if the factorization of $S_{i - 1}'$ includes $a_1$, $a_2$ and $b$ as complete factors, or $c'$ otherwise.
We set $$S_i''' = S_i''\,\$^{\dagger \dagger \dagger} \#^{\dagger \dagger \dagger}\,x_{c'}^{23} c'' x_{c'} c' x_{c'} \overline{c'} x_{c'} \overline{c''} x_{c'}^{25}\,,$$ where $\$^{\dagger \dagger \dagger}$ and $\#^{\dagger \dagger \dagger}$ are symbols we use only here. Any diverse palindromic factorization of $S_i'''$ consists of
1. a diverse palindromic factorization of $S_i''$,
2. $(\$^{\dagger \dagger \dagger},\ \#^{\dagger \dagger \dagger})$,
3. a diverse palindromic factorization of $x_{c'}^{23} c'' x_{c'} c' x_{c'} \overline{c'} x_{c'} \overline{c''} x_{c'}^{25}$.
Since $x_{c'}$ must appear as a complete factor in the factorization of $S_i''$, if $c'$ is a complete factor in the factorization of $S_i''$, then the factorization of $$x_{c'}^{23} c'' x_{c'} c' x_{c'} \overline{c'} x_{c'} \overline{c''} x_{c'}^{25}$$ must include $$(c'',\ x_{c'} c' x_{c'},\ \overline{c'},\ x_{c'} \overline{c''} x_{c'})\,;$$ otherwise, it must include $$(x_{c'} c'' x_{c'},\ c',\ x_{c'} \overline{c'} x_{c'},\ \overline{c''})\,.$$ That is, the factorization of $x_{c'}^{23} c'' x_{c'} c' x_{c'} \overline{c'} x_{c'} \overline{c''} x_{c'}^{25}$ includes $c''$, $x_{c'}$ and $x_{c'} \overline{c''} x_{c'}$ but not $\overline{c''}$ or $x_{c'} c'' x_{c'}$, if and only if the factorization of $S_i''$ includes $c'$; otherwise, it includes $\overline{c''}$, $x_{c'}$ and $x_{c'} c'' x_{c'}$ but not $c''$ or $x_{c'} \overline{c''} x_{c'}$.
We set $$S_i = S_i'''\,\$^\ddagger\#^\ddagger\,
x_ccx_cc''x_c\overline{c''}x_c\overline{c}x_c\,,$$ where $\$^\ddagger$, $\#^\ddagger$, $c$, $\overline{c}$ and $x_c$ are symbols that do not appear in $S_i'''$. Any diverse palindromic factorization of $S_i$ consists of
1. a diverse palindromic factorization of $S_i'''$,
2. $(\$^{\ddagger},\ \#^{\ddagger})$,
3. a diverse palindromic factorization of $x_c c x_cc''x_c\overline{c''}x_c\overline{c}x_c$.
Since exactly one of $c''$ and $\overline{c''}$ must appear as a complete factor in the factorization of $S_i'''$, the factorization of $$x_ccx_cc''x_c\overline{c''}x_c\overline{c}x_c$$ must be either $$(x_c,\ c,\ x_cc''x_c,\ \overline{c''},\ x_c\overline{c}x_c)$$ or $$(x_ccx_c,\ c'',\ x_c\overline{c''}x_c,\ \overline{c},\ x_c\,).$$ Thus if $c''$ is a complete factor in the factorization of $S_i'''$, then $c$, $x_c$ and $x_c \bar{c} x_c$ are complete factors in the factorization of $S_i$ but $\bar{c}$, $x_c c x_c$ and $x_c^j$ are not for $j > 1$; otherwise, $\bar{c}$, $x_c$ and $x_c c x_c$ are complete factors but $c$, $x_c \bar{c} x_c$ and $x_c^j$ are not for $j > 1$.
Assume $S_{i - 1}$ represents $C_{i - 1}$. Let $\tau$ be an assignment to the inputs of $C_{i - 1}$ and let $P$ be a diverse palindromic factorization of $S_{i - 1}$ encoding $\tau$. By Lemma \[lem:splitting\] we can extend $P$ to $P'$ so that it encodes the assignment to the inputs of $C_{i - 1}'$ that makes them true or false according to $\tau$. There are four cases to consider:
**Case 1:** $\tau$ makes the outputs of $C_{i -
1}$ labelled $a$ and $b$ both true. Then $P'$ concatenated with, e.g., $$\begin{aligned}
&& (\$,\ \#,\ x_{c'}^3,\ a_1',\ x_{c'} a_1 x_{c'},\ \overline{a_1},\
x_{c'} \overline{a_1'} x_{c'},\ x_{c'}^4,\\
&& \$',\ \#',\ x_{c'}^7,\ a_2',\ x_{c'} a_2 x_{c'},\ \overline{a_2},\
x_{c'} \overline{a_2'} x_{c'},\ x_{c'}^8,\\
&& \$'',\ \#'',\ x_{c'}^{11},\ b',\ x_{c'} b x_{c'},\ \bar{b},\
x_{c'} \overline{b'} x_{c'},\ x_{c'}^{12})\end{aligned}$$ is a diverse palindromic factorization $P''$ of $S_i'$ which, concatenated with, e.g., $$\begin{aligned}
&& (\$^\dagger,\ \#^\dagger,\ x_{c'}^{15},\ \overline{a_1'},\
x_{c'} c' x_{c'},\ \overline{b'},\ x_{c'}^{17},\\
&& \$^{\dagger \dagger},\ \#^{\dagger \dagger},\ x_{c'}^{19},\
\overline{a_2'},\ x_{c'},\ d,\ x_{c'} b' x_{c'},\ x_{c'}^{20}) \end{aligned}$$ is a diverse palindromic factorization $P'''$ of $S_i''$ which, concatenated with, e.g., $$\begin{aligned}
(\$^{\dagger \dagger \dagger},\ \#^{\dagger \dagger \dagger},\
x_{c'}^{22},\ x_{c'} c'' x_{c'},\ c',\ x_{c'} \overline{c'}
x_{c'},\ \overline{c''},\ x_{c'}^{25}) \end{aligned}$$ is a diverse palindromic factorization $P^\dagger$ of $S_i'''$ which, concatenated with $$\begin{aligned}
(\$^{\ddag},\ \#^{\ddag},\ x_{c} c x_{c},\ c'',\ x_{c}
\overline{c''} x_{c},\ \bar{c},\ x_{c})\end{aligned}$$ is a diverse palindromic factorization $P^\ddagger$ of $S_i$ in which $\bar{c}$, $x_c$ and $x_c c x_c$ are complete factors but $c$, $x_c \bar{c} x_c$ and $x_c^j$ are not for $j > 1$.
**Case 2:** $\tau$ makes the output of $C_{i -
1}$ labelled $a$ true but the output labelled $b$ false. Then $P'$ concatenated with, e.g., $$\begin{aligned}
&& (\$,\ \#,\ x_{c'}^3,\ a_1',\ x_{c'} a_1 x_{c'},\ \overline{a_1},\
x_{c'} \overline{a_1'} x_{c'},\ x_{c'}^4,\\
&& \$',\ \#',\ x_{c'}^7,\ a_2',\ x_{c'} a_2 x_{c'},\ \overline{a_2},\
x_{c'} \overline{a_2'} x_{c'},\ x_{c'}^8,\\
&& \$'',\ \#'',\ x_{c'}^{10},\ x_{c'} b' x_{c'},\ b,\ x_{c'} \bar{b}
x_{c'},\ \overline{b'},\ x_{c'}^{13}) \end{aligned}$$ is a diverse palindromic factorization $P''$ of $S_i'$ which, concatenated with, e.g., $$\begin{aligned}
&& (\$^\dagger,\ \#^\dagger,\ x_{c'}^{15},\ \overline{a_1'},\
x_{c'},\ c',\ x_{c'} \overline{b'} x_{c'},\ x_{c'}^{16},\\
&& \$^{\dagger \dagger},\ \#^{\dagger \dagger},\ x_{c'}^{19},\ \overline{a_2'},\
x_{c'} d x_{c'},\ b',\ x_{c'}^{21}) \end{aligned}$$ is a diverse palindromic factorization $P'''$ of $S_i''$ which, concatenated with, e.g., $$\begin{aligned}
(\$^{\dagger \dagger \dagger},\ \#^{\dagger \dagger \dagger},\
x_{c'}^{23},\ c'',\ x_{c'} c' x_{c'},\ \overline{c'},\
x_{c'} \overline{c''} x_{c'},\ x_{c'}^{24}) \end{aligned}$$ is a diverse palindromic factorization $P^\dagger$ of $S_i'''$ which, concatenated with $$\begin{aligned}
(\$^{\ddag},\ \#^{\ddag},\ x_{c},\ c,\ x_{c}c''x_{c},\
\overline{c''},\ x_{c}\bar{c}x_{c})\end{aligned}$$ is a diverse palindromic factorization $P^\ddagger$ of $S_i$ in which $c$, $x_c \bar{c} x_c$ and $x_c$ are complete factors but $\bar{c}$, $x_c c x_c$ and $x_c^j$ are not for $j > 1$.
**Case 3:** $\tau$ makes the output of $C_{i -
1}$ labelled $a$ false but the output labelled $b$ true. Then $P'$ concatenated with, e.g., $$\begin{aligned}
&& (\$,\ \#,\ x_{c'}^2,\ x_{c'} a_1' x_{c'},\ a_1,\ x_{c'} \overline{a_1}
x_{c'},\ \overline{a_1'},\ x_{c'}^5,\\
&& \$',\ \#',\ x_{c'}^6,\ x_{c'} a_2' x_{c'},\ a_2,\ x_{c'} \overline{a_2}
x_{c'},\ \overline{a_2'},\ x_{c'}^9,\\
&& \$'',\ \#'',\ x_{c'}^{11},\ b',\ x_{c'} b x_{c'},\ \bar{b},\
x_{c'} \overline{b'} x_{c'},\ x_{c'}^{12})\end{aligned}$$ is a diverse palindromic factorization $P''$ of $S_i'$ which, concatenated with, e.g., $$\begin{aligned}
&& (\$^\dagger,\ \#^\dagger,\ x_{c'}^{14},\ x_{c'} \overline{a_1'}
x_{c'},\ c',\ x_{c'},\ \overline{b'},\ x_{c'}^{17},\\
&& \$^{\dagger \dagger},\ \#^{\dagger \dagger},\ x_{c'}^{18},\
x_{c'} \overline{a_2'} x_{c'},\ d,\ x_{c'} b' x_{c'},\ x_{c'}^{20}) \end{aligned}$$ is a diverse palindromic factorization $P'''$ of $S_i''$ which, concatenated with, e.g., $$\begin{aligned}
(\$^{\dagger \dagger \dagger},\ \#^{\dagger \dagger \dagger},\
x_{c'}^{23},\ c'',\ x_{c'} c' x_{c'},\ \overline{c'},\
x_{c'} \overline{c''} x_{c'},\ x_{c'}^{24}) \end{aligned}$$ is a diverse palindromic factorization $P^\dagger$ of $S_i'''$ which, concatenated with $$\begin{aligned}
(\$^{\ddag},\ \#^{\ddag},\ x_{c},\ c,\ x_{c}c''x_{c},\
\overline{c''},\ x_{c}\bar{c}x_{c})\end{aligned}$$ is a diverse palindromic factorization $P^\ddagger$ of $S_i$ in which $c$, $x_c \bar{c} x_c$ and $x_c$ are complete factors but $\bar{c}$, $x_c c x_c$ and $x_c^j$ are not for $j > 1$.
**Case 4:** $\tau$ makes the outputs of $C_{i -
1}$ labelled $a$ and $b$ both false. Then $P'$ concatenated with, e.g., $$\begin{aligned}
&& (\$,\ \#,\ x_{c'}^2,\ x_{c'} a_1' x_{c'},\ a_1,\ x_{c'} \overline{a_1}
x_{c'},\ \overline{a_1'},\ x_{c'}^5,\\
&& \$',\ \#',\ x_{c'}^6,\ x_{c'} a_2' x_{c'},\ a_2,\ x_{c'} \overline{a_2}
x_{c'},\ \overline{a_2'},\ x_{c'}^9,\\
&& \$'',\ \#'',\ x_{c'}^{10},\ x_{c'} b' x_{c'},\ b,\ x_{c'} \bar{b}
x_{c'},\ \overline{b'},\ x_{c'}^{13}) \end{aligned}$$ is a diverse palindromic factorization $P''$ of $S_i'$ which, concatenated with, e.g., $$\begin{aligned}
&& (\$^\dagger,\ \#^\dagger,\ x_{c'}^{14},\ x_{c'} \overline{a_1'}
x_{c'},\ c',\ x_{c'} \overline{b'} x_{c'},\ x_{c'}^{16},\\
&& \$^{\dagger \dagger},\ \#^{\dagger \dagger},\ x_{c'}^{18},\
x_{c'} \overline{a_2'} x_{c'},\ d,\ x_{c'},\ b',\ x_{c'}^{21}) \end{aligned}$$ is a diverse palindromic factorization $P'''$ of $S_i''$ which, concatenated with, e.g., $$\begin{aligned}
(\$^{\dagger \dagger \dagger},\ \#^{\dagger \dagger \dagger},\
x_{c'}^{23},\ c'',\ x_{c'} c' x_{c'},\ \overline{c'},\
x_{c'} \overline{c''} x_{c'},\ x_{c'}^{24}) \end{aligned}$$ is a diverse palindromic factorization $P^\dagger$ of $S_i'''$ which, concatenated with $$\begin{aligned}
(\$^{\ddag},\ \#^{\ddag},\ x_{c},\ c,\ x_{c}c''x_{c},\
\overline{c''},\ x_{c}\bar{c}x_{c})\end{aligned}$$ is a diverse palindromic factorization $P^\ddagger$ of $S_i$ in which $c$, $x_c \bar{c} x_c$ and $x_c$ are complete factors but $\bar{c}$, $x_c c x_c$ and $x_c^j$ are not for $j > 1$.
Notice that in all cases $P^\ddagger$ encodes the assignment to the inputs of $C_i$ that makes them true or false according to $\tau$. Since $C_{i - 1}$ and $C_i$ have the same inputs, each assignment to the inputs of $C_i$ is encoded by some diverse palindromic factorization of $S_i$.
Now let $P$ be a diverse palindromic factorization of $S_i$ and let $\tau$ be the assignment to the inputs of $C_{i - 1}$ that is encoded by a prefix of $P$. Let $\hat{P}$ be a diverse palindromic factorization of $S_{i-1}'$. Since $a_1$ and $a_2$ are obtained by splitting $a$ in $S_{i-1}$, it follows that $a_1$ is a complete factor of $\hat{P}$ if and only if $a_2$ is. Therefore, in what follows we only consider any diverse palindromic factorization $P$ of $S_{i}$ in which either both $a_1$ and $a_2$ are complete factors, or neither $a_1$ nor $a_2$ is a complete factor.
Let $P'$ be the prefix of $P$ that is a diverse palindromic factorization of $S_i'''$.
**Case A:** Suppose the factorization of $$x_{c'}^{23} c'' x_{c'} c' x_{c'} \overline{c'} x_{c'} \overline{c''} x_{c'}^{25}$$ in $P'$ includes $\overline{c''}$ as a complete factor, which is the case if and only if $P$ includes $\bar{c}$, $x_c$ and $x_c c x_c$ as complete factors but not $c$, $x_c \bar{c} x_c$ and $x_c^j$ for $j > 1$. We will show that $\tau$ must make the outputs of $C_{i - 1}$ labelled $a$ and $b$ true. Let $P''$ be the prefix of $P'$ that is a diverse palindromic factorization of $S_i''$. Since $\overline{c''}$ is a complete factor in the factorization of $$x_{c'}^{23} c'' x_{c'} c' x_{c'} \overline{c'} x_{c'} \overline{c''} x_{c'}^{25}$$ in $P'$, so is $c'$. Therefore, $c'$ is not a complete factor in the factorization of $$x_{c'}^{15} \overline{a_1'} x_{c'} c' x_{c'} \overline{b'} x_{c'}^{17}$$ in $P''$, so $\overline{a_1'}$ and $\overline{b'}$ are.
Let $P'''$ be the prefix of $P''$ that is a diverse palindromic factorization of $S_i'$. Since $\overline{a_1'}$ and $\overline{b'}$ are complete factors later in $P''$, they are not complete factors in $P'''$. Therefore, $\overline{a_1}$ and $\bar{b}$ are complete factors in the factorizations of $$x_{c'}^3 a_1' x_{c'} a_1 x_{c'} \overline{a_1} x_{c'} \overline{a_1'} x_{c'}^5
\hspace{5ex} \mbox{and} \hspace{5ex}
x_{c'}^{11} b' x_{c'} b x_{c'} \bar{b} x_{c'} \overline{b'} x_{c'}^{13}$$ in $P'''$, so they are not complete factors in the prefix $P^\dagger$ of $P$ that is a diverse palindromic factorization of $S_{i - 1}'$. Since we built $S_{i - 1}'$ from $S_{i - 1}$ with Lemma \[lem:splitting\], it follows that $a_1$ and $b$ are complete factors in the prefix of $P$ that encodes $\tau$. Therefore, $\tau$ makes the outputs of $C_{i - 1}$ labelled $a$ and $b$ true.
**Case B:** Suppose the factorization of $$x_{c'}^{23} c'' x_{c'} c' x_{c'} \overline{c'} x_{c'} \overline{c''} x_{c'}^{25}$$ in $P'$ does not include $\overline{c''}$ as a complete factor, which implies that it does include $x_{c'} \overline{c''} x_{c'}$ as a complete factor. Since, as noted earlier, we can assume that $a_1$ is a complete factor of $P$ if and only if $a_2$ is, it follows that the factorization of $$x_{c'}^{23} c'' x_{c'} c' x_{c'} \overline{c'} x_{c'} \overline{c''} x_{c'}^{25}$$ must include $$(c'', x_{c'} c' x_{c'}, \overline{c'}, x_{c'} \overline{c''} x_{c'}).$$ Then, $P$ must include $x_c$, $c$ and $\overline{c''}$ as complete factors. We will show that $\tau$ must make at least one of the outputs of $C_{i - 1}$ labelled $a$ or $b$ false. Let $P''$ be the prefix of $P'$ that is a diverse palindromic factorization of $S_i''$. Since $x_{c'} c' x_{c'}$ is a complete factor in the factorization of $$x_{c'}^{23} c'' x_{c'} c' x_{c'} \overline{c'} x_{c'} \overline{c''} x_{c'}^{25}$$ in $P'$, $c'$ is a complete factor in the factorization of $$x_{c'}^{15} \overline{a_1'} x_{c'} c' x_{c'} \overline{b'} x_{c'}^{17}$$ in $P''$. Then, the factorization of $$x_{c'}^{15} \overline{a_1'} x_{c'} c' x_{c'} \overline{b'} x_{c'}^{17}$$ must include one of the following three: $$\begin{aligned}
& (x_{c'} \overline{a_1'} x_{c'}, c', x_{c'} \overline{b'} x_{c'}), & \label{CaseBa} \\
& (x_{c'} \overline{a_1'} x_{c'}, c', x_{c'}, \overline{b'}),& \label{CaseBb} \\
& (\overline{a_1'}, x_{c'}, c', x_{c'} \overline{b'} x_{c'}). & \label{CaseBc}\end{aligned}$$
Case B-a:
: Assume the factorization of $x_{c'}^{15} \overline{a_1'} x_{c'} c' x_{c'} \overline{b'} x_{c'}^{17}$ includes (\[CaseBa\]). Let $P'''$ be the prefix of $P''$ that is a diverse palindromic factorization of $S_i'$. Since $\overline{a_1'}$ and $\overline{b'}$ are not complete factors later in $P''$, they are complete factors in $P'''$. Therefore, there are five combinations of factorizations of $$x_{c'}^3 a_1' x_{c'} a_1 x_{c'} \overline{a_1} x_{c'} \overline{a_1'} x_{c'}^5
\hspace{5ex} \mbox{and} \hspace{5ex}
x_{c'}^{11} b' x_{c'} b x_{c'} \bar{b} x_{c'} \overline{b'} x_{c'}^{13}$$ in $P'''$, as follows:
Case B-a1:
: The factorizations include $$(x_{c'} a_1' x_{c'},\ a_1,\ x_{c'} \overline{a_1} x_{c'},\ \overline{a_1'}) \mbox{ and }
(x_{c'} b' x_{c'},\ b,\ x_{c'} \bar{b} x_{c'},\ \overline{b'}).$$ In this case, $a_1$ and $b$ are not complete factors in the prefix of $P$ that encodes $\tau$. Therefore, $\tau$ makes both the outputs of $C_{i-1}$ labelled $a$ and $b$ false.
Case B-a2:
: The factorizations include $$(x_{c'} a_1' x_{c'},\ a_1,\ x_{c'} \overline{a_1} x_{c'},\ \overline{a_1'}) \mbox{ and }
(b',\ x_{c'} b x_{c'},\ \bar{b},\ x_{c'},\ \overline{b'}).$$ In this case, $a_1$ is not a complete factor and $b$ is a complete factor in the prefix of $P$ that encodes $\tau$. Therefore, $\tau$ makes the outputs of $C_{i-1}$ labelled $a$ false and $b$ true.
Case B-a3:
: The factorizations include $$(a_1',\ x_{c'} a_1 x_{c'},\ \overline{a_1},\ x_{c'},\ \overline{a_1'}) \mbox{ and }
(x_{c'} b' x_{c'},\ b,\ x_{c'} \bar{b} x_{c'},\ \overline{b'}).$$ In this case, $a_1$ is a complete factor and $b$ is not a complete factor in the prefix of $P$ that encodes $\tau$. Therefore, $\tau$ makes the outputs of $C_{i-1}$ labelled $a$ true and $b$ false.
Case B-a4:
: The factorizations include $$(a_1',\ x_{c'},\ a_1,\ x_{c'} \overline{a_1} x_{c'},\ \overline{a_1'}) \mbox{ and }
(x_{c'} b' x_{c'},\ b,\ x_{c'} \bar{b} x_{c'},\ \overline{b'}).$$ In this case, $a_1$ and $b$ are not complete factors in the prefix of $P$ that encodes $\tau$. Therefore, $\tau$ makes both the outputs of $C_{i-1}$ labelled $a$ and $b$ false.
Case B-a5:
: The factorizations include $$(x_{c'} a_1' x_{c'},\ a_1,\ x_{c'} \overline{a_1} x_{c'},\ \overline{a_1'}) \mbox{ and }
(b',\ x_{c'},\ b,\ x_{c'} \bar{b} x_{c'},\ \overline{b'}).$$ In this case, $a_1$ and $b$ are not complete factors in the prefix of $P$ that encodes $\tau$. Therefore, $\tau$ makes both the outputs of $C_{i-1}$ labelled $a$ and $b$ false.
Case B-b:
: Assume the factorization of $x_{c'}^{15} \overline{a_1'} x_{c'} c' x_{c'} \overline{b'} x_{c'}^{17}$ includes (\[CaseBb\]). Let $P''$ be the prefix of $P'$ that is a diverse palindromic factorization of $S_i''$. Let $P'''$ be the prefix of $P''$ that is a diverse palindromic factorization of $S_i'$. Since $\overline{a_1'}$ and $x_{c'} \overline{b'} x_{c'}$ are not complete factors later in $P''$, they are complete factors in $P'''$. Therefore, the factorizations of $$x_{c'}^3 a_1' x_{c'} a_1 x_{c'} \overline{a_1} x_{c'} \overline{a_1'} x_{c'}^5
\hspace{5ex} \mbox{and} \hspace{5ex}
x_{c'}^{11} b' x_{c'} b x_{c'} \bar{b} x_{c'} \overline{b'} x_{c'}^{13}$$ must include $$(x_{c'} a_1' x_{c'},\ a_1,\ x_{c'} \overline{a_1} x_{c'},\ \overline{a_1'})
\mbox{ and }
(b',\ x_{c'} b x_{c'},\ \bar{b},\ x_{c'} \overline{b'} x_{c'})$$ in $P'''$. Then $a_1$ is not a complete factor and $b$ is a complete factor in the prefix of $P$ that encodes $\tau$. Therefore, $\tau$ makes the outputs of $C_{i-1}$ labelled $a$ false and $b$ true.
Case B-c:
: Assume the factorization of $x_{c'}^{15} \overline{a_1'} x_{c'} c' x_{c'} \overline{b'} x_{c'}^{17}$ includes (\[CaseBc\]). Let $P''$ be the prefix of $P'$ that is a diverse palindromic factorization of $S_i''$. Let $P'''$ be the prefix of $P''$ that is a diverse palindromic factorization of $S_i'$. Since $x_{c'} \overline{a_1'} x_{c'}$ and $\overline{b'}$ are not complete factors later in $P''$, they are complete factors in $P'''$. Therefore, the factorizations of $$x_{c'}^3 a_1' x_{c'} a_1 x_{c'} \overline{a_1} x_{c'} \overline{a_1'} x_{c'}^5
\hspace{5ex} \mbox{and} \hspace{5ex}
x_{c'}^{11} b' x_{c'} b x_{c'} \bar{b} x_{c'} \overline{b'} x_{c'}^{13}$$ must include $$(a_1',\ x_{c'} a_1 x_{c'},\ \overline{a_1},\ x_{c'} \overline{a_1'} x_{c'})
\mbox{ and }
(x_{c'} b' x_{c'},\ b,\ x_{c'} \bar{b} x_{c'},\ \overline{b'})$$ in $P'''$. Then $a_1$ is a complete factor and $b$ is not a complete factor in the prefix of $P$ that encodes $\tau$. Therefore, $\tau$ makes the outputs of $C_{i-1}$ labelled $a$ true and $b$ false.
The above arguments give the following lemma.
\[lem:nanding\] If we have a string $S_{i - 1}$ that represents $C_{i - 1}$ and $C_i$ is obtained from $C_{i - 1}$ by making two outputs of $C_{i - 1}$ the inputs of a new NAND gate, then in constant time we can append symbols to $S_{i - 1}$ to obtain a string $S_i$ that represents $C_i$.
Summing Up {#sec:conclusion}
==========
By Lemmas \[lem:adding\], \[lem:splitting\] and \[lem:nanding\] and induction, given a Boolean circuit $C$ composed only of splitters and NAND gates with two inputs and one output, in time linear in the size of $C$ we can build, inductively and in turn, a sequence of strings $S_1, \ldots, S_t$ such that $S_i$ represents $C_i$. As mentioned in Section \[sec:outline\], once we have $S_t$ we can easily build in constant time a string $S$ that has a diverse palindromic factorization if and only if $C$ is satisfiable. Therefore, diverse palindromic factorization is NP-hard. Since it is obviously in NP, we have the following theorem:
\[thm:conclusion\] Diverse palindromic factorization is NP-complete.
$k$-Diverse Factorization {#sec:kdiverse}
=========================
It is not difficult to check that our reduction is still correct even if factors of the forms $\$$, $\#$ and $x^j$ for $j > 1$ can appear arbitrarily often in the factorization, as long as factors of the forms $a$, $x$ and $x a x$ can each appear at most once. (By “of the form” we mean equal up to subscripts, bars and superscripts apart from exponents; $a$ stands for any letter except $x$.) It follows that it is still NP-complete to decide for any fixed $k$ whether a string can be factored into palindromes that each appear at most $k$ times in the factorization.
Suppose we are given $k$ and a Boolean circuit $C$ composed only of splitters and NAND gates with two inputs and one output. In linear time we can build, as we have described, a string $S$ such that $S$ has a diverse palindromic factorization if and only if $C$ is satisfiable. In linear time we can then build a string $T$ as follows: we start with $T$ equal to the empty string; for each substring of $S$ of the form $a$, we append to $T$ a substring of the form $$\$_1 \#_1\,a\,\$_2 \#_2\,a\,\$_3 \#_3 \cdots \$_{k - 1} \#_{k - 1}\,a\,\$_k \#_k\,,$$ where $\$_1, \ldots, \$_k, \#_1, \ldots, \#_k$ are symbols we use only here; for each substring of $S$ of the form $x$, we append to $T$ a substring of the form $$\$_1' \#_1'\,x\,\$_2' \#_2'\,x\,\$_3' \#_3' \cdots \$_{k - 1}' \#_{k - 1}'\,x\,\$_k' \#_k'\,,$$ where $\$_1', \ldots, \$_k', \#_1', \ldots, \#_k'$ are symbols we use only here; for each substring of $S$ of the form $x a x$, we append to $T$ a substring of the form $$\$_1'' \#_1''\,x a x\,\$_2'' \#_2''\,x a x\,\$_3'' \#_3'' \cdots \$_{k - 1}'' \#_{k - 1}''\,x a x\,\$_k'' \#_k''\,,$$ where $\$_1'', \ldots, \$_k'', \#_1'', \ldots, \#_k''$ are symbols we use only here.
Notice that the only $k$-diverse palindromic factorization of $T$ includes each substring of $S$ of the forms $a$, $x$ and $x a x$ exactly $k - 1$ times each. In particular, any substring of $T$ of the form $x a x$ cannot be factored into $(x,\ a,\ x)$, because $x$ must appear $k - 1$ times elsewhere in the factorization. Therefore, there is a $k$-diverse palindromic factorization of $S\,\$ \#\,T$, where $\$$ and $\#$ are symbols we use only here, if and only if there is a diverse palindromic factorization of $S$ and, thus, if and only if $C$ is satisfiable. This implies the following generalization of Theorem \[thm:conclusion\].
\[thm:kdiverse\] For any fixed $k\ge 1$, $k$-diverse palindromic factorization is NP-complete.
Binary Alphabet {#sec:binary}
===============
The reduction described above involves multiple distinct symbols for each component of the circuit and thus requires an unbounded alphabet, but we will next show that a binary alphabet is sufficient.
Let $S$ be an arbitrary string and let $\Sigma$ be the set of distinct symbols occurring in $S$. Let $\delta$ be an (arbitrary) bijective mapping $\delta : \Sigma \to \{ba^ib : i\in[1..|\Sigma|]\}$. We will also use $\delta$ to denote the implied mapping from $\Sigma^*$ to $\{a,b\}^*$ defined recursively by $\delta(X\alpha) = \delta(X)
\cdot \delta(\alpha)$ for any $X\in\Sigma^*$ and $\alpha\in\Sigma$.
Notice that $\delta$ preserves palindromes, i.e., for any palindrome $P\in\Sigma^*$, $\delta(P)$ is a palindrome too. Thus, if $\mathbf{P}=(P_1, P_2, \dots, P_k)$ is a palindromic factorization of $S$, then $\delta(\mathbf{P})=(\delta(P_1), \delta(P_2), \dots,
\delta(P_k))$ is a palindromic factorization of $\delta(S)$. Furthermore any palindrome in $\delta(S)$ of the form $(ba^+b)^+$ must be a preserved palindrome, i.e., an image $\delta(P)$ of a palindrome $P$ occurring in $S$. Any palindromic factorization of $\delta(S)$ consisting of preserved palindromes only corresponds to a palindromic factorization of $S$. We call this a preserved palindromic factorization of $\delta(S)$. Notice that a preserved palindromic factorization $\delta(\mathbf{P})$ is diverse if and only if $\mathbf{P}$ is diverse.
Now consider an arbitrary non-preserved palindromic factorization of $\delta(S)$. It is easy to see that the first palindrome must be either a single $b$ or a preserved palindrome. Furthermore, any palindrome following a preserved palindrome in the factorization must be either a single $b$ or a preserved palindrome. Thus the palindromic factorization of $\delta(S)$ begins with a (possibly empty) sequence of preserved palindromes followed by a single $b$. A symmetric argument shows that the factorization also ends with a (possibly empty) sequence of preserved palindromes preceded by a single $b$. The two single $b$’s cannot be the same $b$ since one is the first $b$ in an image of a symbol in $S$, and the other is a last $b$. Thus a non-preserved palindromic factorization can never be diverse.
The above discussion proves the following lemma.
For any string $S$, $\delta(S)$ has a diverse palindromic factorization if and only if $S$ has a diverse palindromic factorization.
Applying the lemma to the string $S$ constructed from a Boolean circuit $C$ as described in Sections \[sec:adding\], \[sec:splitting\] and \[sec:nanding\], shows that $\delta(S)$ has a diverse palindromic factorization if and only if $C$ is satisfiable. Since $\delta(S)$ can be constructed in time quadratic in the size of $C$, we have a binary alphabet version of Theorem \[thm:conclusion\].
\[thm:binary\] Diverse palindromic factorization of binary strings is NP-complete.
If we allow each factor to occur at most $k>1$ times, the above transformation to a binary alphabet does not work anymore, because two single $b$’s is now allowed. However, a small modification is sufficient to correct this. First, we replace $\delta$ with a bijection $\delta' : \Sigma \to \{ba^ib :
i\in[3..|\Sigma|+2]\}$. Second, we append to $\delta'(S)$ the string $Q_k$ which is a length $20k$ prefix of $(abbaab)^*$.
Let us first analyze the palindromic structure of $Q_k$. It is easy to see that the only palindromes in $Q_k$ are $$a,\ b,\ aa,\ bb,\ aba,\ bab,\ abba,\ \textrm{and}\ baab.$$ The total length of these palindromes is 20 and thus the only possible $k$-diverse palindromic factorization of $Q_k$ is one where all the above palindromes appear exactly $k$ times. Such factorizations exist too. For example, $k$ copies of $$(abba,\ aba,\ bb,\ aa,\ bab,\ baab)$$ followed by $2k$ single symbol palindromes is such a factorization.
Now consider the string $\delta'(S)Q_k$. It is easy to verify that the only palindromes overlapping both $\delta'(S)$ and $Q_k$ are $aba$ and $bab$. However, in any palindromic factorization containing one of them, the factorization of the remaining part of $Q_k$ together with the overlapping palindrome would have to contain more than $k$ occurrences of some factor. Thus in any $k$-diverse palindromic factorization of $\delta'(S)Q_k$, there are no overlapping palindromes and the factorizations of $\delta'(S)$ and $Q_k$ are separate. Since the factorization of $Q_k$ contains $k$ single $b$’s, the factorization of $\delta'(S)$ cannot contain any single $b$’s. Then, by the discussion earlier in this section, all palindromes in $\delta'(S)$ must be preserved palindromes.
For any string $S$ and any $k\ge 1$, the string $\delta'(S)Q_k$ has a $k$-diverse palindromic factorization if and only if $S$ has a $k$-diverse palindromic factorization.
Combining this with Theorem \[thm:kdiverse\], we obtain the following:
\[thm:kdiverse-binary\] For any fixed $k \ge 1$, $k$-diverse palindromic factorization of binary strings is NP-complete.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
Many thanks to Gabriele Fici for his comments on a draft of this paper, and to the anonymous referee who pointed out a gap in the proof of Lemma \[lem:nanding\].
This work has been supported by grants 268324, 258308 and 284598 from the Academy of Finland, and by a research fellowship within the project “Enhancing Educational Potential of Nicolaus Copernicus University in the Disciplines of Mathematical and Natural Sciences” (project no. POKL.04.01.01-00-081/10).
This work was done while the second author was at the Department of Computer Science and the Helsinki Institute for Information Technology (HIIT) of the University of Helsinki.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We prove upper bounds for sums of Kloosterman sums against general arithmetic weight functions. In particular, we obtain power cancellation in sums of Kloosterman sums over arithmetic progressions, which is of square-root strength in any fixed primitive congruence class up to bounds towards the Ramanujan conjecture.'
address:
- 'Mathematisches Institut, Bunsenstr. 3-5, D-37073 Göttingen, Germany'
- 'Max-Planck-Institut für Mathematik, Vivatsgasse 7, D-53111 Bonn, Germany'
author:
- Valentin Blomer
- Djordje Milićević
title: Kloosterman sums in residue classes
---
Introduction
============
The distribution of values of complete exponential sums is of central interest in number theory and arithmetic geometry. In particular, many arithmetic problems can be transformed into bounding sums of Kloosterman sums. While Weil’s bound gives the best possible estimate for individual Kloosterman sums $S(m, n, c)$, one can often use the Bruggeman-Kuznetsov formula to obtain additional savings from the sum over the modulus $c$. Starting with the ground-breaking work of Deshouillers-Iwaniec [@DI], this has been a recurring theme in analytic number theory, see e.g. [@BFI; @DFI1; @FM] for some spectacular examples. Using the Bruggeman-Kuznetsov formula for the congruence subgroup $\Gamma_0(q)$, one can require additional divisibility conditions on the modulus $c$. It is a routine exercise to obtain non-trivial bounds for sums of the type $$\label{1}
\sum_{c \equiv 0 \, (q)} \frac{S(m, n, c)}{c^{1/2}} f_{\infty}\left(\frac{c}{X}\right),$$ where $f_{\infty} : (0, \infty) \rightarrow \Bbb{C}$ is an appropriate fixed weight function, $m$, $n$ are positive integers, and $X$ is a large parameter. It is much less of a routine exercise to obtain results of the same quality when the congruence condition $c \equiv 0$ (mod $q$) is replaced with $c \equiv a$ (mod $q$) for some $(a, q) = 1$. The difficulty here lies in the fact that there is no obvious subgroup of $\text{SL}_2(\Bbb{Z})$ where the set of lower left entries of its elements is the set of $c \equiv a$ (mod $q$), and it is also not obvious how to use different cusps of $\Gamma_0(q)$ to encode the congruence condition. It is therefore not clear if spectral theory can provide any non-trivial information even for a fixed progression such as $c \equiv 2$ (mod 5). In this article we show that nevertheless the problem can be solved in full generality in the framework of certain congruence subgroups $\Gamma_1(Q)$ (more precisely, for some divisors $Q$ of $q^2$).
In fact, we will consider the following more general setup. Let $q$ be an arbitrary positive integer. For a function $f : (\Bbb{Z}/q\Bbb{Z})^{\ast} \rightarrow \Bbb{C}$ we denote by $\widehat{f}$ its “$q$-Mellin transform" $$\widehat{f}(\chi) = \frac{1}{\phi(q)^{1/2}} \left.\sum_{c \, (q)}\right.^{\ast} \bar{\chi}(c ) f(c )$$ where $\chi$ is a Dirichlet character modulo $q$. It satisfies the inversion formula, $$\label{1a}
f(c ) = \frac{1}{\phi(q)^{1/2}} \sum_{\chi \, (q)} \widehat{f}(\chi) \chi( c).$$ We write $\| \widehat{f} \|_1 := \sum_{\chi\,(q)} |\widehat{f}(\chi)|$, and we lift $f$ to a function on integers $c \in \Bbb{Z}$ with $(c, q) = 1$ in the obvious way. We think of $f$ as an *arithmetic weight function* against which we want to sum Kloosterman sums. The original problem of Linnik [@Lin] is concerned with the magnitude of a variant of with $q=1$ and $f_{\infty}$ a sharp cutoff function; see [@Ku], [@ST]. Weighting contributions of various $S(m,n,c)$ by an arithmetic weight $f(c)$ is the natural adelic counterpart of this question, with various moduli $c$ entering with weights according to their position relative to various $p$-adic neighborhoods in addition to the archimedean ones. See [@FKM] for a very interesting discussion of arithmetic weights in a different context.\
Our principal result is the following theorem.
\[MainTheorem\] Let $m, n, q$ be positive integers and $X\geqslant 1$. Let $f : (\Bbb{Z}/q\Bbb{Z})^{\ast} \rightarrow \Bbb{C}$, and let $f_{\infty} : (0, \infty) \rightarrow \Bbb{C}$ be a smooth, compactly supported function. Then uniformly in $mn {\leqslant}X^2$ one has $$\label{thm1}
\sum_{(c, q) = 1} \frac{S(m, n, c)}{c^{1/2}} f(c ) f_{\infty}\left(\frac{c}{X}\right) \ll_{f_{\infty}, \varepsilon} X^{1/2+2\theta} \| \widehat{f} \|_1 (mnq)^{\varepsilon}$$ for any $\varepsilon > 0$ and any admissible exponent $\theta$ for the Generalized Ramanujan Conjecture for the places dividing $mn$ and the archimedean place.
The large range $mn {\leqslant}X^2$ of uniformity, also known as the “Linnik range” [@ST], is natural and will become apparent in below. One can also treat the complementary range, but then the analysis of the relevant integral transforms changes. We remark that, if one assumes the Selberg eigenvalue conjecture, then the factor $X^{2\theta}$ in Theorem \[MainTheorem\] can be replaced with $(mn)^{\theta}$. Currently, the best available result toward the Generalized Ramanujan Conjecture is $\theta=7/64$, due to Kim and Sarnak [@KS].
The norm $\|\widehat{f}\|_1$ that appears in Theorem \[MainTheorem\] satisfies a general (and generally sharp) estimate $\| \widehat{f} \|_1 {\leqslant}\phi(q)^{1/2} \| f \|_2$ by the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality. A particularly interesting class of arithmetic weights $f$ (for $q$ prime) comes from algebraic geometry (e.g. as Frobenius trace functions of perverse $l$-adic sheaves [@FKM]); see [@Ka] for bounds on various norms of the corresponding $\widehat{f}$ in terms of the “conductor" of the associated sheaf.
In the proof of Theorem \[MainTheorem\] we develop a generalized version of the Kuznetsov formula which encodes an additional arithmetic weight and furnishes an exact spectral decomposition of the left hand side of . We state this spectral formula in Section \[sec6\] as Theorem \[general\] after we have developed the necessary notation. Several important ingredients in the proof of Theorem \[MainTheorem\] may be noteworthy, including the encoding of arbitrary arithmetic weights using twisted Kloosterman sums in Section \[EncodingSection\], a more general treatment of newforms along the lines of [@ILS] in Section \[FourierSection\], and a completely explicit computation of the Fourier coefficients (also at ramified places) of Eisenstein series of general central character in Section \[EisensteinSection\].\
As a particular application of Theorem \[MainTheorem\], we can choose $f$ to be the characteristic function of the arithmetic progression $c \equiv a$ (mod $q$), where $(a, q) = 1$, and obtain the following variant of , a version of Linnik’s conjecture [@Lin] in arithmetic progressions:
\[coro\] Under the same assumptions as in Theorem \[MainTheorem\] one has $$\sum_{c \equiv a \, (q)} \frac{ S(m, n, c)}{c^{1/2}} f_{\infty}\left(\frac{c}{X}\right) \ll_{f_{\infty}, \varepsilon} X^{1/2+2\theta} q^{1/2 } (mnq)^{\varepsilon}.$$
Using Weil’s bound $|S(m,n,c)|\leqslant\tau(c)(m,n,c)^{1/2}c^{1/2}$ [@IK Corollary 11.12] individually, one obtains an upper bound $\ll_{m, n} X^{\varepsilon} (1+X/q)$ in the situation of Corollary \[coro\]. We see that, for fixed $m, n$, Corollary \[coro\] is non-trivial for $q\ll X^{(1-4\theta)/3-\varepsilon}$, the quality of cancellation obtained being uniform across all primitive classes $a\pmod q$.\
The dependence on $f_{\infty}$ in Theorem \[MainTheorem\] is completely explicit in the proof, see – below, but it is somewhat convoluted, so that we decided not to display it in the main theorem. Suffice it to say that Theorem \[MainTheorem\] is a very close non-archimedean analogue of the classical situation where $f$ is trivial, but $f_{\infty}$ is oscillating, and our method puts the archimedean and non-archimedean aspects on equal footing. In particular the appearance of norms of $\widehat{f}$ on the right hand side of is rather natural as a comparison with shows.
As an example of this parallelism in Theorem \[MainTheorem\], if we take $f_{\infty}$ fixed and $f(c ) = e(ac/q)$ for some $(a, q) = 1$ and $q$ prime, then $\| \widehat{f} \|_1 = q+\text{O}(1)$. On the other hand, if we take $q=1$, but a similarly oscillating weight function $f_{\infty}(x) = w(x) e({\tt q}x)$ for some fixed, smooth, compactly supported weight function $w$ and some real number ${\tt q} > 1$, then a stationary phase computation shows that the (usual) Mellin transform of $f_{\infty}$ satisfies $\widehat{f}_{\infty}(c + it) \ll_{ c} {\tt q}^{-1/2} (1+|t|/{\tt q})^{-10}$, and hence gives the bound $X^{1/2+2\theta} {\tt q} (mn{\tt q})^{\varepsilon}$.
An equally robust analogy can be observed in Corollary \[coro\], in which the Kloosterman sums $S(m,n,c)$ are summed over moduli $c$ in a non-archimedean ball *away from $0$*. The archimedean analogue of Corollary \[coro\] is the situation $q=1$, but a smooth test function $f_{\infty}$ with support in a short interval $[1, 1+{\tt q}^{-1}]$. Then $f_{\infty}$ satisfies $\widehat{f}_{\infty}(c + it) \ll_{ c} {\tt q}^{-1} (1+|t|/{\tt q}^2)^{-10}$, and returns the bound $X^{1/2+2\theta} {\tt q}^{1/2} (mn{\tt q})^{\varepsilon}$, in complete analogy with Corollary \[coro\]. This conclusion should be contrasted with a sum over the progression $c\equiv 0\pmod q$, whose analogue would be the substantially easier case of the support of $f_{\infty}$ in $[0,{\tt q}^{-1}]$ (or, equivalently, having $X/{\tt q}$ in place of $X$). The (perhaps at first counterintuitive) phenomenon that a thinner or shorter sequence gives rise to a harder estimation problem away from the zero class is not uncommon; compare e.g. an application of Voronoi summation to obtain bounds for $\sum_{n \equiv a \, (q)} \lambda_f(n) w(n/X)$ for a fixed cusp form $f$ and $q > X^{1/2}$.
The deeper reason for the analogy between the archimedean and non-archimedean aspect is that the spectral decomposition of the sum in using the Bruggeman-Kuznetsov formula gives rise to a spectral sum of Maa[ß]{} forms of a comparable number of terms in both cases: in slightly simplified terms, we obtain in the non-archimedean case a sum with bounded spectral parameter for the group $\Gamma_1(q)$ (of covolume $\asymp q^2$ in Weyl’s law), while in the archimedean case we obtain a sum with spectral parameter of size up to ${\tt q}$ (containing $\asymp {\tt q}^2$ terms by Weyl’s law) for $\text{SL}_2(\Bbb{Z})$. In other words, we are expanding in *different directions* of the full automorphic spectrum of $\text{SL}_2(\mathbb{Q})\setminus\text{SL}_2(\mathbb{A}_{\mathbb{Q}})$. In both cases we estimate the spectral sum trivially and therefore obtain results of comparable quality. (We remark on the side that this numerical phenomenon holds in higher rank, too: one expects $\asymp{\tt q}^{(n^2+n-2)/2}$ Maa[ß]{} forms for $\text{SL}_n(\Bbb{Z})$ in a ball of radius ${\tt q}$ about the origin in the Lie-algebra $i\mathfrak{a}^{\ast}$ and $\asymp q^{(n^2+n-2)/2}$ Maa[ß]{} forms for $\Gamma_1(q) \subseteq\text{SL}_n(\Bbb{Z})$ in a fixed ball.)\
We note that, as a direct consequence (see [@Va]) of Corollary \[coro\], we obtain the following equidistribution result for the Dedekind sums $s(d,c)$. For a real number $x$, let $\langle x\rangle$ denote the fractional part of $x$.
Let $q$ be a natural number, and let $a$ be an integer coprime to $q$. Then the set $$\{\langle12 \cdot s(d, c)\rangle : d\,(\textnormal{mod }c),\, c {\leqslant}x,\, c \equiv a\, (\textnormal{mod }q) \}$$ becomes equidistributed in $[0, 1)$, as $x \rightarrow \infty$.
Many variations of the present approach are possible. Depending on the application, one can include additional divisibility conditions on $c$ in and thereby relax the condition $(a, q) = 1$ in Corollary \[coro\], one can take $m$ and $n$ to be of opposite sign (using the “opposite sign" Kuznetsov formula), or, perhaps most interestingly, one can sum over $m$ and $n$ and prove large sieve type inequalities as in [@DI]. An investigation of and in particular the dependence on $f_{\infty}$ in makes it also possible to replace the smooth summation condition by a sharp cutoff condition $c {\leqslant}X$. Finally, the dependence on $\theta$ in Theorem \[MainTheorem\] can be improved slightly in certain ranges of $m, n, q, X$ using density results for exceptional eigenvalues as in [@IK (16.61)]; see also [@IK (16.75)]. We leave these and other extensions to the interested reader.
For the rest of paper, implicit constants may depend on $\varepsilon$ (whose numerical value may change from line to line), but all other dependencies are explicitly specified.\
We would like to thank Farrell Brumley for insightful conversations on topics related to this work and Gergely Harcos for helpful feedback. Henryk Iwaniec kindly informed us that in unpublished notes he obtained cancellation in the situation of Corollary \[coro\]. Finally we thank the referee for very useful comments.
The first author acknowledges the support by the Volkswagen Foundation and a Starting Grant of the European Research Council. The second author would like to thank the Max Planck Institute for Mathematics in Bonn for their support and excellent research infrastructure at the Institute.
Encoding of the arithmetic weights {#EncodingSection}
==================================
Let $\chi_1$ be a primitive Dirichlet character modulo $q_1$, let $m, \delta \in \Bbb{N}$ be positive integers satisfying $(m\delta, q_1) = 1$, and let $h:\mathbb{N}\to\mathbb{C}$ be a function such that $|h(c)|\ll c^{-3/2-\eta}$ for some $\eta>0$. For every $c$ with $q_1 \mid c$, let $$S_{\chi_1}(m, n, c) = \left.\sum_{d \, (c )} \right.^{\ast} \chi_1(d) e\left(\frac{md + n \bar{d}}{c}\right)$$ be the twisted Kloosterman sum, where ${}^{\ast}$ denotes summation restricted to primitive residue classes. By Möbius inversion, we have that $$\label{BasicMobius}
\sum_{(c, q_1) = 1} S_{\chi_1}(m, nq_1^2, q_1\delta c)h(\delta c ) = \sum_{d \mid q_1} \mu(d) \sum_{dq_1 \mid c} S_{\chi_1}(m, nq_1^2, \delta c ) h(\delta c/q_1).$$
On the other hand, if $c$ is such that $(q_1, \delta c) = 1$, we have by twisted multiplicativity of Kloosterman sums (see [@IK (1.59)]; our case is *mutatis mutandis*) that $$S_{\chi_1}(m, nq_1^2, q_1\delta c) = S(m\bar{q}_1, n q_1, \delta c) S_{\chi_1}(m \overline{\delta c}, 0, q_1) = S(m, n , \delta c) \bar{\chi}_1(m)\chi_1(\delta c ) \tau(\chi_1)$$ where $\tau(\chi_1)$ is the Gau[ß]{} sum, and $\bar{x}$ in one of the first two arguments of a Kloosterman sum denotes the multiplicative inverse of $x$ to the respective modulus. Substituting into , we obtain $$\sum_{ c} \chi_1(\delta c ) S(m, n , \delta c) h(\delta c )= \frac{\chi_1(m)}{\tau(\chi_1)}\sum_{d \mid q_1} \mu(d) \sum_{dq_1 \mid c} S_{\chi_1}(m, nq_1^2, \delta c ) h(\delta c/q_1).$$
Now, let $\chi$ be an arbitrary Dirichlet character modulo $q$, induced by a primitive character $\chi_1$ modulo $q_1 \mid q$, let $(m,q_1)=1$, and let $h$ be as above. Then $$\begin{split}
\sum_{ (c, q) = 1} \chi ( c ) S(m, n , c) h( c )& = \sum_{\substack{\delta \mid q\\ (\delta, q_1) = 1}} \mu(\delta) \sum_{c} \chi_1 ( \delta c ) S(m, n , \delta c) h( \delta c )\\
& = \sum_{\substack{\delta \mid q\\ (\delta, q_1) = 1}} \mu(\delta) \frac{\chi_1(m)}{\tau(\chi_1)}\sum_{d \mid q_1} \mu(d) \sum_{\delta dq_1 \mid c} S_{\chi_1}(m, nq_1^2, c ) h( c/q_1).
\end{split}$$ We can collapse the double sum over $d$ and $\delta$ to a single sum getting an equality $$\label{basic}
\sum_{ (c, q) = 1} \chi ( c ) S(m, n , c) h( c ) = \frac{\chi_1(m)}{\tau(\chi_1)}\sum_{d \mid q} \mu(d) \sum_{ dq_1 \mid c} S_{\chi_1}(m, nq_1^2, c ) h( c/q_1),$$ valid for every $m$ with $(m,q_1)=1$ (and so a fortiori whenever $(m,q)=1$).
For general $m$, we put $m' = m/(m, q^{\infty})$ and $n' = n(m, q^{\infty})$. Since $S(m, n, c) = S(m', n', c)$ for $(c, q) = 1$, holds without the condition $(m, q) = 1$, if we replace $m$ and $n$ by $m'$ and $n'$ on the right hand side; note that $\chi(m')=\chi_1(m')$. We thus obtain the more general equality $$\label{basicgeneral}
\sum_{(c,q)=1}\chi(c)S(m,n,c)h(c)= \frac{\chi(m')}{\tau(\chi_1)}\sum_{d\mid q}\mu(d)\sum_{ dq_1\mid c}S_{\chi_1}(m',n'q_1^2,c)h(c/q_1),$$ valid for any positive integers $m, n, c$ and any Dirichlet character $\chi$ modulo $q$. Here, note that $mn = m'n'$.
Equality is at the heart of our argument. We think of the left-hand side of this formula as an average of Kloosterman sums in the usual sense (as a smooth sum over $c$) but additionally weighted with a special arithmetic weight, namely an arbitrary multiplicative character of the modulus $c$. Our equality expresses such a twisted average in terms of twisted Kloosterman sums, which we *can* analyze using spectral theory of automorphic forms for $\Gamma_0(dq_1)$ and character $\chi_1$, i.e. a character of the quotient $ \Gamma_1(dq_1)\backslash \Gamma_0(dq_1)$. In this sense, as remarked in the introduction, we solve the problem of bounding Kloosterman sums with arithmetic weights modulo $q$ (with arbitrary weights in the next paragraph) in the framework of suitable congruence subgroups $\Gamma_1(dq_1)$, where $d,q_1 \mid q$. Recall that the additional factor $d$ was inherited simply from Möbius inversion; it will turn out to be of little relevance in the forthcoming asymptotic analysis.
Finally, we encode an arbitrary arithmetic weight $f:(\mathbb{Z}/q\mathbb{Z})^{\ast}\to\mathbb{C}$ and a long-range archimedean cutoff. With $f$ and $f_{\infty}$ as in the statement of Theorem \[MainTheorem\], we use with $h(c)=f_{\infty}(c/X)/c^{1/2}$, multiply by $\widehat{f}(\chi)$, sum over all Dirichlet characters $\chi$ modulo $q$, and use the inversion formula . Thus we obtain the basic identity $$\label{THEbasicidentity}
\begin{split}
&\sum_{(c, q) = 1}\frac{S(m, n, c) }{c^{1/2}}f(c ) f_{\infty}\left(\frac{c}{X}\right)\\
&=\frac{1}{\phi(q)^{1/2}} \sum_{\chi \, (q)} \frac{\chi(m') \widehat{f}(\chi) }{\tau(\chi_1)} \sum_{d \mid q} \mu(d) \sum_{dq_1 \mid c} \frac{q_1^{1/2}}{c^{1/2}} S_{\chi_1}(m', n'q_1^2, c ) f_{\infty}\left(\frac{c}{q_1X}\right).
\end{split}$$ Our identity relates the sum of Kloosterman sums against both a finite and an archimedean test function (essentially an almost arbitrary smooth, compactly supported function on $\mathbb{Q}^{\times}\setminus\mathbb{A}_{\mathbb{Q}}^{\times}$) to sums which may be treated by the Kuznetsov trace formula for the group $\Gamma_0(dq_1)$. Here we can also see the underlying motivation for the sums appearing in .
This prepares ground for our principal application, Theorem \[MainTheorem\]. In the following sections, we will prove that $$\label{claim}
\Sigma_{\chi_1}(m,n,d,q,X):=\sum_{dq_1 \mid c} \frac{1}{c^{1/2}} S_{\chi_1}(m', n'q_1^2, c ) f_{\infty}\left(\frac{c}{q_1X}\right) \ll_{f_{\infty}} q_1^{1/2} X^{1/2+2\theta} (mnq)^{\varepsilon},$$ uniformly in $mn {\leqslant}X^2$ and across all $d,q_1\mid q$ and all primitive characters $\chi_1$ modulo $q_1$. Taking this for granted, Theorem \[MainTheorem\] follows from trivial estimates. We note that, if one is not interested in uniformity with respect to $m, n, q$, then [@GS Theorem 1] shows directly that $$\Sigma_{\chi_1}(m,n,d,q,X) \ll_{m, n, q, f_{\infty} } X^{1/2+2\theta+\varepsilon}.$$ Remark 1 in [@GS] gives some explicit polynomial dependence on $m, n, q$, but considerably weaker than required for . If $\chi_1$ is trivial, one can also read off uniform bounds for from [@IK (16.72), (16.75)]. Modulo the Ramanujan-Petersson conjecture, these bounds have an extra factor $(n(m, q^{\infty})q_1)^{1/4}$ compared to . In the following section we will make systematic use of newform theory in order to optimize the dependence on $n, m$ and $q_1$. Our general treatment of newforms and Eisenstein series and corresponding bounds, in particular and Lemma \[EisensteinLemma\] below, as well as Theorem \[general\], may be of independent interest.
Fourier coefficients of automorphic forms {#FourierSection}
=========================================
In this section, which can be read independently of Section \[EncodingSection\], we collect facts and conventions about (holomorphic and Maa[ß]{}) cusp forms and Eisenstein series and present estimates for their Fourier coefficients which will be used in the estimation of $\Sigma_{\chi_1}$ in Section \[KuznetsovSection\].
Let $\chi_1$ be a primitive character modulo $q_1$, let $\kappa = 0$ if $\chi_1$ is even and $\kappa = 1$ if $\chi_1$ is odd, and let $d$ be a square-free integer. (In our application to , $q_1$ and $d$ will have the same meaning as in the rest of the paper.) For a positive integer $k {\geqslant}2$ satisfying $k\equiv\kappa\pmod 2$, let $\mathcal{A}_k(dq_1,\chi_1)=S_k(\Gamma_0(dq_1),\chi_1)$ denote the finite-dimensional space of holomorphic weight $k$ cusp forms of level $dq_1$ and character $\chi_1$. Here and on, for any $r$ with $q_1\mid r\mid dq_1$, $\chi_1$ in the notation for a space such as $\mathcal{A}_k(r,\chi_1)$ (or a basis such as $\mathcal{B}_k$ below) stands, strictly speaking, for the induced character $\chi_1\chi_0$, where $\chi_0$ is the principal character modulo $r$. For simplicity, we suppress $\chi_0$ from notation (but not from computation) as no confusion will arise. Let $\mathcal{A}_{\kappa}(dq_1,\chi_1)=L^2_{\text{cusp}}(\Gamma_0(dq_1)\setminus G, \chi_1, \kappa)$ denote the space of non-holomorphic weight $\kappa$ cusp forms on $G=\text{SL}_2(\mathbb{R})$ of level $dq_1$ and character $\chi_1$, and, for every $t \in(\mathbb{R} \cup [-i/2, i/2])/\{\pm 1\}$, let $\mathcal{A}_{\kappa}(dq_1,\chi_1, t)\subset\mathcal{A}_{\kappa}(dq_1,\chi_1)$ denote the finite-dimensional space of forms in $\mathcal{A}_{\kappa}(dq_1,\chi_1)$ of Laplacian eigenvalue $1/4 + t^2$.
We normalize Hecke operators both for holomorphic and non-holomorphic cusp forms so that the Ramanujan-Petersson conjecture states that the eigenvalues $\lambda_f(p )$ of $T_p$ are bounded by 2 in absolute value (i.e. [@DFI (6.1)] for Maa[ß]{} forms and [@ILS (2.15)] for holomorphic forms of weight $k$).
With respect to the standard inner product $$\label{inner}
\langle f, g\rangle
= \int_{\Gamma_0(dq_1)\backslash \mathfrak{h}} f(z) \bar{g}(z)y^{\ell} \frac{dx\, dy}{y^2}$$ of level $dq_1$, where $\ell=k$ in the space $\mathcal{A}_k(dq_1,\chi_1)$ and $\ell=0$ in each of the spaces $\mathcal{A}_{\kappa}(dq_1,\chi_1)$, we construct specific orthonormal bases $\mathcal{B}_{k}(dq_1, \chi_1)$ and $\mathcal{B}_{\kappa}(dq_1, \chi_1)$ of these spaces as follows. For every $r$ satisfying $q_1\mid r \mid dq_1$, let $\mathcal{A}_k^{\ast}(r,\chi_1)$ denote the space of holomorphic forms orthogonal to all oldforms of level $r$ and character $\chi_1$. By Atkin-Lehner theory (in particular the multiplicity one principle), we can choose an orthonormal basis $\mathcal{B}_k^{\ast}(r, \chi_1)$ of $\mathcal{A}_k^{\ast}(r,\chi_1)$ consisting of *newforms*, i.e. eigenforms for *all* Hecke operators $T_n$ ($n {\geqslant}1$) with eigenvalue $\lambda_f(n)$, say (see [@IK Section 14.7]). For $f \in \mathcal{B}_k^{\ast}(r, \chi_1)$, let $\mathcal{A}_{dq_1/r}(f)$ be the space spanned by the set of shifts $\mathcal{S}_{dq_1/r}(f):=\{f (bz) : b \mid dq_1/r\}$. Then we have (again by multiplicity one) an orthogonal decomposition $$\mathcal{A}_k(r,\chi_1)=\bigoplus_{q_1\mid r\mid dq_1}\bigoplus_{f\in\mathcal{B}_k^{\ast}(r,\chi_1)}\mathcal{A}_{dq_1/r}(f).$$ One can obtain an orthonormal basis of $\mathcal{A}_{dq_1/r}(f)$ by orthonormalizing the set $\mathcal{S}_{dq_1/r}(f)$; below, we will specify an explicit orthonormal basis $\mathcal{S}_{dq_1/r}^{\square}(f)=\{f_{(b)}(z) : b \mid dq_1/r\}$. We obtain the requisite orthonormal basis $\mathcal{B}_k(dq_1,\chi_1)$ of the entire space $\mathcal{A}_k(dq_1,\chi_1)$ by taking the union of all these sets: $$\mathcal{B}_k(dq_1,\chi_1):=\bigsqcup_{q_1\mid r\mid dq_1}\bigsqcup_{f\in\mathcal{B}_k^{\ast}(r,\chi_1)}\mathcal{S}_{dq_1/r}^{\square}(f).$$ We construct an orthonormal basis $\mathcal{B}_{\kappa}(dq_1, \chi_1, t)$ of the space $\mathcal{A}_{\kappa}(dq_1,\chi_1, t)$ analogously and write $$\mathcal{B}_{\kappa}(dq_1, \chi_1) = \bigsqcup_t \mathcal{B}_{\kappa}(dq_1, \chi_1, t),$$ the union being taken over the spectral resolution of $\mathcal{A}_{\kappa}(dq_1,\chi_1)$.
We write the Fourier expansion of a modular form $f$ as $$\label{fourier}
\begin{alignedat}{2}
f(z)&=\sum_{n\geqslant 1}\rho_f(n)n^{k/2}e(nz)&\quad&\text{for }f \in \mathcal{A}_k(dq_1, \chi_1),\\
f(z) &=\sum_{n\neq 0}\rho_f(n)W_{\frac n{|n|}\frac{\kappa}2,it_f}\big(4\pi|n|y\big)e(nx)&&\text{for }f \in \mathcal{A}_{\kappa}(dq_1, \chi_1, t_f),
\end{alignedat}$$ where $W_{\alpha, \beta}$ is the Whittaker function. Let $f$ be a newform of level $r$ and character $\chi_1$. The Fourier coefficients are related to the Hecke eigenvalues as $$\label{hecke}
\sqrt{n} \rho_f(n) = \rho_f(1) \lambda_f(n)$$ for all $n \in \Bbb{N}$. Moreover, if $f$ is $L^2$-normalized with respect to , then we have the following bounds that are essentially due to Hoffstein and Lockhart (upper bound) and Iwaniec (lower bound): $$\label{rho1}
|\rho_f(1)|^2 = \begin{cases} \displaystyle \frac{\cosh(\pi t_f)}{ dq_1 (1+ |t_f|)^{\kappa}} (dq_1(1+|t_f|))^{o(1)}, & f\in\mathcal{A}_{\kappa}^{\ast}(r,\chi_1, t_f),\\[5mm]
\displaystyle\frac{(4\pi)^{k-1}}{dq_1\Gamma(k)}(kdq_1)^{ o(1)}, & f\in\mathcal{A}_k^{\ast}(r,\chi_1);\end{cases}$$ see [@HM (30) – (31)], [@HL]. (Compare the slightly different normalization in [@HM Section 2.2].) We recall the Hecke relations $$\label{heckerelations}
\begin{alignedat}{2}
&\lambda_f(p^{\alpha+1}) = \lambda_f( p)\lambda_f(p^{\alpha}) - \chi_1(p)\chi_0(p)\lambda_f(p^{\alpha-1})&\quad&\text{for all primes $p$ and integers $\alpha {\geqslant}1$,}\\
&\chi_1( p) \bar{\lambda}_f(p ) = \lambda_f( p)&& \text{for primes }p \nmid r,
\end{alignedat}$$ (see e.g. [@IK p. 371] or [@DFI p. 520]), as well as the bounds $$\label{bounds}
\begin{alignedat}{2}
& |\lambda_f(p )| {\leqslant}p^{\theta} + p^{-\theta}, &\quad& p \nmid r,\\
& |\lambda_f(p )| {\leqslant}1,&& p \mid r;
\end{alignedat}$$ cf. (as well as our normalization and ) for the latter bound, which holds verbatim for Maa[ß]{} forms.
For our principal estimation in the next section, we want to be completely explicit in our construction of the basis $\mathcal{S}_{dq_1/r}^{\square}(f)$ and compute the Fourier coefficients of the various $f_{(b)}$. For notational simplicity we consider only the holomorphic case; the Maa[ß]{} case is identical upon replacing $k$ with $0$ throughout the argument. We follow closely the argument in [@ILS Section 2] (see also [@AU Section 3]), which requires only minor modification. Let $f \in \mathcal{B}_k^{\ast}(r, \chi_1)$ and recall that $dq_1/r$ (and thus each of its divisors $b$) is squarefree. Define the arithmetic function $$\nu(b) := b \prod_{p \mid b} \left(1+ \frac{\chi_0(p )}{p}\right)$$ where $\chi_0$ is the principal character modulo $r$, and write $f|_{b}(z) := b^{k/2} f(bz)$. Starting from the expression $$\langle E(\cdot, s) f(b_1 \cdot {}), f(b_2 \cdot {})\rangle = \int_{\Gamma_0(dq_1)\backslash \mathfrak{h}} E(z, s) f(b_1z) \bar{f}(b_2z) y^k \frac{dx\, dy}{y^2}$$ where $E(z, s)$ is the standard weight 0 non-holomorphic Eisenstein series of level $dq_1$, unfolding, using to explicitly evaluate multiplicatively shifted convolution $L$-series as a product of Euler factors $$\sum_{\alpha=0}^{\infty} \lambda_f(p^{\alpha+1}) \bar{\lambda}_f(p^{\alpha}) p^{-\alpha s} = \lambda_f( p)(1 + \chi_0( p)p^{-s})^{-1}\sum_{\alpha=0}^{\infty} |\lambda_f( p^{\alpha})|^2 p^{-\alpha s},$$ and evaluating residues at $s=1$, we find as in [@ILS Lemma 2.4] that $$\langle f|_{b_1}, f|_{b_2}\rangle = \frac{\bar{\lambda}_f(b')\lambda_f(b'')}{\nu(b') \nu(b'')} (b'b'')^{1/2} \langle f, f\rangle, \quad \quad b' = \frac{b_1}{(b_1, b_2)}, \quad b'' = \frac{b_2}{(b_1, b_2)}.$$ The Maa[ß]{} case is identical except that slightly different special functions occur in the unfolding step; see [@DFI Section 19]. With this at hand, proceeding as in [@ILS p. 75], we find that the forms $$\label{gram}
f_{(b)}(z) = \Bigl\{b \prod_{p \mid b} \Bigl( 1 - \frac{p|\lambda_f(p )|^2}{(p + \chi_0(p ))^2}\Bigr)^{-1}\Bigr\}^{1/2} \sum_{c \ell = b} \frac{\mu(c )\bar{\lambda}_f(c )}{\nu(c )} \ell^{(k-1)/2} f(\ell z)$$ form an orthonormal basis of $\mathcal{A}_{dq_1/r}(f)$; this is the basis $\mathcal{S}_{dq_1/r}^{\square}(f)$ of our choice. (Taking inverses in the product above is justified by with any $\theta < 1/2$.) Hence for every $f\in\mathcal{B}^{\ast}_k(r,\chi_1)$ or $f\in\mathcal{B}^{\ast}_{\kappa}(r,\chi_1, t)$, every $n \in \Bbb{N}$ and every $b\mid(dq_1/r)$, and with $f_{(b)}$ as in , we have that $$\label{ortho}
\begin{split}
\sqrt{n} \rho_{f_{(b)}}(n)& = \Bigl\{b \prod_{p \mid b} \Bigl( 1 - \frac{p|\lambda_f(p )|^2}{(p + \chi_0(p ))^2}\Bigr)^{-1}\Bigr\}^{1/2} \sum_{c\ell = b} \frac{\mu(c )\bar{\lambda}_f(c )}{\nu(c )} \rho_f(1)\lambda_f\left(\frac{n}{\ell}\right)\\
& \ll b^{\varepsilon} \sum_{\ell \mid b} \frac{\ell \,|\lambda_f(b/\ell)|}{b^{1/2}} \left|\rho_f(1)\lambda_f\left(\frac{n}{\ell}\right)\right|,
\end{split}$$ with the convention that $\lambda_f(x) = 0$ for $x \not\in \Bbb{N}$. Here, we only used so far that holds with any $\theta<1/2$, and $|\rho_f(1)|$ can be further estimated by .\
We proceed to a discussion of the Eisenstein spectrum, which is parametrized by singular cusps $\mathfrak{a}$. Write $Q=dq_1$. Recall that a cusp $\mathfrak{a}$ for a group $\Gamma$ is called singular with respect to a multiplier system $\vartheta$ on $\Gamma$ if $\vartheta(\gamma)=1$ for all $\gamma$ in the stabilizer $\Gamma_{\mathfrak{a}}\subset\Gamma$. For a cusp $\mathfrak{a}$ for the group $\Gamma=\Gamma_0(Q)$, denoting by $\sigma_{\mathfrak{a}}$ a scaling matrix (that is, a matrix such that $\sigma_{\mathfrak{a}}^{-1}\Gamma_{\mathfrak{a}}\sigma_{\mathfrak{a}}=\left\{\pm\left(\begin{smallmatrix} 1&k\\0&1\end{smallmatrix}\right):k\in\mathbb{Z}\right\}$), $\mathfrak{a}$ is a singular cusp for a character $\chi$ modulo a divisor of $Q$ if[^1] $$\chi\left(\sigma_{\mathfrak{a}} \left(\begin{matrix} 1 & 1\\ & 1\end{matrix}\right) \sigma_{\mathfrak{a}}^{-1}\right) =1.$$ As usual, we interpret $\chi$ as a character on $\Gamma_0(Q)$ via $\chi(\gamma) = \chi(d) = \bar{\chi}(a)$ for $\gamma = \left(\begin{matrix} a & b\\ c & d\end{matrix}\right)$.
For a singular cusp $\mathfrak{a}$, we consider the weight $\kappa$ Eisenstein series $$\label{defE}
E_{\mathfrak{a}, \chi_1} (z, s) = \sum_{\gamma \in \Gamma_{\mathfrak{a}}\backslash \Gamma} \bar{\chi}_1(\gamma) j_{\sigma_{\mathfrak{a}}^{-1}\gamma}(z)^{-\kappa} \Im(\sigma_{\mathfrak{a}}^{-1}\gamma z)^{s} = \sum_{\tau \in \Gamma_{\infty} \backslash \sigma_{\mathfrak{a}}^{-1}\Gamma} \bar{\chi}_1(\sigma_{\mathfrak{a}}\tau) j_{\tau}(z)^{-\kappa}\Im (\tau z)^{s},$$ where $j_{\tau}(z) = \frac{\tilde{c}z+\tilde{d}}{|\tilde{c}z+\tilde{d}|}$ for $\tau =\left(\begin{smallmatrix} \tilde{a} & \tilde{b}\\ \tilde{c} & \tilde{d}\end{smallmatrix}\right)$ is the usual multiplier, and $\tau=\sigma_{\mathfrak{a}}^{-1}\gamma$. This series converges absolutely for $\Re s > 1$, and it has a meromorphic extension to all of $\Bbb{C}$. Eisenstein series have a Fourier expansion similar to Maa[ß]{} forms, which at the point $1/2 + it$ is given by $$\label{FourierDefE}
E_{\mathfrak{a}, \chi_1} (z, 1/2 + it) = C_{\mathfrak{a},\chi_1, t}(z)+ \sum_{n\neq 0}\rho_{\mathfrak{a}, \chi_1}(n, t)W_{\frac n{|n|}\frac{\kappa}2,it}\big(4\pi|n|y\big)e(nx).$$
In Section \[EisensteinSection\], we specify a full list of inequivalent singular cusps $\mathfrak{a}$ in , explicitly compute the Fourier coefficients $\rho_{\mathfrak{a},\chi_1}(n, t)$ of the Eisenstein series $E_{\mathfrak{a},\chi_1}(z, 1/2 + it)$ in , and prove the following uniform upper bound, which will be used in our principal estimation in the next section.
\[EisensteinLemma\] Let $m,n,Q$ be positive integers, let $\chi_1$ be a character modulo $Q$, let $t$ be a real number, and let $\kappa\in\{0,1\}$. Let $\tilde{Q}$ be the smallest positive integer such that $Q\mid\tilde{Q}^2$. Then, for every cusp $\mathfrak{a}$ of $\Gamma=\Gamma_0(Q)$ singular for the character $\chi_1$, the Fourier coefficients $\rho_{\mathfrak{a},\chi_1}(n,t)$ in the expansion of the weight $\kappa$ Eisenstein series $E_{\mathfrak{a},\chi_1}(z,s)$ defined by satisfy $$\mathcal{E}(m,n,t):=\sum_{\mathfrak{a} \text{ {\rm singular}}}\frac{ \sqrt{mn}}{\cosh(\pi t)} \overline{\rho_{\mathfrak{a}, \chi_1}(m, t) } \rho_{\mathfrak{a}, \chi_1}(n, t) \ll \frac{1}{(1+|t|)^{\kappa}}\frac{(m,\tilde{Q})^{1/2}(n,\tilde{Q})^{1/2}}{\tilde{Q}}(Qmn(1+|t|))^{\varepsilon}.$$
We note that the second fraction does not exceed 1 and that $\tilde{Q} {\geqslant}Q^{1/2}$. We postpone this more detailed discussion of the Eisenstein series and the proof of Lemma \[EisensteinLemma\] to the end of the paper. We will not concern ourselves with the constant term $C_{\mathfrak{a},\chi_1, t}(z)$ since it does not enter our estimates.
Application of the Kuznetsov formula {#KuznetsovSection}
====================================
In this section, we use the Kuznetsov trace formula and the estimates from Section \[FourierSection\], including and Lemma \[EisensteinLemma\], to prove our claim . With notation from Section \[EncodingSection\], put $$\label{defg}
g(x) := \Bigl(\frac{4\pi \sqrt{m'n'q_1^2}}{x}\Bigr)^{1/2} f_{\infty}\Bigl( \frac{4\pi \sqrt{m'n'}}{x X}\Bigr).$$ Then $g(x)$ is a smooth function compactly supported on an interval of $x$ satisfying $$\label{defXi}
x \asymp \Xi := \sqrt{mn} X^{-1} {\leqslant}1$$ and such that $\| g \|_{\infty} \asymp (q_1X)^{1/2}\|f\|_{\infty}$, and we have $$c^{1/2} f_{\infty}\Bigl(\frac{c}{q_1X}\Bigr) = g\Bigl(\frac{4\pi \sqrt{m'n'q_1^2}}{c}\Bigr).$$ Substituting into the left-hand side of , we have that $$\Sigma_{\chi_1}(m,n,d,q,X)=\sum_{dq_1\mid c}\frac1cS_{\chi_1}(m',n'q_1^2,c)g\Bigl(\frac{4\pi\sqrt{m'n'q_1^2}}c\Bigr).$$ The sum on the right-hand side can now be readily transformed with the Kuznetsov formula for the group $\Gamma_0(dq_1)$ and character $\chi_1$, which we quote from Blomer-Harcos-Michel [@BHM]. We use the usual weight 0 or the weight 1 formula according as $\chi_1$ is even or odd. We define the following integral transforms: $$\begin{split}
\dot{g}(k) & = i^k \int_0^{\infty} J_{k-1}(x) g(x) \frac{dx}{x}, \quad k \in \Bbb{N},\\
\tilde{g}(t) & = \frac{it^{\kappa}}{2\sinh(\pi t)} \int_0^{\infty} \bigl(J_{2it}(x) - (-1)^{\kappa} J_{-2i t}(x)\bigr) g(x) \frac{dx}{x}, \quad t \in \Bbb{R} \cup [-i/2, i/2].
\end{split}$$ The power series expansion of the Bessel functions [@GR 8.440] together with yields $$\label{gdot}
\dot{g}(k) \ll \| g \|_{\infty} \Gamma(k)^{-1}$$ and $$\label{gtilde}
\tilde{g}(t)\ll \begin{cases} |t|^{\kappa} \left(\displaystyle\frac{|\widehat{g}(2 i t)| + |\widehat{g}(-2 i t)|}{|t|^{1/2}} + \frac{|\widehat{g}(2+2 i t)| + |\widehat{g}(2-2 i t)|}{|t|^{3/2}} + \frac{\| g \|_{\infty}}{|t|^{5/2}} \right), & |t|\geqslant 1,\\[0.3cm]
\| g \|_{\infty} \Xi^{-2\theta}, & t \in (-1, 1) \cup [-i\theta, i \theta]. \end{cases}$$\
Here $\widehat{g}$ denotes the Mellin transform of $g$, and by we have $$\label{mellin}
\widehat{g}(s) = (q_1X)^{1/2} \left(\frac{4\pi \sqrt{mn}}{X}\right)^s \widehat{f}_{\infty}(1/2 - s).$$
The following spectral summation formula holds [@BHM p. 705]: $$\label{SpectralSummation}
\sum_{dq_1 \mid c} \frac{1}{c} S_{\chi_1}(m', n'q_1^2, c )g\Bigl(\frac{4\pi \sqrt{m'n'q_1^2}}{c}\Bigr) = \mathcal{H} + \mathcal{M} + \mathcal{E},$$ where $$\begin{split}
& \mathcal{H} = \underset{\substack{k \equiv \kappa\, (2), k > \kappa\\ f \in \mathcal{B}_{k}(dq_1, \chi_1)}}{\sum\sum} \dot{g}(k) \frac{(k-1)! \sqrt{m'n'q_1^2}}{\pi (4\pi)^{k-1}} \overline{\rho_f(m')} \rho_f(n'q_1^2), \\
& \mathcal{M}= \sum_{f \in \mathcal{B}_{\kappa}(dq_1, \chi_1)} \tilde{g}(t_f) \frac{4\pi \sqrt{m'n'q_1^2}}{\cosh(\pi t_f)} \overline{\rho_f(m')} \rho_f(n'q_1^2), \\
& \mathcal{E} = \sum_{ \mathfrak{a} \text{ singular}} \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \tilde{g}(t) \frac{ \sqrt{m'n'q_1^2}}{\cosh(\pi t)} \overline{\rho_{\mathfrak{a}, \chi_1}(m', t)} \rho_{\mathfrak{a}, \chi_1}(n'q_1^2, t)\, dt.
\end{split}$$ In comparison with [@BHM], note that we are using the classical parametrization of the Eisenstein spectrum in terms of singular cusps. The formula is purely spectral in that $\mathcal{B}_k(dq_1,\chi_1)$ and $\mathcal{B}_{\kappa}(dq_1,\chi_1)$ can be arbitrary orthonormal bases of the spaces $\mathcal{A}_k(dq_1,\chi_1)$ and $\mathcal{A}_{\kappa}(dq_1,\chi_1)$, respectively. However, we will from now on assume that these bases have been chosen as in Section \[FourierSection\], which will allow us to efficiently estimate the terms on the right-hand side.
We start with bounding $\mathcal{M}$, the contribution of the Maa[ß]{} spectrum. Each summand in $\mathcal{M}$ corresponds to a basis vector of the form $f_{(b)}$ for some newform $f\in\mathcal{B}_{\kappa}^{\ast}(r,\chi_1)$, with $q_1\mid r\mid dq_1$ and $b\mid dq_1/r$.
Since $(m', q) = (m', dq_1) = 1$, and imply $$\sqrt{m'} \rho_{f_{(b)}}(m') \ll b^{-1/2+\varepsilon} |\rho_f(1) \lambda_f(m' b)|\ll (m')^{\theta+\varepsilon}b^{\theta-1/2+\varepsilon}|\rho_f(1)|.$$ On the other hand, writing $b_0=(b,r^{\infty})$, $b_1=b/b_0$, $n'_0=(n'q_1^2,r^{\infty})$, and $n'_1=n'q_1^2/n'_0$, we have that $$\begin{aligned}
\sqrt{n'q_1^2}\rho_{f_{(b)}}(n'q_1^2)
&\ll b^{-1/2+\varepsilon}|\rho_f(1)|\sum_{\ell_0\mid(b_0,n'_0)}\sum_{\ell_1\mid (b_1,n'_1)}\ell_0\ell_1\left(\frac{b_1}{\ell_1}\right)^{\theta+\varepsilon}\left(\frac{n'_1}{\ell_1}\right)^{\theta+\varepsilon}\\
&\ll (n'_1)^{\theta+\varepsilon}b^{-1/2+\varepsilon}b_0b_1^{1-\theta}|\rho_f(1)|\ll (n')^{\theta+\varepsilon}b^{1/2+\varepsilon}|\rho_f(1)|.\end{aligned}$$ Combining these estimates with , we obtain the following bound for any individual term occuring in the sum for $\mathcal{M}$: $$\label{maass}
\frac{4\pi \sqrt{m'n'q_1^2}}{\cosh(\pi t_f)} \overline{\rho_{f_{(b)}}(m')} \rho_{f_{(b)}}(n'q_1^2) \ll \frac{(mnb)^{\theta}}{dq_1 (1+|t_f|)^{\kappa-\varepsilon}}
(qmn)^{\varepsilon} \ll \frac{(mn)^{\theta}}{r (1+|t_f|)^{\kappa-\varepsilon}}
(qmn)^{\varepsilon}.$$ (Note that we can afford to let go of a factor of $b^{1-\theta}$.) Next we use the well-known fact that $$\label{weyl}
\#\{ f \in \mathcal{B}^{\ast}_{\kappa}(r, \chi_1) : |t_f| {\leqslant}T \} \ll
(r T^2)^{1+\varepsilon}$$ for any $r$ with $q_1 \mid r$. This weak but very uniform version of Weyl’s law follows for instance by combining with [@IK (16.56)] in the special case $n=1$.
Collecting , , , and , denoting by $\tau(\cdot)$ the divisor function, and using summation by parts, we conclude that $$\label{mathM}
\begin{split}
\mathcal{M} &\ll q_1^{1/2} X^{1/2+2\theta} (mnq)^{\varepsilon}
\sum_{q_1\mid r\mid dq_1}\frac{\tau(dq_1/r)}r
\Bigg[ \#\big\{f\in\mathcal{B}^{\ast}_{\kappa}(r,\chi_1):|t_f|<1\big\}\cdot\|f_{\infty}\|_{\infty}+\\
&\mskip 240mu \sum_{\substack{f\in\mathcal{B}^{\ast}_{\kappa}(r,\chi_1)\\ |t_f|\geqslant 1}} \Bigl(\frac{|\widehat{f}_{\infty}(1/2 \pm 2 i t_f)|}{|t_f|^{1/2-\varepsilon}} +\frac{|\widehat{f}_{\infty}(-3/2 \pm 2 i t_f)|}{|t_f|^{3/2-\varepsilon}}+\frac{\|f_{\infty}\|_{\infty}}{|t_f|^{5/2-\varepsilon}}\Bigr)\Bigg]\\
& \ll_{f_{\infty}} q_1^{1/2} X^{1/2+2\theta} (mnq)^{\varepsilon},
\end{split}$$ as required for .
For the Eisenstein spectrum we replace with the bound given in Lemma \[EisensteinLemma\] for $Q = dq_1$. Recalling that $(m', dq_1) = 1$, we obtain a slightly stronger estimate $$\label{mathE}
\begin{split}
\mathcal{E}& =\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\tilde{g}(t)\mathcal{E}(m',n'q_1^2,t)dt\ll \frac{q_1^{1/2} X^{1/2 }}{(dq_1)^{1/4}} (mnq)^{\varepsilon} \bigg(\|{f_{\infty}}\|_{\infty} + \int_{|t| {\geqslant}1} \frac{|\widehat{f}_{\infty}(1/2 - 2 i t)|}{|t|^{1/2-\varepsilon}} dt \bigg)\\
& \ll_{f_{\infty}} \frac{q_1^{1/2} X^{1/2 }}{(dq_1)^{1/4}} (mnq)^{\varepsilon} .
\end{split}$$ The bound for the holomorphic spectrum $\mathcal{H}$ is along the same lines with instead of , giving $$\label{mathH} \mathcal{H} \ll \|{f_{\infty}}\|_{\infty}\cdot q_1^{1/2} X^{1/2 } (mnq)^{\varepsilon}.$$ This completes the proof of Theorem \[MainTheorem\].
Proof of Lemma \[EisensteinLemma\] {#EisensteinSection}
==================================
It remains to prove Lemma \[EisensteinLemma\]. To this end we compute explicitly the Fourier coefficients $\sqrt{n} \rho_{\mathfrak{a}, \chi_1}(n, t)$. This is in principle straightforward, but a bit tedious.
We follow [@DI], which treats the case when $\chi_1$ is trivial. We first describe a set of (inequivalent) *singular* cusps. Given a divisor $w\mid Q$ and a primitive residue class $r$ modulo $w_Q:=(w,Q/w)$, we can always find a residue class $u\bmod w$ such that $u\equiv r\pmod{w_Q}$ and $(u,w)=1$ (since the coprimality condition $(u,p)=1$ is automatic from $u\equiv r\pmod{w_Q}$ for primes $p\mid w_Q$ and can be imposed by the Chinese Remainder Theorem by requiring, for example, that $u\equiv 1\pmod p$ for $p\nmid w_Q$). Let $\mathcal{U}_w$ be a full set of representatives $u$ of primitive residue classes modulo $w_Q$ chosen so that $(u,w)=1$ for every $u\in\mathcal{U}_w$. Then, a full set of inequivalent cusps for the group $\Gamma = \Gamma_0(Q)$ is given by all fractions $\mathfrak{a} = \frac{u}{w}$, where $w \mid Q$ and $u\in\mathcal{U}_w$; see [@DI Lemma 2.3]. A possible scaling matrix for a cusp $\mathfrak{a}$ is given by (see [@DI p. 247]) $$\sigma_{\mathfrak{a}} = \left(\begin{matrix} u \sqrt{Q/(w^2, Q)} & 0 \\ w \sqrt{Q/(w^2, Q)} & \frac{1}{u\sqrt{Q/(w^2, Q)}}\end{matrix}\right).$$ We compute that, for every $k\in\mathbb{Z}$, $$\sigma_{\mathfrak{a}} \left(\begin{matrix} 1 & k\\ & 1\end{matrix}\right) \sigma_{\mathfrak{a}}^{-1} = \left(\begin{matrix}1 - kuwQ/(w^2, Q) & ku^2Q/(w^2, Q)\\ - kw^2Q/(w^2, Q) & 1 + kuwQ/(w^2, Q) \end{matrix}\right).$$ Hence the singular cusps $\mathfrak{a}=u/w$ for the character $\chi_1$ of conductor $q_1$ are given by the condition $$\label{gcd}
(w, Q/w) \mid \frac{Q}{q_1} \quad \Longleftrightarrow \quad q_1 \mid [w, Q/w].$$ This description of the set of equivalence classes of singular cusps can also be found in [@IwClassical Lemma 13.5].
Recall the definition of the Eisenstein series at a singular cusp $\mathfrak{a}=u/w$ as above. A convenient parametrization of the sum on the right-hand side of is as follows. For $\gamma = \left(\begin{smallmatrix} a & b\\ c & d\end{smallmatrix}\right) \in \Gamma$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma_{\mathfrak{a}}^{-1}\gamma=\sigma_{\mathfrak{a}}^{-1} \left(\begin{matrix} a & b\\ c & d\end{matrix}\right)
&= \left(\begin{matrix} \frac{a}{u \sqrt{Q/(w^2, Q)}} & \frac{b}{u \sqrt{Q/(w^2, Q)}}\\ (uc - wa) \sqrt{Q/(w^2, Q)} & (ud-wb)\sqrt{Q/(w^2 , Q)}\end{matrix} \right)\\
&=: \left(\begin{matrix} \ast & \ast\\ -Cw \sqrt{Q/(w^2, Q)} & D\sqrt{Q/(w^2 , Q)}\end{matrix} \right),\end{aligned}$$ where $Cw=-uc+wa$ and $D=ud-wb$ satisfy $\gamma^{-1} \cdot \frac{u}{w} = \frac{D}{Cw}$. In particular, as $\gamma$ runs through $\Gamma_{\mathfrak{a}}\setminus\Gamma$, the point $D/Cw$ precisely traverses the orbit of the cusp $u/w$ in $\Gamma$. By [@DI Lemma 3.6] the set of pairs $(Cw,D)$ is characterized by $$(Cw, D) = 1, \quad (C, Q/w) = 1, \quad CD \equiv u \, \text{mod } (w, Q/w).$$ Pairs of integers $(C,D)$ with these properties come in couples $\pm(C,D)$. To each such pair $(C,D)$ with $C>0$ thus corresponds a unique class $\gamma\in\Gamma_{\mathfrak{a}}\setminus\Gamma$; its representatives $\left(\begin{smallmatrix} a&b\\c&d\end{smallmatrix}\right)$ clearly satisfy $a \equiv C \, (\text{mod }Q/w)$ and $d \equiv \bar{u}D \, (\text{mod } w)$.
By , the character $\chi_1$ can be induced from the product $\psi_1\psi_2$, where $\psi_1$ is a primitive character of some conductor $r_1 \mid w$ and $\psi_2$ is a primitive character of some conductor $r_2 \mid Q/w$; in particular, $\chi_1(d) = \psi_1(\bar{u}D)\psi_2(\bar{C})$. Proceeding as in [@DI p. 247][^2] or [@DFI p. 526] we conclude that for $n > 0$ the $n$-th Fourier coefficient of $E_{\mathfrak{a}, \chi_1}(z, 1/2 + it)$ is given by $$\label{coeff}
\sqrt{n}\rho_{\mathfrak{a}, \chi_1}(n, t)=\frac{i^{\kappa}\pi^s n^{s-\frac{1}{2}}}{\Gamma(s+\frac{\kappa}{2})}\Bigl( \frac{(w, Q/w)}{wQ}\Bigr)^s \sum_{(C, Q/w) = 1} \frac{\psi_2(C )}{C^{2s}}\underset{\substack{D \, (Cw)\\ CD \equiv u \, ((w, Q/w))}}{\left.\sum \right.^{\ast}} \psi_1(u\bar{D}) e\left(-\frac{n D}{Cw}\right),$$ where $s = 1/2 + it$.
We transform this expression further into a form which will be convenient for our purposes. We detect the congruence condition in the innermost sum by Dirichlet characters $\rho$ modulo $w_Q$, getting $$\underset{\substack{D \, (Cw)\\ CD \equiv u \, (w_Q)}}{\left.\sum \right.^{\ast}} \psi_1(u\bar{D}) e\left(-\frac{n D}{Cw}\right) = \frac{\psi_1(u)}{\phi(w_Q)} \sum_{\rho\,(w_Q)} \rho(\bar{u}C) \underset{ D \, (Cw) }{\left.\sum \right.^{\ast}} \bar{\psi}_1 \rho(D)e\left(-\frac{n D}{Cw}\right).$$ Let $Q_w$ be the product of all prime factors $p\mid Q$ such that $p\nmid (Q/w)$. The condition that $(C,Q/w)=1$ is equivalent to the statement that $C = C_1C_2$, where $(C_1,Q)=1$ and $C_2\mid Q_w^{\infty}$ (with the correspondence being that $C_2=(C,Q)$ and $C_1=C/C_2$). Recalling that the conductor of $\bar{\psi}_1\rho$ is a divisor of $w$, the innermost sum over $D$ above equals $$\sumstar_{d_1\,(C_2w)}\sumstar_{d_2\,(C_1)}\bar{\psi}_1\rho(C_1d_1+C_2wd_2)e\left(-\frac{n(C_1d_1+C_2wd_2)}{C_1C_2w}\right)=r_{C_1}(n)\bar{\psi}_1\rho(C_1)S_{\bar{\psi}_1\rho}(-n,0,C_2w),$$ where $\displaystyle r_{C_1}(n)=\sumstar_{d\,(C_1)}e(-nd/C_1)$ is the Ramanujan sum. Substituting, the double sum over $C$ and $D$ in equals $$\frac{\psi_1(u)}{\phi(w_Q)} \sum_{\rho\,(w_Q)} \rho(\bar{u}) \sum_{(C_1,Q)= 1} \frac{\rho\psi_2(C_1)}{C_1^{2s}} \sum_{C_2\mid Q_w^{\infty}} \frac{\rho\psi_2(C_2)}{C_2^{2s}} r_{C_1}(n) \bar{\psi}_1\rho(C_1) S_{\bar{\psi}_1\rho}(-n, 0, C_2w).$$ The inside sum over $C_1$ equals $$\sum_{(C_1,Q)=1}\frac{\bar{\psi}_1\psi_2\rho^2(C_1)}{C_1^{2s}}\sum_{\delta\mid(C_1,n)}\mu\left(\frac{C_1}{\delta}\right)\delta=\sum_{\substack{\delta\mid n\\ (\delta,Q)=1}}\frac{\bar{\psi}_1\psi_2\rho^2(\delta)}{\delta^{2s-1}}\frac1{L^{(Q)}(2s,\bar{\psi}_1\psi_2\rho^2)},$$ where $L^{(Q)}(s,\psi)=\prod_{p\nmid Q}\big(1-\psi(p)p^{-s}\big)^{-1}$ is the partial $L$-function. Putting everything together in , we have that $$\label{double}
\begin{split}
\sqrt{n}\rho_{\mathfrak{a},\chi_1}(n,t)&=\frac{i^{\kappa} \pi^{\frac{1}{2}+it} n^{it}}{\Gamma(\frac{1+\kappa}2+it)}\left(\frac{w_Q}{wQ}\right)^{\frac12+it}\frac{\psi_1(u)}{\phi(w_Q)}\\
&\quad\times\sum_{\rho\,(w_Q)} \frac{\rho(\bar{u})}{L^{(Q)}(1+2it, \bar{\psi}_1\psi_2\rho^2)} \sum_{\substack{\delta \mid n\\(\delta,Q)=1}} \frac{\bar{\psi}_1\psi_2\rho^2(\delta)}{\delta^{2it}} \sum_{C_2\mid Q_w^{\infty}} \frac{\rho\psi_2(C_2)}{C_2^{1+2it}} S_{\bar{\psi}_1\rho}(-n, 0, C_2w).
\end{split}$$
With this explicit computation of the Fourier coefficients $\sqrt{n}\rho_{\mathfrak{a},\chi_1}(n,t)$ under our belt, we are now ready to prove Lemma \[EisensteinLemma\]. Indeed, we have that $$\mathcal{E}(m,n,t) = \sum_{\substack{w \mid Q\\ q_1 \mid [w, Q/w]}} \sum_{u \in \mathcal{U}_w} \frac{\sqrt{mn}}{\cosh(\pi t)} \overline{\rho_{u/w, \chi_1}(m, t) } \rho_{u/w, \chi_1}(n, t).$$ We insert , sum over $u$ first, and then estimate trivially, using Stirling’s formula, standard lower bounds for $L^{(Q)}(1+it,\psi)$ (including Siegel’s bound if $\psi$ is real and $|t| {\leqslant}1$), and Weil’s bound for Kloosterman sums. Denoting by $\tau(x)$ the number of divisors of $x$, we have for $m,n> 0$ that $$\begin{split}
\mathcal{E}(m,n,t)
&\ll\frac{(mn)^{\varepsilon}}{\cosh(\pi t)|\Gamma(\frac{1+\kappa}2+it)|^2} \sum_{\substack{w \mid Q\\ q_1 \mid [w, Q/w]}}\frac{w_Q}{wQ\phi(w_Q)}\\
&\qquad\qquad\times \sum_{\rho\,(w_Q)}\frac1{|L^{(Q)}(1+2it,\bar{\psi}_1\psi_2\rho^2)|^2}\mathop{\sum\sum}_{C_2,C_2'\mid Q_w^{\infty}}\frac{|S_{\bar{\psi}_1\rho}(-m,0,C_2w)||S_{\bar{\psi}_1\rho}(-n,0,C'_2w)|}{C_2C'_2}\\
&\ll\frac{(Qmn(1+|t|))^{\varepsilon}}{(1+|t|)^{\kappa}} \sum_{w \mid Q} \frac{w_Q}{Q}\mathop{\sum\sum}_{C_2,C'_2\mid Q_w^{\infty}}\frac{(m,C_2w)^{1/2}(n,C'_2w)^{1/2}\tau(C_2w)\tau(C'_2w)}{C_2^{1/2}C'_2{}^{1/2}}\\
&\ll\frac{(Qmn(1+|t|))^{\varepsilon}}{(1+|t|)^{\kappa}} \sum_{w \mid Q}\frac{w_Q(m,w)^{1/2}(n,w)^{1/2}}{Q}\ll \frac{1}{(1+|t|)^{\kappa}}\frac{(m,\tilde{Q})^{1/2}(n,\tilde{Q})^{1/2}}{\tilde{Q}}(Qmn(1+|t|))^{\varepsilon},
\end{split}$$ as desired.
A generalized Kuznetsov formula {#sec6}
===============================
Combining , and , we obtain the following new version of the Kuznetsov formula.
\[general\] Let $m, n, q \in \Bbb{N}$, $f : (\Bbb{Z}/q\Bbb{Z})^{\ast} \rightarrow \Bbb{C}$ and $f_{\infty} : (0, \infty) \rightarrow \Bbb{C}$ be a smooth, compactly supported function. We keep the notation developed so far. In particular, for a character $\chi$ modulo $q$ we write $\kappa = 0$ if $\chi$ is even and $\kappa = 1$ if $\chi$ is odd, and we denote by $\chi_1$ modulo $q_1$ the underlying primitive character. We write $m' := m/(m, q^{\infty})$ and $n' = n(m, q^{\infty})$. Then $$\begin{split}
\sum_{(c,q)=1} &\frac{S(m, n, c)}{c^{1/2}} f(c ) f_{\infty}(c )\\
& = \sum_{d \mid q} \mu(d) \sum_{\chi \, (q)} \sum_{f\in \mathcal{B}_{\kappa}(dq_1, \chi_1)} \frac{4\pi \sqrt{m'n'q_1^2}}{\cosh(\pi t_f)} \chi(m')\overline{\rho_f(m')}\rho_f(n'q_1^2) F(\chi) F_{\infty}(t_f)\\
& + \sum_{d \mid q} \mu(d) \sum_{\chi \, (q)} \sum_{ \substack{\mathfrak{a} \text{ {\rm singular}}\\ \text{\rm{level} } dq_1}} \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \frac{ \sqrt{m'n'q_1^2}}{\cosh(\pi t)} \chi(m')\overline{\rho_{\mathfrak{a}, \chi_1}(m', t)} \rho_{\mathfrak{a}, \chi_1}(n'q_1^2, t) F(\chi) F_{\infty}(t)\, dt\\
& + \sum_{d \mid q} \mu(d) \sum_{\chi \, (q)} \underset{\substack{k \equiv \kappa\, (2), k > \kappa\\ f \in \mathcal{B}_{k}(dq_1, \chi_1)}}{\sum\sum} \frac{(k-1)! \sqrt{m'n'q_1^2}}{\pi (4\pi)^{k-1}} \chi(m')\overline{\rho_f(m')} \rho_f(n'q_1^2) F(\chi) F_{\infty}^{\ast}(k)
\end{split}$$ where $$\begin{split}
F(\chi)& = \frac{\widehat{f}(\chi)q_1^{1/2}}{\tau(\chi_1)\phi(q)^{1/2}},\\
F_{\infty}(t) & = \frac{\pi^{1/2} i (mn)^{1/4} q_1^{1/2} t^{\kappa} }{\sinh(\pi t)} \int_0^{\infty} (J_{2it}(x) -(-1)^{\kappa} J_{-2it}(x)) f_{\infty} \left(\frac{4\pi \sqrt{mn}}{x}\right) \frac{dx}{x^{3/2}},\\
F_{\infty}^{\ast}(k) & = (4\pi)^{1/2} i^k (mn)^{1/4} q_1^{1/2} \int_0^{\infty} J_{k-1}(x) f_{\infty} \left(\frac{4\pi \sqrt{mn}}{x}\right) \frac{dx}{x^{3/2}}.
\end{split}$$ Here $\mathcal{B}_{\kappa}(dq_1, \chi_1)$ and $ \mathcal{B}_{k}(dq_1, \chi_1)$ can be any orthonormal bases of the spaces of non-holomorphic weight $\kappa$ (holomorphic weight $k$, respectively) cusp forms of level $dq_1$ and character $\chi_1$.
We remark that, despite its appearance, the right hand side of our generalized Kuznetsov formula is symmetric in $m$ and $n$. This is especially easy to see for bases $\mathcal{B}_{\kappa/k}(dq_1,\chi_1)$ consisting of forms $f$ which are eigenforms of Hecke operators $T_m$ with $(m,q)=1$, so that $\sqrt{m}\rho_f(mn)=\lambda_f(m)\rho_f(n)$ whenever $(m,nq)=1$; by , such is the case, in particular, for the special bases constructed in Section \[FourierSection\]. In this case, referring also to , we have that $$\chi(m') \overline{\rho_f(m')}\rho_f(n'q_1^2) =\sqrt{(mn,q^{\infty})/mn}\lambda_f(m/(m, q^{\infty}))\lambda_f(n/(n, q^{\infty})) \overline{\rho_f(1)}\rho_f((mn, q^{\infty})q_1^2).$$ Our Eisenstein series are in general *not* Hecke eigenfunctions, but the statement of Theorem \[general\] (being a purely spectral formula) holds also for the basis of Eisenstein series parametrized by pairs of characters as described in [@BHM]; this basis satisfies the usual Hecke relations, and the symmetry in the Eisenstein term can be restored by the same argument.\
[BHM]{} A. Abbes, E. Ullmo, *Comparaison des métriques d’Arakelov et de Poincaré sur $X_0(N)$*, Duke Math. J. **80** (1995), 295-307 V. Blomer, G. Harcos, P. Michel, *Bounds for modular $L$-functions in the level aspect*, Ann. Scient. Éc. Norm. Sup. **40** (2007), 697-740 E. Bombieri, J.B. Friedlander, H. Iwaniec, *Primes in arithmetic progressions to large moduli*, Acta Math. **156** (1986), 203-251 J.-M. Deshouillers, H. Iwaniec, *Kloosterman sums and Fourier coefficients of cusp forms*, Invent. Math. **70** (1982/83) 219-288 W. Duke, J.B. Friedlander, H. Iwaniec, *Equidistribution of roots of a quadratic congruence to prime moduli*, Ann. of Math. (2) **141** (1995), 423-441 W. Duke, J.B. Friedlander, H. Iwaniec, *The subconvexity problem for Artin $L$-functions*, Invent. Math. **149** (2002), no. 3, 485-577 E. Fouvry, E. Kowalski, P. Michel, *Algebraic twists of modular forms and Hecke orbits*, preprint; [`arXiv:1207.0617v1`](http://arxiv.org/abs/1207.0617) E. Fouvry, P. Michel, *Sur le changement de signe des sommes de Kloosterman*, Ann. of Math. (2) **165** (2007), 675-715 D. Goldfeld, P. Sarnak, *Sums of Kloosterman sums*, Invent. Math. **71** (1983), 243-250 I.S. Gradshteyn, I.M. Ryzhik, *Table of integrals, series, and products*, sixth edition, Academic Press, Inc., San Diego, CA, 2000 G. Harcos, P. Michel, *The subconvexity problem for Rankin-Selberg $L$-functions and equidistribution of Heegner points. II*, Invent. math. **163** (2006), 581-655 J. Hoffstein, P. Lockhart, *Coefficients of Maass forms and the Siegel zero*, Ann. of Math. (2) **140** (1994), 161-181 H. Iwaniec, *Topics in classical automorphic forms*, Graduate Studies in Mathematics **17**, American Mathematical Society, 1997 H. Iwaniec, E. Kowalski, *Analytic Number Theory*, Colloquium Publication **53** (2004), AMS, Providence, RI H. Iwaniec, W. Luo, P. Sarnak, *Low lying zeros of families of $L$-functions*, Inst. Hautes Études Sci. Publ. Math. **91** (2001), 55-131 N. Katz, *Moments, monodromy, and perversity: a diophantine perspective*, Annals of Math Studies **159**, Princeton 2005 H. Kim, *Functoriality for the exterior square of $\textnormal{GL}(4)$ and symmetric fourth of $\textnormal{GL}(2)$*, Appendix 1 by Dinakar Ramakrishnan; Appendix 2 by Henry H. Kim and Peter Sarnak, J. Amer. Math. Soc. **16** (2003), 139-183. N. Kuznetsov, *The Petersson conjecture for cusp forms of weight zero and the Linnik conjecture. Sums of Kloosterman sums*, Math. USSR-Sb 39 (1981), 299-342. W. Li, *$L$-Series of Rankin type and their functional equations*, Math. Ann. **244** (1979), 135-166 Y. Linnik, *Additive problems and eigenvalues of the modular operators*, Proc. Internat. Congr. Mathematicians (Stockholm, 1962), 270-284 (1963) P. Sarnak, J. Tsimerman, *On Linnik and Selberg’s conjecture about sums of Kloosterman sums*, in: “Algebra, arithmetic, and geometry: in honor of Yu. I. Manin. Vol. II” (2009), 619-635, Progress in Math., Birkhäuser Boston, Boston, MA I. Vardi, *A relation between Dedekind sums and Kloosterman sums*, Duke Math. J. **55** (1987), 189-197
[^1]: See [@IwClassical p. 44]; compare with [@DFI (4.43)]. It is tempting to think of the two elements $\pm\sigma_{\mathfrak{a}}\left(\begin{smallmatrix} 1&1\\&1\end{smallmatrix}\right)\sigma^{-1}_{\mathfrak{a}}$ as playing the same role, but this is not quite so, due to the presence of the factor $j_{\tau}(z)^{-\kappa}$ in the multiplier.
[^2]: There is a small typo in [@DI p. 247]: the congruence condition in the right-most sum in the first display under Lemma 3.6 should be $\delta \gamma \equiv u \, ((w, q/w))$. Also note the additional factor $\sqrt{n}$ in [@BHM Section 2.1.3] due to the different weight function compared to [@DI (1.17)].
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We report on the results of a three-year program of coordinated X-ray and optical monitoring of the narrow-line Seyfert 1 galaxy NGC 4051. The rapid continuum variations observed in the X-ray spectra are not detected in the optical, although the [*time-averaged*]{} X-ray and optical continuum fluxes are well-correlated. Variations in the flux of the broad line are found to lag behind the optical continuum variations by 6 days (with an uncertainty of 2–3 days), and combining this with the line width yields a virial mass estimate of $\sim1.1 \times 10^6$, at the very low end of the distribution of AGN masses measured by line reverberation. Strong variability of 686 is also detected, and the response time measured is similar to that of , but with a much larger uncertainty. The 686 line is almost five times broader than , and it is strongly blueward asymmetric, as are the high-ionization UV lines recorded in archival spectra of NGC 4051. The data are consistent with the Balmer lines arising in a low to moderate inclination disk-like configuration, and the high-ionization lines arising in an outflowing wind, of which we observe preferentially the near side. Previous observations of the narrow-line region morphology of this source suggest that the system is inclined by $\sim50$, and if this is applicable to the broad -emitting region, a central mass of $\sim1.4 \times 10^6$ can be inferred. During the third year of monitoring, both the X-ray continuum and the 686 line went into extremely low states, although the optical continuum and the broad line were both still present and variable. We suggest that the inner part of the accretion disk may have gone into an advection-dominated state, yielding little radiation from the hotter inner disk.'
author:
- 'B.M. Peterson, I.M. McHardy, B.J. Wilkes, P. Berlind, R. Bertram,$^{,}$ M. Calkins, S.J. Collier, J.P. Huchra, S. Mathur, I. Papadakis, J. Peters,$^{,}$ R.W. Pogge, P. Romano, S. Tokarz, P. Uttley, M. Vestergaard, and R.M. Wagner$^{,}$'
title: 'X-Ray and Optical Variability in NGC 4051 and the Nature of Narrow-Line Seyfert 1 Galaxies '
---
686[4686 He[ii]{}$\lambda4686$]{} ø5007[\[O[iii]{}\]$\lambda5007$]{}
Introduction
============
The broad components of permitted emission lines in the spectra of active galactic nuclei (AGNs) typically have velocity widths of a few to several thousands of kilometers per second. The defining characteristic of the subclass of AGNs known as narrow-line Seyfert 1 galaxies (NLS1s) is that the broad components of their emission lines are much narrower ($\vFWHM \ltsim 2000$) than is typical for broad-line objects (Osterbrock & Pogge 1985). NLS1s are extreme AGNs in other respects as well — their UV–optical properties correlate well with the Boroson & Green (1992) primary spectral eigenvector identified in principal component analysis. In other words, NLS1 classification correlates well with strong optical emission and weak \[\]$\lambda\lambda4959$, 5007 emission (Boller, Brandt & Fink 1996). While the possible importance of such extreme AGNs has been recognized for two decades (Davidson & Kinman 1978), interest in NLS1s has increased recently as their unusual X-ray properties have come to light: they have unusually steep soft and hard X-ray spectra (Puchnarewicz et al. 1992; Boller, Brandt, & Fink 1996; Brandt, Mathur, & Elvis 1997) and undergo rapid non-linear variability (Boller et al. 1997). While rapid, large amplitude variability in the UV–optical has not been reported, existing data do not address well the relationship between the X-ray and long-wavelength variations. A good compilation of the observed properties of NLS1s is given by Taniguchi, Murayama, & Nagao (1999).
Possible explanations for the narrowness of the permitted lines include the following:
1. NLS1s have more distant-than-normal BLRs (Mason, Puchnarewicz, & Jones 1996; Wandel & Boller 1998). The line widths are attributed to virial motion ($M \approx V^2r/G$) in the vicinity of a supermassive black hole, but the orbital velocities are smaller than in more typical AGNs because of greater distance to the central source.
2. NLS1s are low-inclination (i.e., nearly face-on) systems (Osterbrock & Pogge 1985). In this model, the line widths are again due to orbital motion around the central black hole, and the bulk of the broad-line region (BLR) gas orbits in a common plane that is almost perpendicular to the line of sight, leading to relatively small Doppler widths.
3. NLS1s have relatively low black-hole masses, but high accretion rates. Again, the basic assumption is that the BLR motions are virial, but the central source has a lower mass. The luminosity can be kept relatively high by supposing that the accretion rate (relative to the Eddington rate) is correspondingly high in these sources.
The third of these explanations forms the current paradigm for NLS1s, as it explains not only the narrow emission lines, but possibly also the steepness of the soft X-ray spectrum: the temperature structure of an optically thick, geometrically thin accretion disk is given by $$T(r) = 6.3 \times 10^5 \left(\dot{M}/\dot{M}_{\rm Edd}\right)^{1/4}
M_8^{-1/4} \left(r/R_{\rm S} \right)^{-3/4}\ {\rm K,}$$ where $M_8$ is the black hole mass in units of $10^8\,M_{\odot}$ and $R_{\rm S}$ is the Schwarzschild radius (Shakura & Sunyaev 1973). The temperature of the inner regions of the disk scales like $M^{-1/4}$, so the strength of the soft X-rays in NLS1s might plausibly be ascribed to a low central mass and a high accretion-rate flow.
One way to distinguish among various explanations of the NLS1 phenomenon is to measure the size of the BLR, which can be done via reverberation-mapping techniques (Blandford & McKee 1982; Peterson 1993; Netzer & Peterson 1997). It is usually assumed that the variability of an emission-line $L(t)$ to a variable continuum $C(t)$ can be linearized to the form $$\label{eq:TF}
\delta L(t) = \int \Psi(\tau)\ \delta C(t-\tau)\ d\tau,$$ where $\Psi(\tau)$ is the “transfer function,” which depends on the geometry and reprocessing physics of the BLR. A representative time scale for response of a line can be found by a simple cross-correlation of the continuum and emission-line light curves. By convolving eq. (\[eq:TF\]) with $C(t)$, one obtains the cross-correlation function $$\CCF(\tau) = \int \Psi(\tau') \ACF(\tau-\tau')\ d\tau',$$ where $\ACF(\tau)$ is the continuum autocorrelation function (Penston 1991; Peterson 1993). The cross correlation lag $\tau$ can be taken to be the light-travel time across the BLR, so the BLR size is given by $r=c\tau$. By combining this with the emission-line width $\vFWHM$, the mass of the central source can be inferred to be $$M = \frac{f \vFWHM^2 c\tau}{G},$$ where $f$ is a factor of order unity that depends on the still unknown geometry and kinematics of the BLR. There is an implicit assumption that the gravitational force of the central object dominates the kinematics of the BLR; this is formally unproven, but at least in the case of the well-studied Seyfert 1 galaxy NGC 5548, the reverberation-mapping data are consistent with the required $\vFWHM \propto r^{-1/2}$ relationship (Peterson & Wandel 1999). Virial mass estimates based on reverberation-mapping data are now available for nearly 40 AGNs (Wandel, Peterson, & Malkan 1999; Kaspi et al. 2000).
Beginning in early 1996, we undertook a program of contemporaneous X-ray and optical spectroscopic monitoring of the galaxy NGC 4051, the only NLS1 galaxy in Seyfert’s (1943) original list of high surface-brightness galaxies with strong emission lines. The X-ray variability characteristics of NGC 4051 are typical of the NLS1 class (Lawrence et al. 1987; McHardy et al. 1995).
X-ray observations were made with the [*Rossi X-Ray Timing Explorer (RXTE)*]{}, and optical spectra were obtained with ground-based telescopes, as described below. The purpose of this program has been twofold:
1. To determine the nature of the relationship between the X-ray and UV–optical continuum variations. This is a particularly interesting question in the case of NGC 4051 since the X-ray flux dropped to an extremely low level in 1998 May (Uttley et al. 1999), towards the end of this campaign.
2. To determine the BLR size and virial mass via reverberation techniques.
In this contribution, we present the results of this program, and discuss their implications for the nature of the NLS1 phenomenon.
Observations and Data Analysis
==============================
X-Ray Observations
------------------
The X-ray observations were made with the large area (0.7 m$^{2}$) Proportional Counter Array (PCA) on [*RXTE*]{} (Bradt, Rothschild & Swank 1993). The observations shown here, which are part of a continuing monitoring program, cover the period from 1996 March to 1998 June. The observations were scheduled initially to cover the largest range of variability time scales with the smallest number of observations in order to determine the X-ray power spectrum efficiently. The program therefore consisted of observations approximately every 7 to 10 days throughout the first year, followed by observations approximately every 2 weeks thereafter. In addition, during the first year, there were two more intensive monitoring periods: a two-week period of twice-daily observations and a four-week period of of daily observations. Each observation lasted for typically $1$ksec. In 1996 December, there was also a period of 3 days during which NGC 4051 was observed for a total of 70ksec.
The PCA consists of 5 proportional counter units (PCUs) but typically only 3 PCUs (numbers 0, 1 and 2) were operational and all count rates refer to the total counts from those 3 PCUs. Where other than 3 PCUs were in operation, the count rate has been normalized to 3 PCUs. The PCUs have 3 layers. Here we only include data from the upper layer as this layer provides the highest signal-to-noise ratio for photons in the energy range 2–20 keV where the flux from NGC 4051 is strongest. We used standard “good time interval” (GTI) criteria to select data with the lowest background. We reject data obtained when the Earth elevation angle was less than 10$^{\circ}$, when the pointing offset from the source was $>0.02^{\circ}$, or during passage through the South Atlantic Anomaly, or up to 5 minutes afterwards. The PCA is a non-imaging device with a field of view of FWHM $\sim1^\circ$ and so the background which we subtract must be calculated from a model. Here we use the FTOOL routine PCABACKEST V2.0c, with the new “L7” model, to calculate the background.
The resultant 2–10 keV lightcurve is shown in the top panel of Fig. 1. Further details of the X-ray light curves and variability are given by Papadakis et al. (2000). For NGC 4051, 10 counts s$^{-1}$ (2–10 keV), from 3 PCUs, corresponds to a flux of $4 \times 10^{-11}$ ergs cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$.
Optical Spectroscopy
--------------------
Optical spectroscopic observations were obtained between UT 1996 January 12 (Julian Date = JD2450095) and 1998 July 28 (JD2451022), covering three separate observing seasons. Observations were made with the Ohio State CCD Spectrograph on the 1.8-m Perkins Telescope of the Ohio State and Ohio Wesleyan Universities at the Lowell Observatory (data set A) and with the FAST spectrograph (Fabricant et al. 1998) on the 1.5-m Tillinghast Reflector of the Center for Astrophysics on Mt. Hopkins (data set B). A log of these observations is presented in Table 1. Column (1) gives the UT date of each observation and the Julian Date is given in column (2). The origin of the data (set A or B) appears in column (3). The projected size of the spectrograph entrance aperture was $5\arcsecpoint0\times7\arcsecpoint5$ (i.e., a slit width of $5\arcsecpoint0$ and a cross-dispersion extraction window of $7\arcsecpoint5$) for all set A spectra and $3\arcsecpoint0\times4\arcsecpoint6$ for all set B spectra. In each case, the slit was oriented in the east-west direction (i.e., the slit position angle was always 90). The nominal spectral resolution was 9Å for all set A spectra and 5Å for all set B spectra. The wavelength coverage of each spectrum is given in column (4), and the file name is given in column (5). All of these spectra are publicly available on the International AGN Watch site on the World-Wide Web[^1].
The spectroscopic images were processed in standard fashion for CCD frames, including bias subtraction, dark-count correction when necessary, flat-field correction, wavelength calibration, and flux calibration based on standard-star observations. Since even under photometric conditions, AGN spectrophotometry is rarely more accurate than $\sim$10%, the usual technique of flux calibration by comparison with standard stars is far too poor for AGN variability studies. We therefore base our flux calibration on a scale defined by the observed flux in the prominent narrow \[O[iii]{}\]$\lambda\lambda4959,$ 5007 doublet. These lines originate in a low-density region that is more spatially extended than the BLR or the continuum source, which for practical purposes can be regarded as point sources. The larger light-travel time and long recombination time ensure that any narrow-line variations will occur only over much longer time scales than of interest in this experiment. We therefore assume that the \[O[iii]{}\] lines are constant in flux, and use these to scale each spectrum. All spectra are scaled to a constant flux of $F(\mbox{\o5007}) = (3.91 \pm 0.12) \times 10^{-13}$, which is based on the mean of ten spectra from data set A that were obtained under photometric observing conditions during the 1996 observing season. The ø5007 flux measured from photometric spectra from subsequent years supports our assumption that this value can be assumed to be constant over the time scales of interest. All of the spectra are adjusted in flux to have this value of $F(\mbox{\o5007})$ by employing the spectral scaling software described by van Groningen & Wanders (1992). The process is as follows: spectra are adjusted in flux by a multiplicative constant that is determined by comparing each spectrum to a “reference spectrum” that has been formed by averaging all the highest-quality (i.e., typically signal-to-noise ratios $S/N \gtsim 30$) spectra and scaling this mean spectrum to the adopted ø5007 flux. All individual spectra are scaled relative to the reference spectrum in a least-squares fashion that minimizes the \[\] residuals in the difference spectrum produced by subtracting the reference spectrum from each individual spectrum. This program also corrects for small zero-point wavelength-calibration errors between the individual spectra, and takes resolution differences into account.
At this point, measurements of each of the spectra are made. The continuum flux at $\sim5100$Å (in the rest frame of NGC 4051, $z = 0.002418$, based on 21-cm emission \[deVaucouleurs et al. 1991\]) is determined by averaging the flux in the 5090–5120Å bandpass (in the observed frame). The emission-line flux is measured by assuming a linear underlying continuum between $\sim4772$Å and $\sim5105$Å, and integrating the flux above this continuum between 4820Å and 4910Å (all wavelengths in the observed frame). The long-wavelength cutoff of this integration band is chosen to avoid the contamination underneath \[\]$\lambda4959$. We also note that no attempt has been made to correct for contamination of the line measurement by the [*narrow-line*]{} component of , which is of course expected to be constant.
We have also measured the flux in the 686 line. Only set B spectra are suitable for this measurement, since set A spectra do not extend shortward far enough to provide a suitable short-wavelength continuum point. The flux was measured by adopting a linear underlying continuum between $\sim4447$Åand $\sim4775$Å, and integrating the flux above this continuum between 4613Å and 4772Å.
We then compare the independent light curves from the two sets of data to identify small systematic flux differences between the sets, as we have done in many previous experiments (see Peterson et al. 1999 and references therein). We attribute these small relative flux offsets to aperture effects, although the procedure we use also corrects for other unidentified systematic differences between data sets. We define a point-source correction factor $\varphi$ by the equation $$\label{eq:defphi}
F(\Hbeta)_{\rm true} = \varphi F(\Hbeta)_{\rm observed}.$$ This factor accounts for the fact that different apertures result in different amounts of light loss for the point-spread function (which describes the surface-brightness distribution of both the broad lines and the AGN continuum source) and the partially extended narrow-line region (NLR). After correcting for aperture effects on the point-spread function to narrow-line ratio, another correction needs to be applied to adjust for the different amounts of starlight admitted by different apertures. An extended source correction $G$ is thus defined as $$\label{eq:defG}
F_{\lambda}(5100\,{\textstyle {\rm \AA}})_{\rm true} = \varphi
F_{\lambda}(5100\,{\textstyle {\rm \AA}})_{\rm observed} - G.$$ The value of $G$ is essentially the nominal difference in the contaminating host-galaxy flux between the two spectrograph entrance apertures employed.
This intercalibration procedure is accomplished by comparing pairs of nearly simultaneous observations from the two data sets to determine $\varphi$ and $G$. In practice, the interval which we define as “nearly simultaneous” is two days or less, which means that in principle any real variability that occurs on time scales this short tends to be somewhat suppressed by the process that allows us to merge the two data sets. In this case, the adjustment has very little impact on the final results because nearly all of the pairs of data separated by two days or less are from data set B and thus have not been adjusted relative to one another. We find that the best-fit constants for set B relative to set A are $\varphi = 0.982 \pm 0.048$ and $G = (-1.243 \pm 0.729) \times 10^{-15}$. Both the and 686 fluxes are adjusted as in eq. (\[eq:defphi\]); the fact that the factor $\varphi$ is so close to unity indicates that most of the NLR in this galaxy arises within a few arcseconds of the nucleus.
The final continuum $F_{\lambda}$(5100Å) and emission-line fluxes are given in Table 2. Simultaneous (to within 0.1 day) measurements were averaged, weighted by the reciprocal of their variances.
Analysis
========
Continuum Variability
---------------------
The light curves listed in Table 2 are plotted in Fig. 1, along with contemporaneous 2–10keV X-ray light curves. The data shown here span three observing seasons, beginning in 1996 January and ending in 1998 July. A summary of the general variability characteristics is given in Table 3. For the complete data base and for individual subsets of the data as given in column (1), columns (2) – (4) give respectively the number of individual observations and the average and median time intervals between them. The mean flux is given in column (5), and columns (6) and (7) give two widely used measures of the variability, , the root-mean-square (rms) fractional variability corrected for measurement error, as defined by Rodríguez-Pascual et al. (1997), and , the ratio of maximum to minimum flux, respectively. Both and parameters are affected by contamination of the measured quantities by constant-flux components; the optical continuum values are somewhat diluted by the constant contribution of the underlying host galaxy, and the emission-line values are affected by both narrow-line contributions and probably slowly varying emission as well. In any case, these will have only a modest effect on and and inspection of Table 3 shows clearly that the large-amplitude, rapid variations that characterize X-rays in NLS1s are much less pronounced in the optical spectrum.
While there is a clear lack of correlated short time-scale behavior of the X-ray and optical continua, the light curves in Fig. 1 suggest that a correlation on longer time scales is possible. To test this quantitatively, we have suppressed the rapid variations by smoothing both the optical continuum and X-ray light curves with a rectangular function of width 30 days, as shown in Fig. 3, similar to what was done by Maoz, Edelson, & Nandra (2000) in a comparison of X-ray and optical variability in the Seyfert 1 galaxy NGC 3516. Cross-correlation of the overlapping parts of these light curves using the methodology described in the next section yields a lag of the optical variations relative to the X-ray of $\tau= 6^{+62}_{-112}$ days with a correlation coefficient $r_{\rm max} = 0.74$, i.e., the mean X-ray and optical fluxes are indeed correlated once the high-frequency variability is suppressed. The lag between variations in the two wavebands is highly uncertain, but consistent with zero or any small time lag expected in the continuum emitting region.
Emission-Line Variability
-------------------------
Comparison of the optical continuum and emission-line light curves shows that the variations in each are quite similar, indicating that the time delay between them is small. The time delay between continuum and emission-line variations can be quantified by cross-correlation of the light curves. During the first year, there is a period from JD2450183 to JD2450262 in which the light curves are well-sampled and the character of the variations permits an accurate cross-correlation measurement. In Table 3, we refer to this subset of data as “subset 1”, and we plot this part of the light curves in an expanded form in Fig. 2. We cross-correlate the data shown here by using the interpolation cross-correlation function (ICCF) method of Gaskell & Sparke (1986) and Gaskell & Peterson (1987) and the discrete correlation function (DCF) method of Edelson & Krolik (1988), where in both cases, we employ the specific implementation described by White & Peterson (1994).
The results of the cross-correlation analysis are summarized in Table 4 and the cross-correlation functions are shown in Fig. 4. For both and 686, Table 4 gives the ICCF centroid , and the location $\tau_{\rm peak}$ of the maximum value of the correlation coefficient $r_{\rm max}$. The centroid is computed using all points near $\tau_{\rm peak}$ with values greater than 0.8$r_{\rm max}$. The uncertainties quoted for and $\tau_{\rm peak}$ are based on the model-independent Monte-Carlo method described by Peterson et al. (1998).
By combining this lag with the Doppler width of the emission line, we can estimate a virial mass, as in eq. (4); for consistency with Wandel et al. (1999) and Kaspi et al. (2000), we use $f=3/\sqrt{2}$ in eq. (4). Since the broad emission-line features are comprised of a number of different components (or contaminants), it is desirable to measure the Doppler width of only the [*variable*]{} part of the emission line. In order to isolate the variable part of the emission line and exclude constant components (such as contamination from the NLR), we measure the relevant line widths in the [*rms*]{} spectrum constructed from all the set B spectra in subset 1. The mean spectrum is constructed by averaging all $N (= 18)$ set B spectra in subset 1, i.e. $$\bar{F}(\lambda) = \frac{1}{N}
\sum^{N}_{i=1} F_{i}(\lambda),$$ where $F_{i}(\lambda)$ is the flux density (in ) at wavelength $\lambda$ in the $i$th spectrum. The rms spectrum is similarly constructed as $$\sigma(\lambda) = \left[ \left( \frac{1}{N-1} \right)
\sum^{N}_{i=1}
\left( F_{i}(\lambda) - \bar{F}(\lambda) \right)^{2}
\right]^{1/2}.$$ The mean and rms spectra are shown as the top two panels in Fig. 5. The widths of the and 686 emission lines (full-width at half maximum, ) are given in Table 4, as Doppler widths in the rest frame of NGC 4051. A virial mass is then computed as described by Wandel, Peterson, & Malkan (1999). On the basis of the variations, a mass of $1.1^{+0.8}_{-0.5} \times 10^6\,\Msun$ is inferred; unfortunately however, the extremely large uncertainty in the 686 lag renders the virial mass obtained from it not very enlightening, but it is consistent with the result.
It is also important to keep in mind that because of the unknown geometry and kinematics of the BLR, the virial mass is reliable to only about an order of magnitude, i.e., the systematic uncertainties are much larger than the errors quoted here. However, an independent estimate of the inclination of the system has been made by Christopoulou et al. (1997) on the basis of the NLR morphology and kinematics. These authors model the NLR as an outflowing biconical region of inclination 50 and half-opening angle 23. If the BLR and NLR axes are coaligned, then correcting the virial mass for inclination gives a central mass of $1.4^{+1.0}_{-0.6} \times 10^6\,\Msun$.
There are a number of important features in the rms spectrum that deserve attention: first, the constant components, such as the \[\]$\lambda\lambda4959$, 5007 narrow lines that are so prominent in the mean spectrum, are absent, as expected, in the rms spectrum (except for weak residuals which reflect the accuracy to which accurate flux calibration can be achieved). Second, the weak broad wings of that can be seen in the mean spectrum are much weaker in the rms spectrum, i.e., the line core is more variable than the line wings. This could occur if the higher velocity material is much farther away from the ionizing source, or if some significant component of the high-velocity gas is optically thin (e.g., Shields, Ferland, & Peterson 1995); on physical grounds, we prefer the latter explanation. Third, the rms spectrum also shows that the optical emission varied little, if at all, during this period. The optical spectra of AGNs have broad blended features that extend from just longward of to just shortward of , and over the range $\sim5100$–5600Å. In the mean spectrum, these emission features are quite strong, which makes it hard to isolate the 686 emission. The blends are, however, virtually absent in the rms spectrum. Fourth, 686 is very prominent in the rms spectrum and is much broader than . The rest-frame width of this line in the rms spectrum is $\sim5430$, very typical of the line widths seen in normal Seyfert 1 galaxies. The centroid of the 686 is strongly [*blueshifted*]{} relative to , by about 1400. In order to demonstrate that these properties of the 686 profile are real, we also computed the mean and rms spectra based on (a) set A spectra obtained at the same time and (b) set B spectra obtained during the 1997 monitoring season (Year 2). The rms spectra from these subsets, shown in the bottom two panels of Fig. 5, show the same 686 profile characteristics seen in the set B Subset 1 data shown in the second panel.
Discussion
==========
The Continuum
-------------
As described in the previous section, the X-ray and optical continuum variations are not closely coupled on short time scales. The X-ray continuum shows large scale variations on short time scales, as is typical of the NLS1 class. The rapid variations seen in the X-ray are not detected in the optical, as has previously been reported by Done et al. (1990) for this same source and by Young et al. (1999) for IRAS 13224$-$3809. However, if we average over the short time-scale flares, then the X-ray and optical continuum variations [*do*]{} seem to be coupled, though the time resolution of this experiment is insufficient to determine whether there is any lag between them at the level of days or less. The absence of strong coupling of the hard X-ray and optical continuum variations argues against reprocessing models in which hard X-rays are absorbed by a dense plasma (such as the accretion disk) and the energy is re-radiated at longer wavelengths (Guilbert & Rees 1988). The X-ray variations are more suggestive of localized flaring types of activity that may arise in a patchy corona above the accretion disk.
It has already been pointed out based on these same [*RXTE*]{} data (Uttley et al. 1999) that the X-ray continuum of NGC 4051 virtually “turned off” in early 1998 (around JD 2450800; see Fig. 1). However, the optical spectroscopic data show that the optical continuum and emission lines (and therefore, by inference, the ionizing UV continuum) did not disappear at the same time. This seems in a sense rather suggestive of the kind of behavior that has been seen in Galactic black-hole systems such as GRO J1655$-$40 (Orosz et al. 1997). A possible interpretation of the behavior of NGC 4051 is that the inner X-ray producing (though not necessarily by purely thermal emission) part of the accretion disk in NGC 4051 has entered an advection-dominated accretion-flow (ADAF) state, in which radiation is emitted with very low efficiency (Narayan & Yi 1994; Narayan et al. 1998). This implies that there is a transition radius $r_{\rm tran}$ inside of which the disk is an ADAF and outside of which it radiates efficiently, perhaps like a classical thin disk (Shakura & Sunyaev 1973). The persistence of the optical continuum and emission lines suggests that this transition radius is somewhere between the regions that are most responsible for the soft X-rays and the H-ionizing continuum. We comment on this further in section 4.3 below.
The Virial Mass and Implications for NLS1s
------------------------------------------
As noted above, reverberation-based size estimates for the broad emission lines and resulting virial mass estimates provide a potential means of distinguishing among the various NLS1 models. In Fig. 6, we show the relationship between the BLR radius as measured from the lag as a function of the optical continuum luminosity for all AGNs with Balmer line lags known to reasonable accuracy. All data used here are taken from the compilation of Kaspi et al. (2000), though their parameters for NGC 4051 are superceded by the values reported here. This compilation contains six additional AGNs that could in principle be classified as NLS1s as they meet the criterion $\vFWHM \ltsim 2000$. These sources, which we shall refer to below as “narrow-line objects”, are the Seyfert galaxies Mrk 335 and Mrk 110 (from Wandel, Peterson, & Malkan 1999) and the QSOs PG 0026$+$120, PG 1211$+$143, PG 1351$+$640, and PG 1704$+$608 (from Kaspi et al. 2000).
The best-fit regression line ($R_{\rm BLR} \propto L^{0.62 \pm 0.02}$), based on all objects from Table 5 of Kaspi et al. (2000) except NGC 4051, is shown as a dotted line. NGC 4051 lies approximately 2.8$\sigma$ above this regression line, although all the other narrow-line objects clearly fall in the locus defined by the AGNs with broader lines. It is difficult to argue that NGC 4051 is somehow different from the other AGNs, as there are several AGNs that have large displacements from the regression line. This is reflected in the large value of the reduced $\chi^2$ statistic, $\chi^2_{\nu} = 15.7$, for this fit.
In Fig. 7, we plot the mass–luminosity relationship for the AGNs from Kaspi et al., and we show (a) the best-fit regression line based on all objects [*except*]{} the seven narrow-line objects and (b) that based on the narrow-line objects alone. Formally, the slopes $\alpha$ (for $M \propto L^{\alpha}$) are significantly different, with $\alpha = 0.46 \pm 0.06$ for the narrow-line objects (including NGC 4051), and $\alpha = 0.27 \pm 0.03$ for the others. These two fits are separated by typically an order of magnitude in black-hole mass; the black holes in the narrow-line objects are about a factor of 10 lower than those of other AGNs of comparable luminosity.
How well do these results allow us to distinguish among the various explanations for the NLS1 phenomenon? We consider the possibilities:
1. [*Do the BLRs of NLS1s have anomalously large radii?*]{} The position of NGC 4051 in Fig. 6 might suggest that this is possible, but the distribution of other narrow-line objects does not support this. Furthermore, as noted above, the scatter in the BLR-radius luminosity relationship is very large, and NGC 4051 is in a statistical sense not the largest outlier in this relationship (simply because other sources have smaller uncertainties in their measured lags).
2. [*Are NLS1s simply low-inclination systems?*]{} If the BLR is a flattened system, at low inclination (i.e., nearly face-on) the line widths will be decreased by a factor $\sin i$, but the measured emission-line lags will be relatively unaffected. On the other hand, assuming that the UV–optical continuum arises in an accretion disk at the same inclination, the apparent UV–optical luminosity is higher at lower inclination (e.g., see Fig. 32 of Netzer 1990). Thus, relative to similar sources at intermediate inclination, the masses of low-inclination sources will be underestimated, and their luminosities will be overestimated, displacing the narrow-line objects in Fig. 7 towards the lower right. This is generally consistent with the location of all seven of the narrow-line objects, including NGC 4051. The line transfer function for would provide a more definitive test of this hypothesis since it would allow determination of the inclination of the system. This would require more and better data than we have obtained in this experiment.
However, as noted earlier, Christopoulou et al. (1997) show that the NLR morphology and kinematics suggest a system that is inclined to the line of sight by $\sim50$. It seems reasonable to suppose that the NLR and BLR axes are approximately coaligned. If this is the case, then our virial estimate for the central mass is too small by a modest factor $\sin 50\deg \approx 0.77$, and the corrected central mass is then $1.4^{+1.0}_{-0.6} \times 10^6\,\Msun$.
3. [*Are NLS1s undermassive systems with relatively high accretion rates?*]{} Again, the distribution of the narrow-line objects, including NGC 4051, in Fig. 7 is consistent with this hypothesis. The narrow-line sources on this plot lie below the mass-luminosity relationship for other AGNs, at the lower end of the envelope around this relationship.
In summary, the hypothesis that NLS1s have unusually distant BLRs for their luminosity is probably not viable in general, although it could apply to the specific case of NGC 4051. At the present time, however, we cannot distinguish between the low-inclination and low-mass, high accretion-rate hypotheses on the basis of the reverberation results alone. The latter is favored on the basis X-ray considerations and the 50 inclination inferred from the NLR. Indeed, it is entirely possible that both effects (i.e., low inclination and low black-hole mass) contribute. An improvement in the optical spectroscopic monitoring data could allow determination of the transfer function, which could allow discrimination between these competing models.
Broad He[**II**]{} Emission
---------------------------
As noted in section 3.2, we detected very broad, blueshifted 686 emission in the rms spectra. The blueshift of this component is suggestive of radial rather than virialized motion. There is no similar obvious component to the Balmer lines, but we should expect that similar blueshifted features might appear in the other higher-ionization lines in the UV. As no contemporaneous spectra were available, we retrieved the 31 [*International Ultraviolet Explorer*]{} SWP (Short-Wavelength Prime camera, wavelength range $\sim1150$–2000Å) spectra from the Space Telescope Science Institute Multimission Data Archive. We formed an average of all these spectra, since the individual spectra were of rather low signal-to-noise ratio. In Fig. 8, we show the line profiles of 686(the rms profile, as in Fig. 5) and those of $\lambda1640$ and $\lambda1549$ based on the mean [*IUE*]{} spectra. We note that each of these lines has a strong wing extending several thousand kilometers per second blueward of the line peak; indeed, the comparatively large widths and blueshifts of the UV lines in NLS1 spectra has been noted earlier by Rodríguez-Pascual, Mas–Hesse, & Santos-Lleó (1997). It is possible that this gas is related to the known warm absorber in NGC 4051 (McHardy et al. 1995). Interestingly, photoionization equilibrium modeling of the X-ray warm absorber data (Nicastro et al. 1999) suggests a distance from the source of approximately 5 light days, which is consistent with the reverberation result given in Table 4.
The differences between the characteristics of the emission line on one hand and of the high ionization lines on the other suggests a two-component BLR, which has been proposed on numerous occasions on other grounds (e.g., Collin-Souffrin et al. 1988; van Groningen 1987). In this particular case, an interpretation that is at least qualitatively consistent with all the data and relatively simple is that the Balmer lines arise primarily in material that is in a flattened disk-like configuration at a low to moderate inclination (to account for the narrow width of the line), and the high-ionization lines arise in an outflowing wind, of which we see preferentially the component on the near side of the disk (to account for high velocity and blueward asymmetry). Such a model is illustrated schematically by Collin-Souffrin et al. (1988; their Fig. 1) and more recently by Dultzin-Hacyan, Taniguichi, & Uranga (1999; their Fig. 1). This geometry was also suggested by van Groningen (1987) to explain the line profiles and profile ratios of the Balmer lines in Mrk 335, another narrow-line object.
As noted earlier, our virial mass estimate of $M=1.1\times10^6$might seriously underestimate the black hole mass if the inclination of the system is very low. Moreover, some low-inclination accretion-disk models predict relatively strong, variable EUV/soft X-ray fluxes (e.g., Netzer 1987; Madau 1988), consistent with observations of NLS1s. We therefore cannot rule out the possibility that the NLS1 phenomenon is due principally to inclination effects. However, the strong rapid X-ray variability of NLS1s seem to favor the low-mass, high accretion-rate explanation, as does the 50 inclination of the NLR, unless the BLR and NLR axes of symmetry are very different, which seems rather unlikely on physical grounds.
The behavior of the 686 line during Year 3 may provide additional information about the ionizing continuum at the time the X-rays went into an extremely faint state. In Fig. 9, we show the rms spectrum based on set B spectra obtained between JD2450810 and JD2451022. The line is strong and narrow, as it is in the other rms spectra shown in Fig. 5, which indicates that the continuum shortward of 912Å is still present and variable. However, the 686 line is absent or very weak, indicating that the driving extreme ultraviolet (EUV) continuum shortward of the edge at 228Å(54.4eV) is [*not*]{} driving 686 variations, either because the EUV flux is low or varying little. Evidence from earlier years (Uttley et al. 1999) shows that the EUV and X-ray fluxes in NGC 4051 are well correlated, which implies that the EUV continuum might also have been extremely weak in Year 3. Simultaneous [*BeppoSAX*]{}, [*RXTE*]{}, and [*EUVE*]{} observations obtained during the low state indicate that this is correct (Uttley et al. 2000). If the emission has dramatically decreased during Year 3, we could infer that the transition radius between the inner ADAF region and the outer thin-disk structure must occur somewhere outside (or in the vicinity of) the region of the disk that contributes most of the flux at about 228Å, but inside the radius that contributes most of the flux at about 912Å.
In this regard, whether or not there is residual 686 emission in the low state during Year 3 becomes an interesting question. Note in particular that the measurements of the 686 flux given in Table 2 and Figure 1 tell us little because these values include flux from broad-line blends and various narrow-line features. In order to address the question of how much 686 persists in the low state, we have attempted a decomposition of the 686feature. Our first step was to form average high-state (as in the top panel of Fig. 5) and low-state spectra. We then attempted to remove the blends from the spectra by using the optical template spectrum of Boroson & Green (1982), convolved with a Gaussian to match the width of the features in the spectrum of NGC 4051. After subtraction of the flux-scaled and broadened template, we subtracted a power-law continuum from each spectrum. The 686 region of the resulting high-state and low-state spectra are shown in the top panel of Fig. 10. We then subtracted the low-state spectrum from the high-state spectrum, forming the difference spectrum shown in the middle panel of Fig. 10. The flux in the 686 line in the difference spectrum is $7.4 \times 10^{-15}$. We then make the assumption that the line profile in the difference spectrum can be used to model the contribution in the low-state spectrum. We then scale the profile in flux on a trial-and-error basis and subtract it from the low-state spectrum until the flux in the model profile causes the residual to have negative flux. Using this procedure, we find the largest possible value for the 686 line in the low-state is $\sim8.8\times10^{-15}$. These values mean that the 686 flux decreased by at least 46% between the Year 1 high state and the Year 3 low state. Our conclusion is thus that while broad 686 probably did not completely disappear during the low state in Year 3, the line flux did decrease dramatically and any variations during this period were too small to detect.
In any case, these results underscore the importance of multiwavelength observations of NLS1s in very low states. Presumably comparison of the strength of the various UV emission lines in the low state relative to the values in the high state could lead to determination of $r_{\rm tran}$. Unfortunately, no ultraviolet data are available during the present campaign.
Summary
=======
On the basis of three years of combined X-ray and optical spectroscopic monitoring of the narrow-line Seyfert 1 galaxy NGC 4051, we reach the following conclusions:
1. The rapid and strong X-ray variations that characterize narrow-line Seyfert 1 galaxies are detected in our X-ray observations of NGC 4051, but are not detected in the optical, consistent with previous findings.
2. On time scales of many weeks and longer, there does appear to be a correlation between the X-ray and optical continuum fluxes.
3. The variable part of the emission line has a Doppler width of $\sim1100$, and a time delay relative to the continuum of about six days. Combining these quantities leads to a virial mass estimate of $\sim1.1\times10^6$. If we assume that the inclination of the system is 50, as suggested by the NLR study of Christopoulous et al. (1997), then the mass of the central source is $\sim1.4\times10^6$.
4. The 686 emission line is strongly variable, although an accurate time delay cannot be measured. This line is about five times as broad as the line, and is strongly blueward asymmetric, as are the UV high-ionization lines in this object.
5. In the BLR radius–luminosity relationship, we find that narrow-line objects (those with $\vFWHM \ltsim 2000$) seem to fall on the same locus as AGNs with broad lines.
6. In the virial mass–luminosity relationship, narrow-line objects populate the low-mass end of a rather broad envelope; they have virial masses typically an order of magnitude lower than other AGNs of similar luminosity.
7. During the third year of this program, the hard X-ray flux decreased by approximately a factor of 10, and the broad-line 686 flux decrease by nearly a factor of two and did not show detectable variations during this low state. At the same time, the optical continuum and broad emission line were only slightly fainter than previously and continued to vary significantly. This suggests that the innermost part of the accretion disk went into an ADAF state, greatly reducing the production of high-energy continuum photons from the inner part of the accretion disk.
A picture that is consistent with the emission-line characteristics is one in which the Balmer lines arise primarily in a disk-like configuration seen at low-to-moderate inclination and the high-ionization lines arise primarily in an outflowing wind. The high-ionization lines are blueward asymmetric because we see emission preferentially from the near side, with the far side at least partially obscured by the disk component (which might be an extension of the accretion disk). This geometry requires that the much of the high-ionization line flux arises in a region of scale comparable to the disk system that emits the low-ionization lines and that the disk system is at least partially opaque to the line radiation. If NGC 4051 is typical of the NLS1 class, then it might be that NLS1s are best described as low-mass, high accretion-rate systems, although the possible role of inclination cannot be discounted. Indeed, the full explanation of the NLS1 phenomenon may involve [*both*]{} inclination and black-hole mass.
For support of this work, we are grateful to the National Science Foundation (grant AST–9420080 to The Ohio State University). We thank the referee, M.-H. Ulrich, for suggestions that improved this paper.
Blandford, R.D., & McKee, C.F. 1982, ApJ, 255, 419 Boller, Th., Brandt, W.N., & Fink, H. 1996, A&A, 305, 53 Boller, Th., Brandt, W.N., Fabian, A., & Fink, H. 1997, MNRAS, 289, 393 Boroson, T.A., & Green, R.F. 1992, ApJS, 80, 109 Bradt, H.V.D, Rothschild, R.E.,& Swank, J.H., 1993, A&AS, 97, 355 Brandt, W.N., Mathur, S., & Elvis, M. 1997, MNRAS, 285, L25 Christopoulou, P.E., Holloway, A.J., Steffen, W., Mundell, C.G., Thean, A.H.C., Goudis, C.D., Meaburn, J., & Pedlar, A. 1997, MNRAS, 284, 385 Collin-Souffrin, S., Dyson, J.E., McDowell, J.C., & Perry, J.J. 1988, MNRAS, 232, 539 Davidson, K., and Kinman, T.D. 1978, ApJ, 225, 776 deVaucouleurs, G., deVaucouleurs, A, Corwin, H.G., Jr., Buta, R.J., Paturel, G., Fouque, P. 1991, Third Reference Catalog of Bright Galaxies Done, C., Ward, M.J., Fabian, A.C., Kunieda, H., Tsuruta, S., Lawrence, A., Smith, M.G., & Wamsteker, W. 1990, MNRAS, 243, 713 Dultzin-Hacyan, D., Taniguichi, Y., & Uranga, L. 1999, in [*Structure and Kinematics of Quasar Broad Line Regions*]{}, ed. C.M. Gaskell, W.N. Brandt, D. Dultzin-Hacyan, M. Dietrich, & M. Eracleous (San Francisco: ASP), p. 303 Guilbert, P.W., & Rees, M.J. 1988, MNRAS, 233, 475 Edelson, R.A., & Krolik, J.H. 1988, ApJ, 333, 646 Fabricant, D., Cheimets, P., Caldwell, J., & Geary, J. 1998, PASP, 110, 79 Gaskell, C.M., & Peterson, B.M. 1987, ApJS, 65, 1 Gaskell, C.M., & Sparke, L.S. 1986, ApJ, 305, 175 Kaspi, S., Smith, P.S., Netzer, H., Maoz, D., Jannuzi, B.T., & Giveon, U. 2000, ApJ, 533, 631 Lawrence, A., Watson, M.G., Pounds, K.A., & Elvis, M. 1987, Nature, 325, 694 Madau, P. 1988, ApJ, 327, 116 Maoz, D., Edelson, R., & Nandra, K. 2000, AJ, 119, 119 Mason, K., Puchnarewicz, E.M., & Jones, L.R. 1996, MNRAS, 283, L26 McHardy, I.M., Green, A.R., Done, C., Puchnarewicz, E.M., Mason, K.O., Branduardi-Raymont, & Jones, M.H. 1995, MNRAS, 273, 549 Narayan, R., Mahadevan, R., Grindlay, J.E., Popham, R.G., & Gammie, C. 1998, ApJ, 492, 554 Narayan, R., & Yi, I. 1994, ApJ, 428, L13 Netzer, H. 1987, MNRAS, 225, 55 Netzer, H. 1990, in Active Galactic Nuclei, ed. T.J,-L. Courvoisier & M. Mayor (Berlin: Springer–Verlag), p. 141 Netzer, H., & Peterson, B.M. 1997, in Astronomical Time Series, ed. D. Maoz, A. Sternberg, & E.M. Liebowitz (Dordrecht: Kluwer), p. 85 Nicastro, F., Fiore, F., Perola, G.C., & Elvis, M. 1999, ApJ, 512, 184 Orosz, J.A., Remillard, R.A., Bailyn, C.D., & McClintock, J.E. 1997, ApJ, 478, L83 Osterbrock, D.E., & Pogge, R.W. 1985, ApJ, 297, 166 Papadakis, I.E., et al. 2000, in preparation Penston, M.V. 1991, in Variability of Galactic Nuclei, ed. H.R. Miller & P.J. Wiita (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press), p. 343 Peterson, B.M. 1993, PASP, 105, 247 Peterson, B.M., & Wandel, A. 1999, ApJ, 521, L95 Peterson, B.M., Wanders, I., Horne, K., Collier, S., Alexander, T., Kaspi, S., & Maoz, D. 1998, PASP, 110, 660 Peterson, B.M., et al. 1999, ApJ, 510, 659 Puchnarewicz, E.M., Mason, K.O., Córdova, F.A., Kartje, J., Branduardi-Raymont, G., Mittaz, J.P.D., Murdin, P.G., & Allington-Smith, J. 1992, MNRAS, 256, 589 Rodríguez, P.M., et al. 1997, ApJ, 110, 9 Rodríguez, P.M., Mas–Hesse, J.M., & Santos-Lleó, M. 1997, A&A, 327, 72 Seyfert, C. 1943, ApJ, 97, 28 Shakura, R.I., & Sunyaev, R.A. 1973, A&A, 24, 337 Shields, J.C., Ferland, G.J., & Peterson, B.M. 1995, ApJ, 441, 507 Tanaguchi, Y., Murayama, T., & Nagao, T. 1999, submitted to ApJ (astro-ph/9910036) Uttley, P., McHardy, I.M., Papadakis, I.E., Guainazzi, M., & Fruscione, A. 1999, MNRAS, 307, L6 Uttley, P., McHardy, I.M., Papadakis, I.E., Cagnoni, F, & Fruscione, A. 2000, MNRAS, 312, 880 van Groningen, E. 1987, A&A, 186, 103 van Groningen, E., & Wanders, I. 1992, PASP, 104, 700 Wandel, A., & Boller, Th. 1998, A&A, 331, 884 Wandel, A., Peterson, B.M., & Malkan, M.A. 1999, ApJ, 526, 579 White, R.J., & Peterson, B.M. 1994, PASP, 106, 879 Young, A.J., Crawford, C.S., Fabian, A.C., Brandt, W.N., O’Brien, P.T. 1999, MNRAS, 304, L46
[lcccl]{} 1996 Jan 12 & 95.0 & B & 3670–7450 & n00095b1996 Jan 15 & 98.0 & B & 3650–7520 & n00098b1996 Jan 19 & 102.0 & B & 3650–7410 & n00102b1996 Jan 22 & 105.1 & B & 3660–7410 & n00105b1996 Jan 25 & 108.0 & B & 3650–7520 & n00108b1996 Jan 29 & 112.0 & B & 3640–7500 & n00112b1996 Feb 05 & 118.8 & A & 4510–5670 & n00118a1996 Feb 09 & 122.8 & A & 4520–5670 & n00122a1996 Feb 10 & 124.0 & B & 3660–7400 & n00123b1996 Feb 14 & 127.8 & A & 4520–5670 & n00127a1996 Feb 15 & 129.0 & B & 3660–7420 & n00129b1996 Feb 18 & 132.0 & B & 3660–7530 & n00132b1996 Feb 21 & 134.9 & B & 3660–7410 & n00134b1996 Feb 23 & 136.8 & A & 4520–5680 & n00136a1996 Mar 07 & 149.8 & A & 4520–5680 & n00149a1996 Mar 22 & 164.8 & A & 4530–5680 & n00164a1996 Mar 25 & 167.7 & B & 3640–7500 & n00167b1996 Mar 26 & 168.8 & A & 4520–5690 & n00168a1996 Mar 28 & 170.8 & B & 3650–7390 & n00170b1996 Apr 10 & 183.6 & B & 3660–7420 & n00183b1996 Apr 12 & 185.6 & B & 3670–7420 & n00185b1996 Apr 12 & 185.7 & A & 4540–5690 & n00185a1996 Apr 15 & 188.6 & B & 3660–7410 & n00188b1996 Apr 18 & 191.6 & B & 3660–7410 & n00191b1996 Apr 20 & 193.6 & B & 3660–7400 & n00193b1996 Apr 25 & 198.7 & A & 4510–5680 & n00198a1996 Apr 25 & 198.8 & B & 3650–7410 & n00198b1996 Apr 26 & 199.6 & B & 3660–7400 & n00199b1996 May 03 & 206.7 & A & 4530–5690 & n00206a1996 May 08 & 211.6 & B & 3660–7400 & n00211b1996 May 09 & 212.8 & A & 4540–5680 & n00212a1996 May 10 & 213.6 & B & 3660–7520 & n00213b1996 May 15 & 218.6 & B & 3660–7510 & n00218b1996 May 17 & 220.8 & A & 4540–5700 & n00220a1996 May 18 & 221.7 & B & 3660–7400 & n00221b1996 May 22 & 225.6 & B & 3670–7430 & n00225b1996 May 24 & 227.8 & A & 4540–5700 & n00227a1996 May 26 & 229.7 & B & 3670–7430 & n00229b1996 May 30 & 233.7 & A & 4530–5670 & n00233a1996 Jun 06 & 240.6 & B & 3660–7400 & n00240b1996 Jun 07 & 241.7 & A & 4530–5690 & n00241a1996 Jun 14 & 248.7 & A & 4540–5690 & n00248a1996 Jun 16 & 250.7 & B & 3600–7540 & n00250b1996 Jun 19 & 253.6 & B & 3670–7530 & n00253b1996 Jun 19 & 253.7 & A & 4520–5680 & n00253a1996 Jun 23 & 257.7 & B & 3660–7420 & n00257b1996 Jun 25 & 259.6 & B & 3670–7550 & n00259b1996 Jun 28 & 262.7 & A & 4520–5680 & n00262a1996 Jul 17 & 281.6 & B & 3670–7520 & n00281b1996 Jul 20 & 284.7 & B & 3670–7530 & n00284b1996 Jul 24 & 288.6 & B & 3670–7530 & n00288b1996 Dec 11 & 429.0 & B & 3650–7510 & n00429b1996 Dec 17 & 435.0 & B & 3660–7520 & n00435b1997 Jan 02 & 451.0 & B & 3670–7510 & n00451b1997 Jan 09 & 458.0 & B & 3670–7510 & n00458b1997 Jan 16 & 465.0 & B & 4000–7500 & n00465b1997 Jan 31 & 479.9 & A & 4720–5990 & n00479a1997 Jan 31 & 480.0 & B & 4000–7500 & n00480b1997 Feb 03 & 483.1 & B & 4000–7500 & n00483b1997 Feb 06 & 485.9 & B & 4000–7530 & n00485b1997 Feb 09 & 489.0 & B & 4000–7500 & n00488b1997 Feb 14 & 493.9 & A & 4380–5550 & n00493a1997 Feb 14 & 494.0 & B & 4000–7520 & n00494b1997 Feb 27 & 506.8 & A & 4360–5500 & n00506a1997 Mar 02 & 510.0 & B & 3660–7520 & n00509b1997 Mar 12 & 519.8 & B & 3660–7500 & n00519b1997 Mar 13 & 520.8 & A & 4290–5820 & n00520a1997 Mar 14 & 521.8 & B & 3670–7310 & n00521b1997 Mar 20 & 527.8 & A & 4390–5940 & n00527a1997 Apr 09 & 547.6 & B & 3670–7500 & n00547b1997 Apr 12 & 550.8 & B & 3670–7520 & n00550b1997 Apr 13 & 551.8 & B & 3680–7540 & n00551b1997 Apr 29 & 567.6 & B & 3670–7530 & n00567b1997 May 01 & 569.6 & B & 3670–7540 & n00569b1997 May 08 & 576.6 & B & 3650–7500 & n00576b1997 May 10 & 578.6 & B & 3650–7520 & n00578b1997 May 12 & 580.7 & B & 3660–7520 & n00580b1997 May 14 & 582.6 & B & 3650–7530 & n00582b1997 May 29 & 597.7 & B & 3660–7520 & n00597b1997 Jun 01 & 600.6 & B & 4000–7530 & n00600b1997 Jun 03 & 602.6 & B & 3660–7540 & n00602b1997 Jun 05 & 604.6 & B & 3670–7530 & n00604b1997 Jun 09 & 608.6 & B & 3670–7530 & n00608b1997 Jun 11 & 610.6 & B & 3670–7540 & n00610b1997 Jun 28 & 627.6 & B & 3670–7530 & n00627b1997 Jul 01 & 630.7 & B & 3670–7520 & n00630b1997 Jul 06 & 635.6 & B & 3670–7530 & n00635b1997 Jul 12 & 641.6 & B & 3670–7530 & n00641b1997 Jul 14 & 643.6 & B & 3670–7520 & n00643b1997 Nov 22 & 775.0 & A & 4310–5800 & n00775a1997 Nov 24 & 777.0 & B & 3750–7510 & n00777b1997 Nov 29 & 782.0 & B & 3750–7500 & n00782b1997 Dec 04 & 787.0 & B & 3750–7500 & n00787b1997 Dec 27 & 810.1 & B & 3670–7530 & n00810b1998 Jan 20 & 834.0 & B & 3680–7540 & n00834b 1998 Jan 24 & 838.1 & B & 3660–7550 & n00838b 1998 Jan 25 & 839.0 & A & 4330–5840 & n00839a1998 Jan 26 & 840.1 & B & 3670–7540 & n00840b 1998 Jan 29 & 843.0 & B & 3650–7520 & n00843b 1998 Feb 02 & 847.0 & B & 3660–7540 & n00847b 1998 Feb 22 & 867.0 & B & 3650–7530 & n00867b 1998 Feb 24 & 869.0 & B & 3670–7540 & n00869b 1998 Feb 28 & 873.0 & B & 3670–7530 & n00872b 1998 Mar 03 & 875.8 & A & 4300–5830 & n00876a1998 Mar 03 & 876.0 & B & 3660–7530 & n00876b 1998 Mar 04 & 877.0 & B & 3660–7510 & n00877b 1998 Mar 13 & 885.8 & A & 4380–5910 & n00886a1998 Mar 20 & 892.8 & B & 3660–7510 & n00892b 1998 Apr 03 & 906.9 & B & 3630–7490 & n00906b 1998 Apr 18 & 921.9 & B & 3610–7470 & n00921b 1998 Apr 23 & 926.8 & A & 4320–5840 & n00927a1998 Apr 27 & 930.8 & B & 3620–7500 & n00930b 1998 May 02 & 935.9 & B & 3630–7490 & n00935b 1998 May 03 & 936.6 & B & 3620–7490 & n00936b 1998 May 16 & 949.6 & B & 3670–7510 & n00949b 1998 May 28 & 961.6 & B & 3660–7530 & n00961b 1998 Jun 02 & 966.7 & B & 3660–7540 & n00966b 1998 Jun 16 & 980.7 & A & 4310–5850 & n00981a1998 Jun 16 & 980.7 & B & 3660–7540 & n00980b 1998 Jun 19 & 983.7 & B & 3650–7520 & n00983b 1998 Jun 24 & 988.6 & B & 3680–7530 & n00988b 1998 Jun 27 & 991.7 & B & 3660–7530 & n00991b 1998 Jun 30 & 994.6 & B & 3680–7520 & n00994b 1998 Jul 15 &1009.6 & B & 3710–7510 & n01009b 1998 Jul 18 &1012.6 & B & 3670–7530 & n01012b 1998 Jul 25 &1019.6 & B & 3700–7500 & n01019b 1998 Jul 28 &1022.6 & B & 3670–7530 & n01022b & &
[cccc]{} 95.0 &$ 13.41 \pm 0.54$ & $ 4.17 \pm 0.17$ & $ 4.06 \pm 0.45$ 98.0 &$ 13.88 \pm 0.56$ & $ 4.54 \pm 0.18$ & $ 4.22 \pm 0.46$ 102.0 &$ 14.42 \pm 0.58$ & $ 4.91 \pm 0.20$ & $ 4.53 \pm 0.50$ 105.1 &$ 13.46 \pm 0.54 $ & $ 4.54 \pm 0.18 $ & $\ldots$ 108.0 &$ 13.75 \pm 0.55 $ & $ 4.39 \pm 0.17 $ & $\ldots$ 112.0 &$ 13.75 \pm 0.55$ & $ 4.42 \pm 0.18$ & $ 3.80 \pm 0.42$ 118.8 &$ 14.01 \pm 0.28 $ & $ 4.20 \pm 0.08 $ & $\ldots$ 122.8 &$ 14.12 \pm 0.28 $ & $ 4.67 \pm 0.09 $ & $\ldots$ 124.0 &$ 13.74 \pm 0.55$ & $ 4.72 \pm 0.19$ & $ 3.81 \pm 0.42$ 127.8 &$ 13.51 \pm 0.27 $ & $ 4.66 \pm 0.09 $ & $\ldots$ 129.0 &$ 14.37 \pm 0.57$ & $ 5.09 \pm 0.20$ & $ 3.97 \pm 0.44$ 132.0 &$ 14.91 \pm 0.60$ & $ 4.42 \pm 0.18$ & $ 3.88 \pm 0.43$ 134.9 &$ 13.39 \pm 0.54$ & $ 4.63 \pm 0.19$ & $ 3.99 \pm 0.44$ 136.8 &$ 14.13 \pm 0.28 $ & $ 4.53 \pm 0.09 $ & $\ldots$ 149.8 &$ 14.70 \pm 0.29 $ & $ 4.91 \pm 0.10 $ & $\ldots$ 164.8 &$ 14.29 \pm 0.29 $ & $ 4.71 \pm 0.09 $ & $\ldots$ 167.7 &$ 14.66 \pm 0.59$ & $ 4.92 \pm 0.20$ & $ 3.86 \pm 0.43$ 168.8 &$ 14.58 \pm 0.29 $ & $ 4.75 \pm 0.09 $ & $\ldots$ 170.8 &$ 14.17 \pm 0.57$ & $ 5.06 \pm 0.20$ & $ 4.14 \pm 0.46$ 183.6 &$ 14.66 \pm 0.59$ & $ 4.84 \pm 0.19$ & $ 4.53 \pm 0.50$ 185.6 &$ 14.51 \pm 0.58$ & $ 5.29 \pm 0.21$ & $ 3.86 \pm 0.42$ 185.7 &$ 14.06 \pm 0.28 $ & $ 5.12 \pm 0.10 $ & $\ldots$ 188.6 &$ 14.61 \pm 0.58$ & $ 5.17 \pm 0.21$ & $ 4.73 \pm 0.52$ 191.6 &$ 14.63 \pm 0.58$ & $ 5.35 \pm 0.21$ & $ 4.78 \pm 0.52$ 193.6 &$ 15.02 \pm 0.60 $ & $ 5.75 \pm 0.23 $ & $\ldots$ 198.7 &$ 14.43 \pm 0.29 $ & $ 5.63 \pm 0.11 $ & $\ldots$ 198.8 &$ 13.54 \pm 0.54$ & $ 5.55 \pm 0.22$ & $ 4.47 \pm 0.49$ 199.6 &$ 14.02 \pm 0.56$ & $ 5.54 \pm 0.22$ & $ 4.83 \pm 0.53$ 206.7 &$ 14.08 \pm 0.28 $ & $ 5.63 \pm 0.11 $ & $\ldots$ 211.6 &$ 13.54 \pm 0.54$ & $ 5.48 \pm 0.22$ & $ 4.63 \pm 0.51$ 212.8 &$ 13.15 \pm 0.26 $ & $ 5.36 \pm 0.11 $ & $\ldots$ 213.6 &$ 13.16 \pm 0.53$ & $ 5.28 \pm 0.21$ & $ 4.73 \pm 0.52$ 218.6 &$ 12.95 \pm 0.52$ & $ 5.09 \pm 0.20$ & $ 4.28 \pm 0.47$ 220.8 &$ 12.27 \pm 0.25 $ & $ 4.59 \pm 0.09 $ & $\ldots$ 221.7 &$ 13.34 \pm 0.53$ & $ 4.28 \pm 0.17$ & $ 3.08 \pm 0.34$ 225.6 &$ 12.26 \pm 0.49$ & $ 4.37 \pm 0.17$ & $ 2.91 \pm 0.32$ 227.8 &$ 13.14 \pm 0.26 $ & $ 4.14 \pm 0.08 $ & $\ldots$ 229.7 &$ 13.91 \pm 0.56$ & $ 4.30 \pm 0.17$ & $ 3.77 \pm 0.41$ 233.7 &$ 12.84 \pm 0.26 $ & $ 4.51 \pm 0.09 $ & $\ldots$ 240.6 &$ 13.18 \pm 0.53$ & $ 4.88 \pm 0.19$ & $ 3.76 \pm 0.41$ 241.7 &$ 13.29 \pm 0.27 $ & $ 4.78 \pm 0.10 $ & $\ldots$ 248.7 &$ 13.93 \pm 0.28 $ & $ 5.64 \pm 0.11 $ & $\ldots$ 250.7 &$ 12.99 \pm 0.52$ & $ 5.68 \pm 0.23$ & $ 4.59 \pm 0.50$ 253.6 &$ 11.67 \pm 0.47$ & $ 5.22 \pm 0.21$ & $ 3.53 \pm 0.39$ 253.7 &$ 12.52 \pm 0.25 $ & $ 4.94 \pm 0.10 $ & $\ldots$ 257.7 &$ 12.09 \pm 0.48$ & $ 4.47 \pm 0.18$ & $ 3.45 \pm 0.38$ 259.6 &$ 11.92 \pm 0.48$ & $ 4.57 \pm 0.18$ & $ 3.35 \pm 0.37$ 262.7 &$ 12.41 \pm 0.25 $ & $ 4.17 \pm 0.08 $ & $\ldots$ 281.6 &$ 13.64 \pm 0.55$ & $ 5.25 \pm 0.21$ & $ 4.17 \pm 0.46$ 284.7 &$ 14.68 \pm 0.59 $ & $ 5.89 \pm 0.24 $ & $\ldots$ 288.6 &$ 13.25 \pm 0.53$ & $ 5.45 \pm 0.22$ & $ 4.74 \pm 0.52$ 429.0 &$ 12.98 \pm 0.52$ & $ 5.84 \pm 0.23$ & $ 4.46 \pm 0.49$ 435.0 &$ 13.53 \pm 0.54$ & $ 5.46 \pm 0.22$ & $ 4.71 \pm 0.52$ 451.0 &$ 12.84 \pm 0.51$ & $ 5.51 \pm 0.22$ & $ 4.05 \pm 0.45$ 458.0 &$ 13.25 \pm 0.53$ & $ 5.38 \pm 0.22$ & $ 4.34 \pm 0.48$ 465.0 &$ 12.30 \pm 0.49$ & $ 4.74 \pm 0.19$ & $ 4.56 \pm 0.50$ 479.9 &$ 12.81 \pm 0.26 $ & $ 5.04 \pm 0.10 $ & $\ldots$ 480.0 &$ 12.68 \pm 0.51$ & $ 5.10 \pm 0.20$ & $ 4.67 \pm 0.51$ 483.1 &$ 11.95 \pm 0.48$ & $ 4.69 \pm 0.19$ & $ 3.08 \pm 0.34$ 485.9 &$ 12.41 \pm 0.50$ & $ 4.70 \pm 0.19$ & $ 3.22 \pm 0.35$ 489.0 &$ 14.03 \pm 0.56$ & $ 4.92 \pm 0.20$ & $ 3.99 \pm 0.44$ 493.9 &$ 12.67 \pm 0.25 $ & $ 4.99 \pm 0.10 $ & $\ldots$ 494.0 &$ 13.53 \pm 0.54$ & $ 4.83 \pm 0.19$ & $ 3.30 \pm 0.36$ 506.8 &$ 11.46 \pm 0.23 $ & $ 4.69 \pm 0.09 $ & $\ldots$ 510.0 &$ 12.30 \pm 0.49$ & $ 4.37 \pm 0.17$ & $ 3.27 \pm 0.36$ 519.8 &$ 12.51 \pm 0.50$ & $ 4.74 \pm 0.19$ & $ 3.68 \pm 0.41$ 520.8 &$ 12.50 \pm 0.25 $ & $ 5.12 \pm 0.10 $ & $\ldots$ 521.8 &$ 12.65 \pm 0.51$ & $ 4.68 \pm 0.19$ & $ 3.49 \pm 0.38$ 527.8 &$ 10.92 \pm 0.22 $ & $ 4.57 \pm 0.09 $ & $\ldots$ 547.6 &$ 11.80 \pm 0.47$ & $ 4.52 \pm 0.18$ & $ 3.57 \pm 0.39$ 550.8 &$ 11.74 \pm 0.47$ & $ 4.47 \pm 0.18$ & $ 2.96 \pm 0.32$ 551.8 &$ 11.59 \pm 0.46$ & $ 4.42 \pm 0.18$ & $ 3.11 \pm 0.34$ 567.6 &$ 10.88 \pm 0.44$ & $ 4.48 \pm 0.18$ & $ 3.76 \pm 0.41$ 569.6 &$ 11.76 \pm 0.47$ & $ 4.31 \pm 0.17$ & $ 3.12 \pm 0.34$ 576.6 &$ 12.17 \pm 0.49$ & $ 4.12 \pm 0.17$ & $ 2.91 \pm 0.32$ 578.6 &$ 12.02 \pm 0.48$ & $ 4.32 \pm 0.17$ & $ 3.24 \pm 0.36$ 580.7 &$ 11.97 \pm 0.48$ & $ 4.91 \pm 0.20$ & $ 3.28 \pm 0.36$ 582.6 &$ 12.10 \pm 0.48$ & $ 4.49 \pm 0.18$ & $ 3.35 \pm 0.37$ 597.7 &$ 12.57 \pm 0.50$ & $ 4.24 \pm 0.17$ & $ 2.92 \pm 0.32$ 600.6 &$ 12.44 \pm 0.50$ & $ 4.15 \pm 0.17$ & $ 2.59 \pm 0.28$ 602.6 &$ 11.62 \pm 0.47$ & $ 4.61 \pm 0.18$ & $ 3.53 \pm 0.39$ 604.6 &$ 12.00 \pm 0.48$ & $ 4.50 \pm 0.18$ & $ 3.59 \pm 0.40$ 608.6 &$ 11.96 \pm 0.48$ & $ 4.16 \pm 0.17$ & $ 3.39 \pm 0.37$ 610.6 &$ 10.99 \pm 0.44$ & $ 4.24 \pm 0.17$ & $ 2.80 \pm 0.31$ 627.6 &$ 11.26 \pm 0.45$ & $ 4.01 \pm 0.16$ & $ 2.92 \pm 0.32$ 630.7 &$ 11.14 \pm 0.45$ & $ 3.88 \pm 0.16$ & $ 2.49 \pm 0.27$ 635.6 &$ 11.87 \pm 0.47$ & $ 4.24 \pm 0.17$ & $ 2.37 \pm 0.26$ 641.6 &$ 12.33 \pm 0.49$ & $ 4.71 \pm 0.19$ & $ 3.20 \pm 0.35$ 643.6 &$ 10.75 \pm 0.43$ & $ 4.46 \pm 0.18$ & $ 2.83 \pm 0.31$ 775.0 &$ 13.29 \pm 0.27 $ & $ 5.04 \pm 0.10 $ & $\ldots$ 777.0 &$ 12.69 \pm 0.51$ & $ 5.18 \pm 0.21$ & $ 3.61 \pm 0.40$ 782.0 &$ 12.86 \pm 0.51$ & $ 5.41 \pm 0.22$ & $ 3.83 \pm 0.42$ 787.0 &$ 13.49 \pm 0.54$ & $ 5.27 \pm 0.21$ & $ 4.20 \pm 0.46$ 810.1 &$ 14.06 \pm 0.56$ & $ 3.95 \pm 0.16$ & $ 2.97 \pm 0.33$ 834.0 &$ 12.00 \pm 0.48$ & $ 4.85 \pm 0.19$ & $ 2.87 \pm 0.31$ 838.1 &$ 11.44 \pm 0.46$ & $ 4.59 \pm 0.18$ & $ 2.99 \pm 0.33$ 839.0 &$ 11.89 \pm 0.24 $ & $ 4.89 \pm 0.10 $ & $\ldots$ 840.1 &$ 12.50 \pm 0.50$ & $ 4.91 \pm 0.20$ & $ 3.40 \pm 0.37$ 843.0 &$ 12.45 \pm 0.50$ & $ 4.87 \pm 0.19$ & $ 3.29 \pm 0.36$ 847.0 &$ 12.33 \pm 0.49$ & $ 4.82 \pm 0.19$ & $ 3.20 \pm 0.35$ 867.0 &$ 12.25 \pm 0.49$ & $ 4.20 \pm 0.17$ & $ 2.86 \pm 0.31$ 869.0 &$ 12.55 \pm 0.50$ & $ 3.85 \pm 0.15$ & $ 2.53 \pm 0.28$ 873.0 &$ 12.15 \pm 0.49$ & $ 4.09 \pm 0.16$ & $ 3.01 \pm 0.33$ 875.8 &$ 12.29 \pm 0.25 $ & $ 4.49 \pm 0.09 $ & $\ldots$ 876.0 &$ 12.58 \pm 0.50$ & $ 4.31 \pm 0.17$ & $ 3.09 \pm 0.34$ 877.0 &$ 12.44 \pm 0.50$ & $ 4.37 \pm 0.17$ & $ 3.09 \pm 0.34$ 885.8 &$ 11.54 \pm 0.23 $ & $ 4.18 \pm 0.08 $ & $\ldots$ 892.8 &$ 12.14 \pm 0.49$ & $ 4.54 \pm 0.18$ & $ 3.05 \pm 0.34$ 906.9 &$ 11.44 \pm 0.46$ & $ 4.53 \pm 0.18$ & $ 2.60 \pm 0.28$ 921.9 &$ 11.61 \pm 0.46$ & $ 4.53 \pm 0.18$ & $ 2.93 \pm 0.32$ 926.8 &$ 11.13 \pm 0.22 $ & $ 4.43 \pm 0.09 $ & $\ldots$ 930.8 &$ 11.43 \pm 0.46$ & $ 4.01 \pm 0.16$ & $ 2.74 \pm 0.30$ 935.9 &$ 11.92 \pm 0.48 $ & $ 4.51 \pm 0.18 $ & $\ldots$ 936.6 &$ 11.23 \pm 0.45$ & $ 4.39 \pm 0.18$ & $ 2.65 \pm 0.29$ 949.6 &$ 12.03 \pm 0.48$ & $ 5.04 \pm 0.20$ & $ 3.41 \pm 0.38$ 961.6 &$ 11.32 \pm 0.45$ & $ 4.90 \pm 0.20$ & $ 3.09 \pm 0.34$ 966.7 &$ 11.60 \pm 0.46$ & $ 4.39 \pm 0.18$ & $ 3.00 \pm 0.33$ 980.7 &$ 11.72 \pm 0.21$ & $ 4.73 \pm 0.08$ & $ 3.13 \pm 0.34$ 983.7 &$ 11.41 \pm 0.46$ & $ 4.46 \pm 0.18$ & $ 2.60 \pm 0.29$ 988.6 &$ 11.56 \pm 0.46$ & $ 4.30 \pm 0.17$ & $ 2.78 \pm 0.31$ 991.7 &$ 11.35 \pm 0.45$ & $ 4.15 \pm 0.17$ & $ 3.08 \pm 0.34$ 994.6 &$ 11.37 \pm 0.46$ & $ 4.11 \pm 0.16$ & $ 2.56 \pm 0.28$ 1009.6 &$ 10.98 \pm 0.44$ & $ 3.76 \pm 0.15$ & $ 2.50 \pm 0.28$ 1012.6 &$ 12.18 \pm 0.49$ & $ 3.70 \pm 0.15$ & $ 2.98 \pm 0.33$ 1019.6 &$ 12.75 \pm 0.51$ & $ 4.20 \pm 0.17$ & $ 3.33 \pm 0.37$ 1022.6 &$ 12.09 \pm 0.48$ & $ 4.57 \pm 0.18$ & $ 3.02 \pm 0.33$
[lcccccc]{} All & 140 & 7.5 & 7.3 & $6.20\pm3.85$ & 0.618 & $42.85\pm16.36$ Year 1 & 33 & 2.8 & 0.7 & $7.87\pm3.25$ & 0.411 & $5.766\pm0.459$ Year 2 & 20 & 11.5& 13.0 & $6.42\pm4.95$ & 0.770 & $17.68\pm2.03$ Year 3 & 19 & 14.1 & 14.1 & $1.97\pm1.81$ & 0.906 & $14.79\pm5.65$ All & 126 & 7.4 & 3.1 & $12.74\pm1.08$ & 0.077 & $1.397\pm0.079$ Year 1 & 51 & 3.9 & 3.0 & $13.66\pm0.82$ & 0.050 & $1.287\pm0.073$ Year 2 & 38 & 5.8 & 3.2 & $12.16\pm0.76$ & 0.050 & $1.305\pm0.074$ Year 3 & 37 & 6.9 & 4.5 & $12.06\pm0.69$ & 0.043 & $1.281\pm0.072$ Subset 1& 29 & 2.8 & 2.2 & $13.38\pm0.92$ & 0.059 & $1.287\pm0.073$ All & 126 & 7.4 & 3.1 & $ 4.77\pm0.48$ & 0.095 & $1.592\pm0.092$ Year 1 & 51 & 3.9 & 3.0 & $ 4.91\pm0.48$ & 0.092 & $1.423\pm0.064$ Year 2 & 38 & 5.8 & 3.2 & $ 4.65\pm0.44$ & 0.086 & $1.505\pm0.086$ Year 3 & 37 & 6.9 & 4.5 & $ 4.50\pm0.42$ & 0.086 & $1.462\pm0.084$ Subset 1& 29 & 2.8 & 2.2 & $ 5.02\pm0.51$ & 0.096 & $1.389\pm0.062$ All & 93 &10.1 & 4.5 & $ 3.50\pm0.67$ & 0.154 & $2.038\pm0.316$ Year 1 & 29 & 6.9 & 4.0 & $ 4.08\pm0.52$ & 0.064 & $1.660\pm0.258$ Year 2 & 33 & 6.7 & 3.6 & $ 3.42\pm0.62$ & 0.143 & $1.987\pm0.309$ Year 3 & 31 & 8.2 & 5.0 & $ 3.04\pm0.38$ & 0.057 & $1.680\pm0.263$ Subset 1& 17 & 4.8 & 3.5 & $ 4.08\pm0.65$ & 0.114 & $1.660\pm0.258$
[lcc]{} $\tau_{\rm cent}$ (days) & $5.92^{+3.13}_{-1.96}$ & $4.49^{+4.91}_{-5.60}$ $\tau_{\rm peak}$ (days) & $4.6^{+4.5}_{-1.5}$ & $5.9^{+8.9}_{-4.8}$ $r_{\rm max}$ & 0.800 & 0.767 $V_{\mbox{\scriptsize FWHM}}$ (kms$^{-1}$) & $1110\pm190$ & $5430\pm510$$M_{\rm vir}$ ($10^6\,M_{\odot}$) & $1.1^{+0.8}_{-0.5}$ & $19.4^{+21.5}_{-24.4}$
[^1]: The light curves and spectra are available at URL [http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/$\sim$agnwatch/]{}. All publicly available International AGN Watch data can be accessed at this site, which also includes complete references to published AGN Watch papers.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Skew lattices are non-commutative generalizations of lattices, and the cosets represent the building blocks that skew lattices are built of. As by Leech’s Second Decomposition Theorem any skew lattice embeds into a direct product of a left-handed skew lattice by a right-handed one, it is natural to consider the so called flat coset decompositions, i.e. decompositions of a skew lattice into right and left cosets, thus finding the smallest atoms that compose the structure.'
author:
- |
João Pita Costa\* and Karin Cvetko-Vah\*\*\
\* Institut Jožef Stefan,\
Jamova Cesta 39, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia.\
[email protected]\
\*\* University of Ljubljana,\
Faculty of Mathematics and Physics,\
Jadranska 19, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia.\
[email protected]\
tel. +386 1 476 66 24 fax. 386 1 251 72 81
title: '*FLAT COSET DECOMPOSITIONS OF SKEW LATTICES*'
---
Introduction {#introduction .unnumbered}
============
Skew lattices can be understood either as non-commutative generalizations of lattices or as double bands, where by a *band* we refer to a semigroup of idempotents. Although skew lattices were introduced already by Jordan in [@jordan], and studied later by Cornish [@cornish], the systematical study of the modern skew lattice theory began in 1989 by Leech’s paper [@Le89], where [Leech’s First]{} and Second Decomposition Theorems were proven, revealing the structure of a skew lattice, see Section 2 for exact statements of the theorems. Both decomposition theorems were motivated by their analogues in the theory of bands.
However, in addition to the outer structure that is revealed by the two decomposition theorem, skew lattices also possess an interesting inner structure, the so called coset structure. Already in the 1989 foundation paper [@Le89] certain aspects of the coset structure of a skew lattice were analyzed, however it was fully explored in [@Le93] where Leech studied what he referred to as *the global geometry of skew lattices*. The coset structure was later used in [@Co09b] and [@Co09a] to characterize certain sub-varieties of skew lattices, and in [@Le11b] for the purpose of studying the distributivity of skew lattices, an approach proposed in [@JPC12].
By Leech’s First Decomposition Theorem a skew lattice is a lattice of its Green’s $\DD$-classes. The coset structure provides us with an introspective of *how* different $\DD$-classes are “glued” together into a lattice thus providing important additional information. Given a pair of comparable $\DD$-classes each of the two classes induces a partition of the other class, and the blocks of these partitions are called *cosets*. The internal structure of a skew lattice is described by the coset decompositions introduced in [@Le93] that reveal the interplay of a pair of comparable $\DD$-classes.
A skew lattice is called *right-handed* if Green’s relation $\LL$ is trivial, and it is called *left-handed* if Green’s relation $\RR$ is trivial, see Section 2 for precise definitions. By Leech’s Second Decomposition Theorem any skew lattice $S$ embeds into the direct product of a right-handed (called the *right factor* of $S$) and a left-handed skew lattice (called the *left factor* of $S$). A skew lattice is called *flat* if it is either right- or left-handed. Flat skew lattices thus form examples of skew lattice that are general enough to reveal structural properties of skew lattices. More precisely, it was proven in [@Ka05b] that a skew lattice satisfies any identity or equational implication satisfied by both its left factor and its right factor. The flat orders that we study in Section \[Flat Coset Decomposition\] were introduced in [@JPC12], and were motivated by Michael Kinyon’s talk that was held at the Workshop on Algebra and Logic, University of Lisbon, 2009.
In Section 4 we explore the flat coset structure of a skew lattice and its connections tothe study of the coset laws for important skew lattice properties, such as symmetry, cancellation and normality. This approach enables us to classify certain varieties of skew lattices. The results of Section 4 were motivated by the earlier studies of [@Le93], [@Ka08], [@AAA80], [@Co09a], [@Co11] and [@JPC12]. We demonstrate the impact of the study of the flat coset structure in the case of skew lattices of matrices, following the work of [@Fi94], [@Fi99] and [@Ka07].
Basic knowledge on semigroup theory and lattice theory can be found in [@Pe73] and [@Gr71], respectively.
Preliminaires {#Preliminaries}
=============
Order structure
---------------
A *skew lattice* is an algebra $(S;\lor, \land)$, where $\land $ and $\lor $ are idempotent and associative binary operations, such that the absorption laws $x\land (x\lor y)=x=(y\lor x)\land x$ and $x\lor (x\land y)=x=(y\land x)\lor x$ are satisfied. A *band* is a semigroup of idempotents, while a *semilattice* is a commutative band. When $S$ is a commutative semigroup, the set $E(S)$ of all idempotents in $S$ is a semilattice under the semigroup multiplication. When $S$ is not commutative, $E(S)$ needs not be closed under multiplication [@Ho76]. Recall that a band is *right \[left\] regular* if it satisfies the identity $xyx=yx$ \[$xyx=xy$\]. A band is *regular* if it satisfies $xyxzx=xyzx$, and is *rectangular* if it satisfies $xyx=x$. Skew lattices can be seen as double regular bands as the band reducts $(S,\land )$ and $(S,\lor )$ are regular. A skew lattice $ S$ is *rectangular* if and only if $x\land y= y\lor x$ holds or equivalently if its band reducts $(S,\land )$ and $(S,\lor )$ are rectangular. Moreover, given sets $L$ and $R$ the direct product $L\times R$ forms a rectangular skew lattice under the operations $(x,y)\lor (x',y') = (x',y)$ and $(x,y)\land (x',y') = (x,y')$, and any rectangular skew lattice is isomorphic to $L\times R$ for some sets $L,R$, cf. [@Le89].
The following technical result was proven in [@Co09a]. We shall make frequent use of this result in the remainder of the paper.
\[lem\_reg\] [@Co11] Let $S$ be a skew lattice and let $x_1,x_2,u,v$ in $S$ be such that $u\preceq x_i\preceq v$ for $i\in \{1,2\}$. Then $$x_1\land v\land x_2=x_1\land x_2 \text{ and } x_1\lor u\lor x_2=
x_1\lor x_2.$$
Green’s relations are five equivalence relations characterizing the elements of a semigroup in terms of the principal ideals they generate. When $ S$ is a semigroup we set $S^1=S$ if $S$ has an identity element, and $S^1= S\cup \set{1}$ otherwise, with $1$ being an element disjoint from $S$, and the operation is extended to $S^1$ be settting $x.1=x=1.x$ for all $x\in S^1$. Given $x, y\in S$ the *Green’s relations* $\LL$, $\RR$ and $\JJ$ are defined by: $$\begin{aligned}
x \RR y \Leftrightarrow x S^{1} = y S^{1}; \\
x \LL y \Leftrightarrow S^{1} x = S^{1} y; \\
x \JJ y\Leftrightarrow S^{1} x S^{1} = S^{1} y S^{1}.\end{aligned}$$ Finally, Green’s relations $\DD$ and $\HH$ are defined by $\DD = \RR \lor \LL\,(=\RR\circ\LL=\LL\circ\RR)$ and $ \HH = \RR \land \LL\, (=\RR\cap \LL)$. As $\RR $- and $\LL$-classes are contained in $\DD$-classes, and an $\RR$-class intersects an $\LL$-class in an $\HH$-class, $\DD$-classes are often visualized as ’eggboxes’ with $\RR$-classes being represented by rows, $\LL$-classes by columns and $\HH$-classes by individual cells of the eggbox, cf. Figure \[receggbox\] below.
If $S$ is a band then $\DD =\JJ$ and $ \HH = \Delta_{S} =\set{(x,x):x\in S} $. Moreover, in the case of a band the definitions of Green’s relations simplify as follows: $x\RR y \text{ iff } xy=y \text{ and } yx=x$; $x\LL y \text{ iff } xy=x \text{ and } yx=y$; $x\DD y \text{ iff } xyx=x \text{ and } yxy=y$. If $S$ is a skew lattice we define the Green’s relations on $S$ to be the Green’s relations on the band reduct $(S,\land)$. It follows that $x {\mathbin{\mathcal R}}y$ iff $x\land y=y$ and $y\land x=x$, or dually $x\lor y=x$ and $y\lor x=y$; $x{\mathbin{\mathcal L}}y$ iff $x\land y=x$ and $y\land x=y$, or dually $x\lor y=y$ and $y\lor x=x$; $x\DD y$ iff $x\land y\land x=x$ and $y\land x\land y=y$, or dually $y\lor x\lor y=y$ and $x\lor y\lor x=x$. Right-handed skew lattices are the skew lattices for which $\RR =\DD$, while left-handed skew lattices are determined by $\LL =\DD$ [@Le96].
Given a skew lattice $S$ the *natural partial order* $\geq$ is defined by $x\geq y$ if $x\land y=y=y\land x$ (or dually $x\lor y = x = y\lor x$), and the *natural preorder* $\succeq$ is defined by $x\succeq y$ if $y\land x\land y = y$, or dually $x\lor y\lor x = x$. Observe that $x{\mathbin{\mathcal D}}y$ iff $x\succeq y$ and $y\succeq x$. Relation $\DD $ is often referred to as the *natural equivalence*.
\[1decomp\] Let $S$ be a skew lattice. Then $\DD $ is a congruence, $S/\DD $ is the maximal lattice image of $S$ and $\DD $-classes of are maximal rectangular sub-skew lattices of $S$.
Rectangular structure
---------------------
A *primitive* skew lattice is a skew lattice that has exactly two (comparable) $\DD $-classes. A *skew diamond* $\set{J>A,B>M}$ is a skew lattice that has two incomparable $\DD $-classes, $A$ and $B$, their join class $J=A\lor B$ and their meet class $M=A\land B$. Given a s skew lattice with comparable $\DD$-classes $X>Y$ and $x\in X$ there exists $y \in Y$ such that $x \geq y$, and dually given $y \in Y$ there exists $x\in X$ such that $x \geq y$. If $A$ and $B$ are (incomparable) $\DD$-classes, $J=A\lor B$ and $M=A\land B$ then for every $a\in A$ there exists $b\in B$ such that $a\lor b=b\lor a$ in $J$ and $a\land b=b\land a$ in $M$. Moreover, in a skew diamond $\set{J>A,B>M}$ we obtain $J=\{a\lor b \,|\, a\in A, b\in B \text{ and } a\lor b=b\lor a\}\text{ and } M=\set{a\land b \,|\,a\in A, b\in B \text{ and } a\land b=b\land a}$ (cf [@Le89]).
\(0) at (0,0)[$x\lor y$]{} ; (nm) at (4,0)[$y$]{}; (0n) at (4,4)[$x\land y$]{} ; (m0) at (0,4)[$x$]{} ;
\(a) at (0,2)[$\bullet$]{} ; (b) at (2,0)[$\bullet$]{} ; (c) at (2,2)[$\bullet$]{} ; (d) at (2,4)[$\bullet$]{} ; (e) at (4,2)[$\bullet$]{} ;
\(1) at (-1,-1) ; (2) at (-1,5) ; (3) at (5,5) ; (4) at (5,-1) ; (5) at (1,-1) ; (6) at (1,5) ; (7) at (3,-1) ; (8) at (3,5) ; (9) at (-1,3) ; (10) at (5,3) ; (11) at (-1,1) ; (12) at (5,1) ;
\(1) – (2) – (3) – (4) – (1); (5) – (6) ; (7) – (8) ; (9) – (10) ; (11) – (12) ;
In Figure \[receggbox\] we see the ’eggbox’ corresponding to a rectangular skew lattice, ie. a single $\DD$-class. As relation $\HH$ is trivial in skew lattices (and bands), each cell is a singleton and hence represents an individual element of a rectangular skew lattice. Given $x$ and $y$, $x \land y$ is the unique [element]{} in the [row]{} of $x$ and the [column]{} of $y$, while $x\lor y$ is the unique [element]{} in the [column]{} of $x$ and the [row]{} of $y$. The eggbox corresponding to a $\DD$-class of a flat skew lattice $S$ is either a single row (if $S$ right-handed) or a signle column (if $S$ left-handed).
\[2decomp\] Given a skew lattice $S$ relations $\LL $ and $\RR $ are always congruences. Moreover, $S/\LL $ is the maximal right-handed image of $S$, $S/\RR $ is the maximal left-handed image of $S$; and the natural projections $S \rightarrow S/\LL$ and $S \rightarrow S/\RR$ together yield an isomorphism of $S$ with the fibered product $S/\RR \times_{S/\DD } S/\LL = \set{(x,y): x\in S/\RR, y\in S/\LL, p(x)=q(y)}$ where $p:S/\LL \rightarrow S/\DD$ and $q:S/\RR\rightarrow S/\DD$ are natural homomorphisms.
Any sub-lattice ${T}$ of $S$ intersects each $\DD $-class of $S$ in at most one point. If ${T}$ meets each $D$-class of $S$ in exactly one point, then $T$ is called a *lattice section* of $S$. As such, it is a maximal sub-lattice that is also an internal copy inside $S$ of the maximal lattice image $S/\DD $ [@Le93]. A lattice section of $S$ (if it exists) is therefore isomorphic to $S/\DD $. As any skew lattice $S$ is embedded in the product $S/\RR \times S/\LL $, joint properties of $S/\RR $ and $S/\LL $ are often passed on to $S$, and conversely. In particular, $S/\RR $ and $S/\LL $ belong to a variety $\mathcal V$ if and only if $S$ does [@Ka08].
[@Ka05b]\[internal\] A skew lattice $S$ has a lattice section $S_0$ if and only if one of the following equivalent statements holds:
- $S$ has a left handed sub-skew lattice $S'$ and a right handed sub-skew lattice $S''$ both of which meet every $\DD $-class in $S$.
- Sub-skew lattices $S_{L}$ and $S_{R}$ exist whose intersection with any $\DD $-class is an $\LL $-class \[respectively, $\RR $-class\] of $S$.
When the conditions of Theorem \[internal\] hold, with $S_{L}$ and $S_{R}$ as given in $(ii)$, then, the natural epimorphisms $S\rightarrow S/\RR $ and $S\rightarrow S/\LL$ induce, under restriction, isomorphisms of $S_{L}$ with $S/\RR$ and $S_{R}$ with $S/\LL$. Every $x\in S$ factors uniquely as $x=x'\land x''$ with $x'\in S_{L}\cap \DD_x$, $x''\in S_{R}\cap \DD_x$. Under this decomposition, the operations are defined component wise, that is, $(x'\land x'')\land (y'\land y'')=(x'\land y')\land (x''\land y'')$ and $(x'\lor x'')\lor (y'\lor y'')=(x'\lor y')\lor (x''\lor y'')$. The functions $\pi_{L} :S\rightarrow S_{L}$ and $\pi_{R} : S\rightarrow S_{R}$ defined by $\pi_{L} (x)=x'$ and $\pi_{R}(x)=x''$ are retractions of $S$ upon $S_{L}$ and $S_{R}$, respectively, and the commuting composite $\pi_{L}\pi_{R}=\pi_{R}\pi_{L}$ is a retraction of $S$ upon $S_0$. Moreover, $ker(\pi_{L})=\RR$, $ker(\pi_{R})=\LL$ and $ker(\pi_{L}\pi_{R})=\DD$. Furthermore, $S$ is the *internal fibred product* of $S_{L}$ and $S_{R}$, the *internal left* and *internal right factors* of $S$, respectively, describing the *Inner Kimura Decomposition* introduced in [@Ka05b]. We shall call *flat skew lattices* to $S/\RR $ and $S/\LL $.
Coset structure
---------------
Consider a skew lattice $S$ with $\DD$-classes $A>B$. Given $b\in B$, the subset $A\land b\land A=\{a\land b\land a \,|\, a\in A\}$ of $B$ is said to be a *coset* of $A$ in $B$ (or an *$A$-coset in $B$*). Similarly, a coset of $B$ in $A$ (or a $B$-coset in $A$) is any subset $B\lor a\lor B =\{b\lor a\lor b \,|\, b\in B \}$ of $A$, for a fixed $a\in A$. On the other hand, given $a\in A$, the *image set* of $a$ in $B$ is the set $a\land B\land a = \set{a \land b\land a\,|\,b\in B}=\set{b\in B\,|\,b< a}.$ Dually, given $b\in B$ the set $b\lor A\lor b = \set{a\in A:b<a}$ is the image set of $b$ in $A$.
[@Le93] \[coset\_part\] Let $S$ be a skew lattice with comparable $\DD$-classes $A>B$. Then, $B$ is partitioned by the cosets of $A$ in $B$ and the image set of any element $a\in A$ is a transversal of the cosets of $A$ in $B$; dual remarks hold for any $b\in B$ and the cosets of $B$ in $A$ that determine a partition of $A$. Moreover, any coset $B\lor a\lor B$ of $B$ in $A$ is isomorphic to any coset $A\land b\land A$ of $A$ in $B$ under a natural bijection $\varphi $ defined implicitly for any $a\in A$ and $b\in B$ by: $x\in B\lor a\lor B$ corresponds to $y\in A\land b\land A$ if and only if $x\geq y$. Furthermore, the operations $\land$ and $\lor$ on $A\cup B$ are determined jointly by the coset bijections and the rectangular structure of each $\DD$-class.
Let $S$ be a skew lattice with comparable $\DD$-classes $A>B$ and let $y,y'\in B$. Then $A\land y \land A = A\land y' \land A$ iff for all $x\in A$ the equality $x\land y\land x = x\land y'\land x$ holds. Dual results hold, having a similar statement (cf. [@Co09a]). All cosets and image sets are rectangular sub skew lattices. Furthermore, all coset bijections are isomorphisms between cosets.
A skew lattice is said to be *symmetric* if for all $x,y\in S$, $x\land y= y\land x$ holds if and only if $ x\lor y= y\lor x$ holds. $S$ is called *upper symmetric* if $x \land y = y \land x$ implies $x \lor y = y \lor x$; and $S$ is called *lower symmetric* if $x \lor y = y \lor x$ implies $x \land y = y \land x$. Symmetric skew lattices with countably finite $\DD$-classes always have lattice sections (cf. [@Le96]). Finally, a skew lattice $S$ is called *cancellative* if for all $x,y,z\in S$, $z\lor x=z\lor y \text{ and } z\land x=z\land y \text{ imply } x=y,$ and $x\lor z=y\lor z \text{ and } x\land z=y\land z \text{ imply } x=y.$ Cancellative skew lattices are always symmetric, see [@Ka08].
[@Co09a]\[pl\_sym\] Let $S$ be a skew lattice. Then $S$ is symmetric if and only if for all skew diamonds $\set{J>A,B>M}$ and all $m\in M$, $j\in J$, $J\land m\land J = (A\land m\land A) \cap (B\land m\land B)$ and $M\lor j\lor M = (A\lor j\lor A)\cap (B\lor j\lor B)$.
Moreover, a skew lattice $S$ is symmetric if and only if given any skew diamond $\set{J>A,B>M}$ in $S$ and any $m,m'\in M$, $j,j'\in J$ the following equivalences hold:
- $J\land m\land J = J\land m'\land J$ if and only if $A\land m\land A= A\land m'\land A$ and $ B\land m\land B = B\land m'\land B$, and
- $M\lor j\lor M = M\lor j'\lor M$ if and only if $A\lor j\lor A=A\lor j'\lor A$ and $B\lor j\lor B=B\lor j'\lor B$.
\[clawsus\] In [@Ka08] examples are given that show the independence between $(i)$ and $(ii)$ above. Furthermore, the skew lattices satisfying $(i)$ correspond to the lower symmetric skew lattices, while the skew lattices satisfying $(ii)$ correspond to the upper symmetric skew lattices as discussed in the proof of Theorem 3.5 in the paper [@Le93], and expressed below:
[@Le93] Let $S$ be a skew lattice. Then, $S$ is lower symmetric if and only if for all skew diamonds $\set{J>A,B>M}$ and all $m\in M$, $(A\land m\land A)\cap ( B\land m\land B)\subseteq J\land m\land J$. Dually, $S$ is upper symmetric if and only if for all skew diamonds $\set{J>A,B>M}$ and all $j\in J$, $(A\lor j\lor A)\cap ( B\lor j\lor B)\subseteq M\lor j\lor M$. Moreover, the following hold:
- $S$ is lower symmetric if and only if given any skew diamond $\set{J>A,B>M}$ in $S$ and any $m,m'\in M$, $J\land m\land J = J\land m'\land J$ $\Leftrightarrow$ ($A\land m\land A= A\land m'\land A$ and $ B\land m\land B = B\land m'\land B$);
- $S$ is upper symmetric if and only if given any skew diamond $\set{J>A,B>M}$ in $S$ and any $j,j'\in J$, $M\lor j\lor M = M\lor j'\lor M$ $\Leftrightarrow$ ($A\lor j\lor A=A\lor j'\lor A$ and $B\lor j\lor B=B\lor j'\lor B$).
\[pl\_canc\][@Co09a] Let $S$ be a quasi-distributive, symmetric skew lattice. Then $S$ is cancellative iff one (and hence both) of the following equivalent statements hold:
- given any skew diamond $\set{J>A,B>M}$ in $S$ and any $x,x'\in A$, $M\lor x\lor M = M\lor x'\lor M$ holds if and only if $B \lor x\lor B = B \lor x'\lor B$ holds;
- given any skew diamond $\set{J>A,B>M}$ in $S$ and any $x,x'\in A$, $B\land x \land B=B\land x' \land B$ holds if and only if $J\land x \land J=J\land x' \land J$ holds.
Recall from [@Ka08] that a skew lattice $S$ is *right cancellative* if for all $x,y,z\in S$ the pair of equalities $x\lor z=y\lor z$ and $x\land z=y\land z$ implies $x=y$. *Left cancellative* skew lattices are defined dually. A skew lattice is *simply cancellative* if for all $x,y,z\in S$ the pair of equalities $x\lor z\lor x=y\lor z\lor y$ and $x\land z\land x=y\land z\land y$ implies $x=y$. Clearly, cancellative skew lattices are the ones that are simultaneously right cancellative and left cancellative. If $S$ is symmetric then right cancellation is equivalent to left cancellation and thus coincides with (full) cancellation. Moreover, a skew lattice is right cancellative skew lattices if and only if it is simply cancellative and simultaneously right upper symmetric and left lower symmetric. Dually, a right cancellative skew lattice is a simply cancellative skew lattice that is simultaneously left lower symmetric and right upper symmetric (cf. [@Ka08]).
Recall that a skew lattice is said to be *normal* if it satisfies the identity $x\land y\land z\land w= x\land z\land y\land w$ and, dually, it is named *conormal* if it satisfies $x\lor y\lor z\lor w= x\lor z\lor y\lor w$, cf. [@Le92].
\[pl\_normal\][@Co11] Let $S$ be a skew lattice. Then $S$ is normal iff for each pair of comparable $\DD $-classes $A>B$ in $S$, the class $B$ is an entire coset of $A$ in $B$. That is,
$A\land x\land A=A\land x'\land A$
holds for all $x,x'\in B$. Dually, $S$ is conormal iff $B\lor x\lor B=B\lor x'\lor B$ holds for all pairs of comparable $\DD $-classes $A>B$ in $S$ and all $x,x'\in A$.
Flat order structure {#Flat order structure}
====================
Right and left preorders
------------------------
In the following paragraphs we will discuss two flat preorders. They are the right and left weak versions of the natural order in a skew lattice and relate with the natural preorder also there defined. They are essential for the understanding of the flat coset structure defined later in this paper.
Let $S$ be a skew lattice and consider in it the following relations:
- $x\leq_{L} y$ if $x=x\land y$, or dually $y= x\lor y$;
- $x\leq_{R} y$ if $x=y\land x$, or dually $y= y\lor x$.
The relation $\leq_{L}$ is a preorder and $ x\leq_{L}y $ together with $y\leq_{L}x$ is equivalent to $x{\mathbin{\mathcal L}}y$. A similar remark holds for $\leq_{R}$.
Clearly, $x\leq y$ implies both $x\leq_{L} y$ and $x\leq_{R} y$, and either of the two further implies $x\preceq y$. Hence, $\leq$ (seen as a subset of $S\times S$) is contained both in $\leq_{L}$ and $\leq_{R}$. Moreover, both orders $\leq_{L}$, $\leq_{R}$ are contained in $\preceq $. Thus, the four preorders are related as expressed by the following diagram:
(0,2) node\[\] (A) [ $x\preceq y$]{}; (0,-2) node\[\] (B) [$x\leq y$]{}; (2,0) node\[\] (C) [$x\leq_{L} y$]{}; (-2,0) node\[\] (D) [$x\leq_{R} y$]{};
\(D) – (A) node\[pos=.5,left\] ; (C) – (A) node\[pos=.7,above\] ; (B) – (C) node\[pos=.5,right\] ; (B) – (D) node\[pos=.5,left\] ;
The preorder $\leq_{L}$ \[$\leq_{R}$\] is a partial order in any right \[left\]-handed skew lattice since in this case it coincides with the natural partial order $\leq$. We call *flat preorder* to any right or left preorder. The following results capture the impact of the right order structure of skew lattices, in analogy to results established for the natural order. Dual results hold for a left order structure.
\[uprightb\] Let $S$ be a skew lattice and let $x,y\in S$. Then $x{\mathbin{\mathcal R}}y$ together with $x\leq_{L} y$ implies $x=y$. Dually, $x{\mathbin{\mathcal L}}y$ together with $x\leq_{R} y$ implies $x=y$.
The proof is direct, since $x{\mathbin{\mathcal R}}y$ implies $y=x\land y$, while $x\leq_{L} y$ implies $x\land y=x$. The dual statement has a similar proof.
\[lemma-leq-ideal\] Let $S$ be a skew lattice and $x,y\in S$. Then:
1. $x\leq_R y$ if and only if $x\in y\land S$;
2. $x\leq_L y$ if and only if $x\in S\land y$.
1\. Let $x\leq_R y$. Then $x=y\land x\in y\land S$. Conversely, assume $x\in y\land S$. Then $x=y\land u$ for some $u\in S$. Thus $y\land x=y\land y=x$ which implies $x\leq_R y$. A similar argumentation verifies 2.
\[prop-ideal-subalgebra\] Given any element $y$ in a skew lattice $S$, the sets $y\land S$ and $S\land y$ are subalgebras of $S$.
Take $u, v\in S\land y$. By Lemma \[lemma-leq-ideal\] the elements $u$ and $v$ are of the form $u=y\land u$ and $v=y\land v$. Then $$y\land u\land v=u\land v$$ and thus $u\land v\in y\land S$. Using Lemma \[lemma-leq-ideal\] again in order to prove that also $u\lor v\in y\land S$ we need to show that $u\lor v\leq_R y$ which is equivalent to $y=y\lor u\lor v$. This is indeed the case as: $$y\lor u\lor v=y\lor (y\land u)\lor (y\land v)$$ which equals $y$ by absorption.
\[upright\] Let $A$ and $B$ be comparable $\DD$-classes in a skew lattice $S$ such that $A \geq B$, and let $x\in A$, $y\in B$. Then:
- For each $a \in A$ there exists $b \in \RR_{y}$ such that $a \geq_{L} b$, and dually for each $b \in B$ there exists $a \in \RR_{x}$ such that $a \geq_{L} b$.
- If $a\in A$ and $b\in B$ satisfy $a \geq_{L} b$ then $a \geq_{L} u$, for all $u\in \LL_b$; and dually, $v \geq_{L} b$, for all $v\in \LL_a$.
Similar remarks hold regarding the preorder $\geq_{R}$.
To prove the first statement of $(i)$ let $a\in A$ and take $b=y\land a$. Then $b\land a=y\land a\land a= y\land a=b$ and thus $b\leq_{L} a$. On the other hand, $y\land b=y\land y\land a=y\land a=b$ and $b\land y=y\land a\land y=y$ which proves $b\;\RR\; {y}$. To show $(ii)$ let $a\in A$ and $b,u\in B$ such that $a \geq_{L} b$ and $u{\mathbin{\mathcal L}}b$. Then $u=u\land b=u\land b\land a=u\land a$, due to the hypothesis. Hence, $a \geq_{L} u$. The dual statements have analogous proofs.
In general, it is possible that $a\in A$ and $b,b'\in B$ exist such that $b\neq b'$, $a \geq_{L} b$ and $a \geq_{L} b'$. Later, in the following section, we shall see that, if $a\in A$ and $b\in B$ satisfy $a \geq_{L} b$ then there is a partition determined by ${\mathbb{\RR}}_{a}$ on ${\mathbb{\RR}}_{b}$ where $b=b'$ for all $b' \in {\mathbb{\RR}}_b$ such that $b$ and $b'$ are in the same block and $a \geq_{L} b'$; and dually, if $a\in A$ and $b\in B$ are such that $a \geq_{L} b$, ${\mathbb{\RR}}_{b}$ determines a partition of $R_a$ where $a=a'$ for all $a' \in {\mathbb{\RR}}_a$ such that $a$ and $a'$ are in the same block and $a' \geq_{L} b$.
Right and left center
---------------------
The notion of center is of great importance in the study of any algebra, relating with the variety of normal skew lattices. In the following we shall present the properties of elements in the right and in the left center. We will also show the natural relation of those flat centers with the full center.
Arbitrary elements $x,y$ of a skew lattice $S$ are said to *meet-commute* if $x\wedge y=y\wedge x$; and, dually, they *join-commute* if $x\vee y=y\vee x$. An element of $S$ is called a *central element* if it both meet- and join-commutes with all elements of the skew lattice. By a result of Leech [@Le89] an element $x$ is central if and only if the $\DD$-class $\DD_x$ is trivial. The set of all central elements is called the *center* of a skew lattice and it forms a lattice. We shall denote the center of a skew lattice $S$ by $\ZZ(S)$. We say that an element $x$ in a skew lattice $S$ is *right-central* if $\RR_x$ is trivial; and $x$ is *left-central* if $\LL_x$ is trivial. The following theorem yields several useful characterizations of left- \[right-\]central elements.
\[comutcarright\] Let $S$ be a skew lattice and $a\in S$. The following statements are equivalent:
- The element $a$ is right-central.
- For all $b\in S$, $b\lor a=a\lor b\lor a$.
- For all $b\in S$, $a\lor b=b\lor a\lor b$.
- For all $b\in S$, $a\land b=a\land b\land a$.
- For all $b\in S$, $b\land a=b\land a\land b$.
Dually, the following statements are equivalent:
- The element $a$ is left-central.
- For all $b\in S$, $a\lor b=a\lor b\lor a$.
- For all $b\in S$, $b\lor a=b\lor a\lor b$.
- For all $b\in S$, $a\land b=b\land a\land b$.
- For all $b\in S$, $b\land a=a\land b\land a$.
A direct calculation verifies the equivalences $(ii)\Leftrightarrow (iii)$ and $(iv)\Leftrightarrow (v)$. Let us now prove the equivalence $(i)\Leftrightarrow (ii)$. First assume that (i) holds and let $b\in S$. Assume without loss of generality that $\DD_{b\vee a}\neq \DD_a$. By Lemma \[upright\] for the comparable $\DD$-classes $\DD_{b\lor a}>\DD_a$ there exists $u\in \RR_a$ such that $u\leq_{L} b\lor a$. But, by the assumption, $u\in \RR_a$ implies $u=a$. Hence $a\leq_{L} b\lor a$ and thus $a\lor b\lor a=b\lor a.$ To prove the converse, assume that (ii) holds and let $u\in \mathcal R_a$ be arbitrary. Then $u=u\lor a$ and $a=a\lor u$, which by (ii) and the fact that $a{\mathbin{\mathcal D}}u$ implies: $$u=u\lor a =a\lor u\lor a=a.$$ That proves (i). The equivalence $(i)\Leftrightarrow (iv)$ is proved in a similar fashion, and dual argumentation verifies the equivalence of conditions (vi)–(x).
The set of all right-central elements in $S$ is called the *right-center* of $S$ and will be denoted by $\ZZ_R(S)$; while the set of all left-central elements in $S$ is called the *left-center* of $S$ and will be denoted by $\ZZ_L(S)$.
The right-center $\ZZ_R(S)$ is a left-handed skew lattice and the left-center $\ZZ_L(S)$ is a right-handed skew lattice. Moreover, if $S$ is right-handed then $\ZZ_R(S)=\ZZ(S)$ and $\ZZ_L(S)=S$; if $S$ is left-handed then $\ZZ_R(S)=S$ and $\ZZ_L(S)=\ZZ(S)$. Furthermore, $$\ZZ(S)=\ZZ_L(S)\cap \ZZ_R(S).$$
Let $x,y\in \ZZ_R(S)$. To see that $\ZZ_R(S)$ is closed under the operations $\land$ and $\lor$ we need to show that $x\land y$ and $x\lor y $ are right-central. We shall make use of Theorem \[comutcarright\] (iv) in order to prove that $x\land y$ is right-central. Let $b\in S$ be arbitrary. Then, using that both $x$ and $y$ are right-central we get $$x\land y \land b\land x\land y= x\land y\land b \land y=x\land y\land b,$$ and it follows by Theorem \[comutcarright\] (iv) that $x\land y$ is right-central. We prove the right-centralness of $x\lor y$ in a similar fashion, using Theorem \[comutcarright\] (iii). Hence $\ZZ_R(S)$ is a skew lattice. The left-handedness of $\ZZ_R(S)$ follows immediately from Theorem \[comutcarright\]. The assertion for $\ZZ_L(S)$ is proved dually. Next, assume that $S$ is right-handed. Then $\DD=\RR$ and thus $\RR_x=\{x\}$ is equivalent to $\DD_x=\{x\}$, which proves $\ZZ_R(S)=\ZZ(S)$. Moreover, in this case all elements $a\in S$ satisfy the condition (ix) of Theorem \[comutcarright\] and thus $\ZZ_L(S)=S$. Again, the assertion about left-handed skew lattices is proved dually. Finally, $x\in \ZZ_L(S)\cap \ZZ_R(S)$ iff $\RR_x=\{x\}=\LL_x$ iff $\DD_x=\{x\}$ iff $x\in \ZZ(S)$.
A classification for symmetry {#A classification for symmetry}
-----------------------------
The variety of symmetric skew lattices is of great importance for the study of skew lattices. We will look at right \[left\] upper \[lower\] symmetric skew lattices and discuss several characterizations of these by identities.
We say that a skew lattice $S$ is *right symmetric* if its right factor $S/\LL$ is symmetric, and we say that $S$ is *left symmetric* if its left factor $S/\RR$ is symmetric. Moreover, $S$ is *right upper symmetric* if $S/\LL$ is upper symmetric; $S$ is *left upper symmetric* if $S/\RR$ is upper symmetric; $S$ is *right lower symmetric* if $S/\LL$ is lower symmetric; and $S$ is *left lower symmetric* if $S/\RR$ is lower symmetric.
([@Ka08]) \[th:Ka08\] Given a skew lattice $S$:
- $S$ is right upper symmetric iff it satisfies the identity $x\lor y\lor x=(y\land x)\lor y\lor x$.
- $S$ is left upper symmetric iff it satisfies the identity $x\lor y\lor x=x\lor y\lor (x\land y)$.
- $S$ is right lower symmetric iff it satisfies the identity $x\land y\land x=x\land y\land (x\lor y)$.
- $S$ is left lower symmetric iff it satisfies the identity $x\land y\land x=(y\lor x)\land y\land x$.
A skew lattice is *upper symmetric* if it is simultaneously right and left upper symmetric, and it is *lower symmetric* if it is simultaneously right and left lower symmetric. A skew lattice is both upper and lower symmetric if and only if it is symmetric (cf. [@Ka08]).
\[lowersym\] Let $S$ be a skew lattice. Then:
- $S$ is right upper symmetric iff it satisfies $x\lor y\lor x=(x\land y\land x)\lor y\lor x$.
- $S$ is left upper symmetric iff it satisfies $x\lor y\lor x=x\lor y\lor (x\land y\land x)$.
- $S$ is right lower symmetric iff it satisfies $x\land y\land x=x\land y\land (x\lor y\lor x)$.
- $S$ is left lower symmetric iff it satisfies $x\land y\land x=(x\lor y\lor x)\land y\land x$.
We prove (i) as the proofs of (ii)–(iv) are similar. Assume that $S$ is right upper symmetric and let $x,y\in S$. Then absorption implies $x\lor y\lor x=(x\land y\land x)\lor (x\lor y\lor x)$. Using this and right upper symmetry yields $$\begin{gathered}
x\lor y\lor x=(x\land y\land x)\lor (x\lor y\lor x)=(x\land y\land x)\lor (y\land x)\lor y\lor x=
(x\land y\land x)\lor y\lor x,\end{gathered}$$ where the final equality follows by Lemma \[lem\_reg\]. To prove the converse, assume that $S$ satisfies $x\lor y\lor x=(x\land y\land x)\lor y\lor x$. Then $$\begin{gathered}
x\lor y\lor x=(x\land y\land x)\lor y\lor x= (x\land y\land x) \lor (y\land x)\lor y \lor x=( y\land x)\lor y\lor x,\end{gathered}$$ where the second equality follows by Lemma \[lem\_reg\], and the final one by absorption.
Observe, that given elements $x,y$ in a skew lattice $S$, $x\lor y=y\lor x\lor y$ is equivalent to $y\lor x=x\lor y\lor x$, because of the idempotency of $\lor$. We say that $x$ and $y$ *right-join commute* if $x\lor y=y\lor x\lor y$, and we say that they *right-meet commute* if $x\land y=x\land y\land x$. Similarly, $x$ and $y$ are said to *left-join commute* if $x\lor y=x\lor y\lor x$, and *left-meet commute* if $x\land y=y\land x\land y$.
Let $S$ be a skew lattice. Then:
- $S$ being right upper symmetric is equivalent to $\forall x,y\in S$: ($x$ and $y$ right-meet commute implies $x$ and $y$ right-join commute).
- $S$ being left upper symmetric is equivalent to $\forall x,y\in S$: ($x$ and $y$ left-meet commute implies $x$ and $y$ left-join commute).
- $S$ being right lower symmetric is equivalent to $\forall x,y\in S$: ($x$ and $y$ right-join commute implies $x$ and $y$ right-meet commute).
- $S$ being left lower symmetric is equivalent to $\forall x,y\in S$: ($x$ and $y$ left-join commute implies $x$ and $y$ left-meet commute).
We prove (i); the other proofs are similar. Assume that $S$ is right upper symmetric and let $x, y$ be right-meet commuting elements. Hence $y\land x\land y=y\land x$ and thus using Proposition \[lowersym\] we obtain $$y\lor x\lor y=(y\land x\land y)\lor x\lor y=(y\land x)\lor x\lor y=x\lor y$$ by absorption, which proves that $x$ and $y$ also right join commute. To prove the converse, assume that for all pairs of elements in $S$ right meet commutativity implies right join commutativity. Take any $x,y\in S $ and set $a=x$, $b=(x\land y\land x)\lor y$. We claim that $a$ and $b$ right meet commute. We have $$a\land b = x\land ((x\land y\land x)\lor y).$$ Using Lemma \[lem\_reg\] we can insert $y\land x$ in the middle of the above expression to obtain $$a\land b = x\land (y\land x)\land ((x\land y\land x)\lor y)$$ which equals $x\land y\land x$ by absorption. But then also $$a\land b\land a = (x\land y\land x)\land x=x\land y\land x,$$ which proves that $a$ and $b$ right meet commute. The assumption now implies that $a$ and $b$ right join commute, i.e. $$(x\land y\land x)\lor y\lor x = x\lor (x\land y\land x)\lor y\lor x=x\lor y\lor x,$$ where the latter equality follows by absorption. Right upper symmetry now follows by Proposition \[lowersym\].
\[LUS\] Let $S$ be a skew lattice. Then:
- $S$ being right symmetric is equivalent to $\forall x,y\in S$: ($x$ and $y$ right-join commute iff $x$ and $y$ right-meet commute).
- $S$ being left symmetric is equivalent to $\forall x,y\in S$: ($x$ and $y$ left-join commute iff $x$ and $y$ left-meet commute).
Flat coset structure {#Flat Coset Decomposition}
====================
On left and right cosets
------------------------
We are now ready to describe the coset structure of a skew lattice. To do so, we shall introduce flat cosets and construct a decomposition theorem as Theorem \[sidedcosetstructure\], the flat version of Leech’s coset decomposition Theorem \[coset\_part\]. We shall also clarify the relation of flat cosets with cosets on flat skew lattices.
A *right coset* of $A$ in $B$ is any set of the form $b\land A$, where $b\in B$. Similarly, a *right coset* of $B$ in $A$ is any set of the form $B\lor a$ for $a\in A$. Given $b\in B$, the *right image set* of $b$ in $A$ is the set $b\lor A=\set{b\lor a: a\in A }$. Dually, given any $a\in A$, the right image set of $a$ in $B$ is the set $B\land a=\set{b\land a:b\in B}$. Left cosets and left image sets are defined analogously. We say that a coset is *flat* whenever it is a right coset or a left coset.
\[rightcoset\] Let $S$ be a skew lattice with comparable $\DD$-classes $A>B$. Then, $b\lor A=\set{a\in A: a\geq_{L} b}$ and $B\land a=\set{b\in B: a\geq_{L} b}$. Similar remarks hold for left image sets.
Let $x\in A$ and consider $b\lor x\in b\lor A\subseteq A$. By absorption, $b\land (b\lor x)=b$ so that $b\lor x\geq_{L} b$. Conversely, let $x\in A$ such that $x\geq_{L} b$, that is, $b\lor x=x$. Then, $x\in b\lor A$. The proof of the dual statement is analogous.
\[sidein\] Every right coset of $A$ in $B$ is a subset of the corresponding (full) coset of $A$ in $B$. Moreover, the (full) image set of $a$ in $B$ is a subset of the corresponding right image set of $a$ in $B$ as $a\land B\land a\subseteq B\land a$. Dual remarks hold for left cosets and left image sets, and analogue statements are true regarding cosets and image sets in $A$.
In fact, given any $x\in S$ the following four sets are (subset) related as expressed by the following diagram, where the arrows $\rightarrow$ represent the set inclusion $\subseteq$:
(0,2) node\[\] (A) [$A\land x\land A$ ]{}; (0,-2) node\[\] (B) [$\set{x}$]{}; (2,0) node\[\] (C) [$x\land A$]{}; (-2,0) node\[\] (D) [$A\land x$]{};
\(D) – (A) node\[pos=.5,left\] ; (C) – (A) node\[pos=.7,above\] ; (B) – (C) node\[pos=.5,right\] ; (B) – (D) node\[pos=.5,left\] ;
If $S$ is a left-handed skew lattice then the right cosets are trivial and the left cosets equal the (full) cosets. Similarly, in right-handed skew lattices right cosets coincide with (full) cosets while the left cosets are trivial.
The *right meet operation*, denoted by $\land_{R}$, is defined in a skew lattice $S$ by $x\land_{R} y=y\land x\land y$. Dually, the *right join operation*, denoted by $\lor_{R}$, is defined in a skew lattice $S$ by $x\lor_{R} y=x\lor y\lor x$. Left meet and join operations are defined similarly and denoted by $\land_{L}$ and $\lor_{L}$, respectively.
If $(S;\land ,\lor)$ is a skew lattice then $(S;\land_{R},\lor_{R})$ is a right-handed skew lattice and $(S;\land_{L}, \lor_{L})$ is a left-handed skew lattice. If $S$ is right- \[left-\]handed then operations $\land_{R}$ \[$\land_{L}$\] and $\lor_{R}$ \[$\lor_{L}$\] coincide with $\land$ and $\lor$, respectively.
\[sidedcosetstructure\] Let $S$ be a skew lattice with comparable $\DD$-classes $A>B$. Then:
1. The right cosets of $A$ in $B$ form a partition of $B$. Moreover, given $b\in B$ we have $b\in b\land A $, and $x\in b\land A$ is equivalent to $x\land A = b\land A$. Moreover, the partition of $B$ by right cosets of $A$ in $B$ refines the partition by cosets of $A$ in $B$.
2. The right image set of any element $a\in A$ in $B$ forms a transversal of the family of all right cosets of $A$ in $B$. All right image sets are equipotent.
3. Given any $a\in A$ and $b\in B$ there exists a bijection $\varphi_{a,b}^R: B\lor a\to b\land A$ that maps $x$ to $y$ if and only if $x\geq_{L} y$.
4. The right meet and right join operations on $A\cup B$ are determined by the right coset bijections.
Similar remarks describe the interplay between the left cosets.
\(i) Take $b\in B$ and let $a\in A$ be arbitrary. Then $b=b\land (b\lor a)\in b\land A$ and thus $\bigcup \set{b\land A:b\in B}=B$. Moreover, if $x\in b\land A$ then $x=b\land a'$ for some $a'\in A$ so that $x\land A=b\land a'\land A= b\land A$, where the latter equality follows by Lemma \[lem\_reg\]. To see that the partition by right cosets refines the coset partition, observe that $b\land A\subseteq A\land b\land A$ as $b=(a\lor b)\land b$ for any $a\in A$. Thus $A\land b\land A=\bigcup \set{x\land A:x\in A\land b\land A}$.
\(ii) Let $a$ and consider the right image set $B\land a$. For all $b\in B$ the intersection of $B\land a$ by $b\land A$ is the singleton $\{b\land a \}$, and the cardinality of $B\land a$ equals the cardinality of the set of all the cosets of $A$ in $B$.
\(iii) Define the map $\varphi_{a,b}^R: B\lor a \to b\land A$ by $x\mapsto b\land x$. Note that given $x\in B\lor a$ we indeed have $b\land x\leq_{L} x$, so that $\varphi_{a,b}^R(x)$ is the unique $y\in b\land A$ s.t. $y\leq_{L} x$. We claim that $\varphi_{a,b}^R$ is a bijection with the inverse $\psi_{b,a}^R:b\land A\to B\lor a$ defined by $y\mapsto y\lor a$. Take $x\in B\lor a$. Then $a\lor x=a$ and thus $\psi_{b,a}^R (\varphi_{a,b}^R(x))=(b\land x)\lor a=(b\land x)\lor a\lor x=(b\land x)\lor x=x$, where we used Lemma \[lem\_reg\] and absorption. Similarly, we prove $\varphi_{a,b}^R (\psi_{b,a}^R(y))=y$, for all $y\in b\land A$.
\(iv) Take $a\in A$ and $b\in B$. Then $a\land_{R} b = (b\land a)\land b$ with $b'=b\land a=\varphi_{a,b}^R (a)$. Similarly, $b\lor _{R} a= b\lor (a\land b)$ with $a'=a\land b=(\varphi_{a,b}^R)^{-1} (b)$. Analogously, $\lor_{R}$ can also be described by flat coset bijections.
We refer to the bijections $\varphi_{a,b}^R$ from Theorem \[sidedcosetstructure\] as to *right coset bijections*. *Left coset bijections* are defined dually.
The right \[left\] cosets and all \[right\] left image sets are rectangular sub skew lattices. Moreover, right \[left\] coset bijections are isomorphisms between the corresponding right \[left\] cosets. To see this, take comparable $\DD$-classes $A>B$ and $a\in A$, $b\in B$. Let $\varphi_{a,b}^R$ be the bijection from $B\lor a$ to $b\land A$ defined by $\varphi_{a,b}^R(x)=b\land x$, as in Theorem \[sidedcosetstructure\]. For $x,y \in B\lor a$ we obtain $$\begin{array}{lcll}
\varphi_{a,b}^R(x)\land \varphi_{a,b}^R(y)&=& b\land x\land b \land y & \\
&=& b\land x \land b\land x\land y & \text{ by Lemma \ref{lem_reg}}\\
&=& b\land x\land y & \text{ by idempotency} \\
&=& \varphi_{a,b}^R(x\land y), &
\end{array}$$ and $\varphi_{a,b}^R(x)\lor \varphi_{a,b}^R(y) = \varphi_{a,b}^R(y)\land \varphi_{a,b}^R(x) = \varphi_{a,b}^R(y\land x) = \varphi_{a,b}^R(x\lor y)$ due to the rectangularity of $A$ and $B$.
\[strg\_prop\_right\] Let $S$ be a skew lattice with comparable $\DD$-classes $A>B$ and let $y,y'\in B$. The following are equivalent:
- $y \land A = y' \land A$;
- $y\land x = y'\land x$, for all $x\in A$;
- $y\land x = y'\land x$, for some $x\in A$.
As (ii)$\Rightarrow $(iii) is immediate it suffices to show (iii)$\Rightarrow $(i)$\Rightarrow $(ii). Assume that (iii) holds and take any $a\in A$. By (iii) there exists $x\in A$ s.t. $y\land x=y'\land x$. Using Lemma \[lem\_reg\] we get $$y\land a=y\land x\land a=y'\land x\land a=y'\land a$$ and thus $y\land A\subseteq y'\land A$. Likewise, $y'\land A\subseteq y\land A$ and (i) follows. Finally, assume that (i) holds and take any $x\in A$. By the assumption, $y\in y' \land A$ and thus $y=y'\land a$ for some $a\in A$. Hence $y\land x = y'\land a\land x = y'\land x,$ where the final equality follows by Lemma \[lem\_reg\].
Let $S$ be a skew lattice and let $$\begin{array}{rcl}
\varphi: S & \to &S/{\mathbin{\mathcal R}}\times_{S/{\mathbin{\mathcal D}}} S/{\mathbin{\mathcal L}}\\
x & \mapsto & (x_L, x_R)
\end{array}$$ be the isomorphism from Theorem \[2decomp\]. Given a $\DD$-class $D$ in $S$ denote $D_L=\{ x_L\,|\, (x_L,x_R)=\varphi (x) \text{ for some } x\in D\}$ and $D_R=\{ x_R\,|\, (x_L,x_R)=\varphi (x) \text{ for some } x\in D\}$. The following lemma is a direct consequence of Theorem \[2decomp\].
\[fullcosets-left-right\] Let $x,y\in A$ and $u,v\in B.$ Then:
- $A\land x\land A=A\land y\land A$ if and only if $A_L\land x_L\land A_L=A_L\land y_L\land A_L$ and $A_R\land x_R\land A_R=A_R\land y_R\land A_R$;
- $B\lor u\lor B=B\lor v\lor B$ if and only if $B_L\lor u_L\lor B_L=B_L\lor v_L\lor B_L$ and $B_R\lor u_R\lor B_R=B_R\lor v_R\lor B_R$.
Propositions \[coset-full-right\] and Corollary \[fullright\] that follow describe the relation between the left \[right\] cosets and the full cosets of a skew lattice.
\[coset-full-right\] Let $S$ be a skew lattice and let $A>B$ be ${\mathbin{\mathcal D}}$-classes as above. Given $x,y\in B$ and $u,v\in A$ the following hold:
- $x\land A = y\land A$ if and only if $x_L=y_L$ and $x_R\land A_R=y_R\land A_R$;
- $A\land x = A\land y$ if and only if $x_R=y_R$ and $A_L\land x_L=A_L\land y_L$;
- $B\lor u = B\lor v$ if and only if $u_L=v_L$ and $B_R\lor u_R=B_R\lor v_R$;
- $u\lor B = v\lor B$ if and only if $u_R=v_R$ and $u_L\lor B_L=v_L\lor B_L$.
We shall only prove (i) as the proofs of (ii)–(iv) are similar. Given $a\in A$ the following sequence of equivalences hold: $$\begin{gathered}
x\land A=y\land A \Leftrightarrow x\land a=y\land a \Leftrightarrow (x_L\land a_L, x_R\land a_R) =(y_l\land a_L, y_R\land a_R) \Leftrightarrow \\
(x_L, x_R\land a_R) =(y_l, y_R\land a_R) \Leftrightarrow (x_L=y_L)\, \& \, (x_R\land A_R= y_R\land A_R).\end{gathered}$$ Notice that we used the fact that $A_L$ is left-handed and Proposition \[lem\_reg\].
The following result is a direct consequence of Lemma \[fullcosets-left-right\] and Propositon \[coset-full-right\].
\[fullright\] Let $S$ be a skew lattice with comparable $\DD$-classes $A>B$ and $x,y\in B$, $u,v\in A$. Then:
- $x\land A=y\land A$ if and only if $A\land x\land A=A\land y\land A$ and $x{\mathbin{\mathcal R}}y$;
- $A\land x=A\land y$ if and only if $A\land x\land A=A\land y\land A$ and $x{\mathbin{\mathcal L}}y$;
- $B\lor u=B\lor v$ if and only if $B\lor u\lor B=B\lor v\lor B$ and $u{\mathbin{\mathcal R}}v$;
- $u\lor B=v\lor B$ if and only if $B\lor u \lor B=B\lor v\lor B$ and $u{\mathbin{\mathcal L}}v$.
The three results above permit us a better understanding on the relation between flat cosets and full cadets, a matter that we will continue to discuss right after the subsequent example. In particular, Proposition \[coset-full-right\] expresses that all flat cosets correspondent to certain cosets in the flat lattice. This correspondence is natural and it can be clarified with the example of the next section.
Example on matrices in a ring
-----------------------------
Let $R$ be a ring and $E(R)$ the set of all idempotent elements in $R$. Set $x\land y=xy$ and $x\lor y=x\circ y=x+y-xy$. If $S\subseteq E(R)$ is closed under both $\cdot $ and $\circ $ then $(S;\cdot , \circ )$ is a skew lattice. By a *skew lattice in a ring* $R$ we mean a set $S\subseteq E(R)$ that is closed under both multiplication and $\nabla$, defined by, $$x\nabla y=(x\circ y)^2=x+y+yx-xyx-yxy,$$ and forms a skew lattice for the two operations. In particular, we have to make sure that $\nabla$ is associative in $S$. Given a multiplicative band $ B$ in a ring $R$ the relation between $\circ$ and $\nabla$ is given by $e\nabla f=(e\circ f)^2$ for all $e,f\in B$. In the case of right-handed skew lattices the nabla operation reduces to the circle operation. In the remainder of this subsection we shall assume that $ R$ is a fixed ring and $S$ is a right-handed skew lattice in $R$. Recall that in the right-handed case $\nabla$ reduces to the circle operation. If $S$ has two comparable $\DD$-classes $A>B$ then given $a\in A$ and $b\in B$, $bA=\set{ba:a\in A}$ is a coset of $A$ in $B$ and $B\circ a=\set{b+a-ba:b\in B}$ is a coset of $B$ in $A$ (cf. [@Ka05c]).
The standard form for pure bands in matrix rings that was developed by Fillmore et al. in [@Fi94] and [@Fi99]. Based on this form, Cvetko-Vah described in [@Ka07] the standard form for right-handed skew lattices in $M_n(F)$. Let $F$ be a field of characteristic different than 2 and $S\subseteq M_{n}(F)$ a primitive skew lattice with two comparable $\DD$-classes $A>B$. Then a basis for $F^{n}$ exists such that in this basis both $A$ and $B$ contain a diagonal matrix, the two diagonal matrices in $S$ form a lattice, and given any matrices $a\in A$, $b\in B$ $a$ and $b$ have block forms: $$\begin{array}{cc}
a= \begin{bmatrix}
I & 0 & a_{13} \\
0 & I & a_{23} \\
a_{31} & a_{32} & a_{31}a_{13}+a_{32}a_{23}
\end{bmatrix}\text{ and }
&
b= \begin{bmatrix}
I & b_{12} & b_{13} \\
b_{21} & b_{21}b_{12} & b_{21}b_{13} \\
b_{31} & b_{31}b_{12} & b_{31}b_{13}
\end{bmatrix}
\end{array}$$ Denote the diagonal matrices in $A$ and $B$ by $a_0$ and $b_0$, respectively. If $S$ is right-handed then $aa_0=a_0$ and $b b_0=b_0$ which implies $a_{31}=a_{32}=0=b_{21}=b_{31}$. Thus $a$ and $b$ have block forms: $$\begin{array}{cc}
a= \begin{bmatrix}
I & 0 & a_{13} \\
0 & I & a_{23} \\
0 & 0 & 0
\end{bmatrix}\text{ and }
&
b= \begin{bmatrix}
I & b_{12} & b_{13} \\
0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0
\end{bmatrix}.
\end{array}$$ On the other hand, if $S$ is left-handed then $a_{13}=a_{23}=0=b_{12}=b_{13}$ and thus $a$ and $b$ have block forms:
$\begin{array}{cc}
a= \begin{bmatrix}
I & 0 & 0 \\
0 & I & 0 \\
a_{31} & a_{32} & 0
\end{bmatrix}\text{ and }
&
b= \begin{bmatrix}
I & 0 & 0 \\
b_{21} & 0 & 0 \\
b_{31} & 0 & 0
\end{bmatrix}
\end{array}$
Let $S$ be right-handed. Given matrices $a,a'\in A$ we obtain: $$B\circ a =B\circ a' \Leftrightarrow b_0\circ a = b_0\circ a' \Leftrightarrow
a_{23}=a'_{23} ,$$ and given $b,b'\in B$ we obtain: $$bA=b'A \Leftrightarrow ba_0=b'a_0 \Leftrightarrow b_{12}=b'_{12}.$$ Similarly, if $S$ is left-handed we obtain: $$a\circ B=a'\circ B \text{ iff } a_{32}=a'_{32} \text{ and } Ab=Ab' \text{ iff } b_{21}=b'_{21}.$$ Let $S\subseteq M_{n}(F)$ be a primitive skew lattice with comparable $\DD$-classes $A>B$. As primitive skew lattices have lattice sections, we can set $S_{R}=\set{a_{R}:a\in S}$ as in Theorem \[internal\]. Then $S_{R}$ is a set of upper triangular matrices such that $a_R\in A_R$ and $b_R\in B_R$ have block forms: $$\begin{array}{cc}
a_{R}= \begin{bmatrix}
I & 0 & a_{13} \\
0 & I & a_{23} \\
0 & 0 & 0
\end{bmatrix}\text{ and }
&
b_{R}= \begin{bmatrix}
I & b_{12} & b_{13} \\
0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0
\end{bmatrix}.
\end{array}$$ Similarly, we set $S_{L}=\set{a_{L}:a\in S}$, which is the set of lower triangular matrices such that $a_L\in A_L$ and $b_L\in B_L$ have block forms: $$\begin{array}{cc}
a_{L}= \begin{bmatrix}
I & 0 & 0 \\
0 & I & 0 \\
a_{31} & a_{32} & 0
\end{bmatrix}\text{ and }
&
b_{L}= \begin{bmatrix}
I & 0 & 0 \\
b_{21} & 0 & 0 \\
b_{31} & 0 & 0
\end{bmatrix}.
\end{array}$$ Then $$a= \begin{bmatrix}
I & 0 & a_{13} \\
0 & I & a_{23} \\
a_{31} & a_{32} & a_{31}a_{13}+a_{32}a_{23}
\end{bmatrix}
=
\begin{bmatrix}
I & 0 & 0 \\
0 & I & 0 \\
a_{31} & a_{32} & 0
\end{bmatrix}\
.
\begin{bmatrix}
I & 0 & a_{13} \\
0 & I & a_{23} \\
0 & 0 & 0
\end{bmatrix}
=
a_{L}.a_{R}$$ and $$b= \begin{bmatrix}
I & b_{12} & b_{13} \\
b_{21} & b_{21}b_{12} & b_{21}b_{13} \\
b_{31} & b_{31}b_{12} & b_{31}b_{13}
\end{bmatrix}
=
\begin{bmatrix}
I & 0 & 0 \\
b_{21} & 0 & 0 \\
b_{31} & 0 & 0
\end{bmatrix}
.
\begin{bmatrix}
I & b_{12} & b_{13} \\
0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0
\end{bmatrix}
=
b_{L}.b_{R}$$
The following description clarifies what being in the same coset means in the matrix case. Let $S$ be a skew lattice in $M_n(F)$, $A>B$ comparable $\DD$-classes in $S$, $x,y\in B$ and $u,v \in A$. Then by Lemma \[fullcosets-left-right\]:
- $A x A=A y A$ if and only if $x_{21}=y_{21}$ and $x_{12}=y_{12}$, and
- $B\nabla u\nabla B=B\nabla v\nabla B$ if and only if $u_{32}=v_{32}$ and $u_{23}=v_{23}$.
Similarly, Proposition \[coset-full-right\] implies:
- $xA=yA$ if and only if $x_{21}=y_{21}$, $x_{31}=y_{31}$ and $x_{12}=y_{12}$;
- $Ax=Ay$ if and only if $x_{21}=y_{21}$, $x_{12}=y_{12}$ [ and ]{} $x_{13}=y_{13}$;
- $B\lor u=B\lor v$ if and only if $u_{31}=v_{31}$, $u_{32}=v_{32}$ and $u_{23}=v_{23}$.
- $u\lor B=v\lor B$ if and only if $u_{32}=v_{32}$, $u_{13}=v_{13}$ and $u_{23}=v_{23}$.
From the above equivalences we can thus observe that being in the same flat coset is a relation determined by the equalities $x_{31}=y_{31}$ and $x_{13}=y_{13}$ in the lower coset case, or $u_{32}=v_{32}$ and $u_{23}=v_{23}$ in the upper coset case. This gives us a description extending the one given in [@Ka07].
Flat coset decomposition
------------------------
In the following results we further discuss this skew lattice decomposition by right cosets. We aim to determine a complete description, achieved towards the end of this section.
\[exclusive\] Let $A>B$ be comparable $\DD$-classes in a skew lattice $S$ and $y,y'\in A$, $x,x'\in B$. The intersection $(x\land A)\cap (A\land x')$ is nonempty if and only if $A\land x\land A=A\land x'\land A.$ Dually, $(y\lor B)\cap (B\lor y')$ is nonempty if and only if $B\lor y\lor B=B\lor y'\lor B$. Furthermore, whenever the intersections are nonempty we have: $$(x\land A)\cap (A\land x')= \set{x\land x'} \text{ and } (y\lor B)\cap (B\lor y')=\set{y\lor y'}.$$
If $(x\land A)\cap (A\land x')\neq \emptyset$ then there exists $u\in B$ s.t. $u\land A=x\land A$ and $A\land u=A\land x'$. It follows that $A\land x\land A=A\land u\land A=A\land x'\land A.$ On the other hand, assume that $A\land x\land A=A\land x'\land A$. There exist $a,a'\in A$ such that $x'= a\land x\land a$ and $x= a'\land x'\land a'$. Thus $x\land x'=x\land a\land x\land a =x\land a \in x\land A$ and $x\land x'=a'\land x'\land a'\land x'=a'\land x'\in A\land x'$. This proves that $x\land x'\in (x\land A)\cap (A\land x')$. Moreover, take any $y\in (x\land A)\cap (A\land x')$. There exist $u,v\in A$ such that $x\land u=y=v\land x'$. Lemma \[lem\_reg\] together with $u\land v\succeq x,x'$ implies $y=x\land u\land v\land x'
=x\land x'$. The proof regarding the intersection $(y\lor B)\cap (B\lor y')$ is similar.
Corollary \[fullright\] together with Proposition \[exclusive\] implies that each coset can be viewed as a rectangular with rows being right cosets and columns being left cosets. This will be made precise by Theorem \[cosetdirectprod\] that follows after the following result of a more technical nature.
\[fullright2\] Let $S$ be a skew lattice with comparable $\DD$-classes $A>B$ and $x,y\in B$. The following statements are equivalent:
- $A\land x\land A=A\land y\land A$;
- $A\land x\land y=A\land y$ and $x\land A=x\land y\land A$;
- $y\land x\land A=y\land A$ and $A\land x=A\land y\land x$.
Dual results hold for $B$-cosets in $A$.
We shall only prove the equivalence between (i) and (ii) as the equivalence between (i) and (iii) then follows by analogy. Assume (i) and take any $a\in A$. Then $a\land x\land a=a\land y\land a$ and thus $a\land x\land a\land y=a\land y\land a\land y$. Using idempotency and Lemma \[lem\_reg\] the latter is equivalent to $a\land x\land y=a\land y$ and $A\land x\land y=A\land y$ follows. Similarly we show that $x\land A=x\land y\land A$. To prove the converse, assume (ii). Then $A\land x\land A=A\land (x\land y\land A)=(A\land x\land y)\land A=A\land y\land A$.
Proposition \[fullright2\] yields that given comparable $\DD$-classes $A>B$ and $x,y\in B$, $A\land x\land A=A\land y\land A$ is equivalent to the existence of a linking element $b\in A\land x\land A$ such that $A\land b=A\land y$ and $x\land A=b\land A$ (with $b=x\land y$). Another link of the kind can be found in a dual way by choosing an element $c\in A\land x\land A$ such that $c\land A=y\land A$ and $A\land x=A\land c$ (with $c=y\land x$). The dual statement to this also provides the linking elements regarding cosets of $B$ in $A$.
[@JPC12] Let $S$ be a skew lattice with comparable $\DD $-classes $A>B$. Then, for all $b\in B$, $(A\land b)\times (b\land A)$ is a rectangular sub skew lattice of $B$ under the operations $(x,y)\lor (x',y') = (x',y)$ and $(x,y)\land (x',y') = (x,y')$. Similar remarks hold for $B$-cosets in $A$.
\[cosetdirectprod\] Let $S$ be a skew lattice with two comparable $\DD $-classes $A>B$. Then, for all $x\in B$, there exists an isomorphism $\delta_{A\land x\land A}:A\land x\land A\rightarrow (A\land x)\times (x\land A)$. Dually, for all $y\in A$, there exists an isomorphism $\delta_{B\lor y\lor B}:B\lor y\lor B\rightarrow (y\lor B)\times (B\lor y)$.
Let $x\in B$ and consider the map $\delta_{A\land x\land A}$ from $A\land x\land A$ to $(A\land x)\times (x\land A)$ that maps $z$ to $(z\land x,x\land z)$. As an element $z\in A\land x\land A$ is of the form $z=a\land x\land a$ for some $a\in A$, it follows that $(z\land x,x\land z)=(a\land x,x\land a) $ and the map $\delta_{A\land x\land A}$ is well defined. To see that $\delta_{A\land x\land A}$ is injective take $z,z'\in A\land x\land A$ such that $(z\land x,x\land z)=(z'\land x,x\land z')$. Then $z\land x=z'\land x$ and $x\land z=x\land z'$ so that $z=z\land x\land z=z'\land x\land z=z'\land x\land z'=z'$. In order to prove surjectivity of $\delta_{A\land x\land A}$ let $(y,y')\in (A\land x)\times (x\land A)$ be arbitrary. There exist $a,a'\in A$ such that $y=a\land x$ and $y'=x\land a'$. Then $y\land y'=a\land x\land a'$ and we will prove that $(y,y')=\delta_{A\land x\land A}(y\land y')$. By the regularity of $\land$ and Remark \[sidein\] we obtain: $$\begin{array}{lcl}
\delta_{A\land x\land A} (y\land y')&=& (y\land y' \land x,x\land y\land y') \\
&=& (a\land x\land a'\land x,x\land a\land x\land a') \\
&=&(a\land x,x\land a')=(y,y').
\end{array}$$ Therefore $\delta_{A\land x\land A}$ is a bijection. It remains to prove that $\delta_{A\land x\land A}$ is a homomorphism. To see this, let $z,z'\in A\land x\land A$ be arbitrary. As $x, z$ and $z'$ all lie in the rectangular band $B$ we obtain: $$\begin{array}{lcl}
\delta_{u\land x\land u} (z\land z') &=&(z\land z'\land x,x\land z\land z')\\
&=& (z\land x,x\land z') \\
&=&(z\land x,x\land z)\land (z'\land x,x\land z')\\
&=&\delta_{A\land x\land A}(z)\land \delta_{A\land x\land A}(z').
\end{array}$$ On the other hand, due to the the rectangularity of $A\land x\land A$ and $(A\land x)\times (x\land A)$, $\delta_{A\land x\land A}(z\lor z')=\delta_{A\land x\land A}(z'\land z)=\delta_{A\land x\land A}(z')\land \delta_{A\land x\land A}(z)=\delta_{A\land x\land A}(z)\lor \delta_{A\land x\land A}(z')$. The proof that $(y\lor B)\times (B\lor y)$ and $B\lor y\lor B$ are isomorphic is derived in a dual fashion using the map $\delta_{B\lor y\lor B}:B\lor y\lor B\to (y\lor B)\times (B\lor y)$ defined by $u\mapsto (y\lor u,u\lor y)$.
Whenever $A$, $B$, $C$ and $D$ are sets and $f:A\rightarrow B$ and $g:C\rightarrow D$ are maps we denote by $f\times g$ the map from $A\times C$ to $B\times D$ that assigns to each pair $(x,x')\in A\times C$ the pair $(f(x),g(x'))$.
\[inner\_kimura\] Let $S$ be a primitive skew lattice with two comparable $\DD $-classes $A>B$. Given $a\in A$ and $b\in B$ consider the maps: $$\begin{array}{rcl}
\varphi_{a,b}: B\lor a\lor B & \to & A\land b\land A \\
x & \mapsto & x\land b\land x
\end{array}
\qquad
\begin{array}{rcl}
\varphi_{a,b}^L: a\lor B & \to & A\land b\\
x & \mapsto & x\land b
\end{array}
\qquad
\begin{array}{rcl}
\varphi_{a,b}^R: B\lor a & \to & b\land A \\
x & \mapsto & b\land x.
\end{array}$$ Then the following is a commutative diagram of skew lattice isomorphisms:
(-1.5,1.5) node\[\] (S) [$B\lor a\lor B$]{};
(-1.5,-1.5) node\[\] (L) [$A\land b\land A$]{};
(3.5,1.5) node\[\] (R) [$(a\lor B)\times (B\lor a)$]{};
(3.5,-1.5) node\[\] (D) [$(A\land b)\times (b\land A)$]{};
\(S) – (R) node\[pos=.5,above\] [$\delta_{B\lor a\lor B}$]{}; (S) – (L) node\[pos=.5,left\] [$\varphi_{a,b}$]{}; (L) – (D) node\[pos=.5,above\] [$\delta_{A\land b\land A}$]{}; (R) – (D) node\[pos=.5,right\] [$\varphi_{a,b}^L\times \varphi_{a,b}^R$]{};
It remains to prove that the above diagram is commutative. To see this let $x\in B\lor a\lor B$ be arbitrary. Then $$(\varphi_{a,b}^L\times \varphi_{a,b}^R)(\delta_{B\lor a\lor B}(x))=(\varphi_{a,b}^L\times \varphi_{a,b}^R)(a\lor x,x\lor a)=((a\lor x)\land b,b\land (x\lor a)),$$ while $$\delta_{A\land b\land A}(\varphi_{a,b}(x))=\delta_{A\land b\land A}(x\land b\land x)=(x\land b,b\land x).$$ We need to prove that $(a\lor x)\land b=x\land b$ and $b\land (x\lor a)=b\land x$. Both $(a\lor x)\land b$ and $b\land x$ lie in the left coset $A\land b$. By Theorem \[sidedcosetstructure\] in order to prove that they are equal it suffices to show that they are both $\leq_{\mathcal R}$ a common $u\in a\lor B$. As $x\in B\lor a\lor B$ it follows that $u=a\lor x\in a\lor B$; we claim that $u$ has the desired property. Indeed: $$u\land (a\lor x)\land b=(a\lor x)\land b \Rightarrow (a\lor x)\land b\leq_{\mathcal R} u$$ and $$u\land x\land b=(a\lor x)\land x\land b =x \land b \Rightarrow x\land b\leq_{\mathcal R} u.$$ A similar argument verifies that $b\land (x\lor a)=b\land x$.
Flat Coset Laws
===============
Coset laws for symmetry
-----------------------
The following results show the impact of the flat coset decomposition on the coset laws for symmetric skew lattices, for cancellative skew lattices and for normal skew lattices. We will start with the case of symmetric skew lattices regarding the classification presented earlier in Subsection \[A classification for symmetry\].
\[pl\_sym\_right\] Let $S$ be a skew lattice. Then:
- $S$ is right lower symmetric if and only if for all skew diamonds $\set{J>A,B>M}$ and all $m,m'\in M$, ($m\land J = m'\land J$ $\Leftrightarrow$ $m\land A= m'\land A$ $\&$ $ m\land B = m'\land B$);
- $S$ is right upper symmetric if and only if for all skew diamonds $\set{J>A,B>M}$ and all $j,j'\in J$, ($M\lor j = M\lor j'$ $\Leftrightarrow$ $A\lor j=A\lor j'$ $\&$ $B\lor j=B\lor j'$);
- $S$ is left lower symmetric if and only if for all skew diamonds $\set{J>A,B>M}$ and all $m,m'\in M$, ($J\land m = J\land m'$ $\Leftrightarrow$ $A\land m= A\land m'$ $\&$ $ B\land m = B\land m'$);
- $S$ is left upper symmetric if and only if for all skew diamonds $\set{J>A,B>M}$ and all $j,j'\in J$, ($j\lor M = j'\lor M$ $\Leftrightarrow$ $j\lor A=j'\lor A$ $\&$ $j\lor B=j'\lor B$).
We shall prove (a) as (b)–(d) are proven in a similar fashion. By definition, $S$ is right lower symmetric if and only if $S/\LL$ is lower symmetric. By Theorem \[pl\_sym\] (i) and Remark \[clawsus\], $S/\LL$ is lower symmetric if and only if given any skew diamond $\set{J>A,B>M}$ is $S$ and any $m,m'\in M$: $$m_R\land J_R = m'_R\land J_R \Leftrightarrow (m_R\land A_R=m'_R\land A_R\, \& \, m_R\land B_R=m'_R\land B_R).$$ It follows from Proposition \[coset-full-right\] (i) that for $D\in \{A,B, J\}$, $$\label{eq-class-D}
m\land D=m'\land D \Leftrightarrow (m_L=m'_L \,\& \, m_R\land D_R=m'_R\land D_R).$$ Thus $S$ is right lower symmetric if and only if given any skew diamond $\set{J>A,B>M}$ is $S$ and any $m,m'\in M$: $$\label{eqmandJ}
m\land J=m'\land J \Leftrightarrow (m_L=m'_L \,\&\, m_R\land J_R=m'_R\land J_R).$$ By the above, the condition is equivalent to $$m\land J=m'\land J \Leftrightarrow (m_L=m'_L \,\&\, m_R\land A_R=m'_R\land A_R \,\&\, m_R\land B_R=m'_R\land B_R),$$ which is by further equivalent to $$m\land J=m'\land J \Leftrightarrow (m\land A=m\land A \,\&\, m\land B=m'\land B).$$
Let $S$ be a skew lattice. Then $S$ is symmetric if and only if for all skew diamonds $\set{J>A,B>M}$ and all $m\in M$, $j\in J$ the following hold: $$m\land J = (m\land A) \cap (m\land B) \, \text{ and } \, M\lor j = (A\lor j)\cap (B\lor j),$$ $$J\land m = (A\land m) \cap (B\land m) \, \text{ and } \,j\lor M = (j\lor A)\cap (j\lor B).$$
Coset laws for normality
------------------------
We shall now turn our attention to normal skew lattices and corresponding coset laws. The relation with quasi normality shall also be discussed.
\[cs\_normal\] Let $S$ be a skew lattice. Then $S$ is normal iff for each comparable pair of $\DD $-classes $A>B$ in $S$ and all $x,x'\in B$ the following pair of implications hold:
- if $x\LL x'$ then $A\land x =A\land x'$;
- if $x\RR x'$ then $x\land A=x'\land A$.
Dually, $S$ is conormal iff for all comparable pairs of $\DD $-classes $A>B$ in $S$ and for all $x,x'\in A$ the following pair of implications hold:
- if $x\RR x'$ then $x\lor B =x'\lor B$;
- if $x\LL x'$ then $B\lor x=B\lor x'$.
First assume that $S$ is normal. If $x{\mathbin{\mathcal L}}x'$ then by Corollary \[fullright\] and Theorem \[pl\_normal\] we obtain: $$A\land x=(A\land x\land A)\cap \LL_{x}=(A\land x'\land A)\cap \LL_{x'}=A\land x'$$ which proves (i). The proof for (ii) is similar. Conversely, assume that (i) and (ii) hold, and let $A>B$ be comparable $\DD $-classes in $S$. Take $x,x'\in B$. As $B$ is rectangular there exists $z\in B$ such that $x{\mathbin{\mathcal R}}z$ and $z{\mathbin{\mathcal L}}x'$. By the assumption we have $x\land A=z\land A$ and $A\land z=A\land x'$, and thus $A\land x\land A=A\land z\land A=A\land x'\land A$. Hence $S$ is a normal skew lattice by Theorem \[pl\_normal\]. The statement regarding conormal skew lattices has a similar proof.
\[RN\] Recall that a skew lattice is *left* \[*right*\] *normal* it it satisfies $x\land y\land z=x\land z\land y$ \[$y\land z\land x=z\land y\land x$, respectively\]. Right \[left\] normality implies normality. Due to this, right \[left\] normal skew lattices satisfy the conditions $(i)$ and $(ii)$ of Proposition \[cs\_normal\]. A counterexample to the converse of the implications in that conditions is any normal skew lattice that is not right normal.
Roughly speaking, Proposition \[cs\_normal\] tells us that a skew lattice $S$ is normal iff for each comparable pair of $\DD$-classes $A>B$ in $S$, $B$ is the entire left coset of $A$ in $B$ (corresponding to the condition (i), not allowing any pair of left cosets one above the other) and, simultaneously, $B$ is the entire right coset of $A$ in $B$ (corresponding to the condition (ii), not allowing any pair of right cosets side by side).
A skew lattice is *right quasi normal* (RQN) if it satisfies the identity $y\land x\land a=y\land a\land x\land a$, and it is *left quasi normal* (LQN) if it satisfies the identity $a\land x\land y=a\land x\land a\land y$. Equivalently, right \[left\] quasi normal skew lattices are the ones for which $(S;\land)$ is a right \[left\] quasi normal band. These bands are defined in [@Pe71]. Dual definitions determine *\[left\] right quasi normal* skew lattices. The following results provide us with useful characterizations of such algebras.
\[quasinormal\] A skew lattice $S$ is right quasi normal if and only if for all $y\in S$ the factor algebra $(y\land S)/\RR$ is a lattice, i.e., $(y\land S)\cap \RR_{x}=\set{x}$ for all $x\in y\land S$. Dually, $S$ is left quasi normal if and only if for all $y\in S$ the factor algebra $(S\land y)/\LL$ is a lattice, i.e., $(S\land y)\cap \LL_{x}=\set{x}$, for all $x\in S\land y$.
Assume that $S$ is right quasi normal and let $y\in S$, $x,x'\in y\land S$ be such that $x{\mathbin{\mathcal L}}x'$. Then $x=y\land x$ and $x'=y\land x'$ by Lemma \[lemma-leq-ideal\] Thus: $$x=y\land x=y\land x\land x'=y\land x'\land x\land x'=y\land x'=x',$$ where the second and forth equality follow by $x{\mathbin{\mathcal L}}x'$, and the third equality follows by right quasi normality.
Conversely, assume that $(y\land S)/\RR$ is a lattice for all $y$, and take arbitrary $x,y,a\in S$. Consider $y\land S$ that is a subalgebra by Proposition \[prop-ideal-subalgebra\]. By regularity we have: $$(y\land x\land a)\land (y\land a\land x\land a)=(y\land x\land a)\land (y\land x\land a)=y\land x\land a$$ and $$(y\land a\land x\land a)\land (y\land x\land a)=(y\land a\land x\land a)\land (y\land a\land x\land a)=y\land a\land x\land a.$$ Thus $(y\land a\land x\land a){\mathbin{\mathcal L}}(y\land x\land a).$ However, as by the assumption all $\LL$-classes of $y\land S$ are trivial, $y\land x\land a=y\land a\land x\land a$ follows. The proof of the dual statement is similar.
The next result relates Propositions \[cs\_normal\] and \[quasinormal\], giving us a characterization for left \[right\] quasi normal skew lattices of coset nature.
\[cosetquasinormal\] Let $S$ be a skew lattice. Then,
- $S$ is left quasi normal if and only if for all comparable $\DD$-classes $A>B$ in $S$ and $x,x'\in B$ such that $x{\mathbin{\mathcal R}}x'$, then $x\land A=x'\land A$.
- $S$ is right quasi normal if and only if for all comparable $\DD$-classes $A>B$ in $S$ and $x,x'\in B$ such that $x{\mathbin{\mathcal L}}x'$, then $A\land x=A\land x'$;
Dual results hold for conormality.
Let $a\in A$ and $x,x'\in B$ such that $x{\mathbin{\mathcal R}}x'$. Due to the hypothesis and the fact that $x{\mathbin{\mathcal D}}x'$, $x\land a=x'\land x\land a=x'\land x\land x'\land a=x'\land a$ so that $x\land A=x'\land A$ as required by (i). Conversely, let $x\in y\land S$ and consider $A=\DD_{y}$. Let $x'\in S$ such that $x{\mathbin{\mathcal R}}x'$ Then $x'=x\land x'=y\land x\land x'=y\land x'\in y\land S$. Then, the hypothesis implies that $A\land y\land x=A\land y\land x'$. As $y\in A$ then Proposition \[strg\_prop\_right\] implies that $$x=y\land x=y\land y\land x=y\land y\land x'=y\land x'=x'.$$ Hence, Proposition \[quasinormal\] implies that $S$ is right quasi normal. The proof of (ii) is similar.
The following result is a consequence of Propositions \[cs\_normal\] and \[cosetquasinormal\]. In fact, it also follows the research made for bands of semigroups in [@Pe71] when considering the reducts $(S;\wedge)$ and $(S;\vee)$ of a skew lattice $S$.
Let $S$ be a skew lattice. Then, $S$ is normal if and only if $S$ is simultaneously right quasi normal and left quasi normal. Dually, $S$ is conormal if and only if $S$ is simultaneously right quasi conormal and left quasi conormal.
Coset laws for cancellation
---------------------------
In the remainder of the paper we will give a further insight to the flat coset decomposition of cancellative skew lattices for which the lattice image is distributive, and therefore the ones permitting the coset laws established in [@Co09a].
\[imp\] Recall that given a skew diamond $\set{J>A,B>M}$ and elements $x,x'\in A$, the equality $M\lor x\lor M=M\lor x'\lor M$ always implies $B\lor x\lor B=B\lor x'\lor B$. Likewise, the equality $J\land x\land J=J\land x'\land J$ implies $B\land x\land B=B\land x'\land B$. Proposition \[strg\_lema\_right\] below is a flat version of this result.
\[strg\_lema\_right\] Let $S$ be a skew lattice and $\set{J>A,B>M}$ a skew diamond in $S$. Given any $x,x'\in A$ the following hold:
- if $ M \lor x= M\lor x'$ then $ B \lor x= B\lor x'$;
- if $ x\land J = x'\land J$ then $x\land B= x'\land B$.
Similar remarks hold regarding left cosets.
We will prove (i) having in mind that (ii) follows by a dual argument. Let $x,x'\in A$ and assume that $M \lor x = M\lor x'$. Proposition \[strg\_prop\_right\] implies the existence of $m\in M$ such that $ m \lor x= m\lor x'$. Let $b\in B$ be such that $m\leq_{L} b$. Then, $$\begin{array}{rcl}
b\lor x & = & b\lor m\lor x \\
& = & b\lor m\lor x' \\
& = & b\lor x'.
\end{array}$$ Theorem \[strg\_prop\_right\] then implies $B\lor x = B\lor x'$.
\[cosidentities\] Let $\textbf S$ be a skew lattice such that $S/\DD$ is a distributive lattice. Then given any skew diamond $\set{J>A,B>M}$ in $\textbf S$ and any $x,x'\in A$ the following equivalences hold:
- ($M\lor x\lor M= M\lor x'\lor M \Leftrightarrow B \lor x \lor B= B \lor x'\lor B$) if and only if ($M\lor x= M\lor x' \Leftrightarrow B \lor x = B \lor x'$ and $x\lor M = x'\lor M\Leftrightarrow x\lor B = x'\lor B$);
- ($B\land x \land B=B\land x' \land B \Leftrightarrow J\land x \land J=J\land x' \land J$) if and only if ($x \land B=x' \land B \Leftrightarrow x \land J=x' \land J$ and $ x \land B=x' \land B \Leftrightarrow x \land J=x' \land J$).
We will only show (i) as (ii) has an analogous proof. By Proposition \[strg\_lema\_right\] and the comment above it, all the direct implications of the considered equivalences always hold. So, only the converse implications need to be addressed. Let $\set{J>A,B>M}$ be a skew diamond in $S$ and $x,x'\in A$. First assume that $M\lor x\lor M= M\lor x'\lor M \Leftrightarrow B \lor x \lor B= B \lor x'\lor B$ holds. If $B \lor x = B \lor x'$ then Corollary \[fullright\] implies $B \lor x \lor B= B \lor x'\lor B$ and $x{\mathbin{\mathcal R}}x'$. Hence $M\lor x\lor M= M\lor x'\lor M$ and $x{\mathbin{\mathcal R}}x'$ by the assumption, and thus $M\lor x= M\lor x'$ follows by Corollary \[fullright\].
Conversely, assume that both $M\lor x= M\lor x' \Leftrightarrow B \lor x = B \lor x'$ and $x\lor M = x'\lor M\Leftrightarrow x\lor B = x'\lor B$ hold. If $B\lor x\lor B=B\lor x'\lor B$ then by Proposition \[fullright2\] there exists $y\in B\lor x\lor B$ such that $B\lor y=B\lor x$ and $y\lor B=x'\lor B$. Proposition \[strg\_lema\_right\] then implies $M\lor y=M\lor x$ and $y\lor M=x'\lor M$. Thus $M\lor x\lor M=M\lor y\lor M=M\lor x'\lor M$ follows.
A skew lattice is *upper cancellative* if it is upper symmetric and simply cancellative. Dually, a skew lattice is *lower cancellative* if it is lower symmetric and simply cancellative.
\[upsymcl\] Let $ S$ be a skew lattice such that $S/\DD$ is a distributive lattice.
- if $S$ is lower symmetric then $ S$ is lower cancellative if and only if $M\lor x\lor M= M\lor x'\lor M \Leftrightarrow B \lor x \lor B= B \lor x'\lor B$ holds for all skew diamonds $\set{J>A,B>M}$ in $ S$ and all $x,x'\in A$.
- if $S$ is upper symmetric then $ S$ is upper cancellative if and only if given any skew diamond $\set{J>A,B>M}$ in $ S$ and any $x,x'\in A$, $B\land x \land B=B\land x' \land B \Leftrightarrow J\land x \land J=J\land x' \land J$ holds.
We will now prove $(i)$. The proof of $(ii)$ is similar.
Let $\set{J>A,B>M}$ be a skew diamond in $S$. By Remark \[imp\] the implication $M\lor x\lor M= M\lor x'\lor M \Rightarrow B \lor x \lor B= B \lor x'\lor B$ always holds. So, let $x,x'\in A$ be such that $B \lor x \lor B= B \lor x'\lor B$ and suppose that $M\lor x\lor M\neq M\lor x'\lor M$. Let $m_0\in M$. Consider $u=m_0 \vee x\vee m_0$ and $v=m_0 \vee x'\vee m_0$. There exists $b_0\in B$ such that $b_0>m_0$. Then, $b_0\vee u\vee b_0=b_0\vee x\vee b_0=b_0\vee x'\vee b_0=b_0\vee v\vee b_0$, where the second equality is due to the assumption that $B \lor x \lor B= B \lor x'\lor B$, and thus $u< b_0\vee u\vee b$ and $v< b_0\vee v\vee b_0$. Therefore $m_0<u,v,b_0<b_0\vee u\vee b_0$ determine a copy of $NC_5$ and hence contradicts the assumption that $ S$ is simply cancellative.
Conversely, if $ S$ is not lower cancellative (ie. it is not simply cancellative, since it is lower symmetric by the assumption), then by a result of [@Ka08] $ S$ contains a subalgebra ${S}'$ isomorphic to $\mathbf{NC}_5$, given by the diagram below. (In $\mathbf{NC}_5$ operations on $x_1$ and $x_2$ can be defined in two ways: for $i,j\in \{1,2\}$ either $x_i\wedge x_j=x_j$ and $x_i\vee x_j=x_i$ which yields a right-handed structure, or $x_i\wedge x_j=x_i$ and $x_i\vee x_j=x_j$ yielding a left-handed structure.) Let $A$, $B$, $M$ and $J$ denote the $\DD$-classes of elements $x_1$, $y$, $u$ and $v$ in $ S$, respectively. $$\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=.7]
\node (1) at (0,2){$u$} ;
\node (a) at (-3,0){$x_1$} ;
\node (b) at (-1,0){$x_2$};
\node (c) at (3,0){$y$} ;
\node (0) at (0,-2){$v$} ;
\draw (1) -- (c) -- (0) -- (a) -- (1) -- (b) -- (0);
\draw[dashed] (a) -- (b);
\end{tikzpicture}$$ Since $x_1$ and $x_2$ are both contained in the image of $u$ in $A$, they cannot lie in the same coset of $M$ in $A$. On the other hand, $B\vee x_1\vee B$ and $B\vee x_2\vee B$ both contain $v$ and hence coincide by Theorem \[coset\_part\].
\[pl\_canc\_left\] Let $S$ be a symmetric skew lattice such that $S/\DD$ is a distributive lattice. Then, the following statements are equivalent:
- $ S/\RR$ is cancellative;
- given any skew diamond $\set{J>A,B>M}$ in $S$ and any $x,x'\in A$, $M\lor x = M\lor x'$ holds if and only if $B\lor x = B\lor x'$ holds;
- given any skew diamond $\set{J>A,B>M}$ in $S$ and any $x,x'\in A$, $x \land B=x' \land B$ holds if and only if $x \land J=x' \land J$ holds.
A dual result holds regarding right cosets in the skew lattice $S$.
We will show that $(i) \Leftrightarrow (ii)$ using the characterization of Theorem \[pl\_canc\]. The equivalence $(i) \Leftrightarrow (iii)$ is proved similarly.
Let $\set{J>A,B>M}$ be a skew diamond in $ S$. Assume that $S/\RR$ is cancellative. Due to Lemma \[strg\_lema\_right\] we need only to show that $B \lor x = B \lor x'$ implies $M \lor x = M \lor x'$, for all $x,x'\in A$. As $S/\RR$ is cancellative and left-handed, all the cosets in $S/\RR$ are left cosets and thus $$M_L\lor x_L = M_L\lor x'_L \Leftrightarrow B_L\lor x_L = B_L\lor x'_L$$ Let $x,x'\in A$ such that $B \lor x = B \lor x'$. Then, Proposition \[coset-full-right\] implies that $$\begin{aligned}
B\vee x=B\vee x' & \Rightarrow x_R=y_R \text{ and } B_L\vee x_L=B_L \vee x'_L \\
& \Rightarrow x_R=y_R \text{ and } M_L\vee x_L=M_L \vee x'_L \\
& \Rightarrow M\vee x=M\vee x'. \end{aligned}$$
Conversely, assume that $M\lor x = M\lor x'$ if and only if $B\lor x = B\lor x'$, for all skew diamonds $\set{J>A,B>M}$ in $S$ and all $x,x'\in A$. Then, $M_L\lor x_L = M_L\lor x_L'$ if and only if $B_L\lor x_L = B_L\lor x'_L$, for all skew diamonds $\set{J>A,B>M}$ in $S/\RR$ and all $x_L,x'_L\in A_L$. As $S/\RR$ is a left-handed skew lattice, all its cosets are left cosets and, therefore, $S/\RR$ is cancellative due to Theorem \[pl\_canc\].
Proposition \[pl\_canc\_left\] above leads us to define the following notions which are not to be confused with left and right cancellation as defined in the preliminary section.
A *left-coset cancellative* skew lattice is a skew lattice $ S$ such that $ S/\RR$ is cancellative. Dually, a *right-coset cancellative* skew lattice is a skew lattice $ S$ such that $ S/\LL$ is cancellative. Due to [@Ka05b] both of these classes of algebras constitute varieties.
As it was proved in [@Ka05b] that a skew lattice $S$ satisfies any identity that is satisfied by both its left factor $S/\RR$ and its right factor $S/\LL$, the following result is a direct consequence of the definitions.
A skew lattice is cancellative if and only if it is both right-coset cancellative and left-coset cancellative.
The result of Proposition \[pl\_canc\_left\] provides us with a deeper insight on the coset structure of cancellative skew lattices and new subclasses determined by the corresponding laws for flat cosets. These achievements close the section and the paper. Several aspects of research on the combinatorial consequences of such coset decomposition can be found in [@JPC12]. Furthermore, the impact of the flat coset structure in other coset laws regarding strictly categorical or distributive skew lattices as in [@Co11], [@Le11a] or [@Le11b] are a matter of research that we will address to in the future.
[7]{}
W. H. Cornish, [Boolean skew algebras]{}, *Acta Math. Acad. Sci. Hungar.* **36** (1980), 281–291.
K. Cvetko-Vah, **53** (2005), 471–479.
K. Cvetko-Vah, **35** (2007), 243–247.
K. Cvetko-Vah, **426** (2007), 204–213.
K. Cvetko-Vah, M. Kinyon, J. Leech, and M. Spinks. **28** (2011), 9–32.
K. Cvetko-Vah and J. Pita Costa. **40** (2010), 11–25.
K. Cvetko-Vah and J. Pita Costa, **83** (2011), 395–411.
P. Fillmore, G. MacDonald, M. Radjabalipour and H. Radjavi, **49** (1994), 195–215.
P. Fillmore, G. MacDonald, M. Radjabalipour and H. Radjavi, . **59** (1999), 362–373.
G. Grätzer. . (2003).
J.M. Howie. . (1995).
P. [Jordan]{}, , *Arch. Math.* **2** (1949), 56–59.
M. Kinyon and J. Leech. **30** (2013), 763-–777.
M. Kinyon, J. Leech and J. Pita Costa, , preprint.
J. Leech. **26** (1989), 48–72.
J. Leech. **44** (1992), 1–8.
J. Leech. **335** (1993), 823–842.
J. Leech, **52** (1996), 7–24.
M. Petrich, **48** (1971), 263–274.
M. Petrich, (1973).
J. Pita Costa **44** (2011), 673–692.
J. Pita Costa, **68** (2012), 75-89.
J. Pita Costa, , Ph.D. Thesis. (2012).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Let $R$ be a 2-dimensional normal excellent henselian local domain in which $2$ is invertible and let $L$ and $k$ be respectively its fraction field and residue field. Let $\Omega_R$ be the set of rank 1 discrete valuations of $L$ corresponding to codimension 1 points of regular proper models of ${\mathrm{Spec}\,}R$. We prove that a quadratic form $q$ over $L$ satisfies the local-global principle with respect to $\Omega_R$ in the following two cases: (1) $q$ has rank 3 or 4; (2) $q$ has rank $\ge 5$ and $R=A[\![y]\!]$, where $A$ is a complete discrete valuation ring with a not too restrictive condition on the residue field $k$, which is satisfied when $k$ is $C_1$.'
author:
- 'Yong HU[^1]'
title: '**Local-global principle for quadratic forms over fraction fields of two-dimensional henselian domains**'
---
Statements of results
=====================
Let $R$ be a 2-dimensional excellent henselian local domain and let $L$ and $k$ be respectively its fraction field and residue field. Assume that the characteristic of $k$ is not $2$.
Colliot-Thélène, Ojanguren and Parimala [@CTOP] proved that any quadratic form of rank at least $5$ over $L$ is isotropic when $k$ is separably closed, and that the local-global principle with respect to all discrete valuations (of rank 1) on $L$ holds for quadratic forms of rank $3$ or $4$ when $k$ is separably closed or finite. For the first result, the special case where $R=\mathbb{C}[\![x,\,y]\!]$ was proven earlier in [@CDLR] using the Weierstra[ß]{} preparation theorem. On the other hand, Jaworski [@Ja] proved that if $k$ is an algebraically closed field, then quadratic forms of any rank over $L=k(\!(x\,,\,y)\!)$ satisfy the local-global principle with respect to all discrete valuations on $L$.
In the case where $k$ is finite, however, whether the local-global principle holds for quadratic forms of rank $\ge 5$ is left an open question. In this paper, we give an affirmative answer to this question in the case where $R=A[\![y]\!]$ is the ring of formal power series in one variable over a complete discrete valuation ring $A$. Also, we prove that the result of Colliot-Thélène, Ojanguren and Parimala about the local-global principle for quadratic forms of rank 3 or 4 is still valid without the assumption that $k$ is separably closed or finite.
The more precise statements are the following.
\[thm1p1\] Let $R$ be a $2$-dimensional normal excellent henselian local domain in which $2$ is invertible. Let $L$ and $k$ be respectively the fraction field and the residue field of $R$. For any regular integral scheme $\mathcal{M}$ equipped with a proper birational morphism $\mathcal{M}\to{\mathrm{Spec}\,}R$, let $\Omega_{\mathcal{M}}$ denote the set of rank $1$ discrete valuations of $L$ that correspond to codimension $1$ points of $\mathcal{M}$. Let $\Omega_R$ be the union of all $\Omega_{\mathcal{M}}$.
Then the local-global principle with respect to $\Omega_R$ holds for quadratic forms of rank $3$ or $4$ over $L$. Namely, if a quadratic form of rank $3$ or $4$ over $L$ has a nontrivial zero over the $w$-adic completion $L_w$ for every $w\in\Omega_R$, then it has a nontrivial zero over $L$.
\[thm1p2\] Let $A$ be a complete discrete valuation ring in which $2$ is invertible, and let $K$ and $k$ be respectively its fraction field and residue field. Let $R=A[\![y]\!]$ and $L=\mathrm{Frac}(R)$ the fraction field of $R$. Define $\Omega_R$ as in Thm.$\;\ref{thm1p1}$.
Assume that the residue field $k$ has the following property:
$(*)$ for every finite field extension $k'/k$, every quadratic form of rank $\ge 3$ over $k'$ is isotropic.
Then the local-global principle with respect to discrete valuations in $\Omega_R$ holds for quadratic forms of rank $\ge 5$ over $L$.
Recall that a field $k$ is called a $C_i$ field if every homogeneous polynomial of degree $d$ in $n>d^i$ variables has a nontrivial zero over $k$. A finite field extension of a $C_i$ field is again a $C_i$ field. Clearly, a $C_1$ field $k$ has property $(*)$. So as typical examples to which Thm.$\;$\[thm1p2\] applies, we may take $R=\mathbb{F}[\![x\,,\,y]\!]$ where $\mathbb{F}$ is a finite field of characteristic $>2$, or $R=\mathcal{O}_K[\![y]\!]$ where $\mathcal{O}_K$ is the ring of integers of a $p$-adic number field $K$ ($p$ is an odd prime).
\[remark1p3\] Note that property $(*)$ implies the following:
$(**)$ for every finite field extension $K'/K$, every quadratic form of rank $\ge 5$ over $K'$ is isotropic.
Indeed, the integral closure $A'$ of $A$ in $K'$ is a complete discrete valuation ring and is finite over $A$ (cf. [@Ser1 p.28, $\S$II.2, Prop.$\;$3]). The residue field $k'$ of $A'$ is a finite extension of $k$. Any quadratic form $q$ over $K'$ is isometric to a form $q_1\bot\, t.q_2$, where $t$ is a uniformizer of $A'$ and the coefficients of $q_1,\,q_2$ are all units in $A'$. When $q$ has rank $\ge 5$ and $k$ has property $(*)$, a standard argument using Springer’s lemma (cf. Lemma$\;$\[lemma4p1\]) shows that $q$ is isotropic over $K'$.
Let $A\,,\,k\,,\,K$ and so on be as in Thm.$\;\ref{thm1p2}$. Let $x\in A$ be a uniformizer of $A$ and $F=K(y)$ the function field of $\mathbb{P}^1_K$. For any regular integral scheme $\mathcal{P}$ equipped with a proper flat morphism $\mathcal{P}\to {\mathrm{Spec}\,}A$ with generic fiber $\mathcal{P}\times_AK\cong \mathbb{P}^1_K$, let $\Omega_{\mathcal{P}}$ denote the set of rank $1$ discrete valuations of $F$ that correspond to codimension $1$ points of $\mathcal{P}$. Let $\Omega_A$ be the union of all $\Omega_{\mathcal{P}}$. Then we have the following proposition.
\[prop1p4\] With notation as above, let $q/F=\, \langle a_1\,,\,\dotsc,\, a_r
\rangle$ be a nonsingular diagonal quadratic form of rank $r\ge 5$ with $a_i\in A[y]$. Let $\Sigma\subseteq A$ be a fixed set of representatives of $k^*$ in $A$. Assume that $$\label{eq1p1}
a_i=\lambda_i.\,x^{n_i}.\,P_i\,,$$where $\lambda_i\in
\Sigma\,,\,n_i\in{\{\,{0\,,\,1}\,\}}$ and $P_i$ is a distinguished polynomial of degree $m_i$ in $A[y]\,($meaning that $P_i$ is a monic polynomial in $A[y]$ whose reduction mod $x$ is $y^{m_i}\in
k[y]\,)$.
If for every $w\in\Omega_R$, $q$ is isotropic over the completion $L_w$ of $L$ with respect to $w$, then for every $v\in\Omega_A$, $q$ is isotropic over the completed field $F_v$.
As we shall see at the end of the paper, Thm.$\;$\[thm1p2\] follows by combining the above proposition with a theorem of Colliot-Thélène, Parimala and Suresh [@CTPaSu] on quadratic forms over $F=K(y)$, whose proof builds upon earlier work of Harbater, Hartmann and Krashen [@HHK].
Valuations coming from blow-ups
===============================
\[lemma2p1\] Let $A$ be an excellent local domain with residue field $k$ and $\mathcal{X}$ an integral $A$-scheme of finite type. Let $F$ be the function field of $\mathcal{X}$ and $v$ a rank $1$ discrete valuation of $F$ with valuation ring $\mathcal{O}_v$. Assume that $v$ is centered on $\mathcal{X}$ at a point $x$ in the closed fiber $X:=\mathcal{X}\times_Ak$ and that the residue field $\kappa(v)$ of $\mathcal{O}_v$ has transcendence degree $\mathrm{trdeg}_k\kappa(v)=\dim \mathcal{X}-1$ over $k$. Let $\mathcal{Y}={\mathrm{Spec}\,}\mathcal{O}_v$ and $y\in \mathcal{Y}$ the closed point of $\mathcal{Y}$. Let $f:\mathcal{Y}\to \mathcal{X}$ be the natural morphism induced by the inclusion $\mathscr{O}_{\mathcal{X},\,x}\subseteq \mathcal{O}_v$. Define schemes $\mathcal{X}_n\,,n\in\mathbb{N}$ and morphisms $f_n:
\mathcal{Y}\to \mathcal{X}_n\,,\,n\in \mathbb{N}$ as follows:
Set $\mathcal{X}_0=\mathcal{X}$ and $f_0=f$. When $f_i:
\mathcal{Y}\to \mathcal{X}_i$ is already defined, let $\mathcal{X}_{i+1}\to \mathcal{X}_i$ be the blow-up of $\mathcal{X}_i$ along the closure of $x_i:=f_i(y)$ and let $f_{i+1}:\mathcal{Y}\to \mathcal{X}_{i+1}$ be the induced morphism.
Then for some large enough $n$, the morphism $f_n: \mathcal{Y}\to
\mathcal{X}_n$ induces an isomorphism $\mathscr{O}_{\mathcal{X}_n\,,\,x_n}\cong \mathcal{O}_v$.
The following proof is an easy adaptation of the proof of the geometric case, as given in [@KM p.61, Lemma$\;$2.45].
Let $\mathscr{O}_n:=\mathscr{O}_{\mathcal{X}_n,\,x_n}$. The ring theoretic construction of $\mathscr{O}_n$ is as follows. Assume that $\mathscr{O}_n$ (with maximal ideal $\mathfrak{m}_n$) is already defined. Pick a system of generators $z_1,\,\dotsc, z_r$ of $\mathfrak{m}_n$ such that $v(z_1)\le \cdots\le v(z_r)$. Let $\mathscr{O}'_n=\mathscr{O}_n[z_2/z_1\,,\dotsc, \,z_r/z_1]$. Then $\mathscr{O}_{n+1}$ is the localization of $\mathscr{O}'_{n}$ at $\mathscr{O}'_n\cap\mathfrak{m}_v$.
The same argument as in the proof of [@KM p.61, Lemma$\;$2.45] applies here and shows that $\mathcal{O}_v=\bigcup_{n\ge
0}\mathscr{O}_n$. Pick elements $u_1,\dotsc,
u_t\in\mathcal{O}_v\subseteq F$ such that the reductions ${\overline{u}}_i$ form a transcendence basis of $\kappa(v)=\mathcal{O}_v/\mathfrak{m}_v$ over $k$. Choose $n$ big enough so that $u_1,\dotsc, u_t\in\mathscr{O}_n$. Then $\kappa(v)=\mathcal{O}_v/\mathfrak{m}_v$ is an algebraic extension of $\kappa(x_n)=\mathscr{O}_n/\mathfrak{m}_n$ and $$\mathrm{trdeg}_k\kappa(x_n)=\mathrm{trdeg}_k\kappa(v)=\dim\mathcal{X}-1\,.$$ The closure $Z_n:={\overline{{\{\,{x_n}\,\}}}}$ of $x_n$ in $\mathcal{X}_n$ is an algebraic scheme over $k$. So we have $$\dim Z_n=\mathrm{trdeg}_k\kappa(x_n)=\dim \mathcal{X}-1\,.$$ By [@Liu p.334, Coro.$\;$8.2.7], we have $\dim\mathcal{X}_n=\dim\mathcal{X}$. Hence, $$\dim\mathscr{O}_n=\mathrm{codim}(Z_n\,,\,\mathcal{X}_n)\le
\dim\mathcal{X}_n-\dim Z_n=1\,.$$But $\mathscr{O}_n\subseteq\mathcal{O}_v$ and the discrete valuation ring $\mathcal{O}_v$ is unequal to its fraction field $F=\mathrm{Frac}(\mathcal{O}_v)=\mathrm{Frac}(\mathscr{O}_n)$, so $\dim \mathscr{O}_n=1$. Let $R'\subseteq F$ be the normalization of $\mathscr{O}_n$ and let $\mathfrak{m}'=\mathfrak{m}_v\cap R$. Then $R'$ is a Dedekind domain and $R'_{\mathfrak{m}'}$ is a discrete valuation ring contained in $\mathcal{O}_v$ with fraction field $F$. Therefore, $R'_{\mathfrak{m}'}=\mathcal{O}_v$. The ring $\mathscr{O}_n$ is a Nagata ring (see e.g. [@Liu p.340, Prop.$\;$8.2.29 and p.343, Thm.$\;$8.2.39]). So $R'$ is a finitely generated $\mathscr{O}_n$-module. Thus we have $R'\subseteq\mathscr{O}_N$ for some large $N\in\mathbb{N}$. Then it follows that $\mathcal{O}_v=\mathscr{O}_{N+1}$. The lemma is thus proved.
Proof of Theorem$\;\ref{thm1p1}$
================================
Thm.$\;$\[thm1p1\] is a statement generalizing [@CTOP Thm.$\;$3.1], where the result is only established under the hypothesis that $k$ is separably closed or finite. In our proof the observation that [@CTOP Prop.$\;$1.14] holds over an arbitrary field $k$ is the key point which makes it possible to get rid of this restriction on $k$. In addition, Lemma$\;$\[lemma2p1\] will be used in order to obtain the local-global principle for valuations in the subset $\Omega_R$ instead of the set of all discrete valuations.
\[lemma3p1\] Let $R$ be a two-dimensional normal excellent henselian local domain with fraction field $L$, $L'/L$ a finite field extension and $R'$ the integral closure of $R$ in $L'$. Let $w'$ be a discrete valuation of $L'$ lying over a discrete valuation $w$ of $L$.
If $w'$ corresponds to a codimension $1$ point on a regular proper model $\mathcal{X}'$ of $R'\,($i.e., $\mathcal{X}'$ is a regular integral scheme equipped with a proper birational morphism $\mathcal{X}'\to{\mathrm{Spec}\,}R')$, then $w$ corresponds to a codimension $1$ point on a regular proper model $\mathcal{X}$ of $R$.
Let $k$ (resp. $k'$) be the residue field of $R$ (resp. $R'$). Since $R$ is excellent, $R'$ is finite over $R$ and hence $k'/k$ is a finite extension. Let $x'\in \mathcal{X}'$ be the center of $w'$ on $\mathcal{X}'$, $p'$ the canonical image of $x'$ in ${\mathrm{Spec}\,}R'$ and $p$ the canonical image of $p'$ in ${\mathrm{Spec}\,}R$.
If $p$ is not the closed point of ${\mathrm{Spec}\,}R$, then it has codimension 1 in ${\mathrm{Spec}\,}R$ and the valuation ring $\mathcal{O}_w$ of $w$ is equal to the local ring of $p$ in ${\mathrm{Spec}\,}R$, since $R$ is a 2-dimensional normal local domain. Let $V$ be the complement of the closed point in ${\mathrm{Spec}\,}R$. For any regular proper model $\pi:
\mathcal{X}\to {\mathrm{Spec}\,}R$, which exists by resolution of singularities, $\pi^{-1}(V)\to V$ is an isomorphism since $R$ is normal (cf. [@Liu p.150, Coro.$\;$4.4.3]). Hence, the point $x=\pi^{-1}(p)$ has codimension 1 in $\mathcal{X}$ and is the center of $w$ on $\mathcal{X}$.
Now assume that $p$ is the closed point of ${\mathrm{Spec}\,}R$. Then $x'\in\mathcal{X}'$ lies in the closed fiber of $\mathcal{X}'/R'$ and is the generic point of an integral curve over $k'=\kappa(p')$. Hence, the residue field $\kappa(w')$ of $w'$ has transcendence degree 1 over $k'$. Since $k'/k$ and $\kappa(w')/\kappa(w)$ are finite extensions, this implies that the residue field $\kappa(w)$ has transcendence degree 1 over $k$. By taking any regular proper model $\mathcal{X}\to {\mathrm{Spec}\,}R$ and applying Lemma$\;$\[lemma2p1\] to the ring $R$ and the $R$-scheme $\mathcal{X}$, we conclude that there is a morphism $\mathcal{X}_n\to \mathcal{X}$ obtained by a sequence of blow-ups such that the center of $w$ on $\mathcal{X}_n$ is a point of codimension 1, which completes the proof.
Given a scheme $Y$, we will denote by ${\mathrm{Br}}(Y)=H^2_{\text{\'et}}(Y\,,\,\mathbb{G}_m)$ its cohomological Brauer group.
For any $a\,,\,b\in L^*$, the isotropy of the rank $3$ form $\langle
1\,,\,a\,,\,b\rangle$ is equivalent to the isotropy of the rank $4$ form $\langle 1\,,\,a\,,\,b\,,\,ab\rangle$. So we may restrict to the case of rank $4$ forms. Let $q$ be a rank $4$ quadratic form over $L$ which is isotropic over $L_w$ for every $w\in\Omega_R$. After scaling we may assume without loss of generality that $q=\langle 1\,,\,a\,,\,b\,,\,abd\rangle$ with $a,\,b\,,\,d\in L^*$.
First assume that $d$ is a square in $L$. Then the quadratic form $q$ is isomorphic to the norm form of a quaternion algebra, whose class in the Brauer group ${\mathrm{Br}}(L)$ will be denoted by $\alpha$. The form $q$ is isotropic if and only if $\alpha=0$ in the Brauer group.
Take a proper birational morphism $\mathcal{X}\to{\mathrm{Spec}\,}R$ with $\mathcal{X}$ a regular integral scheme such that the closed fiber $X$ of $\mathcal{X}/R$ is a curve over $k$. For each $w\in\Omega_R$ corresponding to a codimension 1 point of $\mathcal{X}$, the canonical image $\alpha_w$ of $\alpha$ in ${\mathrm{Br}}(L_w)$ is trivial since $q$ is isotropic over $L_w$ by assumption. In particular, the residue of $\alpha$ at every codimension 1 point of $\mathcal{X}$ is trivial. Since $\mathcal{X}$ is a regular integral scheme, it follows that $\alpha\in{\mathrm{Br}}(L)$ lies in the subgroup ${\mathrm{Br}}(\mathcal{X})$. By [@CTOP Thm.$\;$1.8 (c) and Lemma$\;$1.6], we have canonical isomorphisms ${\mathrm{Br}}(\mathcal{X})\cong{\mathrm{Br}}(X)\cong{\mathrm{Br}}(X_{{\mathrm{red}}})$. Identify $\alpha\in{\mathrm{Br}}(\mathcal{X})$ with its canonical image in ${\mathrm{Br}}(X_{{\mathrm{red}}})$. We will apply [@CTOP Prop.$\;$1.14] to show that $\alpha=0$.
Let $f: Z\to X_{{\mathrm{red}}}$ be the normalization of the reduced curve $X_{{\mathrm{red}}}/k$ and let $D\subseteq X_{{\mathrm{red}}}$ be the closed subscheme defined by the conductor of $f$. Then [@CTOP Prop.$\;$1.14] says that the natural map ${\mathrm{Br}}(X_{{\mathrm{red}}})\to{\mathrm{Br}}(Z)\times{\mathrm{Br}}(D)$ is injective. Let $(\alpha_1\,,\,\alpha_2)\in {\mathrm{Br}}(Z)\times {\mathrm{Br}}(D)$ be the image of $\alpha\in{\mathrm{Br}}(X_{{\mathrm{red}}})$. Each reduced irreducible component $T$ of $Z$ is a regular integral curve whose function field $k(T)$ is the residue field $\kappa(w)$ of a codimension 1 point $w$ of the 2-dimensional regular scheme $\mathcal{X}$. Since $\alpha$ vanishes in ${\mathrm{Br}}(L_w)$ by hypothesis, the specialisation of $\alpha$ in ${\mathrm{Br}}(\kappa(w))={\mathrm{Br}}(k(T))$ is zero. The natural map ${\mathrm{Br}}(T)\to {\mathrm{Br}}(k(T))$ is an injection for the regular scheme $T$, so the canonical image of $\alpha$ in ${\mathrm{Br}}(T)$ is zero. Since this holds for every irreducible component $T$ of $Z$, we have $\alpha_1=0$ in ${\mathrm{Br}}(Z)$.
To show that $\alpha_2=0$ in ${\mathrm{Br}}(D)$, it suffices to prove that $\alpha_2$ vanishes at each closed point $x$ of $X_{{\mathrm{red}}}$, by a 0-dimensional variant of [@CTOP Lemma$\;$1.6]. The point $x$ is also a closed point of $\mathcal{X}$. We may choose a 1-dimensional closed integral subscheme $C$ of $\mathcal{X}$ which contains $x$ as a regular point and let $\omega\in\mathcal{X}$ be the generic point of $C$. Our hypothesis implies that $\alpha\in{\mathrm{Br}}(\mathcal{X})$ vanishes at $\omega$, and it follows that there is a regular open subscheme $U$ of $C$, containing $x$, such that $\alpha|_U=0$ in ${\mathrm{Br}}(U)\subseteq {\mathrm{Br}}(\kappa(\omega))$. Hence, $\alpha_2(x)=\alpha(x)=0$. We have thus proved that $\alpha=0$ in ${\mathrm{Br}}(L)$, whence the isotropy of the rank $4$ quadratic form $q=\langle 1\,,\,a\,,\,b\,,\,abd\rangle$.
Now suppose that $d$ is not a square in $L$. Let $L'=L(\sqrt{d})$ and $R'$ the integral closure of $R$ in $L'$. Then $R'$ and $L'$ satisfy the same assumptions as $R$ and $L$. Let $w'$ be a discrete valuation on $L'$ corresponding to a codimension $1$ point of a regular proper model $\mathcal{X}'/R'$. By Lemma$\;$\[lemma3p1\], $w'$ lies over a discrete valuation $w$ in $\Omega_R$. The isotropy of $q$ over $L_w$ implies the isotropy of $q_{L'}$ over $L'_{w'}$.
Thus the quadratic form $q_{L'}$ over $L'$ has trivial determinant and is isotropic over $L'_{w'}$ for every $w'\in\Omega_{R'}$, where the set $\Omega_{R'}$ of discrete valuations of $L'$ is defined in the same way as $\Omega_R$. By the previous case, $q_{L'}$ is isotropic over $L'$. By [@Lam p.197, Chapt.$\;$VII, Thm.$\;$3.1], either $q$ is isotropic over $L$ or $q$ contains a multiple of $\langle 1\,,\,-d\rangle$. In the latter case, since $\det(q)=d\mod{(L^*)^2}$, $q$ also contains a rank 2 form of determinant $-1$. Hence $q$ is isotropic over $L$, which completes the proof.
Valuations centered on the special fiber
========================================
Most of the present section and the next will be devoted to the proof of Prop.$\;$\[prop1p4\]. The lemma below will be used frequently and referred to as Springer’s lemma in what follows.
\[lemma4p1\] Let $A$ be a complete discrete valuation ring in which $2$ is invertible. Let $K$ and $k$ be respectively its fraction field and residue field. Let $\alpha_1,\dotsc, \alpha_r$ and $\beta_1,\dotsc,\beta_s$ be units of $A$ and let ${\overline{\alpha}}_i\in k$ and ${\overline{\beta}}_j\in k$ be their residue classes. Let $\pi$ be a uniformizer of $A$.
Then the quadratic form $\langle \alpha_1\,,\dotsc,
\alpha_r\rangle\bot\,\pi.\langle \beta_1\,,\dotsc, \beta_s\rangle$ over $K$ is anisotropic if and only if the two residue forms $$\langle{\overline{\alpha}}_1\,,\dotsc, {\overline{\alpha}}_r\rangle\quad\text{and
}\quad \langle {\overline{\beta}}_1\,,\dotsc,{\overline{\beta}}_s\rangle$$are both anisotropic over $k$.
We shall now start the proof of Prop.$\;$\[prop1p4\]. Recall that $\Omega_A$ is the union of all $\Omega_{\mathcal{P}}$, where $\mathcal{P}$ is a regular integral proper flat $A$-scheme with generic fiber $\mathcal{P}\times_AK\cong\mathbb{P}^1_K$ and $\Omega_{\mathcal{P}}$ is the set of rank 1 discrete valuations on $F=K(y)$ that correspond to codimension 1 points of $\mathcal{P}$. We will fix a discrete valuation $v\in \Omega_A$ and let $\mathcal{O}_v\subseteq F$ denote the valuation ring of $v$, $\pi_v\in\mathcal{O}_v$ a uniformizer of $v$, $\mathfrak{m}_v=\pi_v\mathcal{O}_v$ and $\kappa(v)$ the residue field of $\mathcal{O}_v$. The $v$-adic completion of $\mathcal{O}_v\subseteq F$ will be written as ${\widehat{\mathcal{O}}}_v\subseteq F_v$. If $w$ is a discrete valuation of $L$, similar notations like $\mathcal{O}_w$, $\mathfrak{m}_w$, $\kappa(w)$, ${\widehat{\mathcal{O}}}_w\subseteq L_w$ and so on will be used.
Put $\mathcal{X}=\mathbb{P}^1_{A}$. Let $\mathcal{X}_K=\mathbb{P}^1_K$ and $\mathcal{X}_s=\mathbb{P}^1_k$ be respectively the generic and special fiber of $\mathcal{X}$ over $A$. Let $\eta\in \mathcal{X}_s=\mathbb{P}^1_k$ denote the generic point of $\mathcal{X}_s$. The valuation $v\in \Omega_A$ has a unique center on the model $\mathcal{X}=\mathbb{P}^1_A$, which will be denoted $P\in\mathcal{X}$. We have the following cases:
\(1) $P\in \mathcal{X}_s=\mathbb{P}^1_k$, $P\neq 0,\,\infty\,,\eta$;
\(2) $P=\eta\in \mathcal{X}_s=\mathbb{P}^1_k$;
\(3) $P=\infty\in\mathcal{X}_s=\mathbb{P}^1_k$ or $P=\infty\in\mathcal{X}_K=\mathbb{P}^1_K$;
\(4) $P=0\in\mathcal{X}_s=\mathbb{P}^1_k$;
\(5) $P$ is a closed point of $\mathbb{A}^1_K\subseteq
\mathcal{X}_K=\mathbb{P}^1_K$.
Our proof of Prop.$\;$\[prop1p4\] will be a case-by-case argument, which is divided into two parts with details in what follows.
In the first part of the proof, we treat cases (1)–(4).
Case (1). The valuation $v$ is centered at $P\in\mathcal{X}_s\setminus{\{\,{0\,,\,\infty\,,\,\eta}\,\}}$.
In this case, we have $v(x)>0$ and $v(y)=0$. We may assume without loss of generality that for some $0\le r_1\le r$, the numbers $n_i$ in satisfy: $$\label{eq4p1new}
n_1=\cdots=n_{r_1}=0\quad \text{ and }\quad
n_{r_1+1}=\cdots=n_r=1\,.$$Then $a_1\,,\dotsc, a_{r_1}$ and $a'_{r_1+1}=a_{r_1+1}/x\,,\dotsc, a'_r=a_r/x$ are units for $v$. Let $$\label{eq4p2new}
q_1=\langle a_1\,,\dotsc,\,a_{r_1} \rangle\quad \text{ and }\quad
q_2=\langle a'_{r_1+1}\,,\dotsc, \, a'_r\rangle\,.$$ Then $q=\langle a_1\,,\dotsc, a_r\rangle=q_1\bot\, x.q_2$ is anisotropic only if $q_1$ and $q_2$ are both anisotropic. By Springer’s lemma (or Hensel’s lemma), $q_i$ is anisotropic over $F_v$ if and only if its residue form ${\overline{q}}_i:=q_i\pmod{\mathfrak{m}_v}$ is anisotropic over $\kappa(v)$. In the present situation, the two residue forms ${\overline{q}}_i\,,\,i=1,\,2$ have coefficients in the subfield $\kappa(P)\subseteq\kappa(v)$. Since $r\ge 5$, either $q_1$ or $q_2$ has rank $\ge 3$. Assume for example $q_1$ has rank $\ge 3$. The residue field $\kappa(P)$ is a finite extension of $k$, so property $(*)$ implies that ${\overline{q}}_1$ is isotropic over $\kappa(P)$ and a fortiori over $\kappa(v)$. It follows that $q$ is isotropic over $F_v$ as desired.
Case (2). The valuation $v$ is centered at the generic point $\eta$ of the special fiber $\mathcal{X}_s=\mathbb{P}^1_k$.
In this case, $v$ is the $x$-adic valuation on $A[y]$ and $\kappa(v)=k(y)$. Let $w$ be the $x$-adic valuation on $A[\![y]\!]$, so that $w|_{A[y]}=v|_{A[y]}$ and $\kappa(w)=k(\!(y)\!)$. Define $q_1$ and $q_2$ as in . We have $$\label{eq1}
\begin{split}
{\overline{q}}_1&:=q_1\pmod{\mathfrak{m}_w}=\langle
\lambda_1y^{m_1}\,,\dotsc,
\lambda_{r_1}y^{m_{r_1}}\rangle\,,\\
{\overline{q}}_2&:=q_2\pmod{\mathfrak{m}_w}=\langle\lambda_{r_1+1}y^{m_{r_1+1}}\,,\dotsc,
\lambda_ry^{m_r}\rangle\,.
\end{split}$$ Here we have identified each $\lambda_i\in\Sigma\subseteq A$ with its canonical image in $k$. By hypothesis and Springer’s lemma, we may assume one of the two residue forms, say ${\overline{q}}_1$, is isotropic over $k(\!(y)\!)$. By , ${\overline{q}}_1$ has coefficients in $k(y)$ and is isometric to $\mu_1\bot\,y.\mu_2$ over $k(y)$ for some nonsingular quadratic forms $\mu_i$ over $k$. Indeed, if $I$ (resp. $J$) denotes the subset of ${\{\,{1\,,\dotsc,
r_1}\,\}}$ consisting of indices $i$ such that $m_i$ is even (resp. odd), then we may take $\mu_1=\langle\lambda_i\rangle_{i\in I}$ (resp. $\mu_2=\langle\lambda_i\rangle_{i\in J}$). Applying Springer’s lemma to the form ${\overline{q}}_1/k(\!(y)\!)$ with respect to the discrete valuation ring $k[\![y]\!]$, we conclude that either $\mu_1$ or $\mu_2$ is isotropic over $k$. Then it is clear that ${\overline{q}}_1\cong
\mu_1\bot\,y.\mu_2$ is isotropic over $k(y)=\kappa(v)$. Since the residue forms of $q$ mod $v$ coincide with those mod $w$, it follows from Springer’s lemma that $q$ is isotropic over $F_v$.
Case (3). The valuation $v$ is centered at $P=\infty\in\mathcal{X}_s=\mathbb{P}^1_k$ or $P=\infty\in
\mathcal{X}_K=\mathbb{P}^1_K$.
In this case, we have $v(y)<0$ and $v(x)\ge 0$. Put $z=y^{-1}\in
F=K(y)$. We want to prove that $q$ is isotropic over $F_v$.
Recall that the coefficients of the diagonal form $q$ have the form $a_i=\lambda_i.x^{n_i}.P_i$, where $\lambda_i\in \Sigma$, $n_i\in{\{\,{0\,,\,1}\,\}}$ and $P_i$ is a distinguished polynomial in $A[y]$ for each $i$. Let $m_i=\deg P_i$ be the degree of $P_i$ with respect to the variable $y$. Then in $F=K(y)$ we have $$P_i(y)=y^{m_i}(1+z.\rho_i)\,\quad\text{for some }\,\rho_i\in A[z]\,.$$Set $b_i=\lambda_i.x^{n_i}.y^{m_i}\in F$ and let $q'/F$ be the diagonal quadratic form $\langle b_1,\dotsc, b_r\rangle$. The two forms $q=\langle a_i\rangle$ and $q'=\langle b_i\rangle$ are isometric over $F_v$ since $1+z.\rho_i$ is a square in $F_v$ for each $i$. So it suffices to prove the isotropy over $F_v$ of the form $q'=\langle b_i\rangle$.
We may assume the numbers $n_i$ are given as in , so that $q'=q'_1\bot x.q'_2$ with $$q'_1=\langle \lambda_1y^{m_1}\,,\dotsc,
\lambda_{r_1}y^{m_{r_1}}\rangle\;,\quad q'_2=\langle
\lambda_{r_1+1}y^{m_{r_1+1}}\,,\dotsc, \lambda_ry^{m_r}\rangle\,.$$There are diagonal quadratic forms $\mu_j\,,\,j=1,\dotsc, 4$, where $\mu_1\,,\,\mu_2$ have coefficients in ${\{\,{\lambda_1\,,\dotsc,
\lambda_{r_1}}\,\}}\subseteq \Sigma$ and $\mu_3\,,\,\mu_4$ have coefficients in ${\{\,{\lambda_{r_1+1}\,,\dotsc, \lambda_r}\,\}}\subseteq
\Sigma$, such that $q'_1\cong \mu_1\bot y.\mu_2$ and $q'_2\cong
\mu_3\bot y.\mu_4$ over $F=K(y)$. Observe that the two residue forms of $q$ with respect to the $x$-adic valuation on $F$ are isometric to the forms $\mu_1\bot y.\mu_2$ and $\mu_3\bot y.\mu_4$. A close inspection of the above proof for case (2) shows that not all of the four forms $\mu_j$ are anisotropic over $k$. Since $$q'\cong \mu_1\bot y.\mu_2\bot x.(\mu_3\bot y.\mu_4)\;\quad\text{over
}\; F=K(y)\,,$$it follows easily that $q'$ is isotropic over $F_v$, whence the isotropy of $q$ over $F_v$.
Case (4). The valuation $v$ is centered at the origin $P=0\in\mathbb{P}^1_k$ of the special fiber.
By the definition of the set $\Omega_A$, the valuation $v\in\Omega_A$ corresponds to a codimension 1 point $p$ of a regular proper model $\mathcal{P}/A$ of $\mathbb{P}^1_K$. Since the center of $v$ on $\mathcal{X}$ lies in the special fiber, $v(x)>0$. The point $p\in\mathcal{P}$ lies in the special fiber of $\mathcal{P}/A$ since otherwise the valuation $v$ must be trivial on $K=\mathrm{Frac}(A)$. The residue field $\kappa(v)$ is then the function field of a curve over $k$. So we have $$\mathrm{trdeg}_k\kappa(v)=1=\dim\mathbb{P}^1_A-1\,.$$
By Lemma$\;$\[lemma2p1\], there is a scheme $\mathcal{X}_n\to
\mathcal{X}=\mathbb{P}^1_A$ obtained by a sequence of blow-ups at closed points lying over $0\in \mathcal{X}_s=\mathbb{P}^1_k$ such that $\mathcal{O}_v=\mathscr{O}_{\mathcal{X}_n\,,\,x_n}\subseteq F$ for some codimension 1 point $x_n\in \mathcal{X}_n$. If we consider the same sequence of blow-ups which is carried out on ${\mathrm{Spec}\,}A[\![y]\!]$ this time, then we get a discrete valuation $w\in\Omega_R$ of $L$ which extends $v$. Now we have inclusions $A[y]\subseteq \mathcal{O}_v\subseteq \mathcal{O}_w$ and $\kappa(v)=\kappa(w)$. Let $q_1\,,\,q_2$ be diagonal quadratic forms with coefficients in ${\widehat{\mathcal{O}}}_v^*$ such that $$q\cong q_1\bot\; \pi_v.q_2\quad\text{ over }\;\;F_v\,.$$Since $q$ is isotropic over $L_w$ by assumption, applying Springer’s lemma to $w$ shows that ${\overline{q}}_1=q_1\pmod{\mathfrak{m}_v}$ or ${\overline{q}}_2=q_2\pmod{\mathfrak{m}_v}$ has a nontrivial zero in $\kappa(w)=\kappa(v)$. One more application of Springer’s lemma, with respect to $v$ this time, proves that $q$ is isotropic over $F_v$.
End of the proof
================
To prove Prop.$\;$\[prop1p4\] in case (5), we need the following form of the Weierstra[ß]{} preparation theorem.
\[lemma5p1\] Let $A$ be a complete discrete valuation ring and $A[\![y]\!]$ the ring of formal power series in one variable over $A$. Let $P\in
A[y]$ be a distinguished polynomial and $f\in A[y]$.
$(\mathrm{i})$ For any $g\in A[\![y]\!]$, there is a unique expression $$g=Q.P+R$$where $Q\in A[\![y]\!]$ and $R\in A[y]$ is a polynomial of degree $\le \deg
P-1$. In particular, $$A[y]/(P)\cong A[\![y]\!]/(P)\,.$$
$(\mathrm{ii})$ If $f$ divides $P$ in $A[y]$, then there is a unit $u$ in $A$ such that $uf$ is a distinguished polynomial.
\(i) See e.g. [@Wash p.114, Prop.$\;$7.4]. Note that the isomorphism $A[y]/(P)\cong A[\![y]\!]/(P)$ implies that $P$ is irreducible in $A[y]$ if and only if $P$ is irreducible in $A[\![y]\!]$ and that $P$ divides a polynomial $f$ in $A[y]$ if and only if $P$ divides $f$ in $A[\![y]\!]$.
\(ii) Assume $P=fg$ with $g\in A[y]$. The hypothesis implies that the coefficient $a_0$ of $y^{\deg f}$ in $f$ is a unit in $A$ since $P$ is a monic polynomial. Let $k$ be the residue field of $A$ and let $A[y]\to k[y]\,,\;F\mapsto \overline{F}$ denote the canonical reduction map. By considering the factorization $y^{\deg P}=\overline{P}=\overline{f}\cdot\overline{g}$ in $k[y]$, we see that $u:=a_0^{-1}\in A^*$ has the required property.
We now consider the only remaining case, case (5). This is the case where the center $P$ of the valuation $v$ lies in $\mathbb{A}^1_K\subseteq \mathcal{X}_K=\mathbb{P}^1_K$.
We have $\mathscr{O}_{\mathcal{X},\,P}=\mathcal{O}_v$ since the two rings are both discrete valuation rings with fraction field $F$. So $v$ is defined by an irreducible polynomial $f\in A[y]$ with $x\nmid
f$.
If none of the polynomials $P_i,\,i=1,\dotsc, r$ is divisible by $f$, then $q$ has coefficients in $\mathcal{O}_v^*=\mathscr{O}_{\mathcal{X},\,P}^*$. Now the residue field $\kappa(v)=\kappa(P)$ is a finite extension of $K$ and the residue form ${\overline{q}}=q\pmod{\mathfrak{m}_v}$ has rank $r\ge 5$. By property $(**)$ (cf. Remark$\;$\[remark1p3\]), ${\overline{q}}$ is isotropic over $\kappa(v)$. It follows from Springer’s lemma (or Hensel’s lemma) that $q$ is isotropic over $F_v$.
Assume next $f$ divides some $P_i$, say $f\,|\,P_1$. By Lemma$\;$\[lemma5p1\], multiplying $f$ by a unit in $A$ if necessary, we may assume that $f$ is an irreducible distinguished polynomial. In $A[\![y]\!]$, $f$ is still an irreducible element. The $f$-adic valuation on $R=A[\![y]\!]$ determines a discrete valuation $w\in \Omega_R$ which extends $v\in\Omega_A$. We have $$\kappa(v)=\mathrm{Frac}(A[y]/(f))=\mathrm{Frac}(A[\![y]\!]/(f))=\kappa(w)$$and $F_v\subseteq L_w$. Using the argument with the first and second residue forms and Springer’s lemma, we conclude as in case (4) that $q$ is isotropic over $F_v$.
We are now ready to give the proof of Thm.$\;$\[thm1p2\].
Let $q$ be any quadratic form of rank $r\ge 5$ over $L=\mathrm{Frac}(R)$ and assume that $q$ is isotropic over $L_w$ for every $w\in\Omega_R$. Without loss of generality, we may assume $q=\langle a_1,\dotsc, a_r\rangle$ for some nonzero elements $a_i\in
R=A[\![y]\!]$. By the usual form of the Weierstra[ß]{} preparation theorem (see e.g. [@Wash p.115, Thm.$\;$7.3]), each $a_i$ may be written as $$a_i=x^{n_i}.P_i.U_i\quad \text{ with }\;n_i\in\mathbb{N}\,,\,U_i\in
R^*\;\text{ and }\; P_i\;\text{ a distinguished polynomial in
}\,A[y]\,.$$For any power series $f=\sum^{\infty}_{i=0}a_iy^i\in R=A[\![y]\!]$ which is invertible in $R$, letting $\lambda\in\Sigma$ be the unique element such that $\lambda^{-1} a_0\equiv 1\pmod{xA}$, we have $$\lambda^{-1}f\equiv 1\;\pmod{\mathfrak{m}_R}\,.$$Since $R$ is complete, it follows that $\lambda^{-1} f$ is a square in $R$. So after scaling out squares we may assume that the coefficients $a_i$ have the form described in Prop.$\;$\[prop1p4\]. Now the quadratic form $q$ is defined over $F=K(y)$ and by Prop.$\;$\[prop1p4\], it is isotropic over $F_v$ for every $v\in\Omega_A$. The local-global principle with respect to discrete valuations in $\Omega_A$ is proved for quadratic forms of rank $\ge 3$ in [@CTPaSu Thm.$\;$3.1 and Remark$\;$3.2]. Hence, $q$ is isotropic over $F$ and a fortiori over $L$.
\[remark5p2\] In Thm.$\;$\[thm1p2\], assume that $A=k[\![x]\!]$ with $k$ a $C_1$ field of characteristic $\neq 2$ or $A=\mathcal{O}_K$ with $K$ a $p$-adic number field ($p$ an odd prime). Then every quadratic form of rank $\ge 9$ is isotropic over $F=K(y)$. In the former case, it is well-known that $F=k(\!(x)\!)(y)$ is a $C_3$ field. For the case $A=\mathcal{O}_K$, this statement is firstly proved by Parimala and Suresh [@PaSu], and then two more recent proofs using different methods are given in [@HHK Coro.$\;$4.15] and [@CTPaSu Coro.$\;$3.4] as consequences of their main theorems. Still another proof (including the case $p=2$), which builds upon the work of Heath-Brown [@HB10], has been announced by Leep [@Le10].
An easy argument using the Weierstra[ß]{} preparation theorem shows that every quadratic form of rank $\ge 9$ is isotropic over $L=\mathrm{Frac}(A[\![y]\!])$. So in these cases, the local-global principle in Thm.$\;$\[thm1p2\] is only interesting for quadratic forms of rank $5\le r\le 8$.
*Acknowledgements.* The author thanks his advisor, Prof. Jean-Louis Colliot-Thélène, for many valuable discussions and comments. Thanks also go to Prof. Raman Parimala, who has read the manuscript carefully and given comments that led the author to find that the earlier version of Theorem$\;$\[thm1p2\] may be generalized to the present one. The author is grateful to the referee for useful comments.
[99]{}
M.D. Choi, Z.D. Dai, T.Y. Lam, B. Reznick, The [P]{}ythagoras number of some affine algebras and local domains. *J. Reine Angew. Math.* **336** (1982), 45–82.
J.-L. Colliot-Thélène, M. Ojanguren, R. Parimala, Quadratic forms over fraction fields of two-dimensional henselian rings and [B]{}rauer groups of related schemes. In: R. Parimala (editor), *Algebra, Arithmetic and Geometry, Mumbai, 2000, Part I*, Narosa Publishing House, 2002, 185–217.
J.-L. Colliot-Thélène, R. Parimala, V. Suresh, Patching and local-global principle for homogeneous spaces over function fields of $p$-adic curves. *Comment. Math. Helv.*, to appear.
D. Harbater, J. Hartmann, D. Krashen, Applications of patching to quadratic forms and central simple algebras. *Invent. Math.* **178** (2009), 231–263.
D. Heath-Brown, Zeros of systems of $\mathfrak{p}$-adic quadratic forms. *Compos. Math.* **146** (2010), 271–287.
P. Jaworski, On the strong [H]{}asse principle for fields of quotients of power series rings in two variables. *Math. Z.* **236** (2001), 531–566.
J. Kollár, S. Mori, *Birational Geometry of Algebraic Varieties*. Cambridge University Press, 1998.
T.Y. Lam, *Introduction to Quadratic Forms over Fields*. Grad. Studies in Math. **67**, Amer. Math. Soc., 2005.
D. Leep, The $u$-invariant of $p$-adic function fields. Preprint.
Q. Liu, *Algebraic Geometry and Arithmetic Curves*. Oxford University Press, 2002.
R. Parimala, V. Suresh, *The $u$-invariant of the function fields of $p$-adic curves*. Ann. of Math. **172** (2010), 1391–1405.
J.-P. Serre, *Local Fields*. Grad. Texts in Math. **67**, Springer–Verlag, 1979.
L. C. Washington, *Introduction to Cyclotomic Fields*. Second edition, Grad. Texts in Math. **83**, Springer-Verlag, 1997.
[^1]: Mathématiques, Bâtiment 425, Université Paris-Sud, 91405, Orsay Cedex, France, e-mail: [email protected]
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Understanding and predicting the performance of big data applications running in the cloud or on-premises could help minimise the overall cost of operations and provide opportunities in efforts to identify performance bottlenecks. The complexity of the low-level internals of big data frameworks and the ubiquity of application and workload configuration parameters makes it challenging and expensive to come up with comprehensive performance modelling solutions. In this paper, instead of focusing on a wide range of configurable parameters, we studied the low-level internals of the MapReduce communication pattern and used a minimal set of performance drivers to develop a set of phase level parametric models for approximating the execution time of a given application on a given cluster. Models can be used to infer the performance of unseen applications and approximate their performance when an arbitrary dataset is used as input. Our approach is validated by running empirical experiments in two setups. On average the error rate in both setups is $\pm$10% from the measured values.'
author:
-
bibliography:
- 'Bibliography.bib'
title: Benchmarking and Performance Modelling of MapReduce Communication Pattern
---
Communication Patterns, Modelling, MapReduce, Big Data
Introduction
============
Traditional data storage and processing like Relational Database Management Systems (RDBMS) by design are inefficient and rigid to store and handle big data. Over the years researchers have developed big data processing frameworks and storage systems to handle these challenges. Like any new system, it is crucial to model and understand its performs under various conditions. This could be a tedious and challenging task because big data application under the hood runs on frameworks comprising of complex and complicated pipeline of phases and operations. For example, applications deployed using MapReduce [@dean2008mapreduce] and Apache Spark [@zaharia2012resilient] frameworks go through several computation or communication stages. Phases and stages on a basic level are the transitions that the data goes through while being processed. More details on MapReduce phases are discussed in Section \[background\]. Considering this challenge, we argue that a phase by phase modelling approach can gain a better understanding of the performance drivers of such frameworks. Some of the previous works in this area focuses only on high-level performance drivers like data size [@glushkova2017mapreduce; @herodotou2011hadoop]. This approach may work well for some applications. For example, from sort operations shown in Figure \[joblevel\], we can see a clear linear relationship between the data size and the time taken to complete the execution. In this case, the input data size is equal to the output data size. However, as evident word count (WC) plots, the relationship between processing time and input data size is non-trivial and therefore there need for more investigation. The amount of data that passes through the various phases of the MapReduce pattern is crucial to its overall performance. This leads us to dig further into the low-level details of the framework. This work can also serve as a foundation for performance modelling of big data frameworks like Apache Spark, a general purpose computation engine that does of superset of what MapReduce does. The findings could be useful in size-based schedulers to run small jobs even when the cluster is loaded with long running and expensive jobs.
![**Execution time for varying datasets for MapReduce WordCount, TeraSort and Simple-Sort Programs** []{data-label="joblevel"}](images/joblevel2){width="35.00000%"}
The research questions we seek to address in this paper are:
- RQ0: Considering the ubiquity of MapReduce workloads, can we use a generic approach to model the performance of MapReduce applications?
- RQ1: Considering how expensive it is to improvise a production size Hadoop cluster, can we identify major performance drivers for the MapReduce framework and use them to model the performance of applications?
- RQ2: Can we measure how good the effect of RQ1 would have on an arbitrary cluster?
In this paper, we develop a parametric model to estimate execution time of a given MapReduce application for a given cluster of nodes running YARN [@vavilapalli2013apache] (MapReduce 2.0 or greater). To achieve this, we first study and identify the performance drivers of each generic phase of the MapReduce application execution life cycle. This is achieved by executing generic MapReduce workloads to collect relevant performance metrics from logs. The combination of varying modelling approaches and cross-validation methods are used to obtain the models with their respective parameters. We have also developed a proof of concept application to test the models with different datasets. This links for the application and source code are is available at:
<https://sc306.host.cs.st-andrews.ac.uk/cbm/> and\
<https://github.com/sneceesay77/mr-performance-modelling>
The main contributions of our work are:
- A parametric models for predicting the execution time of a big data application running on a YARN cluster.
- A generic performance modelling approach to model the execution time of MapReduce (YARN) [@vavilapalli2013apache] applications tested on different clusters and data sizes.
- An insight into the performance characteristics of the generic phases of MapReduce.
- An understanding of how MapReduce applications of different design patterns perform.
Background: The MapReduce Pattern {#background}
==================================
MapReduce [@dean2008mapreduce] initiated by researchers from Google \[mrcompattern\] is one of the most prevalent patterns in big data processing. The open-source community then created an open-source version of MapReduce known as Hadoop MapReduce. MapReduce 2.0 uses YARN [@vavilapalli2013apache] (Yet Another Resource Negotiator) for cluster resource management. In the context of YARN, a container is as a logical unit of computation assigned with CPU and memory where individual MapReduce tasks of an application are executed. They run on nodes and are managed by a Node Manager process. The node manager sends periodic reports of task progress to Application Master which monitors and manages the entire application progress. After a successful resource allocation by YARN’s Resource Manager, the MapReduce execution starts by first reading data read from HDFS [@borthakur2008hdfs] and fed to mappers for processing. The mappers then write their intermediate results to disk. If a reducer is defined, these results are shuffled and processed by the reducers, and the final results are written to the disk. As shown in Figure \[mrpattern\], the time taken by a job depends on the execution of the last reducer as there is a write barrier at the end of a job. Although there are faster and newer big data processing frameworks like Apache Spark [@zaharia2012resilient] MapReduce is still relevant in the big data processing domain.
![**The MapReduce Communication Pattern**[]{data-label="mrpattern"}](images/mrpattern){width="15.00000%"}
In order to define a representative model to predict the performance of a MapReduce application, all the phases shown in in Figure \[mrworkflow\] should be considered. The phases can be grouped into user-defined and framework-defined phases. User-defined phases are implemented by the programmer to provide customised functionality, e.g. the *map()* and *reduce()* functions. Framework-defined phases are defined and controlled by the framework, and users cannot modify those functionalities. Examples are *read*, *collect*, *spill*, *merge*, *shuffle* and *write*. In Section \[theoriticalmodels\], we will present detailed explanation for each of the phases of the MapReduce pipeline illustrated in Figure \[mrworkflow\].
Theoretical Models of The MapReduce Pattern {#theoriticalmodels}
===========================================
In this chapter, we present the lessons learnt from the in-depth exploration of the MapReduce source code and its internals.
{width="70.00000%"}
**Map Phase**
-------------
As shown in Figure \[mrworkflow\], the Map Phase consists of the following sub-phases: *Read*, *Map*, *Collect*, *Spill* and *Merge*.
### **Read**
This phase reads a configurable input split or data block from the *Hadoop Distributed File System* (HDFS). Each record in the input split is then sent to a customised $map()$ function for processing. The cost in the read phase depends on the size of the input split. Given a specific cluster, we can define the cost model of the read phase with a linear function of the size of the input split: $$T_{read} = f(d) = \beta_{0r} + \beta_1d
\label{eq:readphase}$$ where $d$ represents the size of the data and $\beta_0$ and $\beta_1$ represents the unknown parameters of the linear function. However, for a given MapReduce job, the time taken to read each block of 128MB of data is usually the same.
### **Custom Map**
This is the second sub-phase of the Map Phase. The map function contains a user-defined code to specify how to process records consumed from the input splits. Since this phase is user-defined, we, therefore, devised a way to approximate the time as shown below.
$$T_{map} = \frac{\sum_{i=1}^{n}T_{rec}}{M}/{N_c}
\label{eq:mapphase}$$
Where $n$ is the number of records in the input split fed to the map function, $T_{rec}$ is the time taken to process each record, M is the number of mappers and $N_c$ is the number of containers.
Moving forward, the amount of data that passes through each stage is crucial to the accuracy of the model, therefore the data emitted by the map phase $M_d$ should also be calculated as shown in Equation . $d$ is the total input data for task $t$ and $M_{sel}$ is the map selectivity ratio $$M_d = d * M_{sel}
\label{eq:mapsel}$$
### **Collect**
The output of each map task is not directly written to disk and consumed by the reducers. Instead, they are buffered and presorted in memory. This phase also depends on the amount of data emitted by the mappers. A linear cost model of the collect phase is given as below: $$T_{collect} = f(M_d) = \beta_{0c} + \beta_3M_d
\label{eq:collectphase}$$
### **Spill**
In this phase, map output data is partitioned, sorted in memory and written to local disks. Writing data to local disk is the main bottleneck. The more data to spill, the more time it will take. We can, therefore, represent the cost model using the linear relationship shown below: $$T_{spill} = f(M_d) = \beta_{0s} + \beta_4M_d
\label{eq:spillphase}$$
### **Merge**
Each time the collect buffer reaches its configurable threshold, a new spill file is created. Similar to the spill phase, the cost depends on the amount of data to merge-sort and write back to disk. From the analysis Hadoop source code, this phase uses the merge-sort algorithm which has an average complexity of $nlogn$. Since the focus of this work is to identify key performance drivers, we ignore the less significant I/O cost at this stage. Hence, the relationship to model this phase is: $$T_{merge} = f(M_dlogM_d) = \beta_{0m} + \beta_5M_d(logM_d)
\label{eq:mergephase}$$
**Reduce Phase**
----------------
As shown in Figure \[mrworkflow\], Reduce Phase of each task consists of the following sub-phases: *Shuffle*, *Reduce* and *Write*. The cost analysis of each phase will be discussed as follows.
### **Shuffle**
When all map outputs have been copied, data are then merged into larger ones while maintaining their sorting order to be consumed by the next stage. To model this phase, we calculated the data that are shuffled through to each reducer. The total data processed by each reducer can be represented as: $$S_d = \frac{d * M_{sel} * M_t }{R_t}
\label{eq:shuffledata}$$ Where $M_t$ is the total number of mappers, and $R_t$ is the total number of reducers. Using Equation , the cost model of the shuffle phase can be formulated as: $$T_{shuffle} = \beta_{0f} + \beta_6S_d + \beta_7M_t
\label{eq:shufflephase}$$
### **Custom Reduce**
For each key in a data partition, the reduce function is executed. We use the formula below to approximate the time it takes for the reduce phase to complete.
$$T_{reduce} = \frac{\sum_{i=1}^{n}T_{key}}{R_t}/{N_c}
\label{eq:reducephase}$$
Here, $N_c$ is the total number of containers.
### **Write**
This is the last phase of the MapReduce pipeline. The output of custom reduce function is collected and written to HDFS. To model this phase, first, we modelled the total data that the reducer task emits, i.e., $$R_d = S_{d} * R_{sel}
\label{eq:reducedata}$$ where $S_d$ is the total shuffle data fed to a reduce task and $R_{sel}$ is the ratio of input and output sizes. Using the relations in Equation , we can, therefore, define the cost model of the write as a linear function of the reduce output data size, which is: $$T_{write} = f(R_d) = \beta_{0w} + \beta_8R_d
\label{eq:writephase}$$
**Combining it All Together**
-----------------------------
Now that we have proposed the cost model for the individual phases of the MapReduce pipeline. Putting them all together for the two main phases, we have: $$T_{mt} = T_{read} + T_{map} + T_{collect} + T_{spill} + T_{merge}
\label{eq:mapt}$$ Now substituting the phases with their corresponding linear cost models and replacing all the constants $\beta_{0*}$ as $\beta_{0}$ together to have $$T_{mt} = \beta_0 + \beta_1d + \beta_2d + \beta_3M_d + \beta_4M_d + \beta_5M_dlogM_d + T_{map} + \epsilon
\label{eq:maptotal}$$ Similar to the Map Phase, we can combine all the initial formula in the sub phases of the reduce phase, i.e., $$T_{rt} = T_{shuffle} + T_{reduce} + T_{write}
\label{eq:redt}$$ Putting the cost models together, we have: $$T_{rt} = \beta_0 + \beta_6S_d + \beta_7S_d + \beta_8R_d + T_{reduce} + \epsilon
\label{eq:reducetotal}$$
**Cost Model For The Entire Process**
-------------------------------------
The models presented in the previous section represent models for a single task. MapReduce runs several tasks in parallel. Depending on the system resources, all task may run in one round, or in most cases, there will be several rounds of tasks before the entire job finishes. Before YARN, map and reduce slots were used to determine the number of tasks that can run concurrently. This approach does not fully utilise the cluster resource and previous performance models using this approach cannot be applied to YARN-based MapReduce application. YARN uses *containers* for task execution. The number of containers in a cluster determines the number of tasks that can run concurrently. Assuming that a cluster has 20 containers $N_c$ and job $j$ has a total of 100 map tasks $M_t$, there will be at least five rounds of 20 map phase with each phase running 20 tasks concurrently. Using this logic we can modify both the Map and Reduce final formulas as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
T_{mt} &= \frac{M_t}{N_c}[T_{read} + T_{map} + T_{collect} + T_{spill} + T_{merge}] \\
&= \frac{M_t}{N_c}[\beta_0 + \beta_1d + \beta_2d + \beta_3M_d + \beta_4M_d +\\
&\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\beta_5M_dlogM_d + T_{map}] + \epsilon
\end{aligned}
\label{eq:mapjob}$$ Similarly, the same can be done for the reduce phase: $$\begin{aligned}
T_{rt} & = \frac{R_t}{N_c}[T_{shuffle} + T_{reduce} + T_{write}] \\
& = \frac{R_t}{N_c}[\beta_0 + \beta_6S_d + \beta_7S_d + \beta_8O_d + T_{reduce}] + \epsilon
\end{aligned}
\label{eq:reducejob}$$ The final cost model of the entire job can be obtained by merging Equation , Equation , the custom phases (Equation \[eq:mapphase\] and Equation \[eq:reducephase\]). $$\small
\begin{aligned}
T_{job} & = [\frac{M_t}{N_c}[T_{mt}] + \frac{R_t}{N_c}[T_{rt}]] + \epsilon \\
& = \frac{M_t}{N_c}[\beta_0 + \beta_x\textprime d + \beta_y\textprime M_d + \beta_5M_dlogM_d + T_{map}] + \\
& \;\;\;\;\frac{R_t}{N_c}[\beta_0 + \beta_z\textprime S_d + \beta_8R_d + T_{reduce}] + \epsilon \\
\end{aligned}
\label{eq:totaljob}$$
Phase Profiling Methodology {#phaseprofilingmethodology}
===========================
The profiling process is inspired by [@zhang2013benchmarking], but different in terms of the underlying system, workloads used and the experimental approach. It includes running generic benchmarks on the target cluster multiple times with various configurations. For brevity, we assume that the network is stable, no node failure and a non-shared environment and therefore we have configured YARN to use the FIFO [@vavilapalli2013apache] scheduling algorithm. For each phase of MapReduce, data is collected from the corresponding YARN logs on the cluster.
$$BM_{i} = (D_i, M_{sel_i}, B_{size_i})
\label{eq:genericbm}$$
Each generic benchmark has the following parameters: $D_i$ is the size of the input dataset, $M_{sel}$ represents the map selectivity and $B_{size}$ represents the block-size. For each profiling step, we vary $D_i$ to read data size ranging from 500MB to 5GB with an interval of at most 500MB. This parameter mainly profiles the read phase. We use $M_{sel}$ to parameterise map selectivity which is the ratio of map input to the map output. It is the amount of data that proceeds to the later stages of the MapReduce pipeline. For each input data size we vary the $M_{sel}$ from 10% to 100% using 10% interval.
This parameter affects the collect, spill, merge and shuffle phases. We also vary $B_{size}$ using 64MB and 128MB. For example, for a given input data size of 5GB, we executed the benchmark 20 times (10\*2, where 10 is from the various value of $M_{sel}$, and 2 is from values of $B_{size}$). As shown in Figure \[phaseprofile\], there are three main steps involved in the generic benchmarking setup. First, we modified the MapReduce 3.0 source code and added the necessary codes to obtain the running times of each stage. Since MapReduce uses counters to present task and job-related statistics to the user, we added six new counters to represent the six generic phases.
![**A Phase Profiling Pipeline Methodology**[]{data-label="phaseprofile"}](images/phaseprofiler){width="40.00000%" height="1.5cm"}
The Mapper $interface$ has a logic in the $run()$ function that adheres to the map selectivity setting. The reduce function outputs the entire shuffled data. To implement the logic of map selectivity, we used the *Teragen* program provided by the MapReduce framework to generate the dataset. Each row generated by Teragen has a size of 100 bytes. Therefore, to process only 10% of a 500MB input, we invoked Teragen to generate \[(500MB to Bytes) /100\] rows, and we override the $run()$ function of MapReduce interface to stop after the map had processed the 10% threshold. As shown in Figure \[phaseprofile\], the second stage in the pipeline is the YARN log parser. For each job and tasks, YARN logs are collated, aggregated and parsed to extract the relevant counters and their respective values for further processing. These new data are grouped into the various phases of the MapReduce framework. The final stage of the phase profiling pipeline uses linear regression to generate the actual model parameters using the $R$ statistical programming language
Generating the Actual Models and Parameters Using Regression and Cross Validation {#actualmodels}
=================================================================================
Figure \[crossvalidation\] gives the results of the models on the processed YARN log data, using a 10 fold cross-validation on each dataset.
![**Results of 10 Fold Cross-Validation and Prediction on the 8 Nodes cluster**[]{data-label="crossvalidation"}](images/crossvalidated){width="6.5cm"}
The observations for each are discussed in the following subsections. The plot shows the results of the predicted and actual values. To select the right parameters and evaluate the accuracy of the model of each phase, we consider the best practices for model selection. For each model, we study the effect of $p$-value, *Root Mean Squared Error* $RMSE$ [@barnston1992correspondence], $Adjusted - R-squared$ [@miles2005r] and $Multiple-R-squared$ [@miles2005r]. First, to select the most important parameters of the model, we performed backwards-elimination and accept any variable whose $p$-value $\leq$ $0.05$. $RMSE$ measures the standard deviation of the residuals or prediction errors. In determining the model accuracy, we evaluate how small the value of $RMSE$ is considering the range of the dependable variable we are using. In our case, the dependent variable is *execution time* represented on the Y-axis of Figure \[crossvalidation\]. Our general assumption is that in most cases the performance of these phases depends on the amount of data that it processes. This assumption is confirmed in Figure \[genericmodels\]. We can see that, in most cases as we increase the size of the dataset, the processing time generally increases and therefore a possible linear relationship. The last two phases in Figure \[genericmodels\] i.e. shuffle and write have a less linear relationship compared to the first four phases. To select the best learning method, we modelled the data using different Machine Learning (ML) approaches. As shown in Table \[table:rmsersquared\], the best ML approach for both the Shuffle and Write phase is the support vector machine algorithm but not by a wide margin compared to linear regression. The algorithm has the highest R-squared value and the best RMSE in our case. Note that for equations all data measurements are in megabytes and time in milliseconds.
**Algorithm** **RMSE(ms)** **R-Squared** **Phase**
------------------- -------------- --------------- -----------
SVM 4655.42 0.96 Shuffle
Random Forest 5027.23 0.95 Shuffle
Decision Tree 8370.37 0.78 Shuffle
Linear Regression 4774.75 0.95 Shuffle
SVM 2747.380 0.94 Write
Random Forest 2940.09 0.93 Write
DecisionTree 9366.400 0.68 Write
Linear Regression 6256.47 0.88 Write
: RMSE and R-Squared values for Shuffle and Write
\[table:rmsersquared\]
![**A plot and best fit for each of the generic phase: The main purpose of this plot is to show how performance(ms) changes with respect to data size (MB).** []{data-label="genericmodels"}](images/genericmodels2.png){width="8cm"}
**Read Model**
--------------
The Read Phase of Figure \[genericmodels\] supports our initial assumption in that there is a linear relationship between the size of input data and the processing time. The model obtained using linear regression is presented in Equation . The read plot in Figure \[crossvalidation\] and $RMSE$ value of $4.08$ proves a strong case for the accuracy of the model. $$T_{read} = 0.01 \times D + 1.33
\label{eq:readmodel}$$
**Collect Model**
-----------------
Map output data is collected as soon as map tasks complete; once the circular buffer of each map task reaches the predefined threshold of 80% data is then written to disk. This behaviour can be observed from Figure \[genericmodels\], a spike in the amount of time taken is at 80% $M_{sel}$. The model for the collect phase in our test environment is illustrated as below: $$T_{collect} = 0.01 \times M_{sel} + 0.97
\label{eq:genericcm}$$ Again, the $RMSE$ value of $3.036$ and the Collect plot in Figure \[crossvalidation\] supports our model.
**Spill Model**
---------------
As shown in Figure \[genericmodels\], our linearity assumption between data size and processing time is confirmed. The model obtained after the cross-validation is presented in Equation . The model has $RMSE$ value is $2.522$ which would be considered a good model in this case. $$T_{spill} = 0.02 \times M_{sel} + 0.98
\label{eq:genericsm}$$
**Merge Model**
---------------
Spill files are merged together to form bigger files. From the plot, we can see a close relation between the actual and the predicted values with an $RMSE$ of $9.36$. The parameters of the model are shown in Equation \[eq:genericmmodel\] $$T_{merge} = 0.002 \times M_{sel}logM_{sel} + 4.80
\label{eq:genericmmodel}$$
**Shuffle Model**
-----------------
This phase is the most expensive of all because it involves inter-node communication. The model main parameters are the amount of data being shuffled and the number of Mappers task. The $RMSE$ value obtained after is $4655$. $$T_{shuffle} = 10.45 \times S_d + 579.48 \times M_t + 6144.6\footnote{Linear equation, however we used the SVM model in the prediction.} \label{eq:genericshfmodel}$$
**Write Model** {#writemodel}
---------------
From Figure \[genericmodels\] (Write Phase), the fitted line shows a less-linear relationship between the amount of data and the time taken to write that data to HDFS. The cross-validation plot also shows a strong relationship when the test values are used in the predictive model. The model has an acceptable $RMSE$ of $2427$ $$T_{write} = 6.94 \times R_d + 2139.98
\label{eq:genericwritemodel}$$
**Custom Map and Reduce**
-------------------------
Since these phases have a custom implementation that depends on the problem being solved, we, therefore, used Equation and Equation for approximation.
**Generating the Input Parameters**
-----------------------------------
With the parameters from profiling, $T_{job}$ in is: $$\small
\begin{aligned}
&\frac{M_t}{N_c}[(0.01 \times D + 1.33)+T_{map}+(0.01 \times M_{sel} + 0.97)+\\
&\;\;\;\;\;\;\;(0.02 \times M_{sel} + 0.98)+(0.002 \times M_{sel}logM_{sel} + 4.80)] + \\
& \;\;\;\;\;\;\frac{R_t}{N_c}[(10.45 \times S_d + 579.48 \times M_t + 6144.6)+T_{reduce}+\\
& \;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;(6.94 \times R_d + 2139.98)] + \epsilon
\end{aligned}
\label{eq:totaljobcomplete}$$ Users now need to provide the actual values for the input parameters listed in Table \[table:logextracted\].
**Name** **Variable** **Description**
---------------------- -------------- -------------------------------
Num Of Bytes Read $D$ Total Size of Data
Map Output Bytes $M_d$ Data Outputted by Mappers
Map Selectivity $M_{sel}$ $(M_d/d) * 100$
Bytes Shuffled $S_d$ Data shuffled, refer to Eq:
Bytes Written $R_d$ Data Outputted by Reducers
Total Mappers $M_t$ $\frac{D}{BlockSize}$
Total Reducers $R_t$ Optimisable
Number of Containers $N_c$ Inferred from Cluster Config.
Map Time $T_{map}$ [Total time map() fns]{}
Reduce Time $T_{map}$ [Total time reduce() fns]{}
: Metrics Extracted From Logs
\[table:logextracted\]
To get the values for each of these parameters, the first step would be to run an application on the profiled cluster using a representative input dataset for the application. The application logs are then parsed to the YARN log parser to collect the values of the parameters for substitution into the corresponding models. This would provide the input parameters to generate the final predictive model.
**Variable** **Value**
--------------------------- --------------
$D$ 19584
$M_t, R_t$ 153,11
$T_{map},T_{reduce} (ms)$ 33069,286257
$M_d$ 128
$M_{sel}$ $100\%$
$S_d$ 19584
$R_d$ 19584
$N_c$ 8
: The values for each parameters for Reduce Side Inner Join algorithm extracted from YARN logs.
\[table:runningex\]
To illustrate, we take the Reduce Side Inner Join algorithm as a target application. The generated values for each of the input parameters are listed in Table \[table:runningex\]. To facilitate the generation of the values from YARN logs we provided Java and R scripts available on our Github page.
Experiment and Evaluation {#experimentandevaluation}
=========================
**Setup**
---------
In order to gauge the applicability of our approach on an arbitrary setup, we conducted two sets of experiments on two different hardware setups. On the first setup, we used a single node YARN cluster with 32GB memory and 8 CPUs. YARN was allocated 24GB and a minimum of 3GB per container In the second setup, we used an 8-node in-house YARN cluster to mimic a real-world deployment scenario. Each of these nodes has 8GB of RAM, 8 vCPUs and a 500GB of storage space. YARN is allocated 48GB of memory, and a maximum of 8 containers can run at a time. From the results of the two setups for the experiments, we have a strong case to conclude that, the approach can be used to profile an arbitrary cluster size. In all the experiments, we have adapted the algorithms discussed in the design patterns book [@Miner:2012:MDP:2632825] and used the same $StackOverflow$ data source but a more updated version. Table \[table:algorithms\] summarises all the workloads and their data-sizes used in this work. To have a representative cost model for the various MapReduce phases and the entire process, we studied the most common design pattern algorithms of MapReduce presented in [@Miner:2012:MDP:2632825]. The motivation of using MapReduce design pattern approach in the experimental setup is to avoid bias towards specific applications only. As shown in Table \[table:algorithms\], we have only included large datasets in the experiment to narrow our focus on big data and data-intensive applications. We have identified four common design patterns, and for each of these patterns, we tested at least three algorithms to show how algorithms using the same pattern relates to one another. We assume that algorithms with the same pattern would have similar performance characteristics.
- Summarisation Pattern: This pattern provides a summary of an input dataset. The popular MapReduce program is a good example.
- Filtering Pattern: This pattern filters and returns a subset of a given original dataset. In most cases, there is a reduction in the amount of output dataset compared to the input dataset. Example of algorithms in this pattern are Distributed $Grep$, $Distinct$, and $Top$ $K$.
- Data Organisation Pattern: This pattern deals with the reorganisation from one structure to another. Example, transforming table data to JSON structure.
- Join Pattern: This pattern processes related data stored in the input files. The most popular type of Join in MapReduce is the Reduce side join. It works in all cases but can be slow as the size of the data increases.
**Algorithm** **Design Pattern** **Data Size**
------------------------ -------------------- ---------------
MinMaxCount Summarisation 16GB
Average Count Summarisation 16GB
Median and Std. Summarisation 16GB
Inverted Index Summarisation 12GB
Grep Filtering 12GB
Top X Filtering 2.7GB
Distinct Filtering 16GB
Structure to Hierarchy Data Organisation 12GB,16GB
Total Order Sorting Data Organisation 2.6GB
Shuffling Data Organisation 2.7GB
RSJ Inner Join 16,2.7GB
RSJ Left Outer Join 16,2.7GB
RSJ Right Outer Join 16,2.7GB
RSJ Full Outer Join 16,2.7GB
: Workloads Used
\[table:algorithms\]
**Evaluation of Results**
-------------------------
For each of the two setups, the same experiments are repeated and the results are plotted and discussed side by side. As expected, the time taken by the single node cluster for each of the algorithms is mostly greater than the eight node cluster. Below, we discuss the rest of the results in details.
### Summarisation Pattern
The algorithms and the results obtained included are listed in \[table:summarisation\] and corresponding plot in Figure \[plotsummarisation\]. The percentage prediction error for both setups is less than 16%. Also note that the algorithms in this pattern have a similar completion time boundaries.
![Summarisation Pattern[]{data-label="plotsummarisation"}](images/summerisation.png){width="40.00000%" height="4cm"}
**Algorithm** **Predicted (sec)** **Actual (sec)** **Error%**
--------------------- --------------------- ------------------ ------------
MinMaxCount 196 201 2
Inverted Index 118 117 -1
Average Count 157 176 11
Median and Std. Dev 158 169 7
: Results for Summarisation on 8-Node Cluster
\[table:summarisation\]
### Filtering Pattern
In filtering, we included, Grep, Distinct and Top 100 algorithm. Table \[table:filtering\] shows the results of the experiment and the respective errors of each algorithm. We have also observed that our prediction error is less than 14% from the observed values for both setups.
![Filtering Pattern[]{data-label="plotfiltering"}](images/filtering){width="40.00000%" height="4cm"}
**Algorithm** **Predicted (sec)** **Actual (sec)** **Error%**
--------------- --------------------- ------------------ ------------
Grep 470 430 -9
Top X 45 40 -12
Distinct 128 130 2
: Results for Filtering Pattern on 8-Node Cluster
\[table:filtering\]
### Data Organisation Pattern
In data organisation, we have observed that the amount of input data is mostly the same as the amount of output data. Here data is just reorganised and there is no data pruning component. The Question and Answer Hierarchy algorithm merged data from two big data sets. For each Question posted in Stackoverflow, the corresponding answers are collated from the Post file. The results of the three executed experiments are illustrated in Figure \[plotdataorganisation\] and Table \[table:dataorganisation\].
![Data Organisation Pattern[]{data-label="plotdataorganisation"}](images/dataorganisation){width="40.00000%" height="4cm"}
**Algorithm** **Predicted (sec)** **Actual (sec)** **Error%**
----------------------- --------------------- ------------------ ------------
Q&A Hierarchy 1653 2024 18
Total Order 162 160 -1
Anonymise & Shuffling 131 125 -8
: Results for Data Organisation Pattern
\[table:dataorganisation\]
### Join Pattern
Joins are one of the most expensive operations in MapReduce, this is evident in our experimental results. We executed inner, left-outer, right-outer and full-outer joins using the Reduce Side Join Algorithm. We used the Post and Comments dataset curled from Stack Overflow. The prediction error for both setups is at most 10% of the observed value. The results are shown in Table \[table:join\] and Figure \[join\].
![Join Pattern[]{data-label="join"}](images/join){width="40.00000%" height="4cm"}
**Algorithm** **Predicted (sec)** **Actual (sec)** **Error%**
------------------------- --------------------- ------------------ ------------
Reduce Side Inner 975 1080 10
Reduce Side L-Outer 1410 1285 -10
Reduce Side Right Outer 1854 1920 3
Reduce Side Full Outer 900 960 6
: Experiment Data for Join Pattern
\[table:join\]
Discussion
----------
Here we revisit our three research questions (RQs) and evaluate how far we have answered them. In answering RQ0, we adopted a generic benchmarking approach by running dummy MapReduce workload on the cluster. The main idea behind this is to avoid benchmarking bias when only a particular set of workloads are used. In addressing RQ1, we have realised that out of the many variables, input parameters such as the number of mappers, number of reducers, number of containers and the amount of data that passes through each stage are the key performance drivers. The final model building process involves feeding these key performance drivers to ML algorithms. In addressing RQ2, we scaled our experimental environment from a single node setup to an eight-node cluster. We have observed that the approach we have used can be replicated to arbitrary cluster size.
Related Work {#relatedwork}
============
Standard benchmarks such as TPC-DS [@nambiar2006making] has been used in the research community to evaluate the performance of decision support systems. Big data Benchmarking and Performance modelling recently got lots of attention from researchers [@huang2010hibench; @dongarra1979linpack; @herodotou2011hadoop; @glushkova2017mapreduce; @verma2011resource]. @huang2010hibench and @wang2014bigdatabench developed benchmark suites for Hadoop, Spark and Streaming Frameworks. These suites consist of a set of workloads organised into related groups. These workload groups span from basic statistics, machine learning, graph processing and SQL. However, this approach makes it inefficient and cumbersome to test new workloads. Also, as stated in @ceesay2017papb, deploying these tools can be cumbersome for non-technical individuals. Therefore it becomes a challenge for wider adoption. @zhang2013benchmarking, presents a MapReduce performance model that measures generic phases of the framework. However, their work focused on an older version of Hadoop (0.20.0) which uses mapper and reducer slots for job processing. The current MapReduce framework uses YARN which efficiently manages cluster resources. Given this fact, it is clear that the approach and the model they used cannot be representative of the current MapReduce paradigm. Secondly, our experimental approach differs as well, while they pick any big data application, we picked ours grouped by the algorithms design patterns, the results of which show some interesting correlation in terms of their performance. Applications in the same pattern mostly have similar performance characteristics in terms of their execution time. @verma2011aria proposed ARIA, a job and resource scheduler for the MapReduce framework that aims to allocate the right amount of resource to meet required service level objectives (SLOs). In their work, they extracted information from MapReduce logs as a basis for their framework. Like [@zhang2013benchmarking], they used Hadoop 0.20.0, and therefore their approach will not be applicable for Hadoop 2.0 or later versions. @venkataraman2016ernest, built performance models based on a small sample of data and predicting on larger datasets and cluster sizes. However, they focus on a small subset of machine learning algorithms. @popescu2012same introduced an approach for predicting the runtime JAQL queries which focuses on mainly JSON and related data.
Conclusion and Future Work {#conclusion}
==========================
In conclusion, we have shown that we can model the performance of big data application in the MapReduce pattern. We have shown that algorithms in the same pattern tend to have similar performance characteristics when the data size is similar. We have also proposed a generic benchmarking approach that can be used to get performance characteristics of the various stages in a MapReduce pipeline. Using the data generated from the benchmarking, linear regression and cross-validation were used to build and validate the models for each phase. These models were used to predict the competition time for a new application, and the results were promising. In future work, we will work on modelling other communication patterns proposed in [@chowdhury2012coflow] such as Data Flow with Cycles, which performs computations and subsequent transformations in memory until the user actively persists them to disk. We will also consider validating our approach with a much larger cluster and datasets. Finally, since scheduling and scalability are an integral part of big data systems, we will also study their effects on the performance of our modelling approach.
Acknowledgement
===============
This research is funded by EPSRC EP/R010528/1 and IsDB.
\[Bibliography\]
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We observe a link between the window size of mass concentration and the rate of explosion of the Strichartz norm by revisiting Bourgain’s mass concentration for the $L^2$-critical nonlinear Schrödinger equations.'
address:
- University of Toronto
- Arizona State University
author:
- James Colliander
- Svetlana Roudenko
title: 'A remark on the concentration phenomenon for the $L^2$-critical nonlinear Schrödinger equations'
---
[^1]
[^2]
Introduction
============
Consider the initial value problem for the $L^2$-critical case of nonlinear Schrödinger equation, $NLS^{\pm}_p({\mathbb{R}}^d)$, $p=\frac4{d}+1$, $$\label{NLS}
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
i u_t + {\triangle}u = \pm |u|^{p-1} u,\\
u (0,x) = u_0(x),
\end{array}
\right.$$ where $u = u(t,x): {\mathbb{R}}\times {\mathbb{R}}^d \to {\mathbb{C}}$ and $u_0 \in L^2({\mathbb{R}}^{d})$. $NLS^+_p ({\mathbb{R}}^d)$ is called [*[defocusing]{}*]{}; $NLS_p^{-} ({\mathbb{R}}^d)$ is [*[focusing]{}*]{}.
Denote by $[0, T^{\ast})$ the [*maximal*]{} (forward) existence time interval of solution $u(t,x)$. For our purposes this means that any[[^3]]{} Strichartz norm ${\displaystyle}\Vert u \Vert_{L^q_t
L^r_x{([0,T^{\ast}]\times{\mathbb{R}}^d})} = \infty$ and ${\displaystyle}\| u \|_{L^q_t
L^r_x{([0,t] \times {\mathbb{R}}^d)}} < \infty$ for all $t <
T^{\ast}$. Here, the pair $(q,r)$ is [*admissible*]{}, i.e. $\frac2{q}+\frac{d}{r} =\frac{d}{2}$. In a breakthrough work [@B98], Bourgain established the mass concentration phenomenon for finite time blowup solutions of the cubic $NLS$ in $d=2$ with an $L^2$ initial data (independent of focusing or defocusing case): consider $NLS^{\pm}_3({\mathbb{R}}^2)$ in (\[NLS\]) with $u_0 \in L^2({\mathbb{R}}^2)$; if the blow up time $T^\ast <
\infty$, then $L^2$-norm concentration on a parabolic window occurs $$\limsup_{t \nearrow T^{\ast}} \sup_{a \in {\mathbb{R}}^2}
\int_{B(a, c(T^{\ast}-t)^{\frac12})} |u(t,x)|^2 \, dx \geq {\epsilon},$$ where ${\epsilon}= \Vert u_0 \Vert^{-M}_{L^2}$ for some $M>0$. The proof used a refinement of the Strichartz estimate obtained by Moyua, Vargas and Vega [@MVV96] and mass conservation. Compactness properties of blowup solutions modulo symmetries were obtained by Merle and Vega [@MV98] for the two dimensional case. Recently, Carles and Keraani in [@CK05] obtained the corresponding results for quintic $NLS$ in $d=1$ and Bégout and Vargas in [@BV05] extended the mass concentration and compactness modulo symmetries results for all dimensions $d$ with nonlinearities $p=\frac4{d}+1$ ($L^2$-critical). The necessary refinement of the Strichartz inequality for all dimensions comes from the bilinear Fourier restriction theorem obtained by Tao [@T03 Theorem 1.1].
In this note we investigate the dependence of the window of mass concentration upon the growth of the $L^{\frac{2(d+2)}{d}}_{t,x}([0,t] \times{\mathbb{R}}^d)$-norm. We show that if, close to the blow up time $T^\ast$, the $L^\frac{2(d+2)}{d}_{t,x}([0,t]\times {\mathbb{R}}^d) $-norm grows in time no slower than ${(T^\ast - t)^{-\beta}}$, then the window of concentration is of width $(T^\ast - t)^{\frac12+\frac{\beta}2}$. We also obtain the opposite direction, namely, if the mass concentration has the concentration window of size $(T^\ast -
t)^{\frac12 + \frac{\beta}2}$, then the growth of $L^\frac{2(d+2)}{d}_{t,x}([0,t], \times {\mathbb{R}}^d) $-norm is no slower than ${(T^\ast -t)^{-\beta}}$. For the first direction we revisit the argument of Bourgain and the extension to all dimensions by Bégout and Vargas. For the opposite direction we use a restriction on frequencies (which shows up implicitly in Bourgain’s argument) in order to connect the $L^2_x$-concentration with the space-time $L^\frac{2(d+2)}{d}_{t,x}$-norm explosion. We also generalize the above results to the setting of non-polynomial growth and concentration rates. The result we obtain shows that if the $L^{\frac{2(d+2)}{d}}_{t,x}$ norm explodes like $f( T^* - t)$ for certain $f \nearrow \infty$ as $ t \nearrow T^*$, then the concentration window shrinks at the rate $[-(\partial_t f) (T^* -
t)]^{-\frac{1}{2}}$ and vice versa. As a corollary to [@B98] and [@BV05] which proved that parabolic mass concentration occurs, we obtain that the blow up of the diagonal Strichartz norm must be at least as fast as $|\ln (T^*-t)|$ (see Corollary \[C:log\]).
Explicit blowup solutions for in the focusing case have been obtained as the pseudoconformal image of ground and excited state solitons. These solutions have mass concentration windows shrinking like $(T^* - t)^{\frac{\beta+1}{2}}$ and their Strichartz norm $L^{\frac{2(d+2)}{d}}_{t,x} ([0,t] \times {\mathbb{R}}^d)$ explodes like $(T^* - t)^{-\beta}$ with $\beta =1$. Another family of blowup solutions is known (see [@P01] and [@MR05], [@MR03]) which concentrates mass slightly faster (by $~\sqrt{\log |\log (T^* - t)|}$) than $\beta = 0$. It would be interesting to observe or rule out other blowup concentration/explosion rates.
It is conjectured that the defocusing problem with the minus sign is globally well-posed and scatters for all $L^2$ data. We hope that the results obtained here may be useful in proving that no concentration occurs in the defocusing problem. For example, in light of Corollary \[C:log\], global well-posedness and scattering follows if finite time blowup solutions are shown to have sub-logarithmic Strichartz norm explosion. Also, a result which rules out very tight concentration windows would imply upper bounds on the blowup rate of the Strichartz norm. No general upper bounds on the rate of blowup are known.
[Notation.]{} Denote by $l(J)$ the side length of a cube $J
\subset {\mathbb{R}}^d$ and $|J|$ its Lebesque measure; ${\mathcal{D}}$ is the set of dyadic cubes in ${\mathbb{R}}^d$ with ${\displaystyle}\tau_k^j = {\displaystyle}\prod_{i=1}^d
\left[\frac{k_i}{2^j}, \frac{k_i+1}{2^j}\right)$ a dyadic cube, and when there is no confusion the indices will be dropped $\tau =
\tau_k^j$; for $a \in {\mathbb{R}}^d$ and $r>0$ the set $B(a,r) = \{x \in
{\mathbb{R}}^d: |x-a|<r\}$ is an open ball of radius $r$.
For a measurable set $E \in {\mathbb{R}}^2$, denote by $P_E$ the Fourier restriction with respect to the $x$-variable: $\widehat{P_E \psi} =
\hat{\psi} \chi_E$. The linear evolution of the Schrödinger equation in (\[NLS\]) is denoted by $e^{i t {\triangle}}$, i.e. $$e^{i t {\triangle}} f(x) = \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^d} e^{2\pi i (x\cdot\xi - 2\pi t
|\xi|^2)} \hat{f}(\xi) \, d \xi.$$
[Acknowledgements:]{} This project began while the authors participated in the Fall 2005 Semester on Nonlinear Dispersive Wave Equations at M.S.R.I. We thank Monica Visan for comments on an earlier version of this paper.
Strichartz norm explosion $\implies$ tight concentration window {#SectionL2}
===============================================================
First, we show the dependence of the size of mass concentration window upon the divergence rate of $L^\frac{2(d+2)}{d}([0,t]\times{\mathbb{R}}^d)$-norm.
\[Prop2\] Suppose that $T^{\ast} < \infty$ and $$\label{L4bound2} \Vert u
\Vert_{L^{\frac{2(d+2)}{d}}({[0,t]\times{\mathbb{R}}^d})} \gtrsim
\frac1{(T^{\ast} - t)^{\beta}}~ ~\mbox{for~ some}~\beta >0.$$ Then there exists ${\epsilon}>0$ such that ${\epsilon}= \| u_0
\|_{L^2({\mathbb{R}}^d)}^{-c(d)}$, where[^4] $c(d)= O(d^4)$, $$\label{Mass2} \limsup_{t \nearrow T^{\ast}} \sup_{
\begin{array}{c}
\mathrm{cubes}~J \in {\mathbb{R}}^d:\\
l(J)< (T^{\ast}-t)^{\frac12 + \frac{\beta}{2}}
\end{array}
} \int_J |u(t,x)|^2 \, dx \geq {\epsilon}.$$ Furthermore, for any $0 < t < T^{\ast} ~$ there exists a cube $\tau(t) \subseteq {\mathbb{R}}_\xi^d$ of size ${\displaystyle}l(\tau(t)) \gtrsim
(T^{\ast}-t)^{-(\frac{1}{2} + \frac{\beta}{2})}$ such that $$\label{Mass2proj} \limsup_{t \nearrow T^{\ast}} \sup_{
\begin{array}{c}
\mathrm{cubes}~J \in {\mathbb{R}}^d:\\
l(J)< (T^{\ast}-t)^{\frac12 + \frac{\beta}{2}}
\end{array}
} \int_J |P_{\tau(t)} u(t,x)|^2 \, dx \geq {\epsilon}.$$
Thus, a lower bound on the Strichartz explosion implies tight mass concentration along a sequence of times. Moreover, the tight concentration may be frequency localized to the natural scale.
We follow [@B98] where the mass concentration in the space dimension $d=2$ is established keeping in mind the generalization to all space dimensions from [@BV05].
First, recall that a time sequence $\{t_n\} \nearrow T^{\ast}$ is chosen such that for any $n$ $$\Vert u \Vert_{L^{\frac{2(d+2)}{d}}((t_n, t_{n+1})\times {\mathbb{R}}^d)} =
\eta
\label{StartEqn}$$ for some small $\eta$. The decomposition ${\displaystyle}[0,T^* ) =
\bigcup_{n=0}^\infty [t_n, t_{n+1})$ will play an important role throughout this paper. If $\eta > 0$ is small enough, then on the interval $(t_n, t_{n+1})$ the nonlinear part of the evolution $u(t_n) \mapsto u(t)$ is insignificant compared to the linear flow $e^{i (t-t_n) {\triangle}} u(t_n)$: $$\label{NonlinearEst}
\Vert u - e^{i (t-t_n){\triangle}} u(t_n)\Vert_{L^{\frac{2(d+2)}{d}}((t_n,
t_{n+1})\times {\mathbb{R}}^d)} \leq \Vert u
\Vert^{\frac4{d}+1}_{L^{\frac{2(d+2)}{d}}((t_n, t_{n+1})\times
{\mathbb{R}}^d)} = \eta^{\frac4{d}+1},$$ and thus, $$\label{LinearEst}
\Vert e^{i (t-t_n){\triangle}} u(t_n)\Vert_{L^{\frac{2(d+2)}{d}}((t_n,
t_{n+1})\times {\mathbb{R}}^d)} \thicksim \eta.$$
We impose $\eta < \min(1, \frac1{2c} (T^{\ast})^{-\beta})$, where $c$ is the implicit constant in (\[L4bound2\]). Then the bound (\[L4bound2\]) implies $$\label{LowBound} \eta = \Vert u \Vert_{L^{\frac{2(d+2)}{d}}((t_n,
t_{n+1})\times {\mathbb{R}}^d)} \gtrsim \frac{(t_{n+1}-
t_n)}{(T^{\ast}-t_n)^{\beta+1}},$$ i.e., the sequence $\{t_n\}$ has the following property $$\label{t-dependence} t_{n+1}-t_n \lesssim \eta \, (T^{\ast} -
t_n)^{\beta+1}.$$
Fix $n \in {\mathbb{N}}$ and the time interval $(t_n,
t_{n+1})$. Denote $f(x)=u(t_n,x)$, note that $\Vert f
\Vert_{L^2({\mathbb{R}}^d)} = \Vert u_0 \Vert_{L^2({\mathbb{R}}^d)}$ by mass conservation. Using the Squares Lemma (§2 in [@B98] and [@BV05 Lemma 3.1]), we obtain the following localizations in frequency.
- For any ${\epsilon}_0 >0$ there exist $N_0 = N_0(\Vert f \Vert_{L^2}, d, {\epsilon}_0)$ and a finite collection $\{f_{j} \}_{j=1}^{N_0} \in L^2({\mathbb{R}}^d)$ with ${\mathrm{supp}\,}\hat{f}_{j} \subseteq \tau_j$ - a cube in ${\mathbb{R}}^d$, $l(\tau_j)
\leq c(\Vert f \Vert_{L^2}, \eta, {\epsilon}_0)\cdot A_{j}$, $|\hat{f}_{j}|
< {A_j}^{-d/2}$ such that $$\label{loc1}
\Vert e^{i t {\triangle}} f - \sum_{j=1}^{N_0} e^{i t {\triangle}}
f_{j}\Vert_{L^{\frac{2(d+2)}{d}}({\mathbb{R}}\times{\mathbb{R}}^d)} < {\epsilon}_0.$$
Expand (\[StartEqn\]) and apply (\[NonlinearEst\]) and (\[LinearEst\]) $$\eta^{\frac{2(d+2)}{d}} = \int_{(t_n, t_{n+1})\times {\mathbb{R}}^d} \left[
u(t,x) \left(\overline{e^{i(t-t_n){\triangle}} f + (u(t,x) -
e^{i(t-t_n){\triangle}} f)}\right) \right.$$ $$\times \left. \left|e^{i(t-t_n){\triangle}} f + (u(t,x) - e^{i(t-t_n){\triangle}}
f)\right|^{\frac4{d}} \right] \, dx \, dt$$ $$= \int_{(t_n, t_{n+1})\times {\mathbb{R}}^d} u(t,x) \,
(\overline{e^{i(t-t_n){\triangle}} f}) \, |e^{i(t-t_n){\triangle}} f|^{\frac4{d}}
\, \, dx \, dt$$ $$+ \, O (\eta^{2(\frac4{d}+1)}) \qquad \text{if} \quad d \leq 4,$$ or $$+ \, O (\eta^{2 +\frac4{d}(\frac4{d}+1)}) \quad \text{if} \quad d
>4.$$
Choose ${\epsilon}_0 = \eta^{\frac{d+4}{d}}$. Then the above estimate together with (\[loc1\]) may be rewritten as $$\label{Reduction1}
\eta^{\frac{2(d+2)}{d}} = \!\!\!\int\limits_{(t_n, t_{n+1})\times
{\mathbb{R}}^d} \hspace{-.6cm}u(t,x) \, \left(\overline{\sum_{j=1}^{N_0} e^{i
(t-t_n) {\triangle}} f_{j}(x)} \right) \left|\sum_{j=1}^{N_0}
e^{i(t-t_n){\triangle}} f_j (x) \right|^{\frac4{d}} dx \, dt$$ $$+ \, O (\eta^{2(\frac4{d}+1)}) \qquad \text{if} \quad d \leq 4,$$ or $$+ \, O (\eta^{2 +\frac4{d}(\frac4{d}+1)}) \quad \text{if} \quad d
>4.$$
Note that $\, 2(\frac4{d}+1) > \frac{2(d+2)}{d}\,$ or $\, 2
+\frac4{d}(\frac4{d}+1) > \frac{2(d+2)}{d}\,$ for any $d>0$. Since $N_0$ is finite, it follows from (\[Reduction1\]) that there exists $j_0$ ($1 \leq j_0 \leq N_0$) such that $$\label{Est2}
\frac{1}{2} \frac{\eta^{\frac{2(d+2)}{d}}}{N_0^{1+4/d}} \, \leq
\left|\, \int\limits_{(t_n, t_{n+1})\times {\mathbb{R}}^d} \hspace{-.6cm}
u(t,x) (\overline{e^{i (t-t_n) {\triangle}} f_{j_0}(x)}) \,
|e^{i(t-t_n){\triangle}} f_{j_0}(x)|^{\frac4{d}} \, dx \, dt \right|.$$ Denote $\tau = \tau_{j_0}$, $A=A_{j_0}$ $(l(\tau)\leq c_0 \,A)$ and the center of $\tau$ by $\xi_0$. Since $|\hat{f}_{j_0}| <
{A}^{-d/2}$ and $\hat{f}_{j_0}$ is supported in $\tau$ with $l(\tau)
= c_0(\Vert f \Vert_{L^2}, \eta)\cdot A$, we obtain $${\displaystyle}\sup_{t} \Vert e^{i (t - t_n) {\triangle}} f_{j_0} \Vert_{L^{\infty}_x}
\leq A^{-d/2}\, |\tau| = c \, A^{d/2} \quad \text{with} \quad
c=c(\Vert f \Vert_{L^2({\mathbb{R}}^d)}, \eta).$$ Hence, (\[Est2\]) becomes $$\frac12 \frac{\eta^{\frac{2(d+2)}{d}}}{N_0^{1+4/d}} \, \leq A^2 \,
|\hspace{-.6cm}\int\limits_{(t_n, t_{n+1}) \times {\mathbb{R}}^d} \!\!\!
u(t,x) (\overline{e^{i (t-t_n) {\triangle}} f_{j_0}(x)}) \, dx \, dt \,| .$$ Using Plancherel and ${\mathrm{supp}\,}\hat{f}_{j_0} \subseteq \tau$, we obtain a refined version of the previous inequality $$\label{RefinedProjection}
\frac{\eta^{\frac{2(d+2)}{d}}}{2 \,N_0^{1+4/d}} \, \leq A^2
\int\limits_{(t_n, t_{n+1}) \times {\mathbb{R}}^d} |P_{\tau} u(t,x) | \,
|e^{i (t-t_n) {\triangle}} f_{j_0}(x)| \, dx \, dt.$$ Using the Tubes Lemma (§3 in [@B98] and [@BV05 Lemma 3.3]), we obtain a further space-time localization:
- Let ${\epsilon}_1 = (\frac1{4 N_0})^{d/4}\,\eta$. Then there exist $N_1=N_1(\Vert f \Vert_{L^2}, d, {\epsilon}_1)$ and a sequence of tubes $\{Q_{k}\} = \{I_k \times K_k(t)\} \subseteq {\mathbb{R}}\times {\mathbb{R}}^d$, where $|I_k|=\frac1{A^2}$ and $K_k(t) = 4\pi t \xi_0 + {\mathsf{C}}$, ${\mathsf{C}}\in {\mathcal{D}}$, with $l({\mathsf{C}}) = \frac1{A}$ such that $$\label{loc2}
\Vert e^{i (t-t_n) {\triangle}}
f_{j_0}\Vert_{L^{\frac{2(d+2)}{d}}({\mathbb{R}}\times{\mathbb{R}}^d \setminus
{\underset{k=1}{\overset{N_1}{\cup}} Q_{k}})} < {\epsilon}_1.$$
By (\[RefinedProjection\]) and (\[loc2\]), we obtain $$\label{Reduction2}
\frac14 \frac{\eta^{\frac{2(d+2)}{d}}}{N_0^{1+4/d}} \, \leq A^2
\hspace{-.7cm}\int\limits_{(t_n, t_{n+1}) \times {\mathbb{R}}^d \cap
({\underset{k=1}{\overset{N_1}{\cup}} Q_k})} \hspace{-.7cm} |P_\tau
u(t,x)|\, |{e^{i (t-t_n) {\triangle}} f_{j_0}(x)}| \, dx \, dt.$$ Since the number of tubes $N_1$ is finite, there exists a tube $Q_{k_0} = I \times K(t)$ such that (\[Reduction2\]) produces $$\label{Est1}
\frac14\frac{\eta^{\frac{2(d+2)}{d}}}{N_0^{1+4/d} \, N_1} \, \leq
A^2 \hspace{-.7cm}\int\limits_{(t_n, t_{n+1}) \times {\mathbb{R}}^d \cap
Q_{k_0}} \hspace{-.7cm} |P_\tau u(t,x)| \, |e^{i (t-t_n) {\triangle}}
f_{j_0}(x)| \, dx \, dt .$$ Applying Cauchy-Schwarz we obtain $$\label{Est3}
\frac{\eta^{\frac{2(d+2)}{d}}}{4 \,N_0^{1+4/d} \, N_1} \, \leq A
\left(\, \int\limits_{(t_n, t_{n+1}) \times {\mathbb{R}}^d \cap Q_{k_0}} \!\!
|P_{\tau} u(t,x) |^2 \, dx \, dt \right)^{1/2}.$$ Since[^5] $N_0^{\frac{d+4}{d}}
N_1 \sim \Vert f \Vert^{c(d)}_{L^2}$, using the conservation of mass, we get $$c \leq A \, \Vert u_0 \Vert_{L^2} \, (t_{n+1} - t_n)^{1/2}, \quad
\text{where} \quad c=c(\Vert u_0 \Vert_{L^2}, d, \eta).$$ By (\[t-dependence\]), we obtain $$\frac1{A} \leq c \, (T^{\ast} - t_n)^{\frac{\beta+1}2} \quad
\mbox{again with} \quad c = c(\Vert u_0 \Vert_{L^2}, d, \eta).$$ Considering (\[Est3\]) again, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{E:conc-sup1}
c \, \eta^{\frac{4(d+2)}{d}} &\leq A^2 \int_{I \cap (t_n, t_{n+1})}
\int_{K(t)} |P_{\tau} u(t,x)|^2 dx \, dt\\
& \leq \sup_{t \in I\cap(t_n, t_{n+1})} \int_{K(t)} |P_{\tau}
u(t,x)|^2 \, dx.
\label{E:conc-sup2}\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, there exists a mass concentration time $t_n^* \in I\cap(t_n, t_{n+1})$ such that $$\label{E:conc-sup3}
\int_{K(t_n^*)} |P_{\tau} u(t_n^*, x)|^2 \, dx \geq c'
\eta^{\frac{4(d+2)}{d}}.$$ The $limsup$ claim in will be realized along the sequence $t_n^* \nearrow T^*$. Recall that $l(K(t_n^*)) = \frac1{A}
< c \, (T^{\ast} - t_n)^{\frac{\beta+1}{2}}$, and therefore, $K(t_n^*) \subseteq B(a, \sqrt d\, c \, (T^{\ast} -
t_n)^{\frac{\beta+1}{2}})$ for some $a \in {\mathbb{R}}^d$. Observe that $$\label{time-0} T^{\ast} - t_n^* > T^{\ast} - t_{n+1} = T^{\ast} -
t_n - (t_{n+1}-t_n)$$ $$\geq (T^{\ast} - t_n)(1 - c \, \eta (T^{\ast} - t_n)^{\beta})
> \frac12 (T^{\ast} - t_n),$$ where the last estimate follows from $c \,\eta \,(T^{\ast} -
t_n)^{\beta} < c \,\eta \,(T^{\ast})^{-\beta}<\frac12$. Hence, $B(a,
\sqrt d\,c\, (T^{\ast} - t_n)^{\frac{\beta+1}{2}})$ (and thus, $K(t_n^*)$) can be covered by a finite number of balls (or cubes) of radius (side length) $(T^{\ast} - t_n^*)^{\frac{\beta+1}{2}}$ (and this number is independent of $n$). Choosing one of them, and noting that ${\displaystyle}l(\tau) \geq \frac{c}{(T^{\ast} -
t_n)^{\frac{\beta+1}{2}}} \approx \frac{c}{(T^{\ast} -
t_n^*)^{\frac{\beta+1}{2}}}$, we get $$\int_{B\left(a, \,c(T^{\ast} - t_n^*)^{\frac{\beta+1}{2}}\right)}
|P_{\tau(t_n^*)} u(t_n^*, x)|^2 \, dx
\geq {\epsilon},$$ and since $n$ is arbitrary, the proposition follows.
Observe that we did not use the splitting of the interval $(t_n, t_{n+1})$ as on page 261 in [@B98], since we had the estimate (\[t-dependence\]) of $(t_{n+1}-t_n)$ in terms of $(T^{\ast}-t_n)^{\beta +1}$, $\beta +1 > 1$, which gives a nonzero bound in (\[time-0\]). In Bourgain’s argument $\beta = 0$, i.e. $(t_{n+1}-t_n)< (T^{\ast}-t_n)$, which is not enough to conclude mass concentration with the above argument, and thus, a more careful splitting of the time interval is needed.
Note that the construction of $t_n^*$ given in the proof above provides more information about the mass concentration than is claimed in . For example, we know that there is a concentration time $t_n^*$ in each of the time intervals $[t_n ,
t_{n+1})$. The next statement contains a strengthened conclusion which shows that the concentration actually holds on a thickened interval of times containing $t_n^*$ of size proportional to $t_{n+1} - t_n$.
\[CorThickTime\] Assume the hypotheses of Proposition \[Prop2\]. The conclusion may be strengthened as follows: There exist $0 <
\sigma < 1$[^6] and a sequence of time intervals $\{I_n\}$ with $I_n \subset (t_n,t_{n+1})$ and $|I_n| = \sigma \, (t_{n+1} - t_n)$, uniform for all $n$, such that for some $\tilde\sigma = \tilde\sigma(\sigma)
>0$[^7] we have $$\label{refinedMass2proj}
\lim_{n \to \infty} \inf_{~t \in I_n} \sup_{ \begin{array}{c}
\mathrm{cubes}~J \in {\mathbb{R}}^d:\\
l(J)< (T^{\ast}-t)^{\frac12 + \frac{\beta}{2}}
\end{array}
} \int\limits_{J} |P_{\tau(t)} u(x, t)|^2 \, dx \geq
(1-\tilde\sigma)\, {{\epsilon}}.$$
Recall the inequalities (\[E:conc-sup1\]) - (\[E:conc-sup2\]) from the proof of Proposition \[Prop2\]. From (\[E:conc-sup2\]) only one concentration time $t_n^* \in I \cap (t_n, t_{n+1})$ was selected such that (\[E:conc-sup3\]) holds. However, (\[E:conc-sup1\]) contains a stronger statement, namely, on each set $I \cap (t_n, t_{n+1})$ there exists a subset $E_n$ such that for any $t \in E_n$ we have $$\label{E:setEn}
c' \, \eta^{\frac{4(d+2)}{d}} \leq \int_{K(t)} |P_{\tau} u(x, t)|^2
\, dx.$$ Note that since $u_0 \in L^2_x$, by the local well-posedness and mass conservation, $u \in C^0_t(L^2_x)$, and so $P_{\tau} u(t)$ is also continuous in time, which means that the set $E_n$ above can be chosen to be an interval, denote it by $I_n$. Next we estimate how large $I_n$ can be in comparison with $I\cap(t_n,t_{n+1})$. First, recall that $|I| = \frac1{A^2}$ and $\frac1{A^2} \lesssim (t_{n+1} -
t_n)$. Since the cube $\tau \subset {\mathbb{R}}^d$ has the center $\xi_0$ and side length $l(\tau)\leq c_0 A$, the function $P_{\tau} u$ (on the time interval $(t_n,t_{n+1})$) contains frequencies $\xi \in
\tau$, and thus, $|\xi| \leq c(\xi_0,c_0)\cdot A$. By the uncertainty principle (for example, p. 332 of [@T05]) $P_{\tau}
u$ is approximately constant on spatial balls of radius $\frac{c}{A}$ for some small $c$, in particular, since $l(K(t)) =
\frac1{A}$, it will be approximately constant on some fixed part of $K(t)$. By the propagation of Schrodinger waves, this set will persist for an interval of times of measure $\sim \frac1{A^2}$ (after which it may disperse). This length scale is exactly comparable with the size of $I$ (note independently of the step $n$), so we can find $0<\sigma<1$ such that $|I_n| =\sigma\,
|I\cap(t_n,t_{n+1})|$ for all $n$ and (\[E:setEn\]) holds for all $t \in I_n$ and some $\tilde\sigma >0$: $$\label{E:setIn}
(1 - \tilde\sigma)\, c \, \eta^{\frac{4(d+2)}{d}} \leq \int_{K(t)}
|P_{\tau} u(x, t)|^2 \, dx.$$ For the above heuristics we need the following lemma
Let $f \in L_x^2({\mathbb{R}}^d)$ and ${\mathrm{supp}\,}\hat{f} \subset [0,1]^d$. Suppose that for some constant $c_1 > 0$ $$\int_{[0,1]^d} |f(x)|^2 \, dx \geq c_1.$$ Then for $|t| < c(c_1, \| f \|_{L^2})$ the same concentration holds for the linear Schrödinger evolution of $f$, i.e., $$\int_{[0,1]^d} |e^{it{\triangle}} f(x)|^2 \, dx \geq \frac{c_1}2.$$
A basic calculation yields $$\label{E:initialconc}
c_1 \leq \int_{[0,1]^d} |f(x)|^2 \, dx \leq \int_{[0,1]^d}
|\left(f(x) - e^{it {\triangle}} f(x)\right) + e^{it {\triangle}} f(x)|^2 \, dx$$ $$\leq 2 \, \left(\int_{[0,1]^d} |f(x) - e^{it {\triangle}} f(x)|^2 \, dx +
\int_{[0,1]^d} |e^{it {\triangle}} f(x)|^2 \, dx \right) := A + B.$$ We reexpress the integrand in A using the Fourier transform $$|f(x) - e^{it {\triangle}} f(x)|^2 \leq \int_{[0,1]^d} |(e^{-4\pi^2 i t
|\xi|^2} - 1) e^{2 \pi i x \xi} \hat{f}(\xi)|^2 \, d\xi$$ $$\leq \sup_{\xi \in [0,1]^d} \left|e^{-4\pi i t |\xi|^2} - 1
\right|^2 \int_{[0,1]^d} |\hat{f}(\xi)|^2 \, d\xi \leq 2 \,(4\pi^2
\, t)^2 \, \Vert f \Vert_{L^2}^2.$$ Here we used the estimate $$|e^{4\pi^2 i t} - 1|^2 \leq (\cos (4\pi^2 t) -1)^2 + \sin^2(4\pi^2 t)
\leq 2\, (1-\cos^2(4\pi^2 \, t)) \leq 2\,(4\pi^2 \, t)^2.$$ If we restrict $t$ such that ${\displaystyle}|t| \leq \frac{1}{4 \pi^2 \| f
\|_{L^2}} \sqrt{ \frac{c_1}{8}}$, then ${\displaystyle}A \leq \frac{c_1}{2}$, and we obtain the conclusion of the lemma.
We return to the proof of Corollary \[CorThickTime\]. The preceding lemma shows that $L^2$ functions which are band limited to unit scale and lower frequencies and which are mass concentrated at unit scale remain mass concentrated at unit scale for unit time under the linear Schrödinger flow. Applying the dilation invariance shows that $L^2$ functions which are band limited to frequencies $|\xi| \lesssim A$ and which are mass concentrated on $|x| \lesssim \frac{1}{A}$ will remain mass concentrated for time $|t| \lesssim \frac{1}{A^2}$ under the linear Schrödinger flow. Finally, using the translation and Galilean invariances, we observe that this parabolic mass concentration persistence property holds without special reference to the frequency or spatial origin.
Now the rest of the argument in the proof repeats for any $t \in
I_n$ (for example, (\[time-0\]) holds for any $t \in I_n$ because of the fixed proportion $\sigma$ to $(T^*-t_n)^{\beta+1}$ and we obtain (\[refinedMass2proj\]). This completes the proof of Corollary \[CorThickTime\].
\[GeneralCase\] The above results can be extended to a more general form of the lower bound on the Strichartz norm in (\[L4bound2\]). Suppose $$\Vert u \Vert_{L^{\frac{2(d+2)}{d}}({[0,t]\times{\mathbb{R}}^d})} \gtrsim
G(T^*-t),$$ where $G(s) \to +\infty$ as $s \to 0$ and $G \in C^1(0,1)$. Then the window in the mass concentration (\[Mass2\]) changes as follows:
1. if $G(T^*-t) \gtrsim |\ln (T^*-t)|^{\gamma}$ with $\gamma \geq 1$, then $l(J) < [-(\partial_t G)(T^* - t)]^{-1/2}$,
2. otherwise, $l(J) < (T^* - t)^{1/2}$.
Similar changes hold for (\[Mass2proj\]) and also in Corollary \[CorThickTime\].
Observe that by the argument of Bourgain [@B98] and Bégout-Vargas [@BV05] we always have the case [(2)]{}. The case [(1)]{} is an improvement of [(2)]{} when $G$ grows faster than $|\ln (T^*-t)|$, otherwise, the argument of Proposition \[Prop2\] gives a weaker statement, i.e. the width of the window of concentration given by $G_t$ is narrower than the parabolic window.
The proof of this corollary follows the proof of Proposition \[Prop2\] (and Corollary \[CorThickTime\]) with the following changes. Given $G$ as above, the estimate (\[LowBound\]) changes to $$\eta = \Vert u \Vert_{L^{\frac{2(d+2)}{d}}((t_n, t_{n+1})\times
{\mathbb{R}}^d)} \gtrsim (t_{n+1}- t_n) \, [-(\partial_t G)(T^{\ast}-t_n)],$$ with the constant independent of $n$, and thus, $$t_{n+1}-t_n \lesssim \eta \, [-(\partial_t G)(T^{\ast} - t_n)]^{-1}.$$ Hence, the size of $\tau = \tau_{j_0}$ is estimated as $$\frac1{A} \leq c(\|u_0 \|^2_{L^2}, \eta, d) \, [-(\partial_t
G)(T^*-t_n)]^{-1/2},$$ which implies the result in [(1)]{}. Note that if $G$ has a faster grows than $|\ln(T^*-t)|$, then to get the parabolic window of concentration, we need the extra splitting of the interval $(t_n,
t_{n+1})$ as on page 261 in [@B98] or in Step 3 of Prop. 4.1 in [@BV05]. This finishes the proof.
As an example, consider $G(T^*-t) = |\ln (T^*-t)|^{1+{\epsilon}}$, ${\epsilon}>0$, then $l(J) < (T^* - t)^{1/2} |\ln(T^*-t)|^{-{\epsilon}/2}$ which is wider than the parabolic window. If $G(T^*-t) = \ln|\ln(T^*-t)|$, then the case (2) holds and the window of concentration is parabolic.
Tight concentration window $\implies$ Strichartz norm explosion
===============================================================
The following statement shows how the radius of mass concentration affects the divergence rate of the $L^{\frac{2(d+2)}{d}}_{t,x}$-norm. We will use the shorthand notation $P_{L(t)}$ to denote the Fourier restriction operator $P_{\{|\xi| \leq L(t)\}}$ and $F(t) = \Vert u
\Vert^{\frac{2(d+2)}{d}}_{L^{\frac{2(d+2)}{d}}{([0,t])\times
{\mathbb{R}}^d})}$.
\[propSup\] Let $u \in C([0,T^{\ast}) ; L^2({\mathbb{R}}^d)) \, \cap \,
L^\frac{2(d+2)}{d}([0,T^{\ast})$ ; $L^\frac{2(d+2)}{d}({\mathbb{R}}^d))$ be the maximal solution of $NLS^\pm_p({\mathbb{R}}^d)$, $p=\frac4{d}+1$, with $u_0 \in L^2({\mathbb{R}}^d)$.\
For ${\epsilon}>0$ let ${\displaystyle}\kappa({\epsilon}) = 2^{-(d+2)} \left({{\epsilon}} \,\Vert
u_0 \Vert^{-2}_{L^2}/ 8 \right)^{1/d}$ and for $\alpha>0$ define ${\displaystyle}L(t) = \frac12 \frac{\kappa({\epsilon})}{(T^{\ast}-t)^{\alpha}}$.
Suppose there exists $\alpha \geq \frac12$ and ${\epsilon}> 0$ such that $$\label{Mass1Sup}
\limsup_{t \nearrow T^{\ast}} \sup_{
\begin{array}{c}
\mathrm{cubes}~J \subset {\mathbb{R}}^d:\\
l(J)< (T^{\ast}-t)^\alpha
\end{array}
} \int_J |P_{L(t)} u(t,x)|^2 \, dx \geq {\epsilon}.$$
Then there exists $t_n \nearrow T^{\ast}$ such that $$\label{L4boundSup} F'(t_n) \gtrsim \frac{1}{(T^*-t_n)^{2\alpha}}.$$
If in (\[Mass1Sup\]) one has $\liminf$ instead of $\limsup$, then (\[L4boundSup\]) holds for any sequence $t_n \nearrow T^\ast$.
The condition (\[Mass1Sup\]) implies that there exists a sequence of times $\{t_n\}_{n=1}^{\infty}$ with $t_n \nearrow T^{\ast}$ and a sequence of cubes $\{J_n\}_{n=1}^{\infty} \subset {\mathbb{R}}^d$ with $l(J_n) < (T^{\ast} - t_n)^\alpha$ such that $$\label{limsup1}
\frac{{\epsilon}}{2} \leq \int_{J_n} |P_{L(t_n)} u(x,t_n)|^2 \, dx.$$ Since $F(t)$ is an increasing function, by the monotonicity theorem (e.g. see [@R]), it follows that $F'$ exists for a.e. t. We may assume that $F'(t_n)$ exists and is finite: for any $\tilde{\epsilon}> 0$ there exists $t_n^* \in (t_n, t_n+\tilde{\epsilon})$ such that $F'(t_n^*)$ exists and is finite, so we choose $\tilde{\epsilon}_{n}$ such that ${\displaystyle}\tilde{\epsilon}_n < 2^{d(d+3)-2} \, {\epsilon}\, \frac{(T^* -
t_n)^{d\, \alpha}}{(T^* - (t_n + {\epsilon}))^{d \alpha}}$ (note that $\tilde{\epsilon}_n \to 0$ as $n \to \infty$). Then using the triangle inequality in (\[limsup1\]), we obtain $$\frac{{\epsilon}}2 \leq 2\, \left( \int\limits_{~J_n} |P_{L(t_n)}u(x,t_n) -
P_{L(t_n^*)} u(x,t_n^*)|^{2} \, dx + \int\limits_{J_n} |P_{L(t_n^*)}
u(x,t_n^*)|^{2}\, dx \right)$$ $$\leq \frac{{\epsilon}}4 + 2 \, \int\limits_{J_n} |P_{L(t_n^*)}
u(x,t_n^*)|^{2}\, dx,$$ where the bound on the first term in the right hand side is discussed below, and thus, we obtain (\[limsup1\]) with $\frac{{\epsilon}}4$ on the left-hand side. Observe that $$\label{E:difference}
|P_{L(t_n)}u(x,t_n) - P_{L(t_n^*)} u(x,t^*_n)| \leq \int_{|\xi|\leq
L(t_n^*)} |\hat{u}(\xi, t_n) - \hat{u}(\xi, t_n^*)| \, d\xi$$ $$\leq \left( \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^d} |\hat{u}(\xi, t_n) - \hat{u}(\xi, t_n^*)|^2
\, d\xi \right)^{1/2} \left(\int_{\{\xi \in {\mathbb{R}}^d: |\xi|\leq \,
L(t_n^*)\}} 1 \, d\xi \right)^{1/2}$$ $$\leq 2 \, \Vert u_0 \Vert_{L^2({\mathbb{R}}^d)} \, [2 L(t_n^*)]^{d/2} \leq
\left( \frac{\tilde{\epsilon}_n}2 \, \frac{1}{2^{d(d+3)}} \,
\frac{1}{(T^*-t_n^*)^{d \, \alpha}} \right)^{1/2},$$
and integrating over $J_n$, we obtain $$2 \int\limits_{~J_n} |P_{L(t_n)}u(x,t_n) - P_{L(t_n^*)}
u(x,t_n^*)|^{2} \, dx
\leq \frac{\tilde{\epsilon}_n}{2^{d(d+3)}} \,\frac{{(T^* -
t_n)^{d
\alpha}}}{(T^* - t_n^*)^{d\, \alpha}} < \frac{{\epsilon}}4,$$ by the choice of $\tilde{\epsilon}_n$. Now we may re-denote the sequence $t_n^*$ by $t_n$.
Returning to (\[limsup1\]), we obtain $$\label{limsup2}
\frac{{\epsilon}}2 \leq \left( \int_{J_n}|P_{L(t_n)}
u(x,t_n)|^{\frac{2(d+2)}{d}} \, dx \right)^{\frac{d}{d+2}}
l(J_n)^{\frac{2d}{d+2}},$$ by Hölder’s inequality.
Fix $n \in {\mathbb{N}}$ and let $0<{\delta}<{\delta}_n = (T^{\ast} - t_n)^{2\alpha}
\leq (T^*-t_n)$ (recall $2\alpha \geq 1$). Raising to the power ${\frac{(d+2)}{d}}$, dividing (\[limsup1\]) by $l(J_n)^2$ and integrating both sides with respect to $t$ on $(t_n, t_n + {\delta})$, we obtain[[^8]]{} $$\label{allR2Sup:1}
\left(\frac{{\epsilon}}{2}\right)^{\frac{d+2}{d}}
\frac{{\delta}}{(T^{\ast}-t_n)^{2\alpha}} \leq \int\limits_{(t_n, t_n +
{\delta})\times J_n} |P_{L(t_n)} u(x,t_n)|^{\frac{2(d+2)}{d}} \, dx \, dt$$ $$\label{allR2Sup:2}
\leq \int\limits_{(t_n, t_n + {\delta})\times J_n}
|P_{L(t_n)}u(x,t_n) - P_{L(t)} u(x,t)|^{\frac{2(d+2)}{d}} \, dx \,
dt \,$$ $$\label{allR2Sup} + \int\limits_{(t_n, t_n + {\delta})\times J_n}
|P_{L(t)} u(x,t)|^{\frac{2(d+2)}{d}}\, dx \, dt = I + II.$$ Using the same estimate as in (\[E:difference\]), we get $$|P_{L(t_n)}u(x,t_n) - P_{L(t)} u(x,t)| \leq 2 \, \Vert u_0
\Vert_{L^2({\mathbb{R}}^d)} \, [2 L(t_n+{\delta})]^{d/2}$$ by Hölder’s inequality and the conservation of mass. Then the bound on term $I$ in (\[allR2Sup\]) is obtained by using the definition of $L(t)$ and the bound on $l(J_n)$ $$I \leq \int\limits_{(t_n, t_n + {\delta})\times J_n} \left(2 \,\Vert u_0
\Vert_{L^2({\mathbb{R}}^d)}\right)^{\frac{2(d+2)}{d}} \, [2 L(t_n +
{\delta})]^{d+2} \, dx \, dt$$ $$\leq (2 \,\Vert u_0 \Vert_{L^2({\mathbb{R}}^d)} )^{\frac{2(d+2)}{d}}
\frac{\kappa({\epsilon})^{d+2}}{(T^*-(t_n+{\delta}))^{\alpha(d+2)}} \, |J_n| \,
{\delta}$$ $$\leq \frac12 \, \left(\frac{{\epsilon}}{2}\right)^{\frac{d+2}{d}} \frac{{\delta}\,(T^{\ast}-t_n)^{d\alpha}}{(T^{\ast}-(t_n+{\delta}))^{\alpha(d+2)}}.$$ The second term in (\[allR2Sup\]) is estimated by the space-time norm on all ${\mathbb{R}}^d$ ($J_n \subset {\mathbb{R}}^d$) $$II \leq \int\limits_{(t_n, t_n + {\delta})\times {\mathbb{R}}^d}
|u(t,x)|^{\frac{2(d+2)}{d}} \, dx \, dt = \Vert u
\Vert^{\frac{2(d+2)}{d}}_{L^{\frac{2(d+2)}{d}}{((t_n, t_n +
{\delta})\times {\mathbb{R}}^d})}.$$ Substituting all above estimates into (\[allR2Sup\]), we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\left(\frac{{\epsilon}}{2}\right)^{\frac{d+2}{d}}
\frac{{\delta}}{(T^{\ast}-t_n)^{2\alpha}} &\leq \frac12 \,
\left(\frac{{\epsilon}}{2}\right)^{\frac{d+2}{d}} \frac{{\delta}\,(T^{\ast}-t_n)^{d\alpha}}{(T^{\ast}-(t_n+{\delta}))^{(d+2)\alpha}}\\
& + \,\left[F(t_{n}+ \delta) - F(t_{n}) \right],\end{aligned}$$ which implies $$\begin{aligned}
\left(\frac{{\epsilon}}{2}\right)^{\frac{d+2}{d}} &\leq \frac12 \,
\left(\frac{{\epsilon}}{2}\right)^{\frac{d+2}{d}}
\frac{(T^{\ast}-t_n)^{(d+2)\alpha}}{(T^{\ast}-(t_n+{\delta}))^{(d+2)\alpha}}\\
& + \, (T^{\ast}-t_n)^{2\alpha} \, \left( \frac{F(t_{n} + \delta) -
F(t_n)}{\delta}\right).\end{aligned}$$ Taking ${\delta}\searrow 0$ ($n$ is fixed) and recalling that $F'$ exists at $t_n$, then absorbing the first term on the right into the left-hand side,we obtain $$\label{DerivativeGrowth}
\frac1{2} \left(\frac{{\epsilon}}2\right)^{\frac{d+2}{d}}
\frac{1}{(T^{\ast}-t_n)^{2\alpha}} \leq F'(t_n),$$ which gives (\[L4boundSup\]).
The preceding result shows that the time derivative of the Strichartz norm is lower bounded along the sequence of times where we have tight mass concentration. If we assume that the tight mass concentration persists as in the conclusion of Corollary \[CorThickTime\], we can integrate to obtain lower bounds on the Strichartz norm itself.
\[L:ExtLocal\] Suppose that instead of the concentration (\[Mass1Sup\]) with $\limsup$, we have the concentration (\[refinedMass2proj\]) with the thickened time intervals $\{I_n\} \subset [t_n, t_{n+1})$ as in Corollary \[CorThickTime\], i.e., for some $0 < \sigma < 1$ there exist $\tilde\sigma > 0$ and cubes $\{J_n\} \subset {\mathbb{R}}^d$ with $l(J_n) <
(T^* -t)^\alpha$ and $|I_n| = \sigma (t_{n+1} - t_n)$ such that $$\label{refinedConc}
\lim_{n \to \infty} \inf_{t \in I_n} \int\limits_{J_n} |P_{L(t)} u(x, t)|^2 \, dx
\geq (1-\tilde\sigma)\, {{\epsilon}}.$$ Then $$\label{ThickDerivative}
F'(t) \geq \frac{c(\sigma,{\epsilon})}{(T^*-t)^{2\alpha}} \quad \text{for
a.e.} ~ t \in I_n.$$ Furthermore, for all ${\displaystyle}t \in \cup_{n} \,I_n$ we have $$\label{LowerBound1} F(t) \gtrsim \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
{\displaystyle}\frac{1}{(T^*-t)^{2\alpha -1}} + \text{const}, &~\alpha > 1/2,\\
|\ln (T^*-t)| + \text{const}, &~ \alpha=1/2.
\end{array}
\right.$$
Denote $(t_n,t_n+\delta_n) = \text{int\,} I_n$, the interior of $I_n$. Take $t \in (t_n, t_n+\delta_n)$ and repeat previous proof for this $t$ to obtain (\[ThickDerivative\]) (note that the first step of shifting $t_n$ to $t_n^*$ in order to have differentiability of $F$ available is not needed here, we may initially consider $t \in I_n$ such that $F'(t)$ exists).
For the second statement fix $t \in I_n$ and observe that since $F$ is increasing, we have $F(t) - F(t_n) \geq \int_{t_n}^{t} F'$. Integrating the expression from (\[ThickDerivative\]) (for $\alpha
> \frac12$) we obtain $$F(t) \geq \frac{c}{(T^* - t)^{2\alpha-1}} - \frac{c}{(T^* -
t_n)^{2\alpha-1}} + F(t_n),$$ where $c=c(\alpha, \epsilon, \sigma)$. Next observe that $F(t_n)
\geq F(t_{n-1}+ \delta_{n-1}) \geq
\int_{t_{n-1}}^{t_{n-1}+\delta_{n-1}} F' + F(t_{n-1})$. Iterating this process, say, till $t_{n-k} = T^*-1$, and using the property that $\delta_{i} = \sigma(t_{i+1} - t_{i})$, we obtain that $$F(t) \geq \frac{c}{(T^* - t)^{2\alpha-1}} + \text{const}.$$ Making appropriate changes in the integration for $\alpha =
\frac12$, we obtain the second part of (\[LowerBound1\]).
Observe that for $t \in (t_n, t_{n+1})\setminus I_n$, we have the following estimate on $F$: $$F(t) \gtrsim \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
{\displaystyle}\frac{1}{(T^*-(t_n+{\delta}_n))^{2\alpha -1}} + \text{const}, &~\alpha > 1/2,\\
|\ln (T^*-(t_n+{\delta}_n))| + \text{const}, &~ \alpha=1/2,
\end{array}
\right.$$ by using that $F$ is increasing on the compliment of $I_n$ in $(t_n,
t_{n+1})$.
In analogy with Corollary \[GeneralCase\] the statement of Proposition \[propSup\] can be generalized to include not only the polynomial powers in the window of concentration in (\[Mass1Sup\]) but a more general dependence on $(T^* - t)$. Suppose that both the concentration window in (\[Mass1Sup\]) is $l(J) < g(T^*-t)$ and ${\displaystyle}L(t) = \frac12 \frac{\kappa({\epsilon})}{g(T^*-t)}$, where the function $g$ can be written as $g(T^*-t) = [-(\partial_t
G)(T^*-t)]^{-1/2}$ for some $C^1$-function $G$ with the properties that as $t \to T^*$ both $G(T^*-t) \to \infty$ and $[-(\partial_t
G)(T^*-t)] \to \infty$.
Then the conclusion in (\[L4boundSup\]) modifies to $$\label{GeneralBound}
F(t_n) \gtrsim G(T^*-t_n).$$
For example, $g(T^* - t) = (T^* - t)^{{\alpha}} |\ln(T^*-t)|^{-\gamma}$ with $\alpha > 1/2$ and $\gamma \in {\mathbb{R}}$, or $\alpha = 1/2$ and $\gamma \geq 0$ [^9] would satisfy the above conditions. The last case produces the logarithmic divergence $|\ln(T^*-t)|^{2\gamma +1}$ of the Strichartz norm ${\displaystyle}\Vert u
\Vert_{L^{\frac{2(d+2)}{d}}{([0,t])\times {\mathbb{R}}^d})}$.
To prove this general statement we repeat the proof of the above Proposition with appropriate modifications and instead of (\[DerivativeGrowth\]) we arrive to $$F'(t_n) \gtrsim \frac1{[g(T^*-t_n)]^2}.$$ Proceeding as in Lemmas \[L:ExtLocal\], and using the definition of $g$, we obtain (\[GeneralBound\]).
\[C:log\] If the blow up time $T^* < \infty$ for $NLS_{p}^{\pm}({\mathbb{R}}^d)$ with $p=\frac4{d}+1$, then the diagonal Strichartz norm ${\displaystyle}\Vert u
\Vert_{L^{\frac{2(d+2)}{d}}{([0,t])\times {\mathbb{R}}^d})}$ explodes at least as fast as $|\ln(T^* - t)|$.
The proof follows from [@B98], [@BV05], where it is shown that finite time blowup solutions parabolically concentrate in $L^2$, and the previous corollary with $g(T^*-t) = (T^*-t)^{1/2}$.
[8]{}
Bégout, P. and Vargas, A. , *Tran. AMS*, in press.
Bourgain, J. *Int. Math. Res. Notices* [**5**]{} (1998), 253–283.
R. Carles and S. Keraani, *Tran. AMS*, in press.
F. Merle and P. Raphaël, *Ann. Math.* [**161**]{} (2005), no. 1, 157–222.
F. Merle and P. Raphaël, *Geom. Funct. Anal.* [**13**]{} (2003), 591–642.
F. Merle and L. Vega, *Internat. Math. Res. Notices* [**8**]{} (1998), 399–425.
A. Moyua, A. Vargas and L. Vega, *Int. Math. Res. Not.* [**16**]{} (1996), 793–815.
G. Perelman, *Ann. Henri Poincar´e* [**2**]{} (2001), 605-673.
H.L. Royden, *Macmillan Publishing Company*, New York, 1988, 1963.
Tao, T. *Geom. Funct. Anal.* [**13**]{} (2003), 1359–1384.
T. Tao, . *CBMS Regional Conference Series in Mathematics*, 106, AMS, Providence, RI, 2006.
[^1]: J.C. is supported in part by N.S.E.R.C. Grant R.G.P.I.N. 250233-03.
[^2]: S.R. is supported in part by N.S.F. grant DMS-0531337.
[^3]: The pair $q = \infty, r=2$ is obviously omitted from this claim since the $L^2_x$ norm is conserved under the evolution.
[^4]: For example, for ${\mathbb{R}}^2$ the argument in ([@B98]) gives $c(d) \sim 292$; see the proof for general $d$.
[^5]: We estimate $c(d) \approx
\frac{(d+4)(d+3)(d^2+3d+4)^2}{(d+1)(d+2)}$.
[^6]: If $\sigma = 0$, then this statement coincides with the theorem by choosing $I_n = \{t_n^*\}$.
[^7]: with $\tilde\sigma = 0$ if $\sigma = 0$ and $\tilde\sigma =
1$ when $\sigma = 1$.
[^8]: To be strictly correct, we should raise both sides in (\[allR2Sup:1\])-(\[allR2Sup\]) to the power $\frac{d}{d+2}$ to obtain norms so that we can apply the triangle inequality.
[^9]: in fact, $\gamma > -1/2$ satisfies the condition on $G$, however, for $-1/2 < \gamma < 0$ the window of concentration is wider than parabolic
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We report a novel approach for preparing a Bose-Einstein condensate (BEC) of $^{87}$Rb atoms using electro-pneumatically driven transfer of atoms into a Quadrupole-Ioffe magnetic trap (QUIC Trap). More than 5$\times$$10^{8}$ atoms from a Magneto-optical trap are loaded into a spherical quadrupole trap and then these atoms are transferred into an Ioffe trap by moving the Ioffe coil towards the center of the quadrupole coil, thereby, changing the distance between quadrupole trap center and the Ioffe coil. The transfer efficiency is more than 80 %. This approach is different from a conventional approach of loading the atoms into a QUIC trap wherein the spherical quadrupole trap is transformed into a QUIC trap by changing the currents in the quadrupole and the Ioffe coils. The phase space density is then increased by forced rf evaporative cooling to achieve the Bose-Einstein condensation having more than $10^{5}$ atoms.'
author:
- 'Sunil Kumar, Sumit Sarkar, Gunjan Verma, Chetan Vishwakarma, Md. Noaman[$^1$]{} and Umakant Rapol'
bibliography:
- 'biblio.bib'
title: 'Bose-Einstein Condensation in an electro-pneumatically transformed quadrupole-Ioffe magnetic trap'
---
The first experimental demonstration of BEC in alkali atoms [@anderson1995observation; @PhysRevLett.79.1170; @PhysRevLett.75.3969] led to a rapid growth of research in the area of ultracold quantum gases. It has given a completely new insight into the study of quantum matter at ultralow temperatures and opened up new experimental test-bed to study condensed matter systems. It has provided the ability to emulate real-life condensed matter systems to be able to gain new insights into supercoductivity and superfluidity. BECs subjected to periodic [@bloch2005ultracold; @morsch2006dynamics] and disordered optical potentials [@PhysRevA.81.063639; @PhysRevLett.95.250403; @PhysRevLett.95.170411] are some such examples of quantum emulators. In addition, extreme control through light-matter interaction has enabled creation and study of artificial gauge potentials [@RevModPhys.83.1523; @galitski2013spin] as a path towards understanding new materials like topological insulators and simulation of lattice gauge theories in high energy physics [@PhysRevLett.110.125304; @RevModPhys.55.775].
Development of robust and yet simple experimental system for routine production of BECs is always a challenge during the design phase. It often involves a tradeoff between optical, mechanical and control system complexities and modularity while being able to achieve the desired scientific goals. The final challenge is the design of the trap. Driven again by the scientific goals, one chooses between a magnetic trap [@PhysRevLett.77.416], all-optical trap [@barrett2001all] or a combined optical-magnetic trap [@PhysRevA.79.063631]. Historically, the magnetic trap with different variants has been the first of the most widely used traps.
The simplest example of creating a magnetic trap is to use spherical quadrupole trap using a pair of coils in anti Helmholtz configuration, in which magnetic field crosses zero at the center and increases linearly with the distance from the trap center. The quadrupole trap offers tightest confinement at the cost of loss of cold atoms from the trap due to non adiabatic spin flips [@PhysRevLett.75.3969; @PhysRevLett.74.3352] at the trap center, known as Majorana spin flips which prohibits increase of phase space density and thus the formation of BEC. There are several techniques for creating non zero minima such as time-averaged orbiting potential (TOP) trap [@PhysRevLett.74.3352], optical dipole trap [@PhysRevA.71.011602] and Ioffe-Pritchard (IP) type trap [@PhysRevA.58.R2664; @PhysRevLett.77.416; @PhysRevLett.51.1336]. IP type traps can give very high axial and radial trapping frequencies giving rise to very tight confinement as compared to a TOP trap. Tight confinement results in very high densities and large collision rates which is very crucial during evaporative cooling [@PhysRevB.34.3476], giving a thermalization time shorter than the lifetime of the atoms in magnetic trap. Although the IP type trap has been a successful trap that was widely used in the initial period after the demonstration of BEC, IP traps have certain disadvantages such as the mode matching of spatially separated center of Magneto-Optical Trap (MOT) with the center of magnetic trap, limited optical access to the trapping region and large power dissipation with relatively complex electronic control circuits for switching the magnetic trap which requires additional power supplies. The advent of a modified quadrupole-Ioffe trap [@PhysRevA.58.R2664], solved the problem of mode matching and in addition had a simplified design consisting of only three coils (the two quadrupole coils and a third Ioffe coil having axis perpendicular to the axis of the quadrupole coils). This scheme involves independent control of currents through the quadrupole and Ioffe coil. In addition, the geometrical design of the Ioffe coil has to be such that it does not obstruct the MOT laser beams in some cases. This poses some limitation in getting the desired trapping frequencies.
In this report, we report a novel scheme of an Ioffe-Pritchard magnetic trap wherein, atoms trapped in a spherical-quadrupole magnetic trap are transferred into a quadrupole-Ioffe (QUIC) trap by mechanically translating the Ioffe coil. The transfer of magnetically trapped atoms over large distances was first demonstrated by Greiner [*et. al.*]{} [@PhysRevA.63.031401] by using a chain of quadrupole coils, in which the atoms were moved up to 330 mm and then quadrupole potential is converted to Ioffe type potential using QUIC trap geometry. Another method of creating a Ioffe type potential in which quadrupole coils are mounted on a linear actuator which is driven by a servo motor is given in Refs. [@lewandowski2003simplified; @nakagawa2005simple]. The atoms are transported up to 550 mm to reach into the ultra high vacuum region to create IP type potential [@lewandowski2003simplified; @nakagawa2005simple]. All these transfer mechanisms involve a sophisticated electronic switching circuit for controlling the currents in all the coils to avoid heating of trapped atom in magnetic trap during the transfer process. In our trap, we have solved the problem by using a single UHV chamber in which MOT and magnetic trap are created in the same chamber. Hence, requires less transportation distance up to 40 mm only, as compared to previous works [@PhysRevA.63.031401; @lewandowski2003simplified; @nakagawa2005simple]. Another advantage in our set up is moving a much smaller Ioffe coil in comparison to moving the large quadrupole coils. In our trap the transfer mechanism is purely based on the transportation distance and it does not need a current control in separate coils, thus simplifying the electronic control circuit with the use of a single current controller and a single IGBT switch.
{width="0.75\linewidth"}
The final configuration of the trap is the widely used QUIC trap as reported in Ref. [@PhysRevA.58.R2664]. By means of forced rf evaporative cooling, we report fast production of BEC in such a trap. The mechanical translation of the Ioffe coil is achieved by mounting the Ioffe coil on a pneumatically actuated translator as shown in Fig. 1. As mentioned earlier, this transport scheme provides two major advantages to other conventional schemes viz. a) It reduces the complexity of electronic control system. In our setup, we use a single DC power supply (Delta Elektronika Model SM60-100) for controlling and a single IGBT (Make EUPEC, model no BSM300GB120DLC) for switching the current through all the coils. b) Provides added flexibility in designing stiffer magnetic traps with improved optical access to laser cooling beams. The geometrical constraints posed by the size of our glass cell (39 mm $\times$ 39 mm) became critical in designing Ioffe coil with tolerable levels of electrical power consumption. Hence, we had to go for a non-conical shaped Ioffe coil. This non-conical Ioffe coil if present fixed, would obstruct the laser beams that intersect the glass cell at 45 degrees.
![Absolute value of the magnetic field along the axis of Ioffe coil vs the distance of the Ioffe coil and the quadrupole trap center. The current through all the coils is 27A and the distance between spherical quadrupole trap centre and Ioffe coil is (a) 45 mm, (b) 25 mm, (c) 23.5 mm, (d) 23 mm. Note that the transformation of the linear potential with zero minima to a harmonic trap with non-zero minima is similar to that which can be achieved by varying currents through fixed Ioffe and quadrupole coils [@PhysRevA.58.R2664].](fig2.eps){width="\linewidth"}
The pneumatic translator is a commercially available product (Festo, Model No. SLT-16-40-P-A) that provides a total translation of 40 mm. The translator is a two position translator that is guaranteed to give a positioning repeatability of $\pm$20 $\mu$m. The position verses time profile of the translator is shown in inset Fig. 1. The applied air pressure was about 4 bar. The peak forward and reverse speed of the translator can be controlled by a pair of flow control valves.
Each of the two anti-Helmholtz coils is made of 15 layers with 19 turns in each layer wound with 17 AWG enameled magnet wire. Each layer is separated by 1 mm thick spacers. The Ioffe coil has 7 layers with 20 turns in each layer. Each of the two bias coils is made by winding 15 turns of insulated copper tubing of 3 mm OD and 2 mm ID. The anti-Helmholtz coils produce a magnetic field gradient of 13 G/cm/A in the axial direction. The bias coils generate a constant field of 0.84 G/A. The distance between the bias coils is 180 mm. All the coils except the bias field generating coils are enclosed in water tight Delrin assemblies and cold water is circulated to remove heat generated during the operation of the trap. In Fig. 2, we show the numerical simulation of the magnitude of the magnetic field along the axis of the Ioffe coil for different distances of the Ioffe coil from the center of the quadrupole coils for a current of 25 A passing through all the coils simultaneously including the bias coils. When the Ioffe coil is about 45 mm away from the axis of the quadrupole coils, the effect of the magnetic field created by the Ioffe coil is negligible. As the Ioffe coil moves closer to the quadrupole coil axis, a double minima in the magnetic potential starts appearing and the two minima merge at a distance of 23 mm.
{width="\linewidth"}
Our experimental setup consists of three sections viz. a) a Rb effusion source, b) a decreasing field Zeeman slower and c) a rectangular quartz cell. The Rb effusion source and Zeeman slower designs are adapted from [@PhysRevA.79.063631]. A 75 l/s ion pump is used to pump the Rb effusion source region, two 150 l/s ion pumps are used before and after the Zeeman slower for pumping. In addition, there are two Ti sublimator pumps along with the two 150 l/s pumps. There is a Non-Evaporable Getter (NEG) pump near the Quartz cell. Atomic beam emanating from the Zeeman slower is used to load the MOT in the quartz cell. The MOT beams are orthogonal to each other and are incident at 45$^\circ$ to the cell. We load about 1 $\times$ 10$^9$ $^{87}$Rb atoms in about 35 s time. During the loading of the atoms in the MOT, the field gradient of the quadrupole coils is $\sim$13 G/cm and the detuning of the cooling beams is -2 $\Gamma$ from the 5$^2$S$_{1/2}$ $|F=2\rangle \longrightarrow$ 5$^2$P$_{3/2}$ $|F'=3\rangle$ state, where $\Gamma$ = 6.1 MHz is the linewidth of the excited state. The laser beams have a 1/$e^2$ diameter of 22 mm and the intensity of the laser light is about 3$\times$ the saturation intensity of the 5$^2$S$_{1/2}$ $|F=2\rangle \longrightarrow$ 5$^2$P$_{3/2}$ $|F'=3\rangle$ transition. As mentioned earlier, during the entire loading sequence of the atoms, the quadrupole coils, Ioffe coils and the bias coils are connected in series. It has been seen that there is no appreciable effect on the nature of loading of the atoms in the MOT when the Ioffe and bias coils are disconnected. This is due to the fact that, the shift in the center of the quadrupole field is less than 0.5 mm which is negligible in comparison to the size of the cloud ($\sim$ 8 mm). Atoms are then compressed in the compressed-MOT stage by increasing the detuning to -4 $\Gamma$ while reducing the intensity to 1/10$^{th}$ of the saturation intensity. Atoms are subjected to a polarization gradient cooling stage for 4 ms where the magnetic field is turned off while the detuning is ramped to -8 $\Gamma$ and intensity of the MOT beams is kept unchanged from the previous stage. At this stage we have about 8 $\times$ 10$^8$ atoms in the trap at a temperature of $\sim$30 $\mu$K. Atoms are then optically pumped into the 5$^2$S$_{1/2}$ $|F=2, m_f=2\rangle$ state by applying a 250 $\mu$s pulse of circularly polarized laser driving the 5$^2$S$_{1/2}$ $|F=2\rangle \longrightarrow$ 5$^2$P$_{3/2}$ $|F'=3\rangle$ transition in the presence of a small bias magnetic field in the z-direction.
{width="\linewidth"}
By rapidly turning on the quadrupole magnetic field to 91 G/cm in less than 2 ms we capture more than 5 $\times$ 10$^8$ in the spherical quadrupole magnetic trap. The temperature in the magnetic trap at this stage is a little over 500 $\mu$K. Atoms are then compressed adiabatically in 1500 ms from 91 G/cm to 325 G/cm magnetic field gradient. After this stage the pneumatic translator is triggered to initiate the translation of the Ioffe coil. Within less than 1 s the Ioffe coil reaches its final position where it almost touches the quartz cell. As shown in Fig. 2, as the coil keeps moving towards the center of the quadrupole trap, at a certain distance there appear two minima in the magnetic trapping potential and then they finally merge when the coil reaches its end position. We have captured the transfer process of atoms in the QUIC trap by turning off the magnetic field at different stages of the position of the Ioffe coil. Fig. 3 shows the absorption images of the atoms during the transfer process. We transfer more than 80 $\%$ atoms from the spherical quadrupole trap into the Ioffe trap. A systematic study of the transfer efficiency of the atoms into the Ioffe trap as a function of the speed of translation of the Ioffe coil has been done. Data in the Fig. 4 shows that there is a gradual increase in the transfer efficiency (up to 85 $\%$) of the atoms for peak speeds up to 80 mm/s and then the efficiency drops a little. However, the range of efficiencies is limited to a narrow range between 75 $\%$ and 85$\%$. This experiment has been performed only in the available range of speeds that could be accessed by controlling the flow rate of the entrance valve of the Pneumatic translator while keeping a constant pressure of 4 bar.
{width="\linewidth"}
The rise in temperature also does not change appreciably to affect the forced evaporative cooling process in the later stages. The QUIC trap used in our setup has a radial frequency of 2$\pi$ $\times$ 140 Hz and axial frequency of 2$\pi$ $\times$ 21 Hz which have been measured by perturbing the cloud of cold atoms. The bias field is $\sim$1 G. The measured axial field gradient of the trap is 325 G/cm and the estimated axial field curvature is 196 G/cm$^2$. Rf evaporative cooling is performed to further cool the atoms in Ioffe trap by rf-induced spin flips. The rf frequency was swept from 40 MHz to 1.919 MHz over a time period of 16.4 s in different stages. After evaporation, thermalized cloud is probed by using absorption imaging system which consists of single lens geometry and EMCCD camera having a magnification factor of 1.0(1). Cooled atoms are released from the trap by switching off the magnetic trap. After the atoms expand ballistically, near-resonant laser pulse of 40 $\mu$s is illuminated on the expanding cloud and the shadow is imaged onto the camera. Atoms’ number density, temperature and the total number were calculated by analyzing these absorption images. When rf frequency is lowered below 1.94 MHz a sudden appearance of bimodal distribution is observed in the time of flight images shown in Fig.5, which is the signature of BEC phase transition. The calculated number of atoms in the BEC is 3.5(4) $\times$ 10$^5$. The instability of the bottom of the trap is below 3 mG measured over a period of couple of hours. Thereby, proving the usability of this design.
In conclusion, we have demonstrated a novel method for realization of Bose-Einstein condensation of rubidium atoms in electromechanical QUIC trap. By first loading into pure quadrupole trap, atoms are transferred into the pure Ioffe trap by changing the position of Ioffe coil. This type of trap reduces technical complexity associated with the electronics and delivers an added advantage of optimizing magnetic trap parameters. The design of this trap geometry allows full optical access during loading in the magnetic trap. In addition, prepared BEC can be loaded into additional optical traps and by moving the Ioffe away can provide additional optical access. Due to an added advantage of designing tighter magnetic traps, one can do a fast evaporation.
UR acknowledges the funding received from Indian Institute of Science Education and Research, Pune. SK would like to acknowledge Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), India for research fellowship.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'For any bipartite systems, a universal entanglement witness of rank-4 for pure states is obtained and a class of finite rank entanglement witnesses is constructed. In addition, a method of detecting entanglement of a state only by entries of its density matrix with respect to some product basis is obtained.'
address:
- ' Department of Mathematics, Shanxi University , Taiyuan 030006, P. R. of China;'
- |
Department of Mathematics\
Taiyuan University of Technology\
Taiyuan 030024, P. R. of China
author:
- Xiaofei Qi
- Jinchuan Hou
title: Detecting entanglement of states by entries of their density matrices
---
[^1]
[^2] [^3]
Introduction
============
Let $H$ and $K$ be separable complex Hilbert spaces. Recall that a quantum state is an operator $\rho\in{\mathcal
B}(H\otimes K)$ which is positive and has trace 1. Denote by ${\mathcal S}(H)$ the set of all states on $H$. If $H$ and $K$ are finite dimensional, $\rho\in{\mathcal S}(H\otimes K)$ is said to be separable if $\rho$ can be written as $$\rho=\sum_{i=1}^k p_i \rho_i\otimes \sigma _i,$$ where $\rho_i$ and $\sigma_i$ are states on $H$ and $K$ respectively, and $p_i$ are positive numbers with $\sum
_{i=1}^kp_i=1$. Otherwise, $\rho$ is said to be inseparable or entangled (ref. [@BZ; @NC]). For the case that at least one of $H$ and $K$ is of infinite dimension, by Werner [@W], a state $\rho$ acting on $H\otimes K$ is called separable if it can be approximated in the trace norm by the states of the form $$\sigma=\sum_{i=1}^n p_i \rho_i\otimes \sigma _i,$$ where $\rho_i$ and $\sigma_i$ are states on $H$ and $K$ respectively, and $p_i$ are positive numbers with $\sum_{i=1}^np_i=1$. Otherwise, $\rho$ is called an entangled state.
Entanglement is a basic physical resource to realize various quantum information and quantum communication tasks such as quantum cryptography, teleportation, dense coding and key distribution [@NC]. It is very important but also difficult to determine whether or not a state in a composite system is separable or entangled. It is obvious that every separable state has a positive partial transpose (the PPT criterion). For $2\times
2$ and $2\times 3$ systems, that is, for the case $\dim H =\dim K
= 2$ or $\dim H = 2,\ \dim K = 3$, a state is separable if and only if it is a PPT state, that is, has positive partial transpose (see [@Hor; @Pe]), but the PPT criterion has no efficiency for PPT entangled states appearing in the higher dimensional systems. In [@CW], the realignment criterion for separability in finite-dimensional systems was found, which says that if $\rho\in{\mathcal S}(H\otimes K)$ is separable, then the trace norm of its realignment matrix $\rho^R$ is not greater than 1. The realignment criterion was generalized to infinite dimensional system by Guo and Hou in [@GH]. A most general approach to characterize quantum entanglement is based on the notion of entanglement witnesses (see [@Hor]). A self-adjoint operator $W$ acting on $H\otimes K$ is said to be an entanglement witness (briefly, EW), if $W$ is not positive and ${\rm Tr}(W\rho)\geq 0$ holds for all separable states $\rho$. It was shown in [@Hor] that, a state $\rho$ is entangled if and only if it is detected by some entanglement witness $W$, that is, ${\rm Tr}(W\rho)<0$. However, constructing entanglement witnesses is a hard task. There was a considerable effort in constructing and analyzing the structure of entanglement witnesses for finite and infinite dimensional systems [@B; @CK; @HQ; @JB; @TG] (see also [@HHH1] for a review). Recently, Hou and Qi in [@HQ] showed that every entangled state can be recognized by an entanglement witness $W$ of the form $W=cI+T$ with $I$ the identity operator, $c$ a nonnegative number and $T$ a finite rank self-adjoint operator and provided a way how to construct them.
Another important criterion for separability of states is the positive map criterion [@Hor Theorem 2], which claims that a state $\rho\in{\mathcal S}(H\otimes K)$ with $\dim H\otimes
K<\infty$ is separable if and only if $(\Phi\otimes I)\rho\geq 0$ holds for all positive linear maps $\Phi:{\mathcal
B}(H)\rightarrow{\mathcal B}(K)$. Hou [@H] generalized the positive map criterion to the infinite dimensional systems and obtained the following result.
[**Finite rank elementary operator criterion.**]{} ([@H Theorem 4.5]) [*Let $H$, $K$ be complex Hilbert spaces and $\rho$ be a state acting on $H\otimes K$. Then the following statements are equivalent.*]{}
\(1) [*$\rho$ is separable;*]{}
\(2) [*$(\Phi\otimes I)\rho \geq 0$ holds for every finite-rank positive elementary operator $\Phi :{\mathcal B}(H)\rightarrow
{\mathcal B}(K)$.*]{}
Recall that a linear map $\Phi :{\mathcal B}(H)\rightarrow {\mathcal
B}(K)$ is an elementary operator if there are operators $A_1,A_2,\cdots, A_r\in{\mathcal B}(H,K)$ and $B_1,B_2,\cdots,
B_r\in{\mathcal B}(K,H)$ such that $\Phi (X)=\sum_{i=1}^rA_iXB_i$ for all $X\in{\mathcal B}(H)$. It is known that an elementary operator $\Phi$ is finite rank positive if and only if there exist finite rank operators $C_1,\dots,C_k, D_1,\cdots, D_l\in{\mathcal
B}(H,K)$ such that $(D_1,\cdots, D_l)$ is a contractive local combination of $(C_1,\cdots, C_k)$ and $\Phi
(X)=\sum_{i=1}^kC_iXC_i^\dag-\sum_{j=1}^lD_jXD_j^\dag$ for all $X\in{\mathcal B}(H)$ (ref. [@H] and the references therein).
Therefore, by the finite rank elementary operator criterion, a state $\rho$ on $H\otimes K$ is entangled if and only if there exists a finite rank positive elementary operator $\Phi:{\mathcal
B}(H)\rightarrow {\mathcal B}(K)$ such that $(\Phi\otimes I)\rho$ is not positive. Here $\Phi$ must be not completely positive (briefly, NCP). Thus it is also important and interesting to find as many as possible finite rank positive elementary operators that are NCP, and then, to apply them to detect the entanglement of states. In [@QH], some new finite rank positive elementary operators were constructed and then applied to get some new entangled states that can not be detected by the PPT criterion and the realignment criterion.
Due to the Choi-Jamio[ł]{}kowski isomorphism, any EW on finite dimensional system $H\otimes K$ corresponds to a linear positive map $\Phi:{\mathcal B}(H)\rightarrow{\mathcal B}(H)$. In fact, for system $H\otimes K$ of any dimension, if $\Phi:{\mathcal
B}(H)\rightarrow{\mathcal B}(H)$ is a normal positive completely bounded linear map, and if $\rho_0$ is an entangled state on $H\otimes K$, then $W=(\Phi\otimes I)\rho_0$ is an entanglement witness whenever $W$ is not positive (see lemma 2.1). Recall that a linear map $\Delta : {\mathcal B}(H)\rightarrow{\mathcal B}(K)$ is said to be completely bounded if $\Delta\otimes I$ is bounded; is said to be normal if it is weakly continuous on bounded sets, or equivalently, if it is ultra-weakly continuous (i.e., if $\{A_\alpha\}$ is a bounded net and there is $A\in{\mathcal B}(H)$ such that $\langle x|A_\alpha|y\rangle$ converges to $\langle
x|A|y\rangle$ for any $|x\rangle, |y\rangle\in H$, then $\langle
\phi|\Delta(A_\alpha)|\psi\rangle$ converges to $\langle
\phi|\Delta(A)|\psi\rangle$ for any $|\phi\rangle, |\psi\rangle\in
K$. ref. [@Dix pp.59]).
The finite rank elementary operator criterion, together with lemma 2.1, gives a way of constructing finite rank entanglement witnesses from finite rank positive elementary operators for both finite and infinite dimensional bipartite systems. In the present paper, we construct a rank-4 entanglement witness $W$ that has some what “universal" property for pure states in any bipartite systems $H\otimes K$. We show that, for such a rank-4 entanglement witness $W$, a pure state $\rho$ is entangled if and only if there exist unitary operators $U$ on $H$ and $V$ on $K$ such that ${\rm
Tr}((U\otimes V)W(U^\dag\otimes V^\dag)\rho)<0$. In addition, if $\rho$ is a mixed state such that ${\rm Tr}((U\otimes
V)W(U^\dag\otimes V^\dag)\rho)<0$, then $\rho$ is 1-distillable (see theorem 2.2). We also construct a class of entanglement witnesses from the finite rank positive elementary operators obtained in [@QH] (see theorem 3.1).
So far, by our knowledge, there is no methods of recognizing the entanglement of a state by merely the entries of its density matrix. Another interesting result of this paper gives a way of detecting the entanglement of a state in a bipartite system by only a part of entries of its density matrix (see theorems 3.2, 3.3). This method is simple, computable and practicable because it provide a way to recognize the entanglement of a state by some suitably chosen entries of its matrix representation with respect to some given product basis. As an illustration, some new examples of entangled states that can be recognized by this way are proposed, which also provides some new entangled states that can not be detected by the PPT criterion and the realignment criterion (see examples 3.4, 3.5).
Recall that a bipartite state $\rho$ is called $n$-distillable, if and only if maximally entangled bipartite pure states, e.g. $|\psi\rangle= \frac{1}{2}(|11'\rangle + |22'\rangle)$, can be created from $n$ identical copies of the state $\rho$ by means of local operations and classical communication; is called distillable if it is $n$-distillable for some $n$. It has been shown that all entangled pure states are distillable. However it is a challenge to give an operational criterion of distillability for general mixed states [@Hor1]. In [@Hor2], it was shown that a density matrix $\rho $ is distillable if and only if there are some projectors $P$, $Q$ that map high dimensional spaces to two-dimensional ones such that the state $(P\otimes Q)\rho^{\otimes
n}(P\otimes Q)$ is entangled for some $n $ copies.
Universal entanglement witnesses for pure states
================================================
In this section we will give a simple necessary and sufficient condition for separability of pure states in bipartite composite systems of any dimension.
Before stating the main result in this section, we give a basic lemma.
[**Lemma 2.1.**]{} [*Let $H$, $K$ be complex Hilbert spaces of any dimension and let $\Phi:{\mathcal B}(H)\rightarrow{\mathcal
B}(H)$ be a positive normal completely bounded linear map. Then, for any entangled state $\rho_0$ on $H\otimes K$, $W=(\Phi\otimes
I)\rho_0$ is an entanglement witness whenever $W$ on $H\otimes K$ is not positive.*]{}
[**Proof.**]{} Because $\Phi$ is completely bounded, $W=(\Phi\otimes
I)\rho_0$ is a bounded self-adjoint operator on $H\otimes K$. Note that ${\mathcal B}(H)={\mathcal T}(H)^*$, where ${\mathcal T}(H)$ denotes the Banach space of all trace class operators on $H$ endowed with the trace norm. Then the normality of $\Phi$ implies that there exists a bounded linear map $\Delta :{\mathcal
T}(H)\rightarrow{\mathcal T}(H)$ such that $\Phi=\Delta^*$. We claim that $\Delta$ is also positive. In fact, for any unit vector $|\phi\rangle\in H$ and any positive operator $A\in{\mathcal
B}(H)$, we have $${\rm Tr}(A\Delta(|\phi\rangle\langle\phi|))={\rm Tr}(\Phi(A)(|\phi\rangle\langle\phi|))
=\langle\phi|\Phi(A)|\phi\rangle\geq 0.$$ This implies that $\Delta(|\phi\rangle\langle\phi|)$ is positive for any $|\phi\rangle$. So, $\Delta$ is a positive linear map.
Now, for any separable state $\rho\in{\mathcal S}(H\otimes K)$, we have $${\rm Tr}(W\rho)={\rm Tr}((\Phi\otimes I)\rho_0\cdot \rho)={\rm Tr}(\rho_0\cdot (\Delta\otimes
I)\rho)\geq 0$$ since $(\Delta\otimes I)\rho\geq 0$. So, if $W$ is not positive, then it is an entanglement witness.$\Box$
Since every elementary operator is normal and completely bounded, by Lemma 2.1, if $\Phi$ is a positive elementary operator and if $\rho_0$ is an entangled state, then $W=(\Phi\otimes I)\rho_0$ is an entanglement witness whenever $W$ is not positive. Also note that, if $W$ is an entanglement witness, then for any positive number $b$, $bW$ is an entanglement witness, too.
Let $W$ be an entanglement witness on $H\otimes K$. We say that $W$ is universal (for all states) if, for any entangled state $\rho$ on $H\otimes K$, there exist unitary operators $U$ on $H$ and $V$ on $K$ such that ${\rm Tr}((U\otimes V)W(U^\dag\otimes V^\dag)\rho)<0$; $W$ is universal for pure states if, for any entangled pure state $\rho$ on $H\otimes K$, there exist unitary operators $U$ on $H$ and $V$ on $K$ such that ${\rm Tr}((U\otimes V)W(U^\dag\otimes
V^\dag)\rho)<0$.
The following is the main result of this section, which gives a universal entanglement witness of rank-4 for pure states. Particularly, we conclude that the separability of pure states can be determined by a special class of rank-4 witnesses, and every 1-distillable state can be detected by one of such rank-4 entanglement witnesses. However, we do not know whether or not there exists a universal entanglement witness for all states.
Let ${\mathcal U}(H)$ (resp. ${\mathcal U}(K)$) be the group of all unitary operators on $H$ (resp. on $K$).
[**Theorem 2.2.**]{} [*Let $H$ and $K$ be Hilbert spaces and let $\{|i\rangle\}_{i=1}^{\dim H\leq \infty }$ and $\{|j'\rangle\}_{j=1}^{\dim K\leq \infty }$ be any orthonormal bases of $H$ and $K$, respectively. Let $$W=|1\rangle|2'\rangle\langle 1|\langle2'|-|1\rangle|1'\rangle\langle 2|\langle2'|
-|2\rangle|2'\rangle\langle 1|\langle1'|+|2\rangle|1'\rangle\langle
2|\langle1'|.\eqno(2.1)$$ Then $W$ is an entanglement witness of rank-4. Moreover, the following statements are true.*]{}
\(1) [*If $\rho$ is a pure state, then $\rho$ is separable if and only if $${\rm Tr}((U\otimes V)W(U^\dagger\otimes V^\dagger)\rho)\geq
0\eqno(2.2)$$ hold for all $U\in{\mathcal U}(H)$ and $V\in{\mathcal
U}(K)$. So $W$ is a universal entanglement witness for pure states.*]{}
\(2) [*Let $\rho$ be a state. If there exist $U\in{\mathcal U}(H)$ and $V\in{\mathcal U}(K)$ such that ${\rm Tr}((U\otimes
V)W(U^\dagger\otimes V^\dagger)\rho)< 0$, then $\rho$ is entangled and 1-distillable.*]{}
[**Proof.**]{} We first prove that $W$ is an entanglement witness. It is obvious that $W$ is not positive. Define a map $
\Phi:{\mathcal B}(H)\rightarrow {\mathcal B}(H)$ by $$\begin{array}{rl} \Phi
(A)=&E_{11}AE_{11}^\dagger+E_{22}AE_{22}^\dagger+E_{12}AE_{12}^\dagger\\&+E_{21}AE_{21}^\dagger
-(E_{11}+E_{22})A(E_{11}+E_{22})^\dagger
\end{array}\eqno(2.3)$$ for every $A\in{\mathcal B}(H)$, where $E_{ij}=|i\rangle\langle
j|\in{\mathcal B}(H)$. It is obvious that $\Phi$ is a positive map because the map $$\left(\begin{array}{cc} a_{11}&a_{12}\\ a_{21}&
a_{22}\end{array}\right)\mapsto \left(\begin{array}{cc} a_{22}
&-a_{12}\\ -a_{21}& a_{11}\end{array}\right)$$ on $M_2({\mathbb C})$ is positive. Note that $W=2(\Phi\otimes I)\rho_+$, where $\rho_+=|\psi_+\rangle\langle\psi_+|$ with $|\psi_+\rangle=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|11'\rangle+|22'\rangle)$. Thus, by Lemma 2.1, $W$ is an entanglement witness.
If $\rho$ is separable, then ${\rm Tr}((U\otimes
V)W(U^\dagger\otimes V^\dagger)\rho)\geq 0$ as $(U^\dagger\otimes
V^\dagger)\rho(U\otimes V)$ are separable. Conversely, assume that $\rho=|\psi\rangle\langle\psi|$ is inseparable. Consider its Schmidt decomposition $|\psi\rangle=\sum_{k=1}^{N_{\psi}}\delta_k|k,k^\prime\rangle$, where $\delta_1\geq\delta_2\geq \cdots
> 0$ with $\sum_{k=1}^{N_\psi}\delta_k^2=1$, $\{|k\rangle\}_{k=1}^{N_\psi}$ and $\{|k^\prime\rangle\}_{k=1}^{N_\psi}$ are orthonormal in $H$ and $K$, respectively. As $|\psi\rangle$ is inseparable, we must have its Schmidt number $N_\psi\geq 2$. Thus $\rho=\sum_{k,l
=1}^{N_\psi}\delta_k\delta_{l}|k,k^\prime\rangle\langle l,l^\prime|
$. Up to unitary equivalence, we may assume that $\{|k\rangle\}_{k=1}^2=\{|i\rangle\}_{i=1}^2$ and $\{|k^\prime\rangle\}_{k^\prime=1}^2=\{|j'\rangle\}_{j=1}^2$. Then ${\rm Tr}(W\rho)={\rm
Tr}(-\delta_1\delta_2|11'\rangle\langle11'|-\delta_1\delta_2
|22'\rangle\langle22'|)=-2\delta_1\delta_2<0$. Hence the statement (1) is true.
For the statement (2), assume that there exist $U\in{\mathcal U}(H)$ and $V\in{\mathcal U}(K)$ such that ${\rm Tr}((U\otimes
V)W(U^\dagger\otimes V^\dagger)\rho)< 0$. Then $\rho$ is entangled. Moreover, $\rho$ has a matrix representation $$\rho=\sum_{i,j,k,l}\alpha_{ijkl}|Ui\rangle|
Vj^\prime\rangle\langle Uk|\langle Vl^\prime|.$$ Thus, one gets $$\begin{array}{rl}0>&{\rm Tr}((U\otimes
V)W(U^\dagger\otimes V^\dagger)\rho)={\rm Tr}(W(U^\dagger\otimes
V^\dagger)\rho(U\otimes V))\\
=&{\rm Tr}(\sum_{i,j,k,l}\alpha_{ijkl}(|1\rangle|2'\rangle\langle
1|\langle2'|-|1\rangle|1'\rangle\langle 2|\langle2'|
-|2\rangle|2'\rangle\langle 1|\langle1'|+|2\rangle|1'\rangle\langle
2|\langle1'|)\\
&\cdot(U^\dagger\otimes V^\dagger)|Ui\rangle|
Vj^\prime\rangle\langle Uk|\langle Vl^\prime|(U\otimes V))\\
=&{\rm Tr}(\sum_{i,j,k,l}\alpha_{ijkl}(|1\rangle|2'\rangle\langle
1|\langle2'|-|1\rangle|1'\rangle\langle 2|\langle2'|
-|2\rangle|2'\rangle\langle 1|\langle1'|+|2\rangle|1'\rangle\langle
2|\langle1'|)\\
&\cdot|i\rangle|
j^\prime\rangle\langle k|\langle l^\prime|)\\
=&-\alpha_{2211}-\alpha_{1122}.
\end{array}$$ Now let $P$ and $Q$ be the projectors from $H$ and $K$ onto the two dimensional subspaces spanned by $\{|1\rangle,|2\rangle\}$ and $\{|1^\prime\rangle,|2^\prime\rangle\}$, respectively. Then $${\rm
Tr}(P\otimes Q)(U\otimes V)W(U^\dagger\otimes V^\dagger)(P\otimes
Q)\rho(P\otimes Q))=-\alpha_{2211}-\alpha_{1122}<0,$$ which implies that $(P\otimes Q)\rho(P\otimes Q)$ is entangled. It follows from [@Hor2] that $\rho$ is 1-distillable. The proof is complete. $\Box$
Detecting entanglement of states by their entries
=================================================
In this section, we give a method of detecting entanglement of a state in any bipartite system only by some entries of its matrix representation.
Let $H$ and $K$ be complex Hilbert spaces of any dimension with $\{|i\rangle\}_{i=1}^{\dim H}$ and $\{|j'\rangle\}_{j=1}^{\dim K}$ be orthonormal bases of them respectively. Denote $E_{ij}=E_{i,j}=|i\rangle\langle j|$, which is an operator from $H$ into $H$. Let $n\leq\min\{\dim H,\dim K\}$ be a positive integer. By [@QH Remark 5.2], for any permutation $\kappa$ of $(1,2,\cdots ,n)$, the linear map $\Phi_\kappa:{\mathcal
B}(H)\rightarrow{\mathcal B}(H)$ defined by $$\Phi_\kappa(A)=(n-1)\sum_{i=1}^n E_{ii}AE_{ii}^\dag +\sum_{i=1}^n
E_{i,\kappa(i)}AE_{i,\kappa(i)}^\dag
-(\sum_{i=1}^nE_{ii})A(\sum_{i=1}^nE_{ii})^\dag \eqno(3.1)$$ for every $A\in{\mathcal B}(H)$ is a positive elementary operator that is not completely positive if $\kappa\not= {\rm id}$. Then, for any unitary operators $U$ and $V$ on $H$, the map $\Phi_\kappa^{U,V}$ defined by $$\begin{array}{rl}\Phi_\kappa^{U,V}(A)=&(n-1)\sum_{i=1}^n (VE_{ii}U)A(VE_{ii}U)^\dag +\sum_{i=1}^n
(VE_{i,\kappa(i)}U)A(VE_{i,\kappa(i)}U)^\dag
\\&-(\sum_{i=1}^nVE_{ii}U)A(\sum_{i=1}^nVE_{ii}U)^\dag\end{array}\eqno(3.2)$$ for every $A\in{\mathcal B}(H)$ is positive, too. Let $\rho_+=|\psi_+\rangle\langle\psi_+|$, where $$|\psi_+\rangle=\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}(|1\rangle|1'\rangle +|2\rangle|2'\rangle +\cdots
+|n\rangle|n'\rangle).$$ Then, by Lemma 2.1, we get a class of entanglement witnesses of the form $$W_\kappa^{U,V}=n(\Phi_\kappa^{U,V}\otimes I )\rho_+=(\Phi_\kappa^{U,V}(E_{ij})).\eqno(3.3)$$ Note that $W_\kappa^{U,V}$ is of finite rank because $\rho_+$ is.
Particularly, for permutations $\pi, \sigma$ of $(1,2,\cdots ,
n)$, if $U$ and $V$ are the unitary operators defined by $U^\dag|i\rangle=|\pi(i)\rangle$, $V|i\rangle=|\sigma(i)\rangle$ for $i=1,2,\cdots n$ and $U^\dag|i\rangle=|i\rangle$, $V|i\rangle=|i\rangle$ for $i>n$, then we have $$\begin{array}{rl}\Phi_\kappa^{\pi,\sigma}(A)=&\Phi_\kappa^{U,V}(A)=(n-1)\sum_{i=1}^n E_{\sigma(i),\pi(i)}AE_{\sigma(i),\pi(i)}^\dag \\
&+\sum_{i=1}^n
E_{\sigma(i),\pi(\kappa(i))}AE_{\sigma(i),\pi(\kappa(i))}^\dag
-(\sum_{i=1}^n E_{\sigma(i),\pi(i)} )A (\sum_{i=1}^n
E_{\sigma(i),\pi(i)} )^\dag \end{array}\eqno(3.4)$$ for every $A$. And correspondingly, we get entanglement witnesses of the concrete form $$W_\kappa^{\pi,\sigma}=(\Phi_\kappa^{\pi,\sigma}(E_{ij})), \eqno(3.5)$$ where $$\Phi_\kappa^{\pi,\sigma}(E_{ij})=-E_{\sigma(\pi^{-1}(i)),
\sigma(\pi^{-1}(j))} \eqno(3.6)$$ if $1\leq i\not=j\leq n$, $$\Phi_\kappa^{\pi,\sigma}(E_{ii})=(n-2)E_{\sigma(\pi^{-1}(i)),
\sigma(\pi^{-1}(i))}+E_{\sigma(\kappa^{-1}\pi^{-1}(i)),
\sigma(\kappa^{-1}\pi^{-1}(i))}\eqno(3.7)$$ if $1\leq i\leq n$, and $$\Phi_\kappa^{\pi,\sigma}(E_{ij})=0 \eqno(3.8)$$ if $i>n$ or $j>n$.
Thus we have proved the following result.
[**Theorem 3.1.**]{} [*Let $H$ and $K$ be complex Hilbert spaces of any dimension with $\{|i\rangle\}_{i=1}^{\dim H\leq\infty}$ and $\{|j'\rangle\}_{j=1}^{\dim K\leq \infty}$ be orthonormal bases of them respectively. For any positive integer $2\leq n\leq
\min\{\dim H,\dim K\}$ and any permutations $\kappa,\pi,\sigma$ of $(1,2,\cdots, n)$ with $\kappa\not={\rm id}$, the finite rank operator $W_\kappa^{\pi,\sigma}$ defined by $$\begin{array}{rl} W_\kappa^{\pi,\sigma}= &(n-2)\sum_{i=1}^n
|\sigma\pi^{-1}(i),i'\rangle\langle\sigma\pi^{-1}(i),i'|\\
& +\sum_{i=1}^n
|\sigma\kappa^{-1}\pi^{-1}(i),i'\rangle\langle\sigma\kappa^{-1}\pi^{-1}(i),i'|\\
&-\sum_{1\leq i\not=j\leq n}
|\sigma\pi^{-1}(i),i'\rangle\langle\sigma\pi^{-1}(j),j'|
\end{array}$$ is an entanglement witness.*]{}
Assume that $\dim H=\dim K=n$. By applying the witnesses $W_\kappa^{\pi,\sigma}$ in Theorem 3.1, we get a method of detecting the entanglement of states by the entries of their density matrix. Write the product basis of $H\otimes K$ in the order $$\begin{array}{r}\{|e_1\rangle=|1\rangle|1'\rangle,|e_2\rangle
=|2\rangle|1'\rangle,\cdots,|e_n\rangle=|n\rangle|1'\rangle,
|e_{n+1}\rangle=|1\rangle|2'\rangle,\\
\cdots,|e_{n^2-1}\rangle=|(n-1)\rangle|n'\rangle,|e_{n^2}\rangle
=|n\rangle|n'\rangle\}.\end{array}\eqno(3.9)$$ Then every state $\rho\in{\mathcal S}(H\otimes K)$ has a matrix representation $\rho=(\alpha_{kl})_{n^2\times n^2}$.
[**Theorem 3.2.**]{} [*Let $\rho\in{\mathcal B}(H\otimes K)$ with $\dim H=\dim K=n<\infty$ be a state with the matrix representation $\rho=(\alpha_{kl})_{n^2\times n^2}$ with respect to the product basis in Eq.(3.9). If there exist distinguished positive integers $(i-1)n<k_i, h_i\leq in$, $i=1,2,\cdots,n$ such that $$\sum_{i=1}^n
k_i=\sum_{i=1}^{n} h_i=\frac{1}{2}n(n^2+1),\eqno(3.10)$$ and $$(n-2)\sum_{i=1}^n\alpha_{k_ik_i}+\sum_{i=1}^{n}\alpha_{h_ih_i}-\sum_{1\leq
i\not=j\leq n}\alpha_{k_ik_j}<0,\eqno(3.11)$$then $\rho$ is entangled.*]{}
[**Proof.**]{} Eq.(3.10) implies that, there exist permutations $\pi_1$ and $\sigma_1$ such that $(k_1,k_2-n,\cdots
,k_n-(n-1)n)=\pi_1 (1,2,\cdots, n)$ and $(h_1,h_2-n,\cdots
,h_n-(n-1)n)=\sigma_1 (1,2,\cdots, n)$. It is clear that $\pi_1(i)\not=\sigma_1(i)$ as $k_i\not=h_i$ for every $i=1,2,\cdots,
n$.
For any permutations $\kappa$, $\pi$ and $\sigma$, by Theorem 3.1, we have $$\begin{array}{rl}{\rm
Tr}(W_\kappa^{\pi,\sigma}\rho)=&(n-2)\sum_{i=1}^n\alpha_{\sigma(\pi^{-1}(i))+(i-1)n,\sigma(\pi^{-1}(i))+(i-1)n}\\
&+\sum_{i=1}^n\alpha_{\sigma(\kappa^{-1}\pi^{-1}(i))+(i-1)n,\sigma(\kappa^{-1}\pi^{-1}(i))+(i-1)n}\\&
-\sum_{i\not=j}^n\alpha_{\sigma(\pi^{-1}(i))+(i-1)n,\sigma(\pi^{-1}(j))+(j-1)n}.\end{array}\eqno(3.12)$$ Comparing Eq.(3.11) with Eq.(3.12), we have to find permutations $\kappa$, $\pi$ and $\sigma$ so that $$\pi_1(i)=\sigma(\pi^{-1}(i))\quad\mbox{and}\quad
\sigma_1(i)=\sigma(\kappa^{-1}\pi^{-1}(i)) \eqno(3.13)$$ for each $i$, that is, $\pi_1=\sigma\pi^{-1}$ and $\sigma_1=\sigma\kappa^{-1}\pi^{-1}$. Take $\pi={\rm id}$. Then we get $\sigma=\pi_1$ and $\sigma_1=\sigma\kappa^{-1}=\pi_1\kappa^{-1}$. Thus, $\kappa=\sigma_1^{-1}\pi_1$, $\pi={\rm id}$ and $\sigma=\pi_1$ satisfy Eq.(3.13). With such $\kappa, \pi$ and $\sigma$, by Eqs.(3.11) and (3.12), we have $${\rm Tr}(W_\kappa^{\pi,\sigma}\rho)=(n-2)\sum_{i=1}^n\alpha_{k_ik_i}+\sum_{i=1}^{n}\alpha_{h_ih_i}-\sum_{1\leq
i\not=j\leq n}\alpha_{k_ik_j}<0.$$ Hence, $\rho$ is entangled with $W_\kappa^{\pi,\sigma} $ an entanglement witness for it. $\Box$
The general version of Theorem 3.2 is the following result, which is applicable for bipartite systems of any dimension.
[**Theorem 3.3.**]{} [*Let $H$ and $K$ be complex Hilbert spaces with $\{|i\rangle\}_{i=1}^{\dim H\leq \infty}$ and $\{|j'\rangle\}_{j=1}^{\dim K\leq \infty}$ be orthonormal bases of them respectively. Assume that $\rho$ is a state on $H\otimes K$ and $n\leq\min\{\dim H,\dim K\}$ is a positive integer. If there exist permutations $\pi$ and $\sigma$ of $(1,2,\cdots ,n)$ with $\pi(i)\not=\sigma(i)$ for any $i=1,2,\cdots , n$ such that $$(n-2)\sum_{i=1}^n\langle \pi(i),i'|\rho|\pi(i),i'\rangle+\sum_{i=1}^n\langle \sigma(i),i'|\rho|\sigma(i),i'\rangle
-\sum_{1\leq i\not=j\leq n} \langle
\pi(i),i'|\rho|\pi(j),j'\rangle<0,\eqno(3.14)$$ then $\rho$ is entangled.*]{}
The idea of the proof of Theorem 3.3 is the same as that of Theorem 3.2 and we omit it here.
Theorems 3.2 and 3.3 tell us, some times we can detect the entanglement of a state by suitably chosen $n^2+n$ entries of its matrix representation with respect to some product basis, where $n\leq\min\{\dim H,\dim K\}$.
To illustrate how to use Theorem 3.2 and Theorem 3.3 to detect entanglement of a state, we give some examples.
[**Example 3.4.**]{} Let $q_1,q_2,q_3 $ be nonnegative numbers with $q_1+q_2+q_3=1$ and let $a,b,c\in{\mathbb C}$ with $|a|^2\leq
q_2q_3$, $|b|^2\leq q_2q_3$, $|c|^2\leq q_2q_3$. Let $\rho$ be a state of $3\times 3$ system with matrix representation $$\rho=\frac{1}{3}\left(\begin{array}{ccccccccc}q_1&0&0&0&q_1&0&0&0&q_1\\
0&q_3&a&0&0&0&0&0&0\\
0&\bar{a}&q_2&0&0&0&0&0&0\\
0&0&0&q_2&0&b&0&0&0\\
q_1&0&0&0&q_1&0&0&0&q_1\\
0&0&0&\bar{b}&0&q_3&0&0&0\\
0&0&0&0&0&0&q_3&c&0\\
0&0&0&0&0&0&\bar{c}&q_2&0\\
q_1&0&0&0&q_1&0&0&0&q_1
\end{array}\right).\eqno(3.15)$$ Note that, $\rho$ in Eq.(3.15) is a new kind of states, and $\rho$ degenerates to the state as that in [@QH Example 3.3] when $a=b=c=0$.
We claim that, if $q_2<q_1$ or $q_3<q_1$, then $\rho$ is entangled.
In fact, choosing $(k_1,k_2,k_3)=(1,5,9)$, $(h_1,h_2,h_3)=(3,4,8)$ or $(2,6,7)$, we have $$\sum _{i=1}^3 \alpha_{k_ik_i}+\sum _{i=1}^3 \alpha_{h_ih_i}-\sum _{1\leq i\not=j\leq 3}
\alpha_{k_ik_j}=\frac{1}{3}(3q_1+3q_2-6q_1)=q_2-q_1$$ or $$\sum _{i=1}^3 \alpha_{k_ik_i}+\sum _{i=1}^3 \alpha_{h_ih_i}-\sum _{1\leq i\not=j\leq 3}
\alpha_{k_ik_j}=\frac{1}{3}(3q_1+3q_3-6q_1)=q_3-q_1.$$ By Theorem 3.2, we see that $\rho$ is entangled if $q_2<q_1$ or $q_3<q_1$.
It is clear that the partial transpose of $\rho$ in Eq.(3.15) with respect to the first subsystem is $$\rho^{T_1}=\frac{1}{3}\left(\begin{array}{ccccccccc}q_1&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0\\
0&q_3&\bar{a}&q_1&0&0&0&0&0\\
0&a&q_2&0&0&0&q_1&0&0\\
0&q_1&0&q_2&0&\bar{b}&0&0&0\\
0&0&0&0&q_1&0&0&0&0\\
0&0&0&b&0&q_3&0&q_1&0\\
0&0&q_1&0&0&0&q_3&\bar{c}&0\\
0&0&0&0&0&q_1&c&q_2&0\\
0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&q_1
\end{array}\right).$$ Particularly, if we take $q_1=\frac{1}{5}$, $q_2=\frac{1}{10}$, $q_3=\frac{7}{10}$ and $a=b=c=\frac{1}{20}$, then, by what proved above, we see that $\rho$ is PPT entangled because its partial transpose has eigenvalues $$\{\frac{1}{60}(8\pm\sqrt{61}),\frac{1}{4},\frac{1}{4},\frac{1}{60},\frac{1}{60},\frac{1}{15},\frac{1}{15},\frac{1}{15}\}$$ that are all positive.
[**Example 3.5.**]{} Let $\rho$ be a state in $4\times 4$ systems with the matrix $$\rho=
\frac{1}{4}\left(\begin{array}{cccccccccccccccc}q_1&0&0&0&0&q_1&0&0&0&0&q_1&0&0&0&0&q_1\\
0&q_4&a&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0\\
0&\bar{a}&q_3&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0\\
0&0&0&q_2&q_2&0&0&0&0&q_2&0&0&0&0&q_2&0\\
0&0&0&q_2&q_2&0&0&0&0&q_2&0&0&0&0&q_2&0\\
q_1&0&0&0&0&q_1&0&0&0&0&q_1&0&0&0&0&q_1\\
0&0&0&0&0&0&q_4&b&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0\\
0&0&0&0&0&0&\bar{b}&q_3&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0\\
0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&q_3&0&0&c&0&0&0&0\\
0&0&0&q_2&q_2&0&0&0&0&q_2&0&0&0&0&q_2&0\\
q_1&0&0&0&0&q_1&0&0&0&0&q_1&0&0&0&0&q_1\\
0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&\bar{c}&0&0&q_4&0&0&0&0\\
0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&q_4&d&0&0\\
0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&\bar{d}&q_3&0&0\\
0&0&0&q_2&q_2&0&0&0&0&q_2&0&0&0&0&q_2&0\\
q_1&0&0&0&0&q_1&0&0&0&0&q_1&0&0&0&0&q_1
\end{array}\right), \eqno(3.16)$$ where $q_i\geq 0$ with $\sum_{i=1}^4q_i=1$, $|a|^2$, $|b|^2$, $|c|^2$ and $|d|^2$ are all $\leq q_3q_4$. $\rho$ defined by Eq.(3.16) is also a new example, and when $a=b=c=d=0$ we get states in [@QH Example 4.4].
We claim that, if $q_i<q_1$ for some $i\in\{2,3,4\}$; or if $q_i<q_2$ for some $i\in\{1,3,4\}$, then $\rho$ is entangled.
In fact, we can take $$(k_1,k_2,k_3,k_4)=(1,6,11,16)\quad\mbox{and}\quad
(h_1,h_2,h_3,h_4)=(2,7,12,13),$$ or $$(k_1,k_2,k_3,k_4)=(1,6,11,16)\quad\mbox{and}\quad
(h_1,h_2,h_3,h_4)=(3,8,9,14),$$ or $$(k_1,k_2,k_3,k_4)=(1,6,11,16)\quad\mbox{and}\quad
(h_1,h_2,h_3,h_4)=(4,5,10,15),$$ or $$(k_1,k_2,k_3,k_4)=(4,5,10,15)\quad\mbox{and}\quad
(h_1,h_2,h_3,h_4)=(1,6,11,16),$$or $$(k_1,k_2,k_3,k_4)=(4,5,10,15)\quad\mbox{and}\quad
(h_1,h_2,h_3,h_4)=(2,7,12,13),$$or $$(k_1,k_2,k_3,k_4)=(4,5,10,15)\quad\mbox{and}\quad
(h_1,h_2,h_3,h_4)=(3,8,9,14).$$ Then, it follows from the first three choices that $$2\sum _{i=1}^4 \alpha_{k_ik_i}+\sum _{i=1}^4 \alpha_{h_ih_i}-\sum _{1\leq i\not=j\leq 3}
\alpha_{k_ik_j}=q_i-q_1$$ with $i=2,3,4$. Hence, by Theorem 3.2 we see that $\rho$ is entangled if there exists some $i\in\{2,3,4\}$ such that $q_i<q_1$. Similarly, by the last three choices one sees that $\rho$ is entangled if there exists some $i\in\{1,3,4\}$ such that $q_i<q_2$.
The kind of states in Eq.(3.16) allow us give some new examples of entangled states that can not be recognized by PPT criterion and the realignment criterion. It is obvious that the partial transpose of $\rho$ in Eq.(3.16) with respect to the first subsystem is $$\rho^{T_1}=
\frac{1}{4}\left(\begin{array}{cccccccccccccccc}q_1&0&0&0&0&0&0&q_2&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0\\
0&q_4&\bar{a}&0&q_1&0&0&0&0&0&0&q_2&0&0&0&0\\
0&a&q_3&0&0&0&0&0&q_1&0&0&0&0&0&0&q_2\\
0&0&0&q_2&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&q_1&0&0&0\\
0&q_1&0&0&q_2&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0\\
0&0&0&0&0&q_1&0&0&q_2&0&0&0&0&0&0&0\\
0&0&0&0&0&0&q_4&\bar{b}&0&q_1&0&0&q_2&0&0&0\\
q_2&0&0&0&0&0&b&q_3&0&0&0&0&0&q_1&0&0\\
0&0&q_1&0&0&q_2&0&0&q_3&0&0&\bar{c}&0&0&0&0\\
0&0&0&0&0&0&q_1&0&0&q_2&0&0&0&0&0&0\\
0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&q_1&0&0&q_2&0&0\\
0&q_2&0&0&0&0&0&0&c&0&0&q_4&0&0&q_1&0\\
0&0&0&q_1&0&0&q_2&0&0&0&0&0&q_4&\bar{d}&0&0\\
0&0&0&0&0&0&0&q_1&0&0&q_2&0&d&q_3&0&0\\
0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&q_1&0&0&q_2&0\\
0&0&q_2&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&q_1
\end{array}\right)$$and that the realignment of $\rho$ is $$\rho^R=
\frac{1}{4}\left(\begin{array}{cccccccccccccccc}q_1&0&0&0&0&q_4&\bar{a}&0&0&a&q_3&0&0&0&0&q_2\\
0&q_1&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&q_2&0&0&0\\
0&0&q_1&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&q_2&0&0\\
0&0&0&q_1&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&q_2&0\\
0&0&0&q_2&q_1&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0\\
q_2&0&0&0&0&q_1&0&0&0&0&q_4&\bar{b}&0&0&b&q_3\\
0&q_2&0&0&0&0&q_1&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0\\
0&0&q_2&0&0&0&0&q_1&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0\\
0&0&0&0&0&0&0&q_2&q_1&0&0&0&0&0&0&0\\
0&0&0&0&q_2&0&0&0&0&q_1&0&0&0&0&0&0\\
q_3&0&0&\bar{c}&0&q_2&0&0&0&0&q_1&0&c&0&0&q_4\\
0&0&0&0&0&0&q_2&0&0&0&0&q_1&0&0&0&0\\
0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&q_2&q_1&0&0&0\\
0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&q_2&0&0&0&0&q_1&0&0\\
0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&q_2&0&0&0&0&q_1&0\\
q_4&\bar{d}&0&0&d&q_3&0&0&0&0&q_2&0&0&0&0&q_1
\end{array}\right).$$ If we take $q_1=\frac{1}{20}$, $q_2=\frac{1}{10}$, $q_3=q_4=\frac{17}{40}$ and $a=b=c=d=\frac{1}{40}$, $\rho$ is PPT entangled because $q_1<q_2$ and its partial transpose $\rho^{T_1}$ has eigenvalues $$\begin{array}{rl}&\{0.0054,0.0054,0.0069,0.0069,0.0223,0.0223,0.0235,0.0235,\\
&0.0821,0.0821,0.1027,0.1027,0.1212,0.1212,0.1359,0.1359\}\end{array}$$ that are all positive. Moreover, the trace norm of the realignment $\rho^R$ of $\rho$ is $\|\rho^R\|_1\doteq 0.8303<1$. Hence, we get another example of entangled states that is PPT and cannot be detected by the realignment criterion.
It is not difficult to give some examples of applying Theorem 3.3 to infinite dimensional systems based on examples 3.4 and 3.5.
Conclusions
===========
Let $H$ and $K$ be Hilbert spaces and let $\{|i\rangle\}_{i=1}^{\dim H\leq\infty}$ and $\{|j'\rangle\}_{j=1}^{\dim K\leq\infty}$ be any orthonormal bases of $H$ and $K$, respectively. By the finite rank elementary operator criterion [@H], a state $\rho$ on $H\otimes K$ is entangled if and only if there exists a finite rank positive elementary operator $\Phi:{\mathcal B}(H)\rightarrow {\mathcal
B}(K)$ that is not completely positive such that $(\Phi\otimes
I)\rho$ is not positive. By this criterion and the finite rank positive elementary operators constructed in [@QH], we construct a collection of finite rank entanglement witnesses.
By using these witnesses we obtain a rank-4 entanglement witness $W=|1\rangle|2'\rangle\langle
1|\langle2'|-|1\rangle|1'\rangle\langle 2|\langle2'|
-|2\rangle|2'\rangle\langle 1|\langle1'|+|2\rangle|1'\rangle\langle
2|\langle1'|$ which is universal for pure states, that is, for a pure state $\rho$, $\rho$ is separable if and only if ${\rm Tr}((U\otimes V)W(U^\dagger\otimes V^\dagger)\rho)\geq
0$ holds for all unitary operators $U$ on $H$ and $V $ on $K$. In addition, for a mixed state $\rho$, if there exist unitary operators $U_0$ on $H$ and $V_0$ on $K$ such that ${\rm Tr}((U_0\otimes
V_0)W(U_0^\dagger\otimes V_0^\dagger)\rho)< 0$, then $\rho$ is entangled and 1-distillable.
Another interesting result, maybe for the first time, gives a way of detecting the entanglement of a state in $H\otimes K$ by only a part entries of its density matrix. This method is simple, computable and practicable. Assume that $\rho$ is a state on $H\otimes K$ and $n\leq\min\{\dim H,\dim K\}$ is a positive integer. If there exist permutations $\pi$ and $\sigma$ of $(1,2,\cdots ,n)$ with $\pi(i)\not=\sigma(i)$ for any $i=1,2,\cdots , n$ such that $$(n-2)\sum_{i=1}^n\langle \pi(i),i'|\rho|\pi(i),i'\rangle+\sum_{i=1}^n\langle \sigma(i),i'|\rho|\sigma(i),i'\rangle
-\sum_{1\leq i\not=j\leq n} \langle
\pi(i),i'|\rho|\pi(j),j'\rangle<0,$$ then $\rho$ is entangled. Thus we provide a way of detecting the entanglement of a state by finite suitably chosen entries of its matrix representation with respect to some product basis. As an illustration how to use this method, some new examples of entangled states that can be recognized by this way are proposed, which also provides some new entangled states that can not be detected by the PPT criterion and the realignment criterion.
[99]{}
I. Bengtsson, K. Zyczkowski, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2006.
D. Bru${\ss}$, J. Math. Phys. 43 (2002) 4237.
K. Chen, L. Wu, Quant. Inf. Comput 3 (2003) 193.
D. Chru$\acute{s}$ci$\acute{n}$ski and A. Kossakowski, Open Systems and Inf. Dynamics 14 (2007) 275; D. Chru$\acute{s}$ci$\acute{n}$ski and A. Kossakowski, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 41 (2008) 145301.
J. Dixmier, Von Neumann Algebras, North-Holland Publishing Com., Amsterdan, New York, Oxford, 1981.
Y. Guo, J. Hou, arXiv:1009.0116v1.
M. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, R. Horodecki, Phys. Lett. A 223 (1996) 1.
R. Horodecki, M. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, Phys. Lett. A 222 (1996) 21.
M. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, R. Horodecki, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80 (1998) 5239.
R. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, M. Horodecki, Rev. Mod. Phys. 81 (2009) 865.
J. Hou, Sci. in China (ser.A), 36(9) (1993), 1025-1035.
J. Hou, J. Operator Theory, 39 (1998), 43-58.
J. Hou, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 43 (2010) 385201; arXiv\[quant-ph\]: 1007.0560v1.
J. Hou, X. Qi, Phys. Rev. A 81 (2010) 062351.
M. A. Jafarizadeh, N. Behzadi, Y. Akbari, Eur. Phys. J. D 55 (2009) 197.
M. A. Nielsen, I. L. Chuang, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2000.
A. Peres, Phys. Lett. A 202 (1996) 16.
X. Qi, J. Hou, Positive finite rank elementary operators and characterizing entanglement of states, arXiv:1008.3682v2
S. Simon, S. P. Rajagopalan, R. Simon, Pramana-Journal of Physics, 73(3) (2009) 471-483.
G. T$\acute{o}$th, O. G$\ddot{u}$hne, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94 (2005) 060501.
R. F. Werner, Phys. Rev. A 40 (1989) 4277.
[^1]: [*PACS.*]{} 03.67.Mn, 03.65.Ud, 03.65.Db
[^2]: [*Key words and phrases.*]{} Quantum states, separability, entanglement witnesses, positive linear maps
[^3]: This work is partially supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 10771157), Research Grant to Returned Scholars of Shanxi (2007-38) and the Foundation of Shanxi University.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We present an experimental setup to demonstrate normal modes and symmetry breaking in a two-dimensional pendulum. In our experiment we have used two modes of a single oscillator to demonstrate normal modes, as opposed to two single oscillators used in standard setups of two-dimensional pendulums. Breaking of the cylindrical symmetry of the pendulum is achieved by attaching a spring in the suspension. This leads to interesting visual patterns in the motion, wherein the plane of the oscillator shifts with time, the motion then becomes elliptical, shifts back again to planar, before finally returning to planar motion in the original plane. The symmetry breaking leads to non-degenerate normal modes of oscillation, whose interplay gives rise to the observed motion patterns. This also explains why for a real pendulum, the plane of motion always shifts, unlike the ideal two-dimensional pendulum where the plane of oscillation is supposed to remain fixed. This curious fact also contributes to the difficulties involved in building a Foucault’s pendulum, where the plane of rotation due to Coriolis force needs to be accurately measured. The strength of the symmetry breaking in our system can be quantified by a parameter the “return time”, which is defined as the time over which the pendulum returns to its original motion pattern. We propose this setup as a pedagogical tool to introduce the concepts of normal modes and symmetry breaking in a physics laboratory.'
author:
- Paramdeep Singh
- 'R. C. Singh'
- Mandip Singh
- Arvind
title: 'Study of normal modes and symmetry breaking in a two-dimensional pendulum'
---
Introduction
============
A simple pendulum hanging from a point suspension is in reality a two-dimensional pendulum [@peters-teach-99; @worland-teach-00; @matthews-jset-01; @candela-ajp-01; @whitaker-sci-04]. For a long pendulum length and a small angular displacement, the bob can be visualized as moving in a two-dimensional horizontal plane. The oscillation can be started in any direction and the pendulum will oscillate in the same plane with a frequency dictated by its length and the acceleration due to gravity. The system has a complete cylindrical symmetry and therefore oscillations in all planes are completely identical.
In practice, if one sets up a pendulum, the plane typically moves in a certain interval of time and the pendulum acquires an elliptical character to its motion. These effects are usually ignored in most experiments as arising from errors in initial conditions and random perturbations. In fact, a careful study of such a system reveals that these effects have a certain systematic character and that the plane of oscillation of the pendulum moves and after some time comes back to its original direction in a somewhat mysterious way [@newburgh-teach-00; @greenslade-teach-98].
It turns out that this is due to the non-cylindrically symmetric restoring force arising out of imperfections in the suspension. The symmetry breaking leads to non-degenerate normal modes of oscillation whose interplay gives rise to these effects. This is also a major problem while building a Foucault’s pendulum where we would like to have the cylindrical symmetry to an extent that such effects do not show up even over several hours [@criado-ijnm-09; @crowell-ajp-81; @hart-ajp-87; @jordan-ajp-10; @bergmann-ajp-07; @rojo-can-09].
Our aim is to systematically study this phenomenon and convert it into a pedagogical tool. In order to achieve this, we explicitly break the symmetry of the pendulum by attaching a spring with a very small force constant to the suspension along one direction. We show how this leads to the interesting phenomenon of the pendulum becoming non-planar, being set into elliptical motion, moving into an entirely different plane and coming back to its original plane with a certain time period. We demonstrate that this time period that we call the return time, is associated with the amount of symmetry breaking in the system and can be changed by using springs of varying spring constants.
We use a pendulum with a length of around $2$ m and the corresponding time period of about $3$ s. The symmetry breaking springs are chosen such that the symmetry breaking is small and the associated return times are between $190$ s and $800$ s. This clear separation of time scales is useful to ensure that a number of oscillations take place before any tangible effect of the symmetry breaking sets in. Since the effect of the symmetry breaking adds up over the fast oscillations, it becomes visible eventually. We also find it very useful that the pattern of the motion unfolds over 10-15 minutes, allowing a discussion with students around the experiment. The bob weight is chosen to be about $0.8$ kg so that it stores sufficient energy and allows the system to perform a large number of oscillations with negligible damping. We would like to emphasize that we have used two coupled modes of a single oscillator in our experiments to demonstrate the normal modes, which in standard setups is typically achieved by employing the coupling between two physical oscillators.
This experiment can be used to teach three concepts: normal modes, symmetry breaking and appreciating the difficulties associated with building a Foucault’s pendulum. The experiment has qualitative as well as quantitative aspects to it. While different aspects of the experiments can be demonstrated to a group of students as the the motion unfolds, there are specific quantitative observations that the students are expected to make. They can experimentally identify normal modes, measure normal mode frequencies and the return time. The measurements can be carried out by hand where one can use a mobile phone as a time measuring device or one can record the video of the motion and then use open source tracking software to extract information.
The material in the paper is arranged as follows: In section \[design\_expts\] we discuss the design of the apparatus and the theoretical analysis. In \[expt\_students\] we detail the experiments that can be performed using our setup and we also provide the details of the measurements taken from the setup. Section \[discussion\] contains conceptual points that can be brought out through the experiment and can be taken up with students while they perform the experiment. Section \[conc\] contain conclusions and future prospects.
Apparatus design and analysis {#design_expts}
=============================
The two-dimensional asymmetric oscillator system that we intend to study is the pendulum oscillating under the effect of gravity. The frequency can be chosen by adjusting the length of the pendulum. The cylindrical symmetry is broken by attaching a spring toward one side of the suspension so that if the pendulum is pulled in that direction, apart from gravity, the spring also provides an additional restoring force. The linearity of equations of motion is achieved by restricting to small angular amplitudes.
A photographs of the actual oscillator setup is depicted in Figure \[pendulum\_pics\] in three parts. The left upper photograph shows the suspension which is a combination of a cylindrically symmetric suspension and a spring arrangement aimed at breaking this symmetry. The left lower photograph shows the bob and the sheet with angles marked below it. The right hand side photo is of the entire setup. The length of the system was kept fixed at $2$ m. A bob of mass $0.8$ kg was used and copper wire was used for the suspension. Springs of different strengths can be attached to change the strength of symmetry breaking. A laser pointer was attached below the bob and the laser spot moves on a sheet of paper pre-marked with angle markings. We could start the oscillator by giving it a push in any desired direction. The system is designed such that the size and the time periods lead to a visual observation of the motion. The time period is about $2.8$ s, which means that we can easily observe the system and its motion. On the one hand we want the system to be slow enough so that we can see the motion, on the other hand the system must perform a large number of oscillations to achieve a cumulative effect of symmetry breaking before dissipation becomes dominant. Spring constants $k^{\prime}$ of springs have to be chosen such that the force due to spring is much smaller than gravity. A longer length also allows one to remain in the linear domain even for visually large bob amplitudes. The springs were made by winding copper wires thicknesses ranging from $0.9$ mm and $0.56$ mm. on pencils or other cylindrical objects and the number of turns one winds determine the strength of the spring.
![\[pendulum\_pics\] The top left photograph shows the suspension of the pendulum with a spring attached to break symmetry. The pendulum bob being released at a particular angle is shown in the photograph on the bottom left. The photograph on the right shows the entire setup.](pendulum_fig1.pdf)
\[figure-diag\] 
The various forces acting on the pendulum bob are shown explicitly in the diagram shown in Figure \[figure-diag\]. In the small oscillation approximation when $\theta$ is small we can consider the pendulum motion in the $x-y$ plain as shown. In this plane the gravity acts like a central force and is proportional to the displacement $r$ in the plane. On the other hand the detail of the force due to spring is more interesting. Since the spring is fastened from a location in the $x-z$ place at distance $x_0$ away from the origin O along the $-\hat{x}$ direction and the movement of the spring is very small compared to the distance $x_0$. One can easily show that to first order the force due to the spring is not central in character and is proportional only to the displacement of the spring along the $\hat{x}$ direction. This situation is shown in the picture given in Figure \[figure-diag\](a). The $x-y$ plane projection of details of the spring configuration and its connection to the suspension are shown Figure \[figure-diag\](b).
The effective Hamiltonian of the bob in terms of its coordinates $x$ and $y$ and corresponding momenta to first order can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
&
H(p_x,p_y,x,y)=\frac{1}{2m} (p_x^2 + p_y^2) + \frac{1}{2}
(k_1 x^2 + k_2 y^2)& \nonumber \\
&k_1= \frac{mg}{l}+k\quad {\rm and}\quad k_2=\frac{mg}{l}&\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, the system does not have cylindrical symmetry and the symmetry is broken because of the presence of the spring. In case the spring is removed we recover the cylindrical symmetric situation with $k_1=k_2=k_0$. The amount of symmetry breaking can be adjusted by using springs of different spring constants. This can also be thought of as if mass $m$ attached to two springs, one along $x$ and other along $y$, and each spring is of a different spring constant. For the symmetric case when $k_1=k_2=k_0$ If we displace the bob by some distance $d$ in the $x-y$ plane in any direction and let it oscillate, then the frequency of oscillation is independent of the direction in which we pull it, and is given by $w_0=\sqrt{\frac{k_0}{m}}$. The oscillator moves back and forth in the same direction forever, without the direction of oscillation changing in time. Therefore there are an infinite number of linear polarization modes that we can begin this oscillatory motion in. We can also start the oscillator in a circular or elliptical motion and in that case the motion pattern will again remain the same as time passes, as there is only one frequency of oscillation in the system. Another way to think about this system is to think of two independent modes of the oscillator, one along $x$ and one along $y$, which are independent and have the same frequency.
What is the motion pattern of such a system when $k_1\neq k_2$ (the spring is present) and the symmetry is broken? Let us write the equations of motion: $$\begin{aligned}
m \ddot{x} &=& -k_1 x \nonumber \\
m \ddot{y} &=& -k_2 x
\label{eoms}\end{aligned}$$ This means that if we pull the oscillator in the $x$ direction it oscillates with the frequency $w_1=\sqrt{\frac{k_1}{m}}$ and if we pull it along the $y$ direction it oscillates with the frequency $w_2=\sqrt{\frac{k_2}{m}}$. There are two fundamental frequencies in the system namely $\omega_1$ and $\omega_2$. Since these motions are decoupled, the motion pattern does not change and the direction of oscillation remains the same with the passage of time.
Consider starting the oscillator in a direction which is not along either $x$ or $y$. What is the motion in this case? Let us imagine that the oscillator is pulled by an amount $d$ along some general direction making an angle $\theta$ with respect to the $x$ axis. This means that the initial condition of the oscillator is $X_0=d \cos{\theta}$ and $Y_0=d\sin{\theta}$. The equations of motion given in equation (\[eoms\]) immediately tell us what the solution is going to be. The general solution of the equations (\[eoms\]) is $$\begin{aligned}
x(t)&=& A \cos(\omega_1 t + \phi_1)
\nonumber \\
y(t)&=& B \cos(\omega_2 t + \phi_2)\end{aligned}$$ For the initial conditions that we have started the oscillator with, the solution reduces to $$\begin{aligned}
x(t)&=& X_0 \cos(\omega_1 t)
\nonumber \\
y(t)&=& Y_0 \cos(\omega_2 t)
\label{sol_1}\end{aligned}$$ The displacement in the plane can thus be written as $$\vec{r}(t)= X_0 \cos(\omega_1 t) \hat{x} + Y_0 \cos(\omega_2
t) \hat{y}
\label{sol_2}$$ Clearly if $\omega_1=\omega_2=\omega$, the motion will be oscillatory along a straight line and the solution reduces to $$\vec{r}(t) = \vec{R}_0\cos(\omega t)$$ with $\vec{R}_0 = X_0 \hat{x} + Y_0 \hat{y}$. However for the case when symmetry is broken and $\omega_1 \neq \omega_2$ what is the motion pattern? It turns out that the motion pattern in this case has interesting features. Consider the case when the difference in $\omega_1$ and $\omega_2$ is small. Which means that the amount of symmetry breaking is small. In this case, Equation \[sol\_2\] implies that if we start the oscillator in a straight line oscillatory motion at an angle $\theta/2$ with the $x$ axis, after sometime the motion acquires a somewhat elliptical character with its semi-major axis not along $\theta/2$. The semi-major axis slowly moves toward $x$ and the semi-minor axis slowly grows. After the semi-major axis crosses the $x$ axis, the semi-minor axis begins to decrease and the motion settles into straight line path again on the opposite side at an angle $-\theta/2$. From this position the pattern repeats in the reverse direction and so on. The motion described above is in fact a demonstration of normal modes. There are two normal frequencies in the system which are $\omega_1$ and $\omega_2$ and the normal mode motion corresponds to starting the system in either the $x$ or the $y$ direction. For such a motion, the trajectory remains the same over time. However if we start the oscillator in a different direction which is not one of the normal modes, the motion does not remain planar and the motion pattern oscillates between two planes on a time scale which depends upon the coupling strength of the modes represented, via the difference in frequency of the two normal modes.
When we start the motion in a non normal mode condition, the time scale over which the direction of oscillation comes back which we call the $T_R$ to its original direction is inversely proportional to the frequency difference $\Delta \omega=\vert
\omega_1-\omega_2 \vert $ between the modes. $$T_R = \frac{2 \pi}{\Delta \omega}
\label{return_time}$$ The amount by which the direction turns accumulates over the oscillation process. Therefore however small the turning per oscillation may be, its additive effect over many oscillations is appreciable and even a small asymmetry will eventually turn the plane of oscillation of the bob.
Experiments to be performed {#expt_students}
===========================
We propose the following measurements using our setup, which systematically bring out the various aspects of the experiment.
Motion pattern
--------------
![The procedure for determination of normal modes. If the pendulum is started in a planar motion in the plane AB it oscillates, changes its motion to an elliptical one, and again settles into a planar motion along CD at a later time. If we mark these planes on a diagram then we can compute the normal mode by computing the bisector of the angle between these planes. The second normal mode is orthogonal to this direction.[]{data-label="normal_modes_fig"}](pendulum_fig3.pdf)
![Experimental determination of normal modes. The trace is taken on a plane paper which is scanned and reproduce for reference. This is a result of the procedure described in Figure \[normal\_modes\_fig\][]{data-label="normal_modes_scan"}](pendulum_fig4.pdf)
The pendulum is hung with one of the springs attached in the suspension. The oscillations are started in different directions the motion is observed alongwith the students. The qualitative features of the motion are to be documented. One observes how for a typical initial condition, the bob starts to oscillate along the direction that it was started in, the bob then leaves the original direction of motion, the motion pattern becomes elliptical, then over time the bob settles into another direction and again motion becomes elliptical and then returns back to the original direction. This pattern then repeats itself. The direction of angular momentum when the motion is elliptical in the different phases of the motion is important. It is noticed that angular momentum flips direction in the second half of the return cycle, which is indicated by the switch of motion from clockwise to anticlockwise direction of vice versa. This will happen for typical initial conditions, for two specific directions which are the normal modes the motion remains planar and does not shift direction.
Determination of normal modes
-----------------------------
The pendulum is started in some direction and the direction is marked on the sheet below. The pendulum then oscillates and changes its motion pattern as indicated above. It finally settles again into linear motion in a different direction which we again marked on the sheet. This situation is shown in Figure \[normal\_modes\_fig\], where we indicate that if the initial plane of motion is along A-B and the final plane of motion is along C-D then the pendulum turns by a total angle of $\theta$ during its motion. The direction that bisects these two lines is one of the normal modes of motion. The second normal mode is along the direction perpendicular to this direction. The normal mode directions thus computed are indicated in the figure. Having determined the normal mode directions, we can verify that indeed we have found the normal modes correctly, by starting the pendulum along any one of the normal mode directions, and observing the motion which then remains planar for a very long time, without turning at all. The actual sheet on which these observations are made is shown in Figure \[normal\_modes\_scan\] and from this sheet one is then able to obtain the normal modes.
Return time measurement
-----------------------
Having determined the normal modes, we know the basic characteristics of the motion. As given in Figure \[normal\_modes\_fig\], if we start the pendulum along AB, over time the motion becomes elliptical and finally settles along CD and then returns to the original direction AB. Return time is defined as the time that the pendulum takes to go from AB to CD and back to AB. The return time was measured for different angles and the results are tabulated in Table \[spring1-2\].
[|c||c||c|]{}\
& [Return Time]{} & [Frequency ]{}\
[degrees]{} & [Sec ]{}& [rad/sec]{}\
17 & 192.12 & 0.0327\
32 & 192.00 & 0.0327\
46 & 192.09 & 0.0327\
Return time turns out to be independent of the angle with respect to the normal mode from which we release the bob. The return time in fact is a measure of the amount by which the symmetry is broken. We will see in the next subsection how it relates to the normal mode frequencies.
Determination of normal mode frequencies
----------------------------------------
Next we start the pendulum in each of the normal modes and measure the time periods of oscillations for the two normal modes. The results are tabulated in Table \[table-spring1\]. The time periods and the associated frequencies will be different. This difference has developed because of symmetry breaking and can be related to the extent to which symmetry is broken. This difference in frequency of the two normal modes is directly related to the return time.
[|c||c||c||c||c||c|]{}\
&[Time for]{} & [Time for]{} & [Time for]{} & [Time for]{} & [Time for]{}\
& [20 Osc]{} & [40 Osc]{} & [60 Osc]{} & [80 Osc]{} & [100 Osc]{}\
& 57.21 & 114.38 & 171.54 & 228.78 & 285.98\
& 56.43 & 112.81 & 169.23 & 225.69 & 282.07\
Mode Time Period (s) $\omega$ (rad/sec)
-------- ------------------- ---------------------
Mode 1 2.8598$\pm$0.0015 2.1971 $\pm$ 0.0011
Mode 2 2.8207$\pm$0.0016 2.2275 $\pm$ 0.0012
: \[table-spring1\] Measurement of normal mode frequencies after the symmetry is broken by connecting a spring (No. 1) to the suspension.
$\Delta \omega$ 0.0304 $\pm$0.0023 rad/sec
----------------- ----------------------------
: \[table-spring1\] Measurement of normal mode frequencies after the symmetry is broken by connecting a spring (No. 1) to the suspension.
As mentioned earlier return time is related to the strength of symmetry breaking which is reflected in its relationship through the frequency difference $\Delta \omega$ between the two normal modes. For this spring the frequency difference suggests an associated time $\frac{2\pi}{\Delta \omega}=207\pm 15$ s and the measured return times are close to this number within experimental error.
Repeating with a set of different springs
-----------------------------------------
Finally, the entire set of observations is to be repeated for different springs, i.e. for different amounts of symmetry breaking. With the qualitative observations remaining the same, the quantitative results change, indicating a different amount of broken symmetry. We present the data for two additional springs which are weaker than the first spring that we used. Table \[table-spring2-2\] contains the return time measurements and Table \[table-spring2\] contains the normal mode frequency measurements for the second spring. Tables \[table-spring3-2\] and \[table-spring3\] contain similar data for the third spring.
[|c||c||c|]{}\
& [Return Time]{} & [Frequency ]{}\
[degrees]{} & [Sec ]{}& [rad/sec]{}\
28 & 459.12 & 0.0137\
49 & 462.45 & 0.0136\
58 & 464.95 & 0.0136\
[|c||c||c||c||c||c|]{}\
&[Time for]{} & [Time for]{} & [Time for]{} & [Time for]{} & [Time for]{}\
& [20 Osc]{} & [40 Osc]{} & [60 Osc]{} & [80 Osc]{} & [100 Osc]{}\
& 57.24 & 114.43 & 171.68 & 228.94 & 286.15\
& 56.87 & 113.71 & 170.63 & 227.55 & 284.86\
Mode Time Period (s) $\omega$ (rad/sec)
-------- ------------------- ---------------------
Mode 1 2.8615$\pm$0.0013 2.1958 $\pm$ 0.001
Mode 2 2.8446$\pm$0.0017 2.2088 $\pm$ 0.0013
: \[table-spring2\] Measurement of normal mode frequencies after the symmetry is broken by connecting a spring (No. 2) to the suspension.
$\Delta \omega$ 0.013 $\pm$0.0023 rad/sec
----------------- ---------------------------
: \[table-spring2\] Measurement of normal mode frequencies after the symmetry is broken by connecting a spring (No. 2) to the suspension.
[|c||c||c|]{}\
& [Return Time]{} & [Frequency ]{}\
[degrees]{} & [Sec ]{}& [rad/sec]{}\
23 & 849.02 & 0.0074\
32 & 827.66 & 0.0076\
50 & 811.84 & 0.0077\
[|c||c||c||c||c||c|]{}\
&[Time for]{} & [Time for]{} & [Time for]{} & [Time for]{} & [Time for]{}\
& [20 Osc]{} & [40 Osc]{} & [60 Osc]{} & [80 Osc]{} & [100 Osc]{}\
Mode 1 & 57.32 & 114.65 & 171.9 & 229.2 & 286.46\
Mode 2 & 57.05 & 114.13 & 171.21 & 228.31 & 285.44\
Mode Time Period (s) $\omega$ (rad/sec)
-------- ------------------- ---------------------
Mode 1 2.8646$\pm$0.0018 2.1934 $\pm$ 0.0014
Mode 2 2.8544$\pm$0.0015 2.2012 $\pm$ 0.0012
: \[table-spring3\] Measurement of normal mode frequencies after the symmetry is broken by connecting another spring (No.3) to the suspension.
$\Delta \omega$ 0.0078$\pm$0.0026 rad/sec
----------------- ---------------------------
: \[table-spring3\] Measurement of normal mode frequencies after the symmetry is broken by connecting another spring (No.3) to the suspension.
For the second spring the frequency difference suggests an associated time $\frac{2\pi}{\Delta \omega}=483\pm 85$ s which again is close to the measured times and for the third spring the value $\frac{2\pi}{\Delta \omega}=805\pm 268$ s. This clearly demonstrates the energy transfer between the normal modes at a frequency dictated by the frequency difference between the modes.
It is clear from the analysis that for a weaker spring when the return time is long and the difference in the frequency of the normal modes is small it is difficult to make observations and the errors are large. It is worth mentioning that our system is stable and has sufficiently low dissipation so that we are able to measure the effect of such weak springs. We have given these results as a demonstration of this fact and the fact that errors grow when one is trying to measure a small effect. In actual lab experiment for students one may not want to use such weak springs.
Pendulum base frequency
-----------------------
As the last measurement, we remove the spring and measure the time period of oscillation of the oscillator as it is released from different angles with respect to the $x$ axis. The data is displayed in Table \[no-spring\].
----------- --------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------
[Angle]{} [Time for ]{} [Time for]{} [Time for]{} [Time for]{} [Time for]{}
[ ]{} [20 Osc]{} [40 Osc]{} [ 60 Osc]{} [80 Osc]{} [100 Osc]{}
$0^{0}$ 57.29 114.52 171.83 229.04 286.28
$30^{0}$ 57.18 114.38 171.69 228.94 286.19
$60^{0}$ 57.24 114.46 171.76 229.04 286.21
$90^{0}$ 57.15 114.35 171.64 228.87 286.17
$120^{0}$ 57.37 114.58 171.83 229.11 286.35
$150^{0}$ 57.27 114.53 171.86 229.07 286.28
----------- --------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------
: \[no-spring\] Values of time measured for a cylindrical symmetric oscillator for different numbers of oscillations and for different values of the angle of oscillation with respect to the $x$ axis.
The frequency of oscillations can be calculated for different angles and are tabulated in Table \[no-spring2\].
Angle Time Period(s) $\omega$ (rad/s)
----------- -------------------- -------------------
0$^{0}$ 2.8628$\pm$ 0.0021 2.1948$\pm$0.0016
$30^{0}$ 2.8619$\pm$ 0.0025 2.1955$\pm$0.0019
$60^{0}$ 2.8621$\pm$ 0.0029 2.1953$\pm$0.0022
$90^{0}$ 2.8617$\pm$0.0031 2.1956$\pm$0.0024
$120^{0}$ 2.8635$\pm$0.0031 2.1942$\pm$0.0023
$150^{0}$ 2.8628$\pm 0.0025$ 2.1948$\pm$0.0019
: \[no-spring2\] The values of frequency for oscillation of the pendulum in different directions. The data shows that the situation is very close to symmetric and all the polarization modes of oscillation are degenerate within experimental errors. Hence the frequency of oscillation is the same along all directions within experimental errors. The frequency is $2.1950\pm0.0005$ rad/sec.
Automation aspects
------------------
The experiments described in the previous section where data is taken by hand using a stopwatch can also be automated. We have taken the data in an automated fashion. We used a webcam to take the video of the motion and then used tracking software to track the pendulum coordinates as a function of time during the motion. The data then can be analyzed at leisure and various aspects of the motion can be studied. All the four experimental aspects carried out by hand can be done with this automated setup. We analyzed the data on a Linux based system using the open source physics software [*tracker*]{} [@tracker]. In Figure \[automation\] we present a graph based on such an analysis. In this we have chosen to extract the amplitude of motion perpendicular to the initial direction in which the bob was set in motion. The amplitude along the perpendicular direction first increases and then decreases and finally again comes to zero when the bob returns to its original oscillation direction. From this graph we can easily measure the return time. In this case the return time is $300$ s which reflects the strength of the spring. The time period along different directions, normal mode frequencies can also be measured by recording the corresponding video and extracting data using the tracking software. The identification of normal modes can also be done by inspecting the video.
![\[automation\] Plot of projection of amplitude along a direction perpendicular to the initial direction motion as function of time. This data is extracted from the video and since the data set is large we have plotted only sample data points. The return time of $300$ s is easily extracted from the graph. The graph also indicates that the effect of dissipation is very small even upto $900$ s.](pendulum_fig5.pdf)
We have indicated how the entire experiment can be carried forward and automation aspects can be explored. However we ourselves found that actually observing and measuring engages the student better with the experiment than recording a video and analysis is offline and therefore should not be used as a substitute for hand measurements. On the other hand the video provides you with data that can analyzed in many different ways later. You can ask a question and answer it by extracting a different aspect of data from the video.
Discussion
==========
In this section we takeup several discussion points that emerge out of performing the experiment.
Quadratic Hamiltonians
----------------------
An interesting point to note here is regarding quadratic Hamiltonians. A general quadratic Hamiltonian for a two-dimensional oscillator can be written as $$H(p_x,p_y,x,y)=\frac{1}{2m} (p_x^2 + p_y^2) + \frac{1}{2}
(k_x x^2 + k_y y^2+2 k_{xy} xy)
\label{quad-hamiltonian}$$
This Hamiltonian has a structure where the kinetic energy part is invariant under rotation and the potential energy part can be diagonalized by going to an appropriate frame which is related to the original frame by a rotation. Let us look at the potential energy term in quadratic form $$k_x x^2 + k_y y^2+2 k_{xy} xy
=
\left[\begin{array}{cc} x & y \end{array} \right]
\left[\begin{array}{cc} k_x &k_{xy}\\k_{xy} &k_y
\end{array} \right]
\left[\begin{array}{c} x \\ y \end{array} \right]
\label{quadratic}$$ Since the coupling matrix is symmetric, we can always find a frame in which the matrix is diagonal by performing a rotation namely $$\left[\!\begin{array}{cc} \cos{\theta} &\sin{\theta}
\\-\sin{\theta} & \cos{\theta}
\end{array}\! \right]
\left[\!\begin{array}{cc} k_x &k_{xy}\\k_{xy} &ky
\end{array} \!\right]
\left[\!\begin{array}{cc} \cos{\theta} &-\sin{\theta}
\\\sin{\theta} & \cos{\theta}
\end{array} \!\right]\! =\!
\left[\!\begin{array}{cc} k^{\prime}_x &0\\0 & k^{\prime}_y
\end{array} \!\right]
\label{rotation}$$ The rotation matrix given above corresponds to a rotation of the coordinate system such that the new coordinates are given by $$\left[\begin{array}{c} x^\prime \\ y^\prime
\end{array} \right]
=\left[\begin{array}{cc} \cos{\theta} &\sin{\theta} \\
-\sin{\theta} & \cos{\theta}
\end{array}
\right]
\left[
\begin{array}{c} x \\ y
\end{array}\right]$$ The novel aspect of our experiment is that this rotation matrix and the normal modes can be found experimentally! We start the oscillator in any arbitrary direction, observe its motion and mark the point of return. The normal mode direction lies half-way between the starting direction and final direction from which the oscillator returns. This allows us to find the angle $\theta$ of the rotation which diagonalizes the potential energy term and takes us to the normal coordinates.
Attaching several springs
-------------------------
What if we attach more than one spring in the suspension pointing in different directions? Will that make the motion pattern more complicated? It can be easily done, the best is to attach several things and observe the motion pattern experimentally. It turns out that since spring forces add like vectors we do not see any difference in the motion pattern and several springs act like one resultant spring. Still we have two normal modes and a single return time. This can be left for the performers to do and figure out the reasons for it. In other words the sum total of the effect of many springs attached in different directions is represented by a quadratic Hamiltonian of the form given in equation (\[quad-hamiltonian\]). As long as the springs are linear, there is no further complexity to the problem, and we can always find the normal modes of the system by following the same experimental procedure. In other words the cylindrical symmetry in two dimensions can be broken only in one way.
Angular momentum conservation
-----------------------------
Another very interesting and peculiar observation one makes while the pendulum oscillates under broken symmetry (i.e. when not initially in a normal mode) is that while the pendulum motion becomes elliptical the sense of the motion also changes. The sense of the motion begins as either clockwise or anti-clockwise (depending upon where the pendulum started) and after sometime it changes sense during the return path. This is clearly an indication of the flip of sign of the angular momentum of the system and implies that the angular momentum is not conserved. Where does this change in angular momentum come from and who is applying the torque? A careful analysis reveals that torque is actually coming from the suspension and that the angular momentum is in fact exchanged with the Earth through the suspension!
Single two-mode oscillator vs two oscillators
---------------------------------------------
We have used two modes of a single oscillator and coupled them in our experiment. In typical setups, where normal modes are demonstrated and measured, two physical oscillators are employed. Our experimental design is easier to implement as compared to the standard experimental setups, where if we want to start with two identical oscillators with the same frequency, it requires tuning, adjusting the lengths etc. Another advantage of our setup is that it also breaks the conceptual barrier in the mind of a student that we do not need two physical objects for introducing the coupling and the concept of normal modes, we basically need two degrees of freedom which can be of the same physical object.
Connection with Foucault’s pendulum
-----------------------------------
One observes that the symmetry breaking leads to rotation of the plane of the oscillator over a time scale related to the strength of symmetry breaking. What if we want to build a Foucault’s pendulum? In that case the oscillator plane should not shift at least over one day in the absence of the Coriolis force. Let us do an order of magnitude calculation regarding the required precision for the system. The time period of shift is related to $\Delta \omega$ and demanding stability over a period of 24 hours implies that the suspension should be such that the frequencies should be the same up to parts per million, in order to observe the effects of Coriolis force!
Connection with Quantum Mechanics {#qm}
---------------------------------
The two normal modes of a single pendulum system that we have presented, where the motion can be a general superposition of the two modes, is analogous to a two-level quantum system. Consider a two-level quantum system with the two eigen states of the Hamiltonian being the stationary states; they correspond to the two normal modes of our pendulum system. If we start the quantum system in one of the eigen states, the state does not change, which corresponds to the time invariant motion pattern for the pendulum when started along either of the normal modes. A general quantum state will be a linear combination of the two eigen states and that corresponds to the situation where we do not start the pendulum in one of the normal modes and in this case we have a motion pattern which changes with time. This analogy can be used as a pedagogical tool to introduce the concept of stationary and non-stationary states of a quantum system to students. The analogy can be taken even further if we consider the two-level system to be a spin-1/2 system with a spin magnetic moment, in this case it is the magnetic field that breaks symmetry and makes the energy eigen states non-degenerate. In the absence of a magnetic field, all the states have same energy, corresponding to the cylindrical symmetric pendulum and the switching on of the magnetic field corresponds to the introduction of the spring in the suspension.
Simulation
----------
The motion of the pendulum can be simulated where we take the basic equations given in Equations \[sol\_1\] and generate the trajectory on a computer. In Figure \[pendulum\_sim\] we present the results of such a simulation. The oscillation is started at an angle of $\pi/8$ with respect to the $x$ axis. Several snapshots of the motion are displayed for progressive values of time. In the beginning the oscillator oscillates in a straight line, with the passage of time the oscillations become elliptical and, the direction of oscillation gradually rotates and the motion again becomes straight line motion at a certain time along $-\pi/8$. From this the oscillation slowly comes back to the original motion pattern.
![\[pendulum\_sim\] Simulation of the motion of a two-dimensional oscillator where $\omega_1
\neq \omega_2$. The difference in frequencies is very small. The motion is analogous to the experiment.](pendulum_fig6.pdf)
Concluding Remarks {#conc}
==================
In this paper we have presented an experiment which involves a two-dimensional pendulum with possibility of breaking the cylindrical symmetry in a tunable manner. The experiment has a visual appeal and a group of students can be engaged with it while demonstrating the different motion patterns that unfold. The set of experiments that we have described on the setup involve determination of the normal modes, measuring the normal mode frequencies and measurement of the return time. The notion of symmetry breaking in a tunable fashion is central to the experiment and we demonstrate how even a small amount of asymmetry in the potential leads to measurable effects over time as the effects accumulate and build up. The experiment has many implications that are taken up in the discussion section and we hope that this experiment will prove to be an interesting pedagogical tool for physics laboratories. We have worked with several sets of students with our setup in about half a dozen institutions and the response has been very good.
In an extension of this experiment, we want to explore this interplay in detail. We plan to build a suspension which is non-rigidly connected with the Earth and therefore a part of it will rotate, compensating the angular momentum gained or lost by the pendulum. Furthermore, by making the angular motion sufficiently dissipative, we will kill the angular part of the motion. In that case the pendulum will be left with no choice but to settle along one of the normal modes. This notion can be experimentally connected to the solving of the eigenvalue problem of a $2 \times 2$ Hamiltonian. This will mean that if you start the oscillator anywhere, it will find and settle along an eigenvector of the $2 \times
2$ potential matrix, thereby computing the eigenvector for you. After the pendulum settles into the normal mode, we can immediately obtain the corresponding eigenvalue by measuring its frequency. The details of this experiment will be presented elsewhere.
[14]{}ifxundefined \[1\][ ifx[\#1]{} ]{}ifnum \[1\][ \#1firstoftwo secondoftwo ]{}ifx \[1\][ \#1firstoftwo secondoftwo ]{}““\#1””@noop \[0\][secondoftwo]{}sanitize@url \[0\][‘\
12‘\$12 ‘&12‘\#12‘12‘\_12‘%12]{}@startlink\[1\]@endlink\[0\]@bib@innerbibempty @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [“,” ]{} ()
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We study first order evolutive Mean Field Games where the Hamiltonian is non-coercive. This situation occurs, for instance, when some directions are “forbidden” to the generic player at some points. We establish the existence of a weak solution of the system via a vanishing viscosity method and, mainly, we prove that the evolution of the population’s density is the push-forward of the initial density through the flow characterized almost everywhere by the optimal trajectories of the control problem underlying the Hamilton-Jacobi equation. As preliminary steps, we need that the optimal trajectories for the control problem are unique (at least for a.e. starting points) and that the optimal controls can be expressed in terms of the horizontal gradient of the value function.'
author:
- |
[Paola Mannucci[^1], Claudio Marchi [^2],]{}\
[Carlo Mariconda[^3], Nicoletta Tchou[^4]]{}
title: '**Non-coercive first order Mean Field Games**'
---
[**Keywords**]{}: Mean Field Games, first order Hamilton-Jacobi equations, continuity equation, non-coercive Hamiltonian, degenerate optimal control problem.
[**2010 AMS Subject classification:**]{} 35F50, 35Q91, 49K20, 49L25.
Introduction
============
In this paper we study the following Mean Field Game (briefly, MFG) $$\label{eq:MFG1}
\left\{\begin{array}{lll}
(i)&\quad-\partial_t u+H(x, Du)=F(x,m)&\qquad \textrm{in }{{\mathbb R}}^2\times (0,T)\\
(ii)&\quad\partial_t m-\operatorname{div}(m\, \partial_pH(x, Du))=0&\qquad \textrm{in }{{\mathbb R}}^2\times (0,T)\\
(iii)&\quad m(x,0)=m_0(x), u(x,T)=G(x, m(T))&\qquad \textrm{on }{{\mathbb R}}^2,
\end{array}\right.$$ where, if $p=(p_1,p_2)$ and $x=(x_1, x_2)$, the functions $H(x,p)$ is $$\label{H}
H(x,p)=\frac{1}{2}(p_1^2+h^2(x_1)p_2^2)$$ where $h(x_1)$ is a regular bounded function [*possibly vanishing*]{} and that $F$ and $G$ are strongly regularizing (see assumptions (H1) – (H4) below).
These MFG systems arise when the dynamics of the generic player are deterministic and, when $h$ vanishes, may have a “forbidden” direction; actually, if the evolution of the whole population’s distribution $m$ is given, each agent wants to choose the control $\alpha=(\alpha_1, \alpha_2)$ in $L^2([t,T];\R^2)$ in order to minimize the cost $$\label{Jgen}
\int_t^T\left[\frac12 |\alpha(\tau)|^2+F(x(\tau),m)\right]\,d\tau+G(x(T), m(T))$$ where, in $[t,T]$, its dynamics $x(\cdot)$ are governed by $$\label{eq:HJ2}
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
x_1'(s)=\alpha_1(s) \\
x_2'(s)=h(x_1(s))\alpha_2(s)
\end{array}\right.$$ with $x_1(t)=x_1$ and $x_2(t)=x_2$. We see that the direction along $x_2$ is forbidden when $h(x_1)$ has zero value. This kind of problems are called of “Grushin type” (see [@LM] or Example \[ex:Gru\] below). As a matter of fact the structure of this degenerate dynamics will play an essential rule in our results. Even though our techniques apply to a wider class of degenerate operators (see the forthcoming papers [@MMMT2; @MMMT3]), in the present paper we restrict our attention to this class of problems because they already contain all the main technical issues.
Let us recall that the MFG theory studies Nash equilibria in games with a huge number of (“infinitely many”) rational and indistinguishable agents. This theory started with the pioneering papers by Lasry and Lions [@LL1; @LL2; @LL3] and by Huang, Malhamé and Caines [@HMC]. A detailed description of the achievements obtained in these years goes beyond the scope of this paper; we just refer the reader to the monographs [@AC; @C; @BFY; @GPV; @GS].
As far as we know, degenerate MFG systems have been poorly investigated up to now. Dragoni and Feleqi [@DF] studied a second order (stationary) system where the principal part of the operator fulfills the Hörmander condition; moreover, Cardaliaguet, Graber, Porretta and Tonon [@CGPT] tackled degenerate second order systems with coercive (and convex as well) first order operators. Hence, these results cannot be directly applied to the non-coercive problem .
The aim of this paper is to prove the existence of a solution of . The main result is the interpretation of the evolution of the population’s density as the push-forward of the distribution at the initial time through a flow which is suitably defined in terms of the optimal control problem underlying Hamilton Jacobi equation.
In order to establish a representation formula for $m$, we shall follow some ideas of P-L Lions in the lectures at College de France (2012) (see [@C]), some results proved in [@CH; @C13] and the Ambrosio superposition principle [@AGS]. Indeed the non-coercivity of $H$ prevents from applying directly the arguments of [@C Sect. 4.3]. Actually we have to study carefully the behaviour of the optimal trajectories of the control problem associated to the Hamilton-Jacobi equation -(i) especially their uniqueness. A crucial point will be the application of the Pontryagin maximum principle and the statement of Theorem \[th:nobifurc\] on the uniqueness of the optimal trajectory after the rest time. As far as we know this uniqueness property has never been tackled before for this kind of degenerate dynamics and in our opinion may have interest in itself.
We point out that our approach could be applied to other first order “degenerate” MFG but it is essential to prove some uniqueness properties of optimal trajectories in a set of starting points of full measure. In general this set depends on the semiconcavity properties of $u$, as in the classical setting, and on the degeneracy of the dynamics.
We now list our notations and the assumptions, we give the definition of (weak) solution to system and we state the existence result for system .
. For $x=(x_1, x_2)\in {{\mathbb R}}^2$, $\phi:\R^2\to\R$ and $\Phi:\R^2\to\R^2$ differentiable, we set: $D_G \phi(x):=(\partial_{x_1}\phi(x),h(x_1)\partial_{x_2}\phi(x))$ and $\operatorname{div}_G\Phi(x):=\partial_{x_1}\Phi_1(x)+h(x_1)\partial_{x_2}\Phi_2(x).$ We denote by $\mathcal P_1$ the space of Borel probability measures on ${{\mathbb R}}^d$ with finite first order moment, endowed with the Kantorovich-Rubinstein distance [${\bf d}_1$]{}. We denote $C^2(\R^2)$ the space of functions with continuous second order derivatives endowed with the norm $\|f\|_{C^2}:=\sup_{x\in\R^2}[|f(x)|+|Df(x)|+|D^2f(x)|]$. Throughout this paper, we shall require the following hypotheses:
- \[H1\] The functions $F(\cdot,\cdot)$ and $G(\cdot,\cdot)$ are real-valued function, continuous on\
${{\mathbb R}}^2\times\mathcal P_1$;
- \[H2\] The map $F(x,\cdot)$ is Lipschitz continuous from $\mathcal P_1$ to $C^{2}({{\mathbb R}}^2)$ uniformly for $x\in\R^2$; moreover, there exists $C\in \mathbb R$ such that $$\|F(\cdot,m)\|_{C^2}, \|G(\cdot,m)\|_{C^2}\leq C,\qquad \forall m\in \mathcal P_1,$$
- \[H3\] the function $h:\mathbb R\to\mathbb R$ is $C^{2}(\mathbb R)$ with $\|h\|_{C^2}\leq C$;
- \[H4\] the initial distribution $m_0$ has a compactly supported density (that we still denote by $m_0$, with a slight abuse of notation), $m_0\in C^{2,\delta}({{\mathbb R}}^2)$, for a $\delta\in (0,1)$.
\[ex:Gru\] Easy examples of $h$ are $h(x_1)=\sin (x_1)$ or $h(x_1)=\frac{x_1}{\sqrt{1+x_1^2}}$, (see [@LM] where the term $h(x_1)=\frac{x_1}{\sqrt{1+x_1^2}}$ is introduced as a degenerate diffusion term).
We now introduce our definition of solution of the MFG system and state the main result concerning its existence.
\[defsolmfg\] The pair $(u,m)$ is a solution of system if:
- $(u,m)\in W^{1,\infty}({{\mathbb R}}^2\times[0,T])\times C^0([0,T];\mathcal P_1({{\mathbb R}}^2))$;
- Equation -(i) is satisfied by $u$ in the viscosity sense;
- Equation -(ii) is satisfied by $m$ in the sense of distributions.
Here below we state the main result of this paper.
\[thm:main\] Under the above assumptions:
1. System has a solution $(u,m)$ in the sense of Definition \[defsolmfg\],
2. $m$ is the push-forward of $m_0$ through the characteristic flow $$\label{chflow}
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
x_1'(s)=-u_{x_1}(x(s),s),& \quad x_1(0)=x_1, \\
x_2'(s)=-h^2(x_1(s))u_{x_2}(x(s),s),&\quad x_2(0)=x_2
\end{array}\right..$$
Uniqueness holds under classical hypothesis on the monotonicity of $F$ and $G$ as in [@C].
This paper is organized as follows. In Section \[OC\] we will find some properties of the solution $u$ of the Hamilton-Jacobi equation -(i) with fixed $m$: we will prove that $u$ is Lipschitz continuous and semiconcave in $x$. Moreover still in this section we will establish a crucial point of the paper: the uniqueness of the optimal trajectory of the associated control problem. In Section \[sect:c\_eq\] we study the continuity equation -(ii) where $u$ is the solution of a Hamilton-Jacobi equation found in the previous section. Section \[sect:MFG\] is devoted to the proof of the Theorem \[thm:main\]. Finally, the Appendix splits into two parts: in the former one, we give some results on the concatenation of optimal trajectories and the Dynamic Programming Principle while in the latter part we introduce the notion of the $G$-differentiability and we prove the main properties on the $G$-differentials which will be used along the paper.
Formulation of the optimal control problem {#OC}
==========================================
For every $0\le t<T$ and $ x:=({x}_1, {x}_2)\in\R^2$ we consider the following optimal control problem, where the functions $f,g,h$ satisfy the Hypothesis \[BasicAss\] here below.
\[def:OCD\] $$\label{def:OC}
\text{Minimize } J_t(x(\cdot),\alpha):
=\displaystyle\int_t^T\dfrac12|\alpha(s)|^2+f( x(s),s)\,ds+g(x(T))$$ subject to $(x(\cdot), \alpha)\in \mathcal A(x,t)$, where $$\mathcal A(x,t):=\left\{(x(\cdot), \alpha)\in AC([t,T]; \R^2)\times L^2([t,T];{{\mathbb R}}^2):\, \textrm{\eqref{eq:HJ2} holds a.e. with } x(t)= x\right\}.$$ A pair $(x(\cdot),\alpha)$ in $\mathcal A(x,t)$ is said to be admissible. We say that $x^*$ is an optimal trajectory if there is a control $\alpha^*$ such that $(x^*,\alpha^*)$ is optimal for [(OC)]{}. Also, we shall refer to the system as to the dynamics of the optimal control problem [(OC)]{}.
In what follows, the functions $f,g$ and $h$ satisfy the following conditions.
\[BasicAss\] $f\in C^{0}([0,T],C^2(\R^2))$ and there exists a constant $C$ such that $$\|f(\cdot,t)\|_{C^2(\R^2)} + \|g\|_{C^2(\R^2)} + \|h\|_{C^2(\R)}\leq C,\qquad\forall t\in[0,T].$$ The set ${\cal{Z}}=\{z\in\R\;:\;h(z)=0\}$ is totally disconnected.
Our Hypothesis \[BasicAss\] is very strong and we clearly do not need it all over the paper. We much prefer to state a more restrictive result without the need to add further assumptions step by step.
Thanks to the boundedness of functions in our Hypothesis \[BasicAss\], it is equivalent to choose $ \mathcal {A}(x,t)$ or $$\tilde{\mathcal{A}}(x,t):=\left\{(x(\cdot), \alpha)\in AC([t,T]; \R^2)\times L^1([t,T];{{\mathbb R}}^2):\,\textrm{$x$ satisfies \eqref{eq:HJ2} a.e.},\,
x(t)= x \right\},$$ in the control problem.
\[rem:uniquex\] Notice that, given a control law $\alpha\in L^2([t,T];\R^2)$, the above Hypothesis \[BasicAss\] on $h$ implies that, given the initial point $ x$, there is a *unique* trajectory $x(\cdot)$ such that $(x(\cdot),\alpha)\in\mathcal A(x,t)$.
\[Existence of optimal solutions\] Hypothesis \[BasicAss\], together with [@Cla Theorem 23.11], ensure that the optimal control problem [(OC)]{} admits a solution $(x^*,\alpha^*)$.
The Hamilton-Jacobi equation and the value function of the optimal control problem {#vf}
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The aim of this section is to study the Hamilton-Jacobi equation -(i) with $m$ fixed, namely $$\label{eq:HJ1}
\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
-\partial_t u+\frac12 |D_Gu|^2=f(x, t)&\qquad \textrm{in }{{\mathbb R}}^2\times (0,T),\\
u(x,T)=g(x)&\qquad \textrm{on }{{\mathbb R}}^2
\end{array}\right.$$ where $f(x,t):=F(x, m)$ and $g(x):=G(x, m(T))$. Under Hypothesis 2.1, we shall prove several regularity properties of the solution (especially Lipschitz continuity and semiconcavity) and mainly the uniqueness of optimal trajectories for the associated optimal control problem.
The value function for the cost $J_t$ defined in is $$\label{repr}u(x,t):=\inf\left\{ J_t(x(\cdot), \alpha):\, (x(\cdot),\alpha)\in \mathcal A(x,t)\right\}.$$ An optimal pair $(x^*(\cdot), \alpha^*)$ for the control problem [(OC)]{} in Definition \[def:OCD\] is also said to be optimal for $u(x,t)$.
In the next lemma we show that the solution $u$ of can be represented as the value function of the control problem [(OC)]{} defined in .
\[valuefunction\] Under Hypothesis 2.1, the value function $u$, defined in , is the unique bounded uniformly continuous viscosity solution to problem .
The Dynamic Programming Principle (stated in Proposition \[proposition:carloclaudio\] in Appendix below) yields that the value function is a solution to problem . Moreover applying classical results uniqueness (see, for example, [@CS eq. (7.40) and Thm. 7.4.14]), we obtain the statement. Moreover, taking as admissible control the law $\alpha=0$, from the representation formula , using the boundedness of $f$ and $g$, we have $\vert u(x,t)\vert \leq C_T$.
\[L1\] Under Hypothesis 2.1, there hold:
1. $u(x,t)$ is Lipschitz continuous with respect to the spatial variable $x$,
2. $u(x,t)$ is Lipschitz continuous with respect to the time variable $t$.
In this proof, $C_T$ will denote a constant which may change from line to line but it always depends only on the constants in the assumptions (especially the Lipschitz constants of $f$ and $g$) and on $T$.\
1. Let $t$ be fixed. We follow the proof of [@C Lemma 4.7]. Let $\alpha^\varepsilon$ be an $\varepsilon$-optimal control for $u(x,t)$ i.e., $$\label{eq:HJ31}
u(x_1, x_2, t)+\varepsilon\geq \int_t^T\frac12 |\alpha^{\varepsilon}(s)|^2+f(x(s),s)\,ds+g(x(T))$$ where $ x(\cdot)$ obeys to the dynamics with $\alpha=\alpha^{\varepsilon}$. From the boundedness of $u$ (established in Lemma \[valuefunction\]) and our assumptions, there exists a constant $C_T$ such that $\Vert \alpha^{\varepsilon}\Vert_{L^2(t,T)}\leq C_T$.\
We consider the path $x^*(s)$ starting from $y=(y_1,y_2)$, with control $\alpha^{\varepsilon}(\cdot)$. Hence $$\begin{aligned}
x_1^*(s)&=&y_1+\int_t^s\alpha^{\varepsilon}_1(\tau) \,d\tau=y_1-x_1+x_1(s)\\
x_2^*(s)&=&y_2+\int_t^s h(y_1-x_1+x_1(\tau))\alpha_2^{\varepsilon}(\tau)\,d\tau\\
&=&y_2-x_2+x_2(s)
+\int_t^s h(y_1-x_1+x_1(\tau))\alpha_2^{\varepsilon}(\tau)-h(x_1(\tau))\alpha_2^{\varepsilon}(\tau)\,d\tau.\end{aligned}$$ Using the Lipschitz continuity of $f$ and $h$ and the boundedness of $h$ we get $$\begin{aligned}
&&f(x^*(s),s)=\\
&& \leq f(x_1(s),x_2(s),s)
+L\vert y_1-x_1\vert+\\
&&\phantom{AAAAA}+L\left\vert y_2-x_2+\int_t^s h(y_1-x_1+x_1(\tau))\alpha_2^{\varepsilon}(\tau)-h(x_1(\tau))\alpha_2^{\varepsilon}(\tau)\,d\tau\right\vert\\
&&
\leq f(x_1(s),x_2(s),s)
+L\vert y_1-x_1\vert+L\vert y_2-x_2\vert+L'\vert y_1-x_1 \vert \int_t^s \vert\alpha_2^{\varepsilon}(\tau)\vert \,d\tau\\
&&
\leq f(x(s),s)
+L\vert y_1-x_1\vert+L\vert y_2-x_2\vert+L'\vert y_1-x_1 \vert T^{\frac 1 2} \bigg(\int_t^s(\alpha_2^{\varepsilon}(s))^2 \,ds\bigg)^{\frac 1 2}.\end{aligned}$$ By the same calculations for $g$ and substituting inequality in $$u(y_1, y_2, t)\leq \int_t^T\frac12 |\alpha^{\varepsilon}(s)|^2+f(x^*(s),s)\,ds+g(x^*(T)),$$ we get $$u(y_1, y_2, t)\leq u(x_1, x_2, t)+C_T(\vert y_2-x_2\vert+\vert y_1-x_1 \vert).$$ Reversing the role of $x$ and $y$ we get the result.\
2. We follow the same arguments as those in the proof of [@C Lemma 4.7]; to this end, we recall that $h$ is bounded and we observe that there holds $$|x(s)-x|\leq C(s-t)\|\alpha\|_{\infty}$$ since $\alpha$ is bounded as proved in Corollary \[coro:regularity\] in the next section.
In the following lemma we establish the semiconcavity of $u(x,t)$ taking advantage of the regularity hypothesis \[BasicAss\]. This property will be needed in the study of the relationship between the regularity of the value function and the uniqueness of the optimal trajectories. It is worth to remark that it is possible to prove that $u(x,t)$ is also semiconcave with respect to the $\chi$-lines associated to the Grushin dynamics, as introduced in [@BD Example 2.4], but this does not seem to be useful to our results.
Under Hypothesis 2.1, the value function $u$, defined in , is semiconcave with respect to the variable $x$.
For any $x,y\in {{\mathbb R}}^2$ and $\lambda\in[0,1]$, consider $x_{\lambda}:=\lambda x+(1-\lambda)y$. Let $\alpha$ be an $\varepsilon$-optimal control for $u(x_{\lambda}, t)$; we set $$x_{\lambda}(s)= (x_{\lambda,1}(s), x_{\lambda,2}(s)):=
\bigg(x_{\lambda,1}+\int_t^s\,\alpha_1(\tau)\,d\tau,\ x_{\lambda,2}+\int_t^s\,h(x_{\lambda,1}(\tau))\alpha_2(\tau)\,d\tau\bigg).$$ Let $x(s)$ and $y(s)$ satisfy with initial condition respectively $x$ and $y$ still with the same control $\alpha$, $\varepsilon$-optimal for $u(x_{\lambda}, t)$. We have to estimate $\lambda u(x,t) +(1-\lambda)u(y,t)$ in terms of $u(x_{\lambda}, t)$. To this end, arguing as in the proof of [@C Lemma 4.7], we have to estimate the terms $\lambda f(x(s), s) +(1-\lambda)f(y(s), s)$ and $\lambda g(x(T))+(1-\lambda)g(y(T)).$\
We explicitly provide the calculations for the second component $x_2(s)$ since the calculations for $x_1(s)$ are the same as in [@C]. We have $$\begin{aligned}
x_2(s)&=& x_2+\int_t^s h(x_1(\tau))\alpha_2(\tau)\,d\tau\\
&=&x_2-x_{\lambda,2}+x_{\lambda,2}(s)+\int_t^s\,(h(x_{1}(\tau))-h(x_{\lambda,1}(\tau)))\alpha_2(\tau)\,d\tau,\end{aligned}$$ and analogously for $y_2(s)$. For the sake of brevity we provide the explicit calculations only for $f$ and we omit the analogous ones for $g$; we write $f(x_1,x_2):=f(x_1, x_2, s)$. We have $$\begin{array}{l}
\lambda f(x(s))+(1-\lambda)f(y(s))=\\
\qquad \lambda f\left(x_1(s),x_{\lambda,2}(s)+x_2-x_{\lambda,2}+\displaystyle\int_t^s\,
(h(x_{1}(\tau))-h(x_{\lambda,1}(\tau)))\alpha_2(\tau)\,d\tau\right)\\
\qquad+(1-\lambda)f\left(y_1(s), x_{\lambda,2}(s)+y_2-x_{\lambda,2}+\displaystyle\int_t^s\,(h(y_{1}(\tau))-h(x_{\lambda,1}(\tau)))\alpha_2(\tau)\,d\tau\right).
\end{array}$$ In the Taylor expansion of $f$ centered in $x_{\lambda}(s)$ the contribution of the first variable can be dealt with as in [@C]. Assuming without any loss of generality $x_1=y_1$, the contribution of the second variable gives $$\begin{gathered}
\lambda f(x(s))+(1-\lambda)f(y(s))=
f(x_{\lambda}(s))+ \partial_{x_2}f(x_{\lambda}(s))\bigg(\lambda(x_2-x_{\lambda,2})+(1-\lambda)(y_2-x_{\lambda,2})\\
+\lambda\int_t^s\,(h(x_{1}(\tau))-h(x_{\lambda,1}(\tau)))\alpha_2(\tau)\,d\tau)\\
+(1-\lambda)\int_t^s\,(h(y_{1}(\tau))-h(x_{\lambda,1}(\tau)))\alpha_2(\tau)\,d\tau)\bigg)+R,\end{gathered}$$ where $R$ is the error term of the expansion, namely $$\begin{gathered}
\label{R}
R=\lambda \frac{\partial_{x_2,x_2}^2f(\xi_1)}{2}\bigg(x_2- x_{\lambda,2}+ \int_t^s\,(h(x_{1}(\tau))-h(x_{\lambda,1}(\tau)))\alpha_2(\tau)\,d\tau\bigg)^2\\
+(1- \lambda) \frac{\partial_{x_2,x_2}^2f(\xi_2)}{2}\bigg(y_2- x_{\lambda,2}+ \int_t^s\,(h(y_{1}(\tau))-h(x_{\lambda,1}(\tau)))\alpha_2(\tau)\,d\tau\bigg)^2,\end{gathered}$$ for suitable $\xi_1, \xi_2\in {{\mathbb R}}^2$.\
Since $\lambda(x_2-x_{\lambda,2})+(1-\lambda)(y_2-x_{\lambda,2})=0$, we get $$\label{convf}
\lambda f(x(s))+(1-\lambda)f(y(s))=f(x_{\lambda}(s))
+ \partial_{x_2}f(x_{\lambda}(s))\int_t^s\,I(\tau)\alpha_2(\tau)\,d\tau+R,$$ with $I(\tau):=-h(x_{\lambda,1}(\tau))+\lambda h(x_{1}(\tau)) +(1-\lambda)h(y_{1}(\tau)).$ Now, our aim is to estimate $I(\tau)$. Since $x_{\lambda,1}(\tau)=\lambda x_1(\tau)+(1-\lambda)y_1(\tau)$, $x_{1}(\tau)-x_{\lambda,1}(\tau)= (1-\lambda)(x_1-y_1)$ and $y_{1}(\tau)-x_{\lambda,1}(\tau)=\lambda(y_1-x_1)$, the Taylor expansion for $h$ centered in $x_{\lambda,1}(\tau)$ yields $$I(\tau) =\frac{1}{2} (1-\lambda)\lambda(y_{1}-x_{1})^2[ (1-\lambda)h^{''}(\overline \xi)+\lambda h^{''}(\widetilde{\xi})],$$ for suitable $\overline{\xi}, \widetilde{\xi}\in{{\mathbb R}}$. Our Hypothesis 2.1 entails $$|I(\tau)| \leq (1-\lambda)\lambda C(y_1-x_{1})^2.$$ Replacing the inequality above in , we obtain $$\label{stimaf}
\lambda f(x_2(s))+(1-\lambda)f(y_2(s))\leq \\
f(x_{\lambda,2}(s))+
C^2T(1-\lambda)\lambda (y_{1}-x_{1})^2+ R.$$ Let us now estimate the error term $R$ in . We have $$\begin{aligned}
&&\bigg(x_2- x_{\lambda,2}+ \int_t^s\,(h(x_{1}(\tau))-h(x_{\lambda,1}(\tau)))\alpha_2(\tau)\,d\tau\bigg)^2
\\
&&\qquad\leq 2(x_2- x_{\lambda,2})^2+ 2\bigg(\int_t^s\,(h(x_{1}(\tau))-h(x_{\lambda,1}(\tau)))\alpha_2(\tau)\,d\tau\bigg)^2\\
&& \qquad\leq2{(1-\lambda)}^2(x_2-y_2)^2+ 2C{(1-\lambda)}^2(x_1-y_1)^2\leq C(1-\lambda)^2|x-y|^2\end{aligned}$$ and, analogously $$\begin{aligned}
&&\bigg(y_2- x_{\lambda,2}+ \int_t^s\,(h(y_{1}(\tau))-h(x_{\lambda,1}(\tau)))\alpha_2(\tau)\,d\tau\bigg)^2 \leq C\lambda^2|x-y|^2\end{aligned}$$ Then, replacing these two inequalities in , we infer $$\label{resto}
R\leq C(1-\lambda) \lambda|x-y|^2.$$ Taking into account and , we get the semiconcavity of $u$.
Necessary conditions and regularity for the optimal trajectories
----------------------------------------------------------------
The application of the Maximum Principle yields the following necessary conditions.
\[prop:pontriagin\] \[MPP\] Let $(x^*, \alpha^*)$ be optimal for [(OC)]{}. There exists an arc $p\in AC([t,T];\R^2)$, hereafter called the costate, such that
1. The pair $(\alpha^*, p)$ satisfies the [*adjoint equations*]{}: for a. e. $s\in[t,T]$ $$\begin{aligned}
&&p_1'=-p_2h'(x_1^*)\alpha_2^*+f_{x_1}( x^*, s)\label{tag:adjoint1}\\
&&p_2'=f_{x_2}( x^*,s),\label{tag:adjoint2}\end{aligned}$$ the [*transversality condition*]{} $$\label{tag:transversality}
-p(T)=D g(x^*(T))$$ together with the [*maximum condition*]{} $$\begin{gathered}
\label{tag:max}
\max_{\alpha=(\alpha_1,\alpha_2)\in\R^2}p_1(s)\alpha_1+p_2(s)h(x_1^*(s))\alpha_2-\dfrac{|\alpha|^2}2
=\\=
p_1(s)\alpha_1^*(s)+p_2(s)h(x_1^*(s))\alpha_2^*(s)-\dfrac{|\alpha^*(s)|^2}2\text{ a. e. }s\in [t,T].\end{gathered}$$
2. The optimal control $\alpha^*$ is given by $$\begin{cases}
\alpha^*_1=p_1\\
\alpha^*_2=p_2h(x^*_1)\end{cases}\text{ a.e on }[t,T].\label{tag:alpha*}$$
3. The pair $(x^*, p)$ satisfies the system of differential equations: for a. e. $s\in[t,T]$ $$\begin{aligned}
&&x'_1= p_1\label{tag:1} \\
&&x_2'= h^2(x_1)p_2 \label{tag:2}\\
&&p_1'= -p_2^2h'(x_1)h(x_1)+f_{x_1}(x,s)\label{tag:3}\\
&&p_2'=f_{x_2}(x,s)\label{tag:4}\end{aligned}$$ with the mixed boundary conditions $x^*(t)= x$, $p(T)=-D g(x^*(T))$.
1\. Hypothesis \[BasicAss\] ensures the validity of the assumptions of the Maximum Principle [@Cla Theorem 22.17]. Since the endpoint is free, [@Cla Corollary 22.3] implies that the deduced necessary conditions hold in normal form: the claim follows directly.
2\. The maximum condition implies that $$D_{\alpha}\left(p_1(s)\alpha_1+p_2(s)h(x_1^*(s))\alpha_2-\dfrac{|\alpha|^2}2\right)_{\alpha=\alpha^*}=0\quad \text{a. e. }s\in [t, T]$$ from which we get .
3\. Conditions – follow directly from the dynamics replacing $\alpha_1^*, \alpha_2^*$ by means of . Condition follows similarly from , whereas coincides with .
\[rem:fixedendpoint\] In the case where one prescribes the endpoint $x(T)$ in Definition \[def:OCD\], the proof of Proposition \[prop:pontriagin\] shows that the claim still holds true without the endpoint condition for $p(T)$ in Point 3.
\[coro:regularity\] Let $(x^*, \alpha^*)$ be optimal for $u(x,t)$ and $p$ be the related costate as in Proposition \[prop:pontriagin\]. Then:
1. The costate $p=(p_1, p_2)$ is uniquely expressed in terms of $x^*$ for every $s\in [t, T]$ by $$\!\begin{cases}\label{tag:p}
p_1(s)\!\!&\!\!\!=-g_{x_1}(x^*(T))-\!\!\displaystyle\int_s^T \!\!f_{x_1}(x^*,\tau)-p_2^2h'(x_1^*)h(x_1^*)\,d\tau,\\
p_2(s)\!\!&\!\!\!=-g_{x_2}(x^*(T))-\displaystyle\int_s^Tf_{x_2}(x^*,\tau)\,d\tau.\\
\end{cases}$$
2. The optimal control $\alpha^*=(\alpha^*_1, \alpha^*_2)$ is a feedback control [(]{}i.e., a function of $x^*$[)]{}, uniquely expressed in terms of $x^*$ for a. e. $s\in [t, T]$ by $$\!\begin{cases}\label{tag:alpha}
\alpha_1^*(s)\!\!&\!\!\!=-g_{x_1}(x^*(T))+\!\!\displaystyle\int_T^s \!\!f_{x_1}(x^*,\tau)-p_2^2h'(x_1^*)h(x_1^*)\,d\tau,
\\
\alpha_2^*(s)\!\!&\!\!\!=p_2(s) h(x_1^*(s)).
\end{cases}$$
3. The optimal trajectory $x^*$ and the optimal control $\alpha^*$ are of class $C^1$. In particular the equalities – do hold for every $s\in [t, T]$.
4. Assume that, for some $k\in\mathbb N$, $h\in C^{k+1}$ and $D_xf(x,s)$ is of class $C^k$. Then $x^*, p$ and $\alpha^*$ are of class $C^{k+1}$.
Point 1 is an immediate consequence of – together with the endpoint condition $p(T)=-D g(x^*(T))$. Point 2 follows then directly from .
3\. Since $x^*$ is continuous, the continuity of $\alpha^*$ follows from . The dynamics then imply that $x^*\in C^1$. Relations and imply, respectively, that $p$ and $\alpha^*$ are of class $C^1$. 4. The relations and the $C^1$-regularity of $x^*$ and $p$ imply that, actually, $p\in C^2$. Therefore, gives the $C^2$-regularity of $\alpha^*$ and, finally, the dynamics yield the $C^2$-regularity of $x^*$. Further regularity of $x^*$, $\alpha^*$ and $p$ follows by a standard bootstrap inductive argument.
Uniqueness of the trajectories after the initial time
-----------------------------------------------------
Next Theorem \[th:nobifurc\] implies that the optimal trajectories for $u(x,t)$, do not bifurcate at any time $r>t$ whenever $h( x_1)\not=0$ (see Corollary \[cor:nobifurc\]), otherwise they may rest at $ x$ in an interval from the initial time $t$ but they do not bifurcate as soon as they leave $ x$.
\[th:nobifurc\] Under Hypothesis \[BasicAss\], let $x^*$ be an optimal trajectory for $u(x,t)$.
1. Assume that $h(x_1^*(\tau))\not=0$ for some $t<\tau<T$. For every $\tau\le r< T$ there are no other optimal trajectories for $u(x^*(r),r)$, other than $x^*$, restricted to $[r,T]$.
2. \[ii-th:nobifurc\] Assume that $h( x_1)=0$. Let $t_{x^*}$ be the rest time for $x^*$ defined by $$t_{x^*}:=\sup\{r\in[t, T]:\, x^*\equiv x\text{ on }[t, r]\}.$$ For every $r>t_{x^*}$ there are no optimal trajectories for $u(x^*(r),r)$, other than $x^*$ restricted to $[r,T]$.
We point out that the rest time may be positive only when $h(x_1)$ vanishes. Notice also that $t_{x^*}=T$ if and only if $x^*$ is constant on $[t, T]$.
The next Lemma \[lemma:singular\] relates the initial constancy of an optimal trajectory to a stationary condition and is a key argument of the proof of part of Theorem \[th:nobifurc\].
\[lemma:singular\] Assume that $h( x_1)=0$. Let $x^*=(x^*_1, x^*_2)$ be an optimal trajectory for $u(x,t)$, and $r\in [t, T]$. Then $$\label{tag:singular}x^*\equiv x\text{ on } [t, r]\Leftrightarrow h(x_1^*)\equiv 0\text{ on } [t,r].$$
If $h(x_1^*)=0$ on $[t,r]$ then $x_1^*$ belongs to set of the zeros of $h$, which is totally disconnected by Hypothesis \[BasicAss\]. It follows that $x_1^*\equiv x_1$ on $[t,r]$. Moreover, the dynamics imply that $x_2^*\equiv x_2$ on $[t, r]$, so that $x^*\equiv x$ on $[t, r]$. The opposite implication is trivial, since $h( x_1)=0$.
The two conditions in are both equivalent to the fact that the (unique) control $\alpha^*$ such that $J_t(x^*, \alpha^*)=u( x, t)$ is singular on $[t,r]$ in the sense of [@CR Def. 2.3], i.e., that there exists an absolutely continuous arc $\pi:[t, r]\rightarrow \R^2\setminus\{(0,0)\}$ satisfying $$\label{tag:SO1}
\pi_1=0,\quad \pi_2h(x_1^*)=0,\quad \pi_1'=-\pi_2^2h'(x_1^*)h(x_1^*), \quad \pi_2'=0.$$ Indeed, if $x^*\equiv x$ on $[t,r]$ for some $t<r\le T$ then any arc $\pi:=(0, c)$ with $0\not=c\in\R$ is such that $(x^*, \pi)$ satisfies on $[t, r]$. Conversely, if $(x^*, \pi)$ fulfills on $[t, r]$ for some $t<r\le T$, then $\pi_2=c$ for some constant $c$. Since $\pi_1=0$ then $c\not=0$. It follows from the second equation in that $h(x_1^*)=0$ on $[t,r]$.\
Notice that are the conditions satisfied by the costate $p$ in and – when $\alpha^*=(0,0)$ and $f\equiv 0$.
1\. Let $y^*$ be optimal for $u(x^*(r),r)$. Point 1 of Proposition \[proposition:carloclaudio\] in the Appendix ensures that the concatenation $z^*$ of $x^*$ with $y^*$ at $r$ is optimal for $u(x,t)$. Let $p:=(p_1, p_2), q:=(q_1, q_2)$ be the costates associated to $x^*:=(x^*_1, x^*_2)$ and, respectively, to $z^*:=(z^*_1, z^*_2)$. Both $(x^*, p)$ and $(z^*, q)$ satisfy – on $[t, T]$. Now, Corollary \[coro:regularity\] shows that $x^*$ and $z^*$ are of class $C^1$. Since $x^*=z^*$ on $[t, \tau]$, the fact that $\tau>t$, together with imply $$p_1(\tau)=(x_1^*)'(\tau)=\lim_{s\to\tau^-}(x_1^*)'(s)=\lim_{s\to\tau^-}(z_1^*)'(s)=(z_1^*)'(\tau)=q_1(\tau),$$ whereas , and the fact that $h(x_1^*(\tau))\not=0$ analogously yield $$p_2(\tau)=\dfrac{(x_2^*)'(\tau)}{h^2(x_1^*(\tau))}=\dfrac{(z_2^*)'(\tau)}{h^2(z_1^*(\tau))}=q_2(\tau).$$ Therefore, both $(x^*, p)$ and $(z^*, q)$ are absolutely continuous solutions to the same Cauchy problem on $[t, T]$, with Cauchy data at $\tau$, for the first order differential system -. The regularity assumptions on $f$ and $h$ and Caratheodory’s Theorem guarantee the uniqueness of the solution. Thus $x^*=z^*$ on $[t,T]$, from which we obtained the desired equality $x^*=y^*$ on $[r, T]$.
2\. We assume that $t_{x^*}<T$, otherwise the claim is trivial. We deduce from Lemma \[lemma:singular\] that there is $\tau\in [t_{x^*},r]$ satisfying $h(x_1^*(\tau))\not=0$. If $y^*$ is optimal for $u(x^*(r),r)$, then Point 1 of Proposition \[proposition:carloclaudio\] shows that the concatenation $z^*$ of $x^*$ with $y^*$ at $r$ is optimal for $u(x,t)$. Moreover, Point 2 of Proposition \[proposition:carloclaudio\] imply that both $x^*$ and $z^*$, restricted to $[\tau, T]$, are optimal for $u(x^*(\tau), \tau)$. Point 1 of Theorem \[th:nobifurc\] implies that $x^*=y^*$ on $[\tau, T]$, proving the desired result.
\[cor:nobifurc\] Let $x^*$ be an optimal trajectory for $u(x,t)$. If $h(x_1)\not=0$, for every $0< r< T$ there are no other optimal trajectories for $u(x^*(r),r)$, other than $x^*$, restricted to $[r,T]$.
The continuity equation {#sect:c_eq}
=======================
In this section we want to study equation -(ii). Since $h$ is independent of $x_2$, taking account of , this partial differential equation can be rewritten as $$\label{cont}
\partial_t m-\partial_{x_1} (m \partial_{x_1}u)-h^2(x_1)\partial_{x_2} (m \partial_{x_2}u)=\partial_t m-\operatorname{div}_G (m D_G u)=0.$$ Hence our aim is to study the well posedness of the problem $$\label{continuity}
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll} \partial_t m-
\operatorname{div}_G (m\, D_G u)=0,
&\qquad \textrm{in }{{\mathbb R}}^2\times (0,T),\\
m(x,0)=m_0(x), &\qquad \textrm{on }{{\mathbb R}}^2,
\end{array}\right.$$ where $u$ is a solution to problem $$\label{HJ}
\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
-\partial_t u+\frac12 |D_Gu|^2=F(x, \overline {m})&\qquad \textrm{in }{{\mathbb R}}^2\times (0,T),\\
u(x,T)=G(x, \overline {m}(T)),&\qquad \textrm{on }{{\mathbb R}}^2,
\end{array}\right.$$ where the function $\overline m$ is fixed and fulfills $$\label{mcnd}
\overline {m}\in C^{1/2}([0,T],\mathcal P_1),\qquad \int_{{{\mathbb R}}^2}|x|^2\,d\overline m(t)(x)\leq K, \qquad t\in[0,T].$$ Note that this problem is equivalent to with a fixed $\overline m$. Observe that, by Lemma \[L1\]-(1), in the [*drift*]{} $v=D_Gu$ is only bounded; this lack of regularity prevents to apply the standard results (uniqueness, existence and representation formula of $m$ as the push-forward of $m_0$ through the characteristic flow; e.g., see [@AGS Proposition 8.1.8]) for drifts which are Lipschitz continuous in $x$. We shall overcome this difficulty applying Ambrosio superposition principle [@AGS Theorem 8.2.1] and proving several results on the uniqueness of the optimal trajectory for the control problem stated in Section \[OC\]. The Ambrosio superposition principle yields a representation formula of $m$ as the push-forward of some measure on $C^0([0,T],{{\mathbb R}}^2)$ through the evaluation map $e_t$. In the following theorem, we shall also recover uniqueness, existence and some regularity result for the solution to .
\[prp:m\] Under assumptions [(H1) – (H4)]{}, for any $\overline m$ as in , Problem has a unique bounded solution $m$ in the sense of Definition \[defsolmfg\]. Moreover $m(t,\cdot)$ is absolutely continuous with $\sup_{t\in[0,T]}\|m(t,\cdot)\|_{\infty}\leq C$ and it is a Lipschitz continuous map from $[0,T]$ to $\mathcal P_1$ with a Lipschitz constant bounded by $\|Du\|_\infty \|h^2\|_\infty$. Moreover, the function $m$ satisfies: $$\label{ambrosio}
\int_{{{\mathbb R}}^2} \phi\, dm(t)=\int_{{{\mathbb R}}^2}\phi(\overline {\gamma}_x(t))\,m_0(x)\, dx \qquad \forall \phi\in C^0_0(\R^2), \, \forall t\in[0,T]$$ where, for a.e. $x\in{{\mathbb R}}^2$, $\overline{\gamma}_x$ is the solution to .
The proof of Theorem \[prp:m\] is given in the next two subsections which are devoted respectively to the existence result (see Proposition \[VV\]), to the uniqueness result and to the representation formula (see Proposition \[!FP\]) and to the Lipschitz regularity (see Corollary \[lemma:m\_lip\]).
Existence of the solution {#subsect:ex}
-------------------------
As in [@C13 Appendix] (see also [@C Section 4.4]), we now want to establish the existence of a solution to the continuity equation via a vanishing viscosity method, applied on the [*whole*]{} MFG system.
\[VV\] Under assumptions [(H1) – (H4)]{}, problem has a bounded solution $m$ in the sense of Definition \[defsolmfg\].
We consider the solution $(u^\sigma, m^\sigma)$ to the following problem $$\label{eq:MFGv}
\left\{
\begin{array}{lll}
&(i)\quad-\partial_t u-\sigma \Delta u+\frac12 |D_G u|^2
=F(x, \overline {m})&\qquad \textrm{in }{{\mathbb R}}^2\times (0,T)\\
&(ii)\quad \partial_t m-\sigma \Delta m-\operatorname{div}_G (m D_G u)=0&\qquad \textrm{in }{{\mathbb R}}^2\times (0,T)\\
&(iii)\quad m(x,0)=m_0(x), u(x,T)=G(x, {\overline {m}}(T))&\qquad \textrm{on }{{\mathbb R}}^2.
\end{array}\right.$$ Let us recall that equation -(ii) has a standard interpretation in terms of a suitable stochastic process (see relation below). Our aim is to find a solution to problem letting $\sigma \to 0^+$. To this end some estimates are needed; as a first step, we establish the well-posedness of system .
\[visco:buonapos\] Under assumptions [(H1) – (H4)]{}, for any $\overline m$ as in , there exists a unique bounded classical solution $(u^\sigma, m^\sigma)$ to problem . Moreover, $m^\sigma>0$.
The proof uses standard regularity results for quasilinear parabolic equations; from Lemma \[visco:lemma5.2\] here below, the solution $u^\sigma$ of -(i) is bounded in $\R^2\times[0,T]$. Hence we can apply [@LSU Theorem 8.1, p.495], obtaining the existence and uniqueness of a classical solution $u^\sigma$ in all $\R^2\times[0,T]$. Now $m^\sigma$ is the classical solution of the linear equation $$\quad \partial_t m-\sigma \Delta m+b\cdot D m+c_0m=0,\quad m(0)=m_0$$ with $b$ and $c_0$ Hölder continuous coefficients. Hence still applying classical results (see [@LSU Theorem 5.1, p.320]) we get the existence and uniqueness of a classical solution $m^\sigma$ of -(ii). From assumptions on $m_0$ and the maximum principle (see for example [@LSU Theorem 2.1, p.13]) we get that $m^\sigma>0$.
Let us now prove that the functions $u^\sigma$ are Lipschitz continuous and semiconcave uniformly in $\sigma$.
\[visco:lemma5.2\] Under the same assumptions of Lemma \[visco:buonapos\], there exists a constant $C>0$, independent of $\sigma$ such that $$\|u^\sigma\|_\infty\leq C,\quad
\|D u^\sigma\|_\infty\leq C\quad\textrm{and}\quad D^2 u^\sigma\leq C\qquad \forall \sigma>0.$$
The $L^\infty$-estimate easily follows from the Comparison Principle and assumption (H2) because the functions $w^\pm:= C\pm C(T-t)$ are respectively a super- and a subsolution for -(i) if $C$ is sufficiently large.
We refer to [@C] for the proof of the uniform Lipschitz continuity of the functions $u^\sigma$. The proof is similar to the deterministic one proved in Lemma \[L1\] and it uses the representation formula by means a stochastic optimal control problem: $$u^\sigma(x,t)=\min \int_t^T\left[\frac12 |\alpha(\tau)|^2+f(Y(\tau),\tau)\right]\,d\tau+g(Y(T))$$ where, in $[t,T]$, $Y(\cdot)$ is governed by a stochastic differential equation $$\label{1-stoc}
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
dY_1=\alpha_1(t) dt +\sqrt{2\sigma} dB_{1,t}\\
dY_2= h(Y_1(t))\alpha_2(t) dt +\sqrt{2\sigma} dB_{2,t}
\end{array}
\right.,$$ where $Y(t)=x$ and $B_t$ is a standard 2-dimensional Brownian motion. (For an analytic proof see also [@Lie Chapter XI])
Let us now prove the part of the statement concerning the semiconcavity. We shall adapt the methods of [@C13 Lemma 5.2]. We fix a direction $v=(\alpha_1,\alpha_2)$ with $|v|=1$ and compute the derivative of equation -(i) twice with respect to $v$ obtaining $$\begin{array}{l}
-\partial_t \partial_{vv}u-\sigma \Delta \partial_{vv} u-\partial_{vv}(F(x, \overline m(x,t))=-\partial_{vv}\left[\frac 1 2 \left((\partial_1u)^2+h(x_1)^2(\partial_2u)^2\right)\right]\\ \qquad
=-(D_G\partial_v u)^2-D_Gu\cdot D_G\partial_{vv} u-\frac12 \partial_{vv}(h^2)(\partial_2u)^2 - 4hh'\alpha_1\partial_2 u\partial_{2v}u\\ \qquad
\leq -(D_G\partial_v u)^2-D_Gu\cdot D_G\partial_{vv} u+ C(1+|D_G\partial_v u|)
\end{array}$$ (the last inequality is due to our assumptions and to the first part of the statement). Since $-(D_G\partial_v u)^2+ C(1+|D_G\partial_v u|)$ is bounded above by a constant, we deduce $$-\partial_t \partial_{vv}u-\sigma \Delta \partial_{vv} u +D_Gu\cdot D_G\partial_{vv} u\leq C;$$ on the other hand, we have $\|\partial_{vv}u(T,\cdot)\|_\infty\leq C$ by assumption (H2) and we can conclude by comparison that $\partial_{vv}u\leq C'$ for a constant $C'$ independent of $\sigma$.
Let us now prove some useful properties of the functions $m^\sigma$.
\[visco:lemma4\] Under the same assumptions of Lemma \[visco:buonapos\], there exists a constant $K>0$, independent of $\sigma$, such that: $$\begin{array}{ll}
1.\quad &\|m^\sigma\|_\infty\leq K, \\
2.\quad &{\bf d}_1(m^\sigma(t_1)-m^\sigma(t_2))\leq K(t_2-t_1)^{1/2} \qquad \forall t_1,t_2\in(0,T),\\
3.\quad & \displaystyle\int_{{{\mathbb R}}^2}|x|^2\,dm^\sigma(t)(x)\leq K \left(\displaystyle\int_{{{\mathbb R}}^2}|x|^2\,dm_0(x)+1 \right)\qquad \forall t\in(0,T).
\end{array}$$
1\. In order to prove this $L^\infty$ estimate, we shall argue as in [@C13 Appendix]; for simplicity, we drop the $\sigma$’s. We note that $$\operatorname{div}_G (m D_G u)=D_Gm\cdot D_Gu +m(\partial_{11}u +h^2 \partial_{22}u)\leq D_Gm\cdot D_Gu +Cm$$ because of the semiconcavity of $u$ established in Lemma \[visco:lemma5.2\] yields $\partial_{ii}u\leq C$ for $i=1,2$ (see [@CS Proposition1.1.3-(e)]) and $m\geq 0$. Therefore, by assumption (H2) the function $m$ satisfies $$\partial_t m-\sigma \Delta m\leq D_Gm\cdot D_Gu +Cm,\qquad m(x,0)\leq C;$$ using $w=Ce^{ C t}$ as supersolution (recall that $C$ is independent of $\sigma$), we infer: $\|m\|_\infty\leq w=Ce^{ C T}$.\
To prove Points 2 and 3 as in the proof of [@C Lemma 3.4 and 3.5], it is expedient to introduce the stochastic differential equation $$\label{11C}
dX_t= b(X_t,t) dt +\sqrt{2\sigma} dB_t,\qquad X_0=Z_0$$ where $b=(\frac{\partial u^\sigma}{\partial x_1},h^2 \frac{\partial u^\sigma}{\partial x_2})$, $B_t$ is a standard 2-dimensional Brownian motion, and ${\mathcal L}(Z_0)=m_0$. By standard arguments, (see [@Kr] and [@KS Chapter 5]) $$\label{mstoch}
m(t):={\mathcal L}(X_t)$$ is a weak solution to -(ii).
The rest of the proof of Points 2 and 3 follows the same arguments of [@C Lemma 3.4] and, respectively, of [@C Lemma 3.5]; therefore, we shall omit it and we refer to [@C] for the detailed proof.
Let us now prove that the $u^\sigma$’s are uniformly bounded and uniformly continuous in time.
\[visco:lemma5\] Under the same assumptions of Lemma \[visco:buonapos\], the function $u^{\sigma}$ is uniformly continuous in time uniformly in $\sigma$.
We shall follow the arguments in [@C13 Theorem 5.1 (proof)]. Let $u^\sigma_f:=u^\sigma(x,T)$; recall that, by assumption (H2), $u^\sigma_f$ are bounded in $C^2$ uniformly in $\sigma$. Moreover, again by assumption [(H2)]{}, there exists a constant $C_1$ sufficiently large such that the functions $\omega^{\pm}=u^\sigma_f(x)\pm C_1(T-t)$ are respectively super- and subsolution of -(i) for any $\sigma$; actually, for $C_1=2C$ we have $$-\partial_t \omega^+-\sigma \Delta \omega^++\frac 1 2|D_G \omega^+|^2-F(x, \overline m)\geq C_1-\sigma C-C\geq 0$$ and similarly for $\omega^-$. Hence from the comparison principle we get $$\label{duestelle}
\|u^{\sigma}(x,t)-u^\sigma_f(x)\|_\infty\leq C_1(T-t)\qquad \forall t\in [0,T].$$ We look now the source term $F(x,\overline m)$ of -(i). The Lipschitz continuity of $F$ w.r.t. $m$ (see assumption (H2)) and the Hölder continuity of $\overline m$ (see assumption ) imply: $$\sup_{t\in[h,T]}\|F(x,\overline m(t))-F(x,\overline m(t-h))\|_\infty\leq C \sup_{t\in[h,T]} {\bf d}_1(\overline m(t),\overline m(t-h))=:\eta(h).$$ The function $v_h^{\sigma}(x,t):= u^{\sigma}(x, t-h)+C_1h+\eta(h)(T-t)$ satisfies $$\begin{gathered}
-\partial_t v_h^{\sigma}(x,t) -\sigma \Delta v_h^{\sigma}(x,t)+\frac 1 2|D_G v_h^{\sigma}(x,t)|^2-F(x, \overline {m})(x,t)+\eta(h)\\
= F(x, \overline m)(x,t-h)-F(x,\overline m)(x,t)+\eta(h)\geq 0\qquad \forall t\in[h,T]\end{gathered}$$ and also $v_h^{\sigma}(x,T)= u^{\sigma}(x, T-h)+C_1h\geq u^{\sigma}(x, T)$ by estimate ; therefore, again by comparison principle, we get $
u^{\sigma}(x, t-h)+C_1h+\eta(h)(T-t)\geq u^{\sigma}(x, t)$. In a similar way we also obtain $u^{\sigma}(x, t-h)-C_1h-\eta(h)(T-t)\leq u^{\sigma}(x, t)$ accomplishing the proof.
We shall follow the proof of [@C13 Theorem 5.1] (see also [@C Theorem 4.20]). We observe that, for all $\sigma\in(0,1)$, $m^\sigma$ belongs to $C^0([0,T],\mathcal K)$ where $\mathcal K:=\{\mu\in \mathcal P_1:\, \textrm{$\mu$ satisfies Point 3 of Lemma~\ref{visco:lemma4}}\}$; moreover, we recall from [@C Lemma 5.7] that $\mathcal K$ is relatively compact in $\mathcal P_1$.\
Lemma \[visco:lemma5.2\] and Lemma \[visco:lemma5\] imply that $u^\sigma$ uniformly converge to some function $u$ and by standard stability result for viscosity solutions, the function $u$ solves , $u$ is Lipschitz continuous in $x$, $Du^\sigma\to Du$ a.e. (because of the semiconcavity estimate of Lemma \[visco:lemma5.2\] and [@CS Theorem 3.3.3]), so, in particular, $D_G u^\sigma\to D_G u$ a.e..\
By the bounds on $m^\sigma$ contained respectively in Points 1 and 2 of Lemma \[visco:lemma4\], we obtain that, possibly passing to a subsequence, as $\sigma \to 0^+$, $m^\sigma$ converge to some $m\in C^0([0,T],\mathcal K)$ in the $C^0([0,T],\mathcal P_1)$ topology and in $L^\infty_{loc}((0,T)\times{{\mathbb R}}^2)$-weak-$*$ topology. Moreover we deduce that $m(0)=m_0$. On the other hand, since $m^\sigma$ is a solution to -(ii), for any $\psi\in C^\infty_0((0,T)\times{{\mathbb R}}^2)$, there holds $$\int_0^T\int_{{{\mathbb R}}^2}m^\sigma\left(-\partial_t \psi -\sigma \Delta \psi+D\psi\cdot D_Gu^\sigma \right)\,dx\, dt=0;$$ letting $\sigma \to 0^+$, by the $L^\infty_{loc}$-weak-$*$ convergence of $m^\sigma$ and by the convergence a.e. $D_G u^\sigma\to D_G u^\sigma$, we conclude that the function $m$ solves .
As a matter of facts, we proved that the solution $m$ to problem fulfills the estimates in Lemma \[visco:lemma4\].
Uniqueness of the solution {#uniq}
--------------------------
This section is devoted to establish the following uniqueness result for problem .
\[!FP\] Under assumptions [(H1) – (H4)]{}, problem admits at most one bounded solution $m$. Moreover, the function $m$ satisfies: $$\label{ambrosio2}
\int_{{{\mathbb R}}^2} \phi\, dm(t)=\int_{{{\mathbb R}}^2}\phi(\overline{ \gamma}_x(t))\,m_0(x)\, dx, \qquad \forall \phi\in C^0_0(\R^2), \, \forall t\in[0,T]$$ where, for a.e. $x\in{{\mathbb R}}^2$, $\overline{\gamma}_x$ is the solution to .
In order to prove this result, it is expedient to establish some properties of the optimal trajectories for the control problem defined in Section \[OC\] and of the value function $u(x,t)$, defined in Subsection \[vf\]. For any $(x,t) \in \R^2\times[0,T]$, let $ \mathcal U(x,t)$ be the set of the optimal controls of the minimization problem [(OC)]{} in Definition \[def:OCD\]. We refer the reader to Appendix B, for the precise definition of $G$-differentiability and for its properties.
\[4.9\] The following properties hold:
1. $D_Gu(x ,t)$ exists if and only if $\alpha(t)$ is the same value for any $\alpha(\cdot)\in {\cal{U}}(x,t)$. Moreover $D_Gu(x,t)=-\alpha(t)$ (i.e., $u_{x_1}(x,t)=-\alpha_1(t)$, $h(x_1(t))u_{x_2}(x,t)=-\alpha_2(t)$).
2. In particular, if $\mathcal U(x,t)$ is a singleton then $D_Gu(x(s),s)$ exists for any $s\in [t,T]$ where $x(s)$ is the optimal trajectory associated to the singleton of $\mathcal U(x,t)$.
3. If $x$ is such that $h(x_1)\neq 0$ and $D_Gu(x,t)$ exists then there is a unique optimal trajectory starting from $x$ and $D_Gu(x,t)=-\alpha(t)$ and hence $$\label{3.5.3}
x'_1(t)=-\partial_{x_1} u(x,t),\qquad x'_2(t)=-h^2(x_1)\partial_{x_2} u(x,t).$$
1\. We prove that if $D_Gu(x ,t)$ exists then for any $\alpha(\cdot)\in {\cal{U}}(x,t)$ we have that $\alpha(t)$ is unique and $D_Gu(x,t)=-\alpha(t)$. For any $\alpha(\cdot)\in {\cal{U}}(x,t)$, let $x(\cdot)$ be the corresponding optimal trajectory. Then $x(\cdot)$ and $\alpha(\cdot)$ satisfy the necessary conditions for optimality proved in Proposition \[prop:pontriagin\]. Take $v=(v_1,v_2)\in\R^2$ and consider the solution $y(\cdot)$ of with initial condition $y(t)=(x_1+v_1, x_2+h(x_1)v_2)$ and control $\alpha$, namely $$\begin{aligned}
y_1(s)&=&x_1+v_1+\int_t^s\,\alpha_1(\tau)d\tau=x_1(s)+v_1,\\
y_2(s)&=&x_2+h(x_1)v_2+\int_t^s\,h(y_1(\tau))\alpha_2(\tau)d\tau\\
&=&x_2(s)+h(x_1)v_2 +
\int_t^s\,[h(y_1(\tau))-h(x_1(\tau))]\alpha_2(\tau)d\tau.\end{aligned}$$ Hence there holds $$\begin{gathered}
u(x_1+v_1,x_2+h(x_1)v_2,t)-u(x_1,x_2,t)\leq\\
\int_t^T\left[ f\left(x_1(s)+v_1, x_2(s)+h(x_1)v_2 +
\int_t^s\,[h(y_1(\tau))-h(x_1(\tau))]\alpha_2(\tau)d\tau\right)- f(x_1(s), x_2(s))\right]ds+\\
g(y(T))-g(x(T)).\end{gathered}$$ For $v=t(\hat v_1, \hat v_2)$ with $|(\hat v_1, \hat v_2)|=1$ and $t\in\R^+$, as $t\to 0^+$, the $G$-differentiability of $u$ at $(x,t)$ entails $$D_G u(x,t)\cdot (\hat v_1, \hat v_2)\leq (I_1,I_2)\cdot (\hat v_1, \hat v_2)$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
I_1&:=& \int_t^T\, f_{x_1}(x(s))ds+\int_t^T \bigg(f_{x_2}(x(s))\int_t^s\,h'(x_1(\tau))\alpha_2(\tau)d\tau\bigg)ds+g_{x_1}(x(T))+ \\
&& g_{x_2}(x(T))\int_t^T\,h'(x_1(\tau))\alpha_2(\tau)d\tau\\
I_2&:=& h(x_1)\left(\int_t^T\, f_{x_2}(x(s))ds+g_{x_2}(x(T))\right).\end{aligned}$$ By the arbitrariness of $(\hat v_1, \hat v_2)$, we get $$\begin{aligned}
D_G u(x,t)&=& (I_1,I_2).\end{aligned}$$ By and , we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
I_1&=&\int_t^T\, f_{x_1}(x(s))ds+ \int_t^T \, (p_2^{\prime}(s)\int_t^s\,h^{\prime}(x_1(\tau))\alpha_2(\tau)d\tau)ds+g_{x_1}(x(T))\\
&&\qquad -p_2(x(T))\int_t^T\,h'(x_1(\tau))\alpha_2(\tau)d\tau\\
&=&\int_t^T\, f_{x_1}(x(s))ds-\int_t^T \, p_2(s)h^{\prime}(x_1(s))\alpha_2(s)ds+g_{x_1}(x(T))\\
&=&-\alpha_1(t)\end{aligned}$$ where the last inequality is due to and . On the other hand, again by and , we have $$I_2= -h(x_1)p_2(t)=-\alpha_2(t).$$ The last three equalities imply: $D_G u(x,t)=-\alpha(t)$ which uniquely determines the value of $\alpha(\cdot)$ at time $t$.
Conversely we prove that, if for any $\alpha(\cdot)\in {\cal{U}}(x,t)$, $\alpha(t)$ is unique then $D_Gu(x,t)$ exists. To prove the G-differentiability of $u(\cdot, t)$ in $x$, by the semiconcavity of $u$, we need to prove that $D_G^*u(x,t)$ is a singleton (see Theorem \[thm336\] in Appendix B below). Let $\pi\in D_G^*u(x,t)$. By definition of $D_G^*u(x,t)$ there exist two sequences $\{x_n\}$, $\{\pi_n=D_Gu(x_n,t)\}$ such that $$\label{1DG}
x_n\to x,\quad \pi_n\to\pi.$$ Consider $\alpha_n\in\mathcal U(x_n,t)$; by the other part of the statement (already proven), we know that $$\label{2DG}
-\alpha_n(t)=D_Gu(x_n,t)=\pi_n.$$ From the definition of the cost $J$ (see Section \[OC\]), using the optimality of $\alpha_n$ and the boundedness of the data we get $$\label{3DG}
\|\alpha_n\|_{L^2} \leq C,\ \text {for any } n.$$ Let $x_n$ be the trajectory associated to $\alpha_n$, namely $$x_{n1}(s)=x_{n1}+\int_t^s\,\alpha_{n1}(\tau)d\tau,\qquad
x_{n2}(s)=x_{n2}+\int_t^s\,h(x_{n1}(\tau))\alpha_{n2}(\tau)d\tau.$$ From and the boundedness of $h$, there exists a constant $C$ (independent of $n$) such that $$\label{4DG}
\|x_{n1}\|_{\infty}+\|x_{n2}\|_{\infty}\leq C,\ \text {for any } n.$$ Let $(p_{n1}, p_{n2})$ be the costate of $x_n$ as in Proposition \[prop:pontriagin\], using and , we get $$\label{5DG}
\|p_{n2}\|_{\infty}\leq C,\ \text {for any } n,$$ and from $$\label{5bisDG}
\|p_{n1}\|_{\infty}\leq C,\ \text {for any } n.$$ Using : $$\label{6DG}
\|\alpha_{n1}\|_{\infty}+\|\alpha_{n2}\|_{\infty} \leq C,\ \text {for any } n.$$ From Point (4) of Corollary \[coro:regularity\] we can differentiate , and using - we get: $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha_{n1}^{\prime}(s)&=&p_{n1}^{\prime}(s)= -p_{n2}^{2}(s)h^{\prime}(x_{n1}(s))h(x_{n1}(s))+f_{x_1}(x_{n1}(s),s),\\
\alpha_{n2}^{\prime}(s)&=& p_{n2}(s)h^{\prime}(x_{n1}(s))x_{n1}^{\prime}(s)+ p_{n2}^{\prime}(s)h(x_{n1}(s))\\
&=&
p_{n2}(s)h^{\prime}(x_{n1}(s))\alpha_{n1}(s)+f_{x_2}(x_{n1}(s))h(x_{n1}(s)).\end{aligned}$$ From , , , we get $$\label{7DG}
\|\alpha_{n1}^{\prime}\|_{\infty}+\|\alpha_{n2}^{\prime}\|_{\infty} \leq C,\ \text {for any } n.$$ Hence, from Ascoli-Arzelà Theorem we have that, up to subsequences, $\alpha_n$ uniformly converge to some $\alpha\in C^0([t,T],{{\mathbb R}}^2)$. In particular, by the definition of $x_{n1}$ and $x_{n2}$ we get: $$\begin{aligned}
&&x_{n1}(s)\to x_1(s)=x_1+ \int_t^s\,\alpha_{1}(\tau)d\tau,\ \text{uniformly in } [t, T],\\
&&x_{n2}(s)\to x_2(s)= x_{2}+\int_t^s\,h(x_{1}(\tau))\alpha_{2}(\tau)d\tau\ \text{uniformly in }[t, T].\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, from stability, $\alpha$ is optimal, i.e. $\alpha\in\mathcal U(x,t)$. From the uniform convergence of the $\alpha_n$ we have in particular that $\alpha_n(t)\to \alpha(t)$ where $\alpha(t)$ is uniquely determined by assumption. By , we get $\pi_n\to \pi=\alpha(t)$. This implies that $D_G^*u(x,t)$ is a singleton, then $D_Gu(x,t)$ exists and thank to the first part of the proof $D_Gu(x,t)=-\alpha(t)$.\
2. If $\mathcal U(x,t)=\{\alpha(\cdot)\}$ then for any $s\in[t,T]$, $\alpha(s)$ is uniquely determined. Indeed, if there exists $\beta\in \mathcal U(x(s),s)$ the concatenation $\gamma$ of $\alpha$ and $\beta$ (see Proposition \[proposition:carloclaudio\] in Appendix A) is also optimal, i.e. $\gamma\in\mathcal U(x,t)=\{\alpha(\cdot)\}$.\
Then applying point 1) with $t=s$, in $x(s)$ we have that $u$ is $G$-differentiable, i.e. $D_Gu(x(s),s)$ exists.\
3. From point 1), we know that for any $\alpha(\cdot)\in {\cal{U}}(x,t)$ we have that $\alpha(t)$ is unique If we know $\alpha(t)$ and that $h(x_1(t))=h(x_1)\neq 0$, then from we get $p_1(t)$ and $p_2(t)$. Hence - is a system of differential equations with initial conditions $x_i(t)$ and $p_i(t)$, $i=1,2$ which admits an unique solution $(x(s), p(s))$ where $x(s)$ is the unique optimal trajectory starting from $x$. Moreover still from 1) we have $D_Gu(x,t)=-\alpha(t)$ and from the dynamics we deduce .
\[B\] Let $x(\cdot):=(x_1(\cdot),x_2(\cdot))$ be an absolutely continuous solution of the problem where $u(x,t)$ is the solution of , then the control $\alpha=(\alpha_1,\alpha_2)$, with $$\alpha_1(s)=-u_{x_1}(x(s),s), \ \alpha_2(s)=-h(x_1(s))u_{x_2}(x(s),s)$$ is optimal for $u(x,t)$. In particular if $u(\cdot, t)$ is G-differentiable at $x$ and $h(x_1)\neq 0$ then problem has a unique solution corresponding to the optimal trajectory.
We shall adapt the arguments of [@C Lemma 4.11]. Fix $(t,x)\in(0,T)\times {{\mathbb R}}^2$ and consider an absolutely continuous solution $x(\cdot)$ to ; note that this implies that $D_x u$ exists at $(x(s),s)$ for a.e. $s\in (t,T)$. Since $u$ is Lipschitz continuous (see Lemma \[L1\]) and $h$ is bounded, also the function $x(\cdot)$ is Lipschitz continuous and, consequently, also $u(x(\cdot),\cdot)$ is Lipschitz. For a.e. $s\in(t,T)$ there hold: $i$) $D_x u(x(s),s)$ exists, $ii$) equation holds, $iii$) the function $u(x(\cdot),\cdot)$ admits a derivative at $s$. Fix such a $s$.
The Lebourg Theorem for Lipschitz function (see [@Cla90 Thm 2.3.7] and [@Cla90 Thm 2.5.1]) ensures that, for any $h\in\R$ small, there exists $(y_h,s_h)$ in the segment $((x(s),s), (x(s+h),s+h))$ and $(\xi^h_x,\xi^h_t) \in co D_{x,t}^*u(y_h,s_h)$ such that $$\label{31}
u(x(s+h),s+h)-u(x(s),s)= \xi^h_x\cdot (x(s+h)-x(s)) +\xi^h_t h$$ (here, “$co$” stands for the convex hull and $D_{x,t}^*u$ is the Euclidean reachable gradient both in $x$ and in $t$. The Caratheodory theorem (see [@CS Thm A.1.6]) guarantees that there exist $(\lambda^{h,i},\xi^{h,i}_x, \xi^{h,i}_t)_{i=1,\dots,4}$ such that $\lambda^{h,i}\geq0$, $\sum_{i=1}^4\lambda^{h,i}=1$, $(\xi^{h,i}_x, \xi^{h,i}_t)\in D_{x,t}^*u(y_h,s_h)$ and $(\xi^h_x,\xi^h_t) = \sum_{i=1}^4\lambda^{h,i}(\xi^{h,i}_x, \xi^{h,i}_t)$. Note that, as $h\to 0$, $\{\xi^{h,i}_x\}_h$ converge to $D_xu (x(s),s)$ by [@CS Prop 3.3.4-(a)]; hence also $\{\xi^{h}_x\}_h$ converge to $D_xu (x(s),s)$ as $h\to 0$.
On the other hand, since $u$ is a viscosity solution to equation , by [@BCD Proposition II.1.9], we obtain $$- \xi^{h,i}_t +\frac12(\xi^{h,i}_{x,1})^2+\frac12h(y_{h,1})^2(\xi^{h,i}_{x,2})^2=f(y_h,s_h);$$ in particular, as $h\to0$, we deduce $$\label{31bis}
\xi^{h}_t= \frac12 \sum_{i=1}^4\lambda^{h,i}(\xi^{h,i}_{x,1})^2+\frac12h(y_{h,1})^2\sum_{i=1}^4\lambda^{h,i}(\xi^{h,i}_{x,2})^2 - f(y_h,s_h)\rightarrow \frac12 |D_G u(x(s),s)|^2 - f(x(s),s).$$ Dividing by $h$ and letting $h\to 0$, by equations and , we infer $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d}{ds}u(x(s),s)&=&
D_xu (x(s),s)\cdot x'(s) + \frac12 |D_G u(x(s),s)|^2 - f(x(s),s)\\
&=&-\frac12 |D_G u(x(s),s)|^2 - f(x(s),s)=\frac12 |\alpha|^2 - f(x(s),s)\qquad\textrm{a.e. }s\in(t,T)\end{aligned}$$ (recall: $-\alpha=D_Gu(x(s),s)$). Integrating this equality on $[t,T]$ and taking into account the final datum of , we obtain $$u(x,t)=\int_t^T\frac12|\alpha|^2+ f(x(s),s) ds +g(x(T)).$$ Observe that $x(\cdot)$ satisfies the dynamics with our choice of $\alpha(s)$; therefore, the last equality implies that $x(\cdot)$ is an optimal trajectory with optimal control $\alpha(s)=-D_Gu(x(s),s)$.
Let us now prove the last part of the statement. By Point 3 of Lemma \[4.9\], there exists an unique optimal trajectory $x(\cdot)$ starting from $x$ at time $t$; moreover, by Corollary \[cor:nobifurc\], for any $s\in (t,T]$ there exists an unique optimal trajectory starting from $x(s)$ which is the restriction of $x(\cdot)$ to $[s, T]$. Then, from the representation of the optimal controls , there exists an unique optimal control $\alpha(\cdot)$ and, from points 1 and 2 of Lemma \[4.9\], $D_Gu(x(s),s)$ exists and $D_Gu(x(s),s)=-\alpha(s)$, i.e. $x(\cdot)$ is a solution of . Moreover this $x(\cdot)$ is the unique solution still because of Point 3 of Lemma \[4.9\].
We shall argue following the techniques of [@CH Proposition A.1] which rely on the Ambrosio superposition principle and on the disintegration of a measure (see [@AGS]). We denote by $\Gamma_T$ the set of continuous curve $C^0([0,T],{{\mathbb R}}^2)$ and, for any $t\in[0,T]$, we introduce the evaluation map: $e_t: \Gamma_T\to {{\mathbb R}}^2$ as $e_t(\gamma):=\gamma(t)$. When we say “for a.e.” without specifying the measure, we intend w.r.t. the Lebesgue measure.
Let $m\in C^0([0,T],{\mathcal P}_1({{\mathbb R}}^2))$ be a solution of problem in the sense of distributions; in other words, it is a solution to the continuity equation . We observe that assumption [@AGS eq.(8.1.20)] is fulfilled because both $Du$ and $h$ are bounded and $m_t:=m(t,\cdot)$ is a measure (see [@AGS pag.169]); hence we can invoke Ambrosio superposition principle (see [@AGS Theorem 8.2.1] and also [@AGS pag. 182]). This principle and the disintegration theorem (see [@AGS Theorem 5.3.1]) entail that there exist probability measures $\eta$ and $\{\eta_x\}_{x\in{{\mathbb R}}^2}$ on $\Gamma_T$ such that $$\begin{array}{ll}
i)&e_t\#\eta =m_t \textrm{ and, in particular, } e_0\#\eta =m_0\\
ii)&\eta_x\left(\left\{\gamma\in\Gamma_T: \textrm{$\gamma$ solves \eqref{chflow} with $t=0$ and $x=(x_1,x_2)$}\right\}\right)=1\quad \textrm{for $m_0$-a.e. }x\\
iii)& \eta =\displaystyle\int_{{{\mathbb R}}^2}\eta_x\, dm_0(x).
\end{array}$$ We recall from assumption (H4) that $m_0$ is absolutely continuous; hence, by assumption (H2) and $\text{meas}\{x\in{{\mathbb R}}^2 : h(x_1)=0\}=0$, the optimal synthesis in Lemma \[B\] ensures that for a.e. $x\in{{\mathbb R}}^2$ the solution $\overline{\gamma}_x$ to with $t=0$ and $x=(x_1,x_2)$ is unique and exists because it is the optimal trajectory for the control problem. Therefore, for a.e. $x\in{{\mathbb R}}^2$, $\eta_x$ coincides with $\delta_{\overline{\gamma}_x}$. In conclusion, for any function $\phi\in C^0_0({{\mathbb R}}^2)$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\notag
\int_{{{\mathbb R}}^2} \phi\, dm_t&=&\int_{\Gamma_T} \phi( e_t(\gamma)) d\eta(\gamma)=
\int_{{{\mathbb R}}^2}\left(\int_{e_0^{-1}(x)}\phi( e_t(\gamma)) d\eta_x(\gamma)\right)\, dm_0(x)\\ \notag
&=&\int_{{{\mathbb R}}^2}\phi(\overline{\gamma}_x(t))m_0(x)\, dx.\end{aligned}$$ Since the integrand in the last term is uniquely defined up to a set of null measure, also the first term is uniquely defined; consequently, $m$ is uniquely defined.
In the following corollary we use the previous characterization to prove the Lipschitz regularity of $m$.
\[lemma:m\_lip\] The unique bounded solution $m$ to problem is a Lipschitz continuous map from $[0,T]$ to $\mathcal P_1(\R^2)$ with a Lipschitz constant bounded by $\|Du\|_\infty \|h^2\|_\infty$.
Let $m$ be the unique solution to problem as in Proposition \[VV\] and Proposition \[!FP\]. Fix $\phi$, a $1$-Lipschitz continuous function on ${{\mathbb R}}^2$. By relation , for any $t_1,t_2\in[0,T]$, we infer $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{{{\mathbb R}}^2} \phi\, dm_{t_1}-\int_{{{\mathbb R}}^2} \phi\, dm_{t_2}&=&
\int_{{{\mathbb R}}^2}\phi(\overline{\gamma}_x(t_1))-\phi(\overline {\gamma}_x(t_2))m_0(x)\, dx\\
&\leq&\int_{{{\mathbb R}}^2}\left|\overline{\gamma}_x(t_1)- \overline {\gamma}_x(t_2)\right|m_0(x)\, dx\\
&\leq& \|Du\|_\infty \|h^2\|_\infty|t_1-t_2|\end{aligned}$$ where the last relation is due to the definition of $\overline\gamma$ as solution to problem and to the boundedness of $Du$ and of $h$. Hence, passing to the $\sup_{\phi}$ in the previous inequality, the Kantorovich-Rubinstein theorem (see [@V Remark 6.5] or [@C Theorem 5.5]) ensures $${\bf d}_1(m_{t_1},m_{t_2})\leq \|Du\|_\infty \|h^2\|_\infty|t_1-t_2|.$$
The existence of $m$ follows from Proposition \[VV\], the uniqueness and the representation formula comes from Proposition \[!FP\] and the Lipschitz regularity is proved in Corollary \[lemma:m\_lip\] here above.
Proof of the main Theorem {#sect:MFG}
=========================
This section is devoted to the proof of our main Theorem \[thm:main\].
\
1. We shall argue following the proof of [@C Theorem 4.1] (see also [@LL1; @LL2; @LL3]). Consider the set ${\cal C} :=\{m\in C^0([0,T], {{\cal P}_1})\mid m(0)=m_0\}$ and observe that it is convex. We also introduce a map $T:{\cal C}\rightarrow {\cal C}$ as follows: to any $m\in {\cal C}$ we associate the solution $u$ to problem with $f(x,t)=F(x,m)$ and $g(x)=G(x,m(T))$ and to this $u$ we associate the solution $\mu=:T(m)$ to problem . By a stability result proved in [@C Lemma 4.19]), the map $T$ is continuous. Moreover, Corollary \[lemma:m\_lip\] (note that the constant is independent of $m$) implies that the map $s\rightarrow T(m)(s)$ is uniformly Lipschitz continuous with value in the compact set of measures on a compact set (still independent of $m$); hence, the map $T$ is compact. Invoking Schauder fix point Theorem, we accomplish the proof of (i).\
2. Theorem \[prp:m\] ensures that, if $(u,m)$ is a solution of , for any function $\phi\in C^0_0({{\mathbb R}}^2)$, we have $$\label{reprfor}
\int_{{{\mathbb R}}^2} \phi\, dm(t)=\int_{{{\mathbb R}}^2}\phi(\overline{ \gamma}_x(t))m_0(x)\, dx$$ where $\overline{\gamma}_x$ is the solution of (with $t=0$ and $x=(x_1,x_2)$) and it is uniquely defined for a.e. $x\in\R^2$. The last relation is equivalent to the statement.
As in [@C Theorem 4.20] also the vanishing viscosity method may be applied to prove the existence of a solution of system . Actually, it suffices to follow the same arguments of Section \[subsect:ex\] with $F(x,\overline m)$ and $G(x,\overline m(T))$ replaced respectively by $F(x, m^\sigma)$ and $G(x,m^\sigma(T))$. Note also that Lemma \[visco:lemma4\] ensures that the function $m^\sigma$ fulfills the assumption . Because of the degenerate term $h$, we cannot directly deduce the representation formula invoking the results in [@C], but we can apply the results of Section \[uniq\].
Appendix
========
A- Concatenation of optimal trajectories and the Dynamic Programming Principle
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[def:concatenation\] For $0\leq t\leq r<T$, let $\varphi:[t,T]\to\R^n$ and $\psi :[r,T]\to\R^n$. The concatenation of $\varphi$ with $\psi$ at $r$ is the function $\xi:[t,T]\to \R^n$ defined by $$\xi =\varphi\text{ on }[t,r],\qquad \xi =\psi\text{ on }[r, T].$$
The following variant of the Dynamic Programming Principle will be used in the sequel. The arguments of Point 4 are similar to those employed in [@BCD Proposition III.2.5].
\[proposition:carloclaudio\] Let $x^*$ be optimal for $u(x,t)$, and $r\in [t, T]$. Let $\alpha^*$ be optimal control for $x^*$.
1. Let $y^*$ be optimal for $u(x^*(r),r)$. The concatenation of $x^*$ with $y^*$ at $r$ is optimal for $u(x,t)$ and, moreover, $$u( x, t)=u(x^*(r),r)+\int_t^r\dfrac12|\alpha^*(s)|^2+f(x^*(s),s)\,ds;\label{tag:DPP1}$$
2. The trajectory $x^*$, restricted to $[r, T]$, is optimal for $u(x^*(r),r)$;
3. The couple $(x^*, \alpha^*)$, restricted to $[t, r]$, is optimal for the following optimal control problem with prescribed endpoints: $$\text{Minimize } \displaystyle I_{t,r}(x,\alpha):=\int_t^r\dfrac12|\alpha(s)|^2+f( x(s),s)\,ds,$$ with $(x(\cdot),\alpha)$ subject to and $x(r)= x^*(r)$.
4. The Dynamic Programming Principle holds: $$\label{tag:DPP2}u( x, t)=\min_{(x(\cdot),\alpha)\in\mathcal A(x,t)}\left\{u(x(r), r)+\int_t^r\dfrac12|\alpha(s)|^2+f(x(s),s)\,ds\right\}.$$
1\. Let $ \beta^*$ be optimal control for $y^*$. Let $(z^*,\gamma^*)$ be the concatenation of $(x^*,\alpha^*)$ with $(y^*,\beta^*)$ at $r$: clearly $(z^*, \gamma^*)$ is admissible for [(OC)]{} of Definition \[def:OCD\]. The minimality of $(x^*,\alpha^*)$ for $u(x,t)$, and that of $(y^*,\beta^*)$ for $u(x^*(r),r)$, directly yield $$\begin{aligned}u( x, t)&=\int_t^r\dfrac12|\alpha^*|^2+f(x^*,s)ds+
\left(\int_r^T\dfrac12|\alpha^*|^2+f(x^*,s)ds+g(x^*(T))\right)\\
&\ge \int_t^r\dfrac12|\alpha^*|^2+f(x^*,s)ds+u(x^*(r),r)\\
&= \int_t^r\dfrac12|\alpha^*|^2+f(x^*,s)ds+
\left(\int_r^T\dfrac12|\beta^*|^2+f(y^*,s)ds+g(y^*(T))\right)\\
&=J_t(z^*, \gamma^*)\ge u( x, t),\end{aligned}$$ so that the above inequalities are actually equalities, proving and the optimality of $(z^*, \gamma^*)$.
2\. Let $(y, \beta)$ be admissible for $u(x^*(r),r)$. Let $(z,\gamma)$ be the concatenation of $(x^*,\alpha^*)$ with $(y,\beta)$ at $r$. The conclusion follows from the following inequality: $$\begin{aligned}
0\le J_t(z, \gamma)-J_t(x^*, \alpha^*)=J_r(y, \beta)-J_r(x^*, \alpha^*).
\end{aligned}$$
3\. Assume that $(x(\cdot),\alpha)$ is admissible for $u(x,t)$, in the interval $[t,r]$, i.e., satisfies together with the *endpoint* condition $x(r)= x$. Then the concatenation $(z,\gamma)$ of $(x,\alpha)$ with $(x^*, \alpha^*)$, restricted to $[r,T]$, at $r$ is admissible. The minimality of $(x^*, \alpha^*)$ implies that $$\label{tag:ineqI}J_t(x^*, \alpha^*)\le J_t(z,\gamma).$$ Now $$J_t(x^*, \alpha^*)=I_{t,r}(x^*,\alpha^*)+J_r(x^*, \alpha^*),\quad J_t(z, \gamma)=I_{t,r}(x(\cdot),\alpha)+J_r(x^*, \alpha^*).$$ It follows from that $I_{t,r}(x^*,\alpha^*)\le I_{t,r}(x(\cdot),\alpha)$.
4\. Let $(x(\cdot),\alpha)$ be admissible and $(y^*,\beta^*)$ be optimal for $u(x(r),r)$. Let $(z,\gamma)$ be the concatenation of $(x(\cdot),\alpha)$ with $(y^*,\beta^*)$ at $r$. Since $(z,\gamma)$ is admissible we get $$u( x, t)\le J_t(z,\gamma)=\int_t^r\dfrac12|\alpha(s)|^2+f(x(s),s)\,ds+u(x(r),r),$$ proving that $$u( x, t)\le \min_{(x(\cdot),\alpha)\in\mathcal A(x,t)}\left\{u(x(r), r)+\int_t^r\dfrac12|\alpha(s)|^2+f(x(s),s)\,ds\right\}.$$ The opposite inequality follows from .
Appendix B: G-differentials {#sect:Gdiff}
---------------------------
In this section, we introduce the notion of $G$-differentiability and we collect several properties of semiconcave functions.
\[G-differenz\] A function $u:{{\mathbb R}}^2\rightarrow {{\mathbb R}}$ is $G$-differentiable in $x\in{{\mathbb R}}^2$ if there exists $p_G\in {{\mathbb R}}^2$ such that $$\lim_{v\rightarrow 0}\frac{u(x_1+v_1,x_2+h(x_1)v_2)-u(x_1, x_2)-(p_G,v)}{\vert v\vert}=0;$$ in this case we denote $p_G=D_Gu(x)$. We define the $G$-subdifferential $$\begin{aligned}
D^{-}_Gu(x) &:=& \{p\in {{\mathbb R}}^2\vert
\liminf_{v\rightarrow 0}\frac{u(x_1+v_1,x_2+h(x_1)v_2)-u(x_1, x_2)-(p,v)}{\vert v\vert}\geq 0\},$$ the lower $G$-Dini derivative in the direction $\theta$ (i.e., $|\theta| =1$) $$\begin{aligned}
\partial_G^{-}u(x,\theta) &:=& \liminf_{l\to 0^+,\theta'\to\theta}\frac{u(x_1+l\theta'_1,x_2+h(x_1)l\theta'_2)-u(x_1, x_2)}{l}\end{aligned}$$ and the generalized $G$-lower derivative in the direction $\theta$ $$u^0_{G,-}(x,\theta):=\liminf_{l\to 0^+, y\to x} \frac{u(y_1+l\theta_1,y_2+h(y_1)l\theta_2)-u(y_1,y_2)}{l}.$$ The $G$-superdifferential $D^{+}_Gu(x)$, the upper $G$-Dini derivative $\partial_G^{+}u(x,\theta)$ and the generalized $G$-upper derivative $u^0_{G,+}(x,\theta)$ are defined in an analogous way. We introduce the reachable $G$-gradients $$D_G^*u(x):=\{p\,:\, \exists x_n\rightarrow x, \textrm{ $u$ is $G$-differentiable at $x_n$ and $D_Gu(x_n)\rightarrow p$}\}.$$ We define the ($1$-sided) $G$-directional derivative of $u$ at $x$ in the direction $\theta$ as $$\partial_Gu(x,\theta):=\lim_{l\to 0^+}\frac{u(x_1+l\theta_1,x_2+h(x_1)l\theta_2)-u(x_1, x_2)}{l}.$$
\[D+D-\]
1. If $u$ is $G$-differentiable at $x$, then $D_Gu(x)$ is unique and $D^+_Gu(x)$ and $D^-_Gu(x)$ are both nonempty.
2. For $h(x_1)\ne 0$, there holds: $(p_1,p_2)\in D^+u(x)$ if and only if $(p_1,h(x_1)p_2)\in D^+_Gu(x)$.
3. For $h(x_1)= 0$ and $|\theta|=1$, there holds: $$\begin{aligned}
D^+_Gu(x)&=&\{(p_1,0)\,:\,\limsup_{v_1\to 0} \frac{u(x_1+v_1,x_2)-u(x_1, x_2)-p_1v_1}{\vert v_1\vert}\leq 0 \}\\
\partial_G u(x,\theta)&=&\left\{\begin{aligned}&0&\textrm{ for $\theta_1=0$}\\
&|\theta_1| \partial u(x,(\textrm{sgn}(\theta_1),0))&\textrm{ for $\theta_1\ne0$}\end{aligned} \right.\end{aligned}$$ where $\partial u(x,\theta)$ is the standard directional derivative of $u$ at $x$ in the direction $\theta$.
4. For Lipschitz continuous function $u$, there holds: $$\partial_G^{-}u(x,\theta) := \liminf_{l\to 0^+}\frac{u(x_1+l\theta_1,x_2+h(x_1)l\theta_2)-u(x_1, x_2)}{l},\label{tag:d1}$$ $$\text{If }h(x_1)=0\text{ then }\qquad (p_1,p_2)\in D_G^*u(x)\Rightarrow p_2=0.\label{tag:d2}$$
Points 1, 2 and 3 are obvious. The equality in follows by the arguments of [@CS Remark 3.1.4]. Let us prove . For any $(p_1,p_2)\in D_G^*u(x)$, there exists $\{x_k\}_k$ with $x_k:=(x_{k,1}, x_{k,2})\to x$ and $D_Gu(x_k)\to (p_1,p_2)$. Possibly passing to a subsequence, we may assume that either $h(x_{k,1})\ne 0$ for any $k$ or $h(x_{k,1})= 0$ for any $k$. In the first case, by Point 2, we have $D_Gu(x_k)=(D_1u(x_k), h(x_{k,1})D_2u(x_k))$ where $D_1$ and $D_2$ are the partial derivatives with respect to $x_1$ and $x_2$. As $k\to +\infty$, by the Lipschitz continuity of $u$, we get $p_2=\displaystyle\lim_k h(x_{k,1})D_2u(x_k)=0$. In the latter case, $D_Gu(x)=(D_1u(x_{k,1}),0)\to (p_1,0)$, the conclusion follows.
\[315\] We have $$D^+_Gu(x)=\{p:\, \partial^+_Gu(x,\theta)\leq (p,\theta)\, \forall \theta\in{{\mathbb R}}^2\},\quad
D^-_Gu(x)=\{p\, :\, \partial^-_Gu(x,\theta)\geq (p,\theta)\,\forall \theta\in{{\mathbb R}}^2\}.$$ Moreover, $D^+_Gu(x)$ and $D^-_Gu(x)$ are both nonempty if and only if $u$ is $G$-differentiable at $x$ and in this case they reduce to the singleton $D_Gu(x)=D^-_Gu(x)=D^+_Gu(x)$.
The proof of this proposition follows the same arguments of [@CS Proposition 3.1.5]; actually the main difference is that one has to consider $x_k=(x_1+v_{k,1}, x_2+h(x_1)v_{k,2})$ with $v_k=(v_{k,1}, v_{k,2})\to 0$. Hence we shall omit it.
\[prp:gdiff\] Let $u$ be a semiconcave function with modulus of semiconcavity $\omega$. Then there hold
1. $p\in D^+_G u(x)$ if and only if for any $v=(v_1,v_2)\in \R^2$ $$\label{CNESGsemiconcavita}
u(x_1+v_1,x_2+h(x_1)v_2)-u(x_1, x_2)-(p,v)\leq |(v_1, h(x_1)v_2)| \omega(|(v_1, h(x_1)v_2)|);$$
2. If $\lim_k x_k=x$ and $p_k\in D^{+}_Gu(x_k)$ with $\lim_k p_k=p$, then $p\in D^{+}_Gu(x)$; hence, $D^*_Gu(x)\subset D^+_Gu(x)$;
3. $D^{+}_Gu(x,t)\ne\emptyset$;
4. If $D^{+}_Gu(x)=\{p\}$ (i.e., it is a singleton), then $u$ is $G$-differentiable at $x$.
1\. Consider $p\in D^{+}_Gu(x)$. When $h(x_1)=0$ and $v_1=0$, inequality is a trivial consequence of Point 3 of Lemma \[D+D-\]. Otherwise, the rest of the proof is an adaptation of the argument in [@CS Proposition 3.3.1] using [@CS equation (2.1)] with $y=(x_1+v_1,x_2+h(x_1)v_2)$.\
2. It follows directly from .\
3. Being semiconcave, the function $u$ is locally Lipschitz continuous. By Rademacher’s theorem, there exists a sequence of points $\{x_k\}_k$ with $\lim_k x_k=x$ where $u$ is differentiable and, in particular, $G$-differentiable with $\vert D_Gu(x_k)\vert\leq L$ (for some $L$). Possibly passing to a subsequence, $D_Gu(x_k)\rightarrow p$; hence, by point (2), $p\in D^{+}_Gu(x)$.\
4. By Proposition \[315\], it suffices to prove: $p\in D^{-}_Gu(x)$. To this end, consider any sequence $\{v_k\}_k$, with $v_k\to 0$ as $k\to+\infty$ and introduce $\{x_k\}_k$ as $$x_k=(x_{k,1}, x_{k,2}):=(x_1+v_{k,1}, x_2+h(x_{k,1})v_{k,2}).$$ We observe that: ($i$) $x_k\to x$ as $k\to+\infty$, ($ii$) by point (3), $\exists p_k\in D^+_Gu(x_k)$ with $|p_k|\leq L$, ($iii$) by point (2) and possibly passing to a subsequence, $p_k\rightarrow p$ as $k\to+\infty$. Relation centered in $x_k$ defined above, with $v=-v_k$, gives $$\begin{gathered}
-u(x_{k,1}-v_{k,1},x_{k,2}-h(x_{k,1})v_{k,2})+u(x_{k,1}, x_{k,2})-(p_k,v_k)\\ \geq - |(v_{k,1}, h(x_{k,1})v_{k,2})| \omega(|(v_{k,1}, h(x_{k,1})v_{k,2})|).\end{gathered}$$ By our choice of $x_k$, this inequality entails $$\begin{aligned}
&\frac{-u(x_{1},x_{2})+u(x_1+v_{k,1}, x_2+h(x_{1})v_{k,2})-(p,v_k)}{|v_k|} \\
&\geq \frac{u(x_1+v_{k,1}, x_2+h(x_{1})v_{k,2})-u(x_1+v_{k,1}, x_2+h(x_{k,1})v_{k,2})+(p_k-p,v_k)}{|v_k|}\\&\qquad - \frac{|(v_{k,1}, h(x_{k,1})v_{k,2})| \omega(|(v_{k,1}, h(x_{k,1})v_{k,2})|)}{|v_k|}\\
&\geq \frac{L L' |v_{k,2}||v_{k,1}|}{|v_k|}+ (p_k-p,v_k/|v_k|)- \frac{|(v_{k,1}, h(x_{k,1})v_{k,2})| \omega(|(v_{k,1}, h(x_{k,1})v_{k,2})|)}{|v_k|}
\end{aligned}$$ where $L$ and $L'$ are respectively local Lipschitz constants of $u$ and of $h$. Letting $k\to+\infty$, we obtain $$\liminf_{k\to+\infty}\frac{u(x_1+v_{k,1}, x_2+h(x_{1})v_{k,2})-u(x_{1},x_{2})-(p,v_k)}{|v_k|}\geq 0;$$ by the arbitrariness of $v_k$, we conclude: $p\in D^{-}_Gu(x)$.
In the next statement we establish that semiconcave functions always have directional derivatives.
Let $u$ be a semiconcave function with modulus of semiconcavity $\omega$. Then, for any direction $\theta$, the directional derivative $\partial_Gu (x,\theta)$ exists and the following equalities hold: $$\partial_Gu (x,\theta)=\partial^-_Gu (x,\theta)=\partial_G^+u (x,\theta)=u^0_{G,-}(x,\theta).$$
The proof is similar to the proof of [@CS Theorem 3.2.1] so we just sketch it. Fix a direction $\theta$ and consider $0<l_1<l_2$. Relation [@CS eq. (2.1)] with $\lambda=1-l_1/l_2$, $y=(x_1+l_2\theta_1,x_2+h(x_1)l_2\theta_2)$ entails $$\begin{gathered}
\label{316}
\frac{u(x_1+l_1\theta_1, x_2+h(x_1)l_1\theta_2)-u(x)}{l_1}\geq
\frac{u(x_1+l_2\theta_1, x_2+h(x_1)l_2\theta_2)-u(x)}{l_2} \\-\left(1-\frac{l_1}{l_2}\right)|(\theta_1, h(x_1)\theta_2)| \omega(l_2|(\theta_1, h(x_1)\theta_2)|).\end{gathered}$$ Passing to the $\liminf_{l_1\to 0^+}$ and after to the $\limsup_{l_2\to 0^+}$, we get $\partial ^-_G u(x,\theta)\geq \partial^+_Gu(x,\theta)$; hence, $\partial_G u(x,\theta)$ exists and it coincides both with the upper and the lower $G$-Dini derivatives. Moreover, by the definitions of $\partial_G^+ u(x,\theta)$ and of $u^0_{G,-} (x,\theta)$, Point 4 of Lemma \[D+D-\] easily entails: $\partial_G^+ u(x,\theta)\geq u^0_{G,-} (x,\theta)$. Therefore, it remains to prove $$\label{317}
\partial_G^+ u(x,\theta)\leq u^0_{G,-} (x,\theta).$$ Let $\epsilon$ and $\overline \ell$ be two fixed positive constants with $\overline \ell\geq l$. Since $u$ is continuous, there exists $\alpha$ sufficiently small such that $$\frac{u(x_1+\overline \ell\theta_1,x_2+\overline \ell\theta_2h(x_1))-u(x)}{\overline \ell}\leq
\frac{u(y_1+\overline \ell\theta_1,y_2+\overline \ell\theta_2h(y_1))-u(y)}{\overline \ell}+\epsilon\qquad \forall y\in B_\alpha(x).$$ By inequality (with $x$, $l_1$ and $l_2$ replaced respectively by $y$, $l$), we get $$\begin{gathered}
\frac{u(y_1+\overline \ell\theta_1,y_2+\overline \ell\theta_2h(y_1))-u(y)}{\overline \ell}\leq
\frac{u(y_1+l\theta_1,y_2+l\theta_2h(y_1))-u(y)}{l}\\
+\frac{\overline \ell-l}{\overline \ell} |(\theta_1,h(y_1)\theta_2)| \omega(\overline \ell|(\theta_1,h(y_1)\theta_2)|)\qquad \forall l\in(0,\overline \ell).\end{gathered}$$ By the last two inequalities we deduce $$\begin{gathered}
\frac{u(x_1+\overline \ell\theta_1,x_2+\overline \ell\theta_2h(x_1))-u(x)}{\overline \ell}\leq
\min\limits_{y\in B_\alpha(x),l\in(0,\overline \ell)}\frac{u(y_1+l\theta_1,y_2+l\theta_2h(y_1))-u(y)}{l}\\+|(\theta_1,h(y_1)\theta_2)| \omega(\overline \ell|(\theta_1,h(y_1)\theta_2)|)+\epsilon.\end{gathered}$$ Taking into account the definition of $u^0_{G,-}(x,\theta)$, we get $$\frac{u(x_1+\overline \ell\theta_1,x_2+\overline \ell\theta_2h(x_1))-u(x)}{\overline \ell}\leq
u^0_{G,-}(x,\theta)+|(\theta_1,h(x_1)\theta_2)| \omega(\overline \ell|(\theta_1,h(x_1)\theta_2)|)+\epsilon.$$ In conclusion, passing to the limit for $\epsilon\to 0^+$ and then $\displaystyle\limsup_{\overline \ell \to 0}$, we obtain inequality .
\[thm336\] Let $u$ be a semiconcave function. Then, there holds $$\label{s11}
D^+_Gu(x)= co D^*_Gu(x);$$ moreover, for any direction $\theta$, the $G$-directional derivative of $u$ in the direction $\theta$ satisfies $$\label{2s11}
\partial_Gu(x,\theta)=\min_{p\in D^+_Gu(x)}(p,\theta)=\min_{p\in D^*_Gu(x)}(p,\theta).$$
We shall use some of the arguments of [@CS Theorem 3.3.6]. Let us prove relations . For any direction $\theta$, using Proposition \[315\] and Proposition \[prp:gdiff\]-(2), we obtain $$\partial_Gu(x,\theta)\leq \min_{p\in D^+_Gu(x)}(p,\theta)\leq \min_{p\in D^*_Gu(x)}(p,\theta).$$ Hence, it remains to prove $$\label{3s11}
\min_{p\in D^*_Gu(x)}(p,\theta)\leq \partial_Gu(x,\theta)\qquad\textrm{for any direction~$\theta$}.$$ In order to prove this inequality, we study separately the cases when $x_1$ belongs or not to $\{h(x_1)=0\}$. Assume $h(x_1)\ne 0$ and fix a direction $\theta$. Since $u$ is differentiable a.e., there exists a sequence $\{v_k\}_k$, with $v_k\in{{\mathbb R}}^2$, such that: $(i)$ $v_k\to 0$ as $k\to+\infty$, $(ii)$ $v_k/|v_k|\to \theta$ as $k\to+\infty$, $(iii)$ $u$ is differentiable at $x_k:=(x_1+v_{k,1}, x_2+v_{k,2}h(x_1))$, $(iv)$ (taking advantage of the Lipschitz continuity of $u$ and possibly passing to a subsequence) $D_Gu(x_k)$ converge to some $p\in D^*_Gu(x)$ as $k\to+\infty$. Applying inequality [@CS eq. (3.18)] (with $x$ and $y$ replaced respectively by $x_k$ and $x$), we get $$\label{tag:star1}
u(x)-u(x_k)+(Du(x_k),(v_{k,1},h(x_1)v_{k,2}))\leq |(v_{k,1},h(x_1)v_{k,2})|\omega(|(v_{k,1},h(x_1)v_{k,2})|).$$ On the other hand, we observe that point $(iii)$ here above and Point 2 of Lemma \[D+D-\] ensure that $u$ is $G$-differentiable at $x_k$ with $D_Gu(x_k)=(D_1u(x_k), h(x_{k,1})D_2u(x_k))$. Hence, we have $$\label{tag:star2}
\begin{aligned}(Du(x_k),(v_{k,1},h(x_1)v_{k,2}))&=(D_Gu(x_k),v_{k}) +D_2u(x_k)v_{k,2}[h(x_1)-h(x_{k,1})]\\
&\geq (D_Gu(x_k),v_{k}) - C|v_{k,2}| |v_{k,1}|,
\end{aligned}$$ where the last inequality holds for a suitable $C>0$, and is due to the Lipschitz continuity of $u$ and of $h$. By and , we get $$(D_Gu(x_k),v_{k}/|v_{k}|)\leq \frac{u(x_k)-u(x)}{|v_{k}|}+\frac{C|v_{k,2}| |v_{k,1}|}{|v_{k}|}+\frac{|(v_{k,1},h(x_1)v_{k,2})|}{|v_{k}|}\omega(|(v_{k,1},h(x_1)v_{k,2})|).$$ Letting $k\to+\infty$, we infer: $(p,\theta)\leq \partial_Gu(x,\theta)$ for some $p\in D_G^*u(x)$ which, in turns, entails .
Consider now $x$ such that $h(x_1)=0$. By Point 4 of Lemma \[D+D-\] we have: $\min_{p\in D^*_G u(x)}(p,\theta) = \min_{p\in D^*_G u(x)} p_1\theta_1$; taking into account also Point 3 of Lemma \[D+D-\], relation is equivalent to $$\min_{p\in D^*_G u(x)} p_1\textrm{sgn}(\theta_1)\leq \partial u(x,(\textrm{sgn}(\theta_1),0))\qquad\forall \theta_1\in[-1,1]\setminus\{0\}.$$ In order to prove this relation, we follow an argument similar to the previous case. We consider a sequence $\{v_k\}_k$ such that: $(i)$ $v_k\to 0$ as $k\to+\infty$, $(ii)$ $v_k/|v_k|\to (\textrm{sgn}(\theta_1),0)$ as $k\to+\infty$ (in particular $v_{k,2}/|v_k|\to 0$), $(iii)$ $u$ is differentiable at $x_k:=(x_1+v_{k,1}, x_2+v_{k,2})$ (note that this definition is different from the corresponding one in the previous case), $(iv)$ $D_Gu(x_k)$ converge to some $p\in D^*_Gu(x)$ as $k\to+\infty$. Applying inequality [@CS eq. (3.18)] (with $x$ and $y$ replaced respectively by $x_k$ and $x$), we get $$(Du(x_k),v_{k})\leq u(x_k)-u(x)+ |v_{k}|\omega(|v_{k}|).$$ Again we get that $u$ is $G$-differentiable at $x_k$ with $D_Gu(x_k)=(D_1u(x_k), h(x_{k,1})D_2u(x_k))$. Hence, we deduce $$(Du(x_k), v_k)=(D_Gu(x_k),v_k)+D_2u(x_k)[1-h(x_{k,1})]v_{k,2}\geq (D_Gu(x_k),v_k)-C|v_{k,2}|$$ where the last inequality is due to the Lipschitz continuity of $u$ and to the boundedness of $h$. By the last two inequalities, we get $$(D_Gu(x_k),v_{k}/|v_{k}|)\leq \frac{u(x_k)-u(x)}{|v_{k}|}+\frac{C|v_{k,2}|}{|v_{k}|}+\omega(|v_k|).$$ Letting $k\to+\infty$, we infer: $p_1\textrm{sgn}(\theta_1)\leq \partial u(x,(\textrm{sgn}(\theta_1),0))$. Hence, relations are completely proved. Arguing as in [@CS Theorem 3.3.6], we infer relation .
[**Acknowledgments.**]{} The first and the second authors are members of GNAMPA-INdAM and were partially supported also by the research project of the University of Padova “Mean-Field Games and Nonlinear PDEs” and by the Fondazione CaRiPaRo Project “Nonlinear Partial Differential Equations: Asymptotic Problems and Mean-Field Games”. The fourth author has been partially funded by the ANR project ANR-16-CE40-0015-01. The authors wish to warmly thank P. Cardaliaguet for helpful discussions and hints.
[1]{}
, 48 (2010), 1136–1162.
, Lectures in Mathematics ETH Zürich. Birkhaüser Verlag, Basel 2005. , Systems and Control: Foundations and Applications. Birkhauser, Boston 1997.
, , J. Convex Anal. 21 (2014), no. 3, 785–810.
, , Springer Briefs in Mathematics. Springer, New York 2013.
, available at https://arxiv.org/abs/1711.01063.
, Ann. Inst. H. Poincaré Anal. Non Linéaire 25 (2008), no. 4, 773–802.
, Progress in Nonlinear Differential Equations and Their Applications, 48, Birkhauser, Boston 2004.
, from P.L. Lions lectures at College de France (2012), available at https://www.ceremade.dauphine.fr/ cardalia/MFG20130420.pdf.
, 3 (2013), 473–488.
, 22 (2015), 1287–1317.
, 23 (2017), no. 2, 569–591.
, 24 (2006), 307–326.
, Graduate Text in Mathematics 264, Springer-Verlag, London 2013.
, Classics in Applied Mathematics 5, S, Philadelphia, PA, 1990 (2nd edition).
, 57 (2018), no. 5, Art. 116, 22 pp
, SpringerBriefs in Mathematics. Springer, Berlin 2016.
, 4 (2014), 110–154.
, 6 (2006), 221–251.
, , , 113. Springer-Verlag, New York, 1991.
, , Providence, RI, 2015.
. , Vol. 23 American Mathematical Society, Providence, R.I. 1968.
, 343 (2006), 619–625.
, 343 (2006), 679–684.
, 2 (2007), 229–260.
. World Scientific Publishing Co., Inc., River Edge, NJ, 1996.
, unpublished.
, .
, .
, , Texts in Applied Mathematics 13, Springer-Verlag, New York 2003.
, , Springer-Verlag, Berlin 2009.
[^1]: Dipartimento di Matematica “Tullio Levi-Civita”, Università di Padova, [email protected]
[^2]: Dipartimento di Ingegneria dell’Informazione, Università di Padova, [email protected]
[^3]: Dipartimento di Matematica “Tullio Levi-Civita”, Università di Padova, [email protected]
[^4]: Univ Rennes, CNRS, IRMAR - UMR 6625, F-35000 Rennes, France, [email protected]
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Using the network model representation, it is shown that the edge states of finite-size integral quantum Hall liquid can be regarded as the edge states of an SU$(2N)$ open antiferromagnetic quantum spin chain in the $N \rightarrow 0$ limit. The structures of edge states in both cases of integer quantum Hall liquid and an SU$(2N)$ antiferromagnetic quantum spin chain are compared and the relations between them are pointed out. This correspondence is used to give qualitative arguments in favor of the recent results on two-dimensional electron systems coupled in layers with a large perpendicular magnetic field. In particular, it is shown that the absence of the localization in the two-dimensional chiral surface state of the integral quantum Hall liquid in the case of the finite-size coupled system can be explained by the absence of the gap in the excitation spectrum of an SU$(2N)$ ferromagnetic quantum spin chain in the $N \rightarrow 0$ limit.'
address: 'AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill, NJ 07974'
author:
- Yong Baek Kim
date: 'January 11, 1995'
title: |
Edge states of integral quantum Hall states versus\
edge states of antiferromagnetic quantum spin chains
---
Edge state in finite-size quantum Hall liquids has been a subject of interest for many years due to the fact that this edge state reflects the topological properties of the bulk quantum Hall liquids[@halperin; @wen; @macdonald; @fisher]. On the other hand, recent experiments reveal edge states with $S = 1/2$ in the $S = 1$ ($S$ is the spin quantum number) antiferromagnetic spin chain[@hagiwara; @glarum]. The topological character of these edge states in quantum antiferromagnetic spin chains was recently examined by T. K. Ng[@ng]. It is worthwhile to note that, in both systems, the only gapless excitations are these edge states and the excitation spectrum of the bulk is generally gapped. Since both of the quantum Hall liquids and the antiferromagnetic quantum spin chains can be described by non-linear sigma models (NL$\sigma$M) with a topological term[@pruisken; @haldane; @affleck1; @affleck2], one may wonder whether the edge states in both systems have any similarity.
In this paper, we show that the network model representation[@chalker0] of the finite-size quantum Hall liquid leads to an SU$(2N)$ open antiferromagnetic quantum spin chain in the $N \rightarrow 0$ limit. In particular, the edge states of the finite quantum Hall liquids can be considered as the edge states of the corresponding open spin chain. Using the results of the large $N$ limit of the spin chain and assuming that some of the large $N$ physics survive in the small $N$ limit, it is shown that the behaviors of the edge states of the integral quantum Hall liquids can be understood from the spin chain mapping.
As an application of these results, we apply the mapping to the two-dimensional electron systems coupled in layers with a large perpendicular magnetic field[@chalker; @balents]. It is found that the qualitative features of the phase diagram of the coupled system can be obtained from the ferromagnetically coupled SU$(2N)$ antiferromagnetic quantum spin chains in the $N \rightarrow 0$ limit. For the finite-size quantum Hall systems coupled in layers, the chiral surface state made of coupled edge states of each quantum Hall liquid can be regarded as an SU$(2N)$ ferromagnetic quantum spin chain in the $N \rightarrow 0$ limit. It is pointed out that the absence of the localization in the chiral surface state can be understood in terms of the absence of the energy gap in the corresponding spin chain model.
Recently, for the purpose of studying the plateau transitions, D. H. Lee and coworkers[@dhlee1; @wang; @dhlee2; @dhlee3] elaborated the mapping[@affleck1; @affleck2] between integral quantum Hall states and SU$(2N)$ antiferromagnetic quantum spin chains in the $N \rightarrow 0$ limit, where $N$ is the replica index. The idea is to use the network model of edge states in the bulk to describe the quantum Hall phase transitions, which takes the advantage of the fact that, if an extended state exists, it should be a percolating edge state. The network model of edge states can be represented by a collection of chiral fermions moving in the $y$ direction in an alternating fasion, [*e.g.*]{}, $+y$ direction for $x=$ even and $-y$ direction for $x=$ odd (see Fig.1)[@dhlee1]. The random tunneling between those chiral fermions at $(x,y) = (n_x, n_y)$, where $n_x$ and $n_y$ are taken as integers, is incorporated by introducing the random tunneling matrix elements $t(x,y)$. Here $(n_x, n_y)$s correspond to the saddle points of the original network model. This network model can be written as[@dhlee1] $$\begin{aligned}
H_{\rm net} &=& \sum_x (-1)^x \int dy \ \psi^{\dagger} (x,y)
{\partial_y \over i} \psi (x,y) \cr
&&- \sum_x \int dy
\left [ t(x,y) \ \psi^{\dagger} (x+1,y) \psi (x,y) +
{\rm h.c.} \right ] \ ,
\label{originalH}\end{aligned}$$ where $\psi$ is an annihilation operator of the fermion. We choose $t(x,y)$ to be random complex numbers with Gaussian distributions. The random phases of them will give rise to interference effects which may lead to the localization.
If one takes the $y$ axis as the imaginary time $\tau$ axis, then the trajectories of the chiral fermions can be considered as world lines of $(1+1)$ dimensional chiral fermions. Considering the so-called transport action and taking the random average of the tunneling matrix elements at various space-time points $(x,\tau)$, one can get an action which describes interacting $2N$ species of $(1+1)$ dimensional fermions $\psi_a$ ($a = 1,...,2N$), where $N$ is the replica index. The factor $2$ comes from the retarded and advanced sectors. Using the SU$(2N)$ generators ${\hat S}^b_a = \psi^{\dagger}_a \psi_b -
\delta_{ab} {1 \over 2N} \sum_c \psi^{\dagger}_c \psi_c$, where $\psi_a$ is the fermion operator and $a = 1,...,2N$, the model can be represented by an SU$(2N)$ antiferromagnetic quantum spin chain[@dhlee1; @wang]: $$H = \sum_x J_x {\rm Tr} \left [ {\hat S}(x + 1){\hat S}(x) \right ] \ .
\label{spinchain}$$ where ${\rm Tr}[{\hat A}{\hat B}] = \sum_{ab} A^b_a B^a_b$ and $J_x \sim \langle |t|^2 \rangle (x)$ with $\langle \cdots \rangle$ being the random average. Here it can be shown that $J_{x+2} = J_x$ is satisfied in general. Since $H$ commutes with the local density $n(x) = \sum_a
\psi^{\dagger}_a (x) \psi_a (x)$, Hilbert spaces corresponding to different $\{ n(x) \}$ decouple. Thus, the ground state of each chain belongs to the Hilbert space where $n(x) = N$ for all $x$. In this Hilbert space, a particular representation for SU$(2N)$ is realized, characterized by a Young tableau with a single column of length $N$.
In the semiclassical limit, the SU$(2N)$ spin chain of Eq. \[spinchain\] becomes the ${\rm U}(2N) / {\rm U}(N) \times {\rm U}(N)$ sigma model. Here the semiclassical limit corresponds to the large representation limit, [*i.e.*]{}, a Young tableau with large $M$ ($M$ is an odd integer) number of columns of length $N$. This ${\rm U}(2N) / {\rm U}(N) \times {\rm U}(N)$ sigma model can be written as[@dhlee1] $${\cal L} = {M \over 16} \sqrt{1 - R^2} {\rm Tr} (\partial_{\mu} Q)^2
+ {M \over 16} (1 - R) \epsilon_{\mu \nu} {\rm Tr} \left [
Q \partial_{\mu} Q \partial_{\nu} Q \right ] \ ,
\label{sigma}$$ where $\mu = x,\tau$, $Q = u^{\dagger} \Lambda u$, and $u$ is a $2N \times 2N$ unitary matrix. $\Lambda$ is a diagonal matrix with $\Lambda^a_a = 1$ for $a \le N$ and $\Lambda^a_a = -1$ for $N < a \le 2N$. Here $R = [J_{x+1} - J_{x}]/[J_{x+1} + J_{x}]$ measures the degree of dimerization. The second term is the so-called topological term. For $M = {\rm odd}$, the sigma model is massless at $R = 0$ due to the presence of the topological term while it is massive when $R \not= 0$. Thus, we can identify the transition from $R < 0$ to $R > 0$ as the plateau transition because the change of the single particle energy corresponds to the change in the degree of dimerization $R$[@dhlee1]. Note that this transition is nothing but the transition from one dimerized state ($R < 0$) to the other dimerized state ($R > 0$) in the corresponding quantum spin chain and these dimerized states correspond to the integral quantum Hall states in the original problem. At the critical point ($R = 0$), by comparing this sigma model with the Pruisken’s sigma model[@pruisken], it can be noticed that $\sigma_{xy} = M/2$.
Let us consider finite-size quantum Hall liquid which has boundaries at $x = 0, L$. The corresponding network model can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
H_{\rm net} &=& \sum_{0 \le x \le L} (-1)^x \int dy \
\psi^{\dagger} (x,y) {\partial_y \over i} \psi (x,y) \cr
&&- \sum_{0 \le x \le L} \int dy
\left [ t(x,y) \ \psi^{\dagger} (x+1,y) \psi (x,y) +
{\rm h.c.} \right ] \ ,\end{aligned}$$ where $L$ is taken as an odd integer so that the directions of the edge states at $x = 0$ and $x = L$ are opposite. Using the same procedure employed for the derivation of Eq. \[spinchain\], the model can be represented by the following open SU$(2N)$ quantum antiferromagnetic spin chain: $$H = \sum_{0 \le x \le L}
J_x {\rm Tr} \left [ {\hat S}(x + 1){\hat S}(x) \right ] \ .$$ Note that this spin chain has an even number, $L+1$, of sites. The appearance of the additional edge state in this finite spin chain as the degree of dimerization $R$ changes the sign can be understood as follows. Suppose that we start with a dimerized spin chain where $J_x \not= 0$ for $x = {\rm even}$ and $J_x = 0$ for $x = {\rm odd}$. In this case, there is no edge state. Now we change the degree of dimerization such that $J_x = 0$ for $x = {\rm even}$ and $J_x \not= 0$ for $x = {\rm odd}$. In this case, two free spins will be left at $x = 0, L$ and they are completely decoupled from the bulk of the spin chain. When $R$ is small but finite, the edge states are not completely decoupled and they decay into the spin chain with a length scale given by the coherence length $\xi$ which is inversely proportional to the gap of the dimerized spin chain[@ng]. In the language of the original quantum Hall liquid, additional edge state appears as the interger quantum Hall transition occurs ($R = 0$ at the transition in the spin chain) and it decays into the bulk with a length scale given by the localization length $\xi$ which is inversely proportional to the gap of the quantum Hall liquid.
Recently, T. K. Ng[@ng] used the $CP^1$ representation or a gauge field picture of the SU$(2)$ antiferromagnetic quantum spin chain to explain the behaviors of edge states of the antiferromagnetic spin chains with the spin quantum number $S$. We will mainly follow and generalize his analyses to get insights about the edge states of the SU$(2N)$ quantum spin chains. In particular, we will use the results of the large $N$ limit of an SU$(2N)$ antiferromagnetic spin chain[@ng; @affleck1; @affleck2]. The hope is that the edge state picture obtained from the large $N$ limit will survive in the small $N$ limit as far as there is a gap in the bulk excitation spectrum even though it is well known that some of the large $N$ results do not apply to the case of $S = 1/2$ and $N = 1$ (half-integer spin chain). This expectation can be supported by comparing the known behaviors of the edge states of quantum Hall liquids with the physics coming out from the large $N$ analysis. Thus, it can be also a good way of testing the usefulness of the large $N$ results to the small $N$ limit.
In Ref. [@affleck1] and [@sachdev], various representations of the SU$(2N)$ antiferromagnetic spin chain were examined. In particular, at $x = {\rm odd}$, one can use a Young tableau with $0 < n < 2N$ rows and $M$ columns. On the other hand, at $x = {\rm even}$, a Young tableau with $2N-n$ rows and $M$ columns can be taken. For the case of $N=1$ (SU$(2)$), all representations have $n=1$ and $M = 2S$ where $S$ is the spin quantum number. In the semiclassical limit, it can be shown that the model can be described by the (1+1) dimensional ${\rm U}(2N) / {\rm U}(n) \times {\rm U}(2N-n)$ NL$\sigma$M with a topological term[@sachdev]. In this paper, we will mainly use the results of the large $N$ limit of $n=1$ representation even though the previously described sigma model corresponds to $n = N$. The advantage is that the model can be mapped to $CP^{2N-1}$ model[@dadda; @witten] with a topological term and this gauge field description turns out to be useful for the analysis of the edge states. For general $n$, the corresponding gauge field theories can be formulated, but the gauge symmetry becomes ${\rm U}(n) = {\rm U}(1) \times {\rm SU}(n)$[@sachdev; @macfarlane]. We expect that the qualitative structure of the edge state obtained from $n=1$ case would be the same as that of $n=N$ case as far as there is an excitation gap in the bulk of the SU$(2N)$ spin chain[@sachdev].
The ${\rm U}(2N) / {\rm U}(1) \times {\rm U}(2N-1)$ NL$\sigma$M with a topological term can be rewritten as the $CP^{2N-1}$ model with a topological term: $${\cal L} = {2 \over g}|(\partial_{\mu} + iA_{\mu}) z^{\alpha}|^2
- i{\theta \over 2\pi}\varepsilon^{\mu \nu} \partial_{\mu} A_{\nu} \ ,$$ where $z^{\alpha}$ are $2N$ complex fields ($\alpha = 1,...,2N$) satisfying $\sum_{\alpha} |z^{\alpha}|^2 = 1$, $g \sim 2/M$ and $\theta = M \pi$. The second term is called the topological term. Note that $M = 2S$ when $N = 2$. In the large $N$ limit, at the gaussian level ([*i.e.*]{}, to the lowest order in $1/(2N)$), the theory has $2N$ massive free bosons with the gap $m \sim e^{-\pi / (2Ng)}$. In the $1/(2N)$ expansion, an additional term ${N \over 4 e^2} F^2_{\mu \nu}$ is generated to the $1/(2N)$ order. As the result, the effective low energy theory in the large $N$ limit can be written as[@sachdev; @dadda; @witten] $${\cal L}_{\rm eff} = {2 \over g}|(\partial_{\mu} + iA_{\mu}) z^{\alpha}|^2
+ m^2 |z^{\alpha}|^2
- i{\theta \over 2\pi}\varepsilon^{\mu \nu} \partial_{\mu} A_{\nu}
+ {N \over 4 e^2} F^2_{\mu \nu} \ ,$$ where $e^2 \sim m^2$ and $F_{\mu \nu} = \partial_{\mu} A_{\nu} - \partial_{\nu} A_{\mu}$. Since U$(1)$ gauge theory in $(1+1)$ dimension has linear Coulomb force, the $z$ bosons are confining[@sachdev; @dadda; @witten]. It should be noted that, even though the physics of the large $N$ limit is believed to be qualitatively correct for most of the values of $\theta$, it is well known that there is no gap in the excitation spectrum for $N=2$ if $\theta = (2k+1) \pi$ or $M = 2k+1$ (half-integer spin chain) while the large $N$ theory predicts a gap. Therefore, for the behaviors around $M = 2k+1$, one should be careful in the interpretation for the small $N$ limit which we are interested in.
As pointed out in Ref. [@ng], for the finite SU$(2N)$ spin chains, the effects of the topological term are crucial for the understanding the behavior of the edge states. Since $\varepsilon^{\mu \nu} \partial_{\mu} A_{\nu}$ corresponds to the electric field of the U$(1)$ gauge field, the effect of the topological term is the presence of a uniform external field $E_{\rm ext} = {\theta \over 2\pi}e = {M \over 2}e$ across the one-dimensional universe[@coleman]. In the case of the finite quantum spin chain, the one-dimensioanl universe has a finite size and the uniform electric field can be considered as arising from the external charges $\pm {\theta \over 2\pi}e$ at $x = 0, L$[@ng]. As shown by Read and Sachdev[@sachdev], the electric field of the U$(1)$ gauge theory corresponds to the finite dimerization order-parameter $\langle {\rm Tr}[{\hat S}(x+1){\hat S}(x) -
{\hat S}(x){\hat S}(x-1)] \rangle$. Therefore, the spin chain is generically dimerized due to the finite electric field in the corresponding gauge theory, so there is an excitation gap. For example, when $\theta < \pi$, the spin chain is dimerized. However, as $\theta$ becomes $\pi$ ($M = 1$) or larger than $\pi$, it is energetically favorable that a pair of $z$ bosons are nucleated from the vacuum and try to screen the external charges at $x = 0, L$. In this case, the external charges are overscreened and the effective external electric field becomes $E_{\rm eff} = \left ( {\theta \over 2 \pi} - 1 \right )e$. Due to this overscreening, the direction of the electric field is abruptly reversed as $\theta$ crosses $\pi$ and it implies that the dimerization order-parameter also changes sign. The same phenomena occur whenever $\theta$ crosses $(2k+1) \pi$ or $M$ crosses $2k +1$. That is, at each time when $\theta$ crosses $(2k+1) \pi$, one additional pair of $z$ bosons are nucleated from the vacuum and go to the opposite edges of the universe. At the same time, the direction of the electric field and the sign of the dimerization order parameter changes.
Now let us translate these phenamena into the language of the interger quantum phase transition. Note that $\theta = (2k+1) \pi$ or $M = 2k+1$ corresponds to $\sigma_{xy} = M/2 = (2k+1)/2$. Also the quantum Hall liquid has a gap if $\sigma_{xy} \not= M/2$. At each time $\sigma_{xy}$ crosses $M/2$, an additional edge state is generated and the number of edge state is nothing but the total number $z$ bosons nucleated from the vacuum to screen the external electric field. Unfortunately, the large $N$ theory predicts first order transitions at each $\sigma_{xy} = M/2$ due to the abrupt changes of the dimerization order parameter. Since these transitions in quantum Hall states are consistent with the second order phase transions, one may argue that the first order transition of the large $N$ theory does not apply to the small $N$ limit. In particular, when the degree of dimerization $R$ is small, $\theta = M \pi (1-R)$ and $J_x = J [1 - R (-1)^x]$, thus we expect that the localization length $\xi$ diverges as $R$ goes to zero.
The wave function of the $z$ bosons at the edge has a characteristic size of $\xi \sim m^{-1}$ when the bulk has an excitation gap $m$. This implies that the edge states of the quantum Hall liquid decay into the bulk with a length scale given by the localization length. Since the wave functions of the $z$ bosons are smeared out around the edge, the corresponding effective electric field is not uniform along the length scale $\xi$. Correspondingly, in the spin chain, the dimerization is not uniform around the edge. Note that the spatial dependence of the degree of dimerization in the spin chain corresponds to the spatial dependence of the filling fraction or the spatial dependence of the density of electrons. Therefore, the presence of the finite-size edge states decaying into the bulk in the spin chain can be translated into the inhomogeneous density distribution of the electrons around the edge of the quantum Hall liquid. This is nothing but the oscillation of the electron density (Friedel oscillation) around the edge of the quantum Hall liquid.
As an application of the above analysis, we will consider coupled layered two-dimensional samples which would form individually integral quantum Hall states in a large perpendicular magnetic field if there was no interlayer coupling. This problem was recently studied numerically by Chalker and Dohmen[@chalker] who used an anisotropic generalization of the two-dimensional network model. Using the sigma model approach, Balents and Fisher[@balents] also studied it analytically. This problem arises in two dimensional multilayer electron system and the Bechgaard salts[@balicas]. The main conclusions of these works are as follows. When the system is infinite in the plane as well as in the $z$-direction, it is found that there is a band of extended states around the band center when the interlayer tunneling amplitude is not zero. In this case, as the single particle energy $E$ is varied, there are successive two transitions which correspond to insulator-metal (or quantum-Hall-liquid-metal) and metal-quantum-Hall-liquid transitions[@chalker]. For layered materials, when the system is finite in the plane but it is inifinite in the $z$ direction, there is the chiral surface of edge states which are coupled by the interlayer tunneling amplitude. It turns out that there is no localization in the disordered chiral surface even though all the electronic states are localized in the usual two dimensional disordered electron system[@chalker; @balents].
We are going to use the network model of Chalker and Dohmen[@chalker] (see Fig.2), which can be written in terms of the previously introduced chiral fermions. $$\begin{aligned}
H_{\rm net} &=& \sum_{x,z} (-1)^x \int dy \ \psi^{\dagger} (x,y,z)
{\partial_y \over i} \psi (x,y,z) \cr
&&- \sum_{x,z} \int dy
\left [ t (x,y,z) \ \psi^{\dagger} (x+1,y,z) \psi (x,y,z) +
{\rm h.c.} \right ] \cr
&&- \sum_{x,z} \int dy
\left [ t_{\perp} (x,y,z) \ \psi^{\dagger} (x,y,z+1) \psi (x,y,z) +
{\rm h.c.} \right ] \ ,\end{aligned}$$ where $\psi (x,y,z)$ ($z$ is an integer such that $1 \le z < \infty$) is the fermion annihilation operator of the $z$th layer. The scattering processes of the network are now modeled by tunneling ($t$) between neighboring sites with the same layer index, as well as tunneling ($t_{\perp}$) between adjacent layers at the same $(x,y)$-site. We choose $t(x,y,z)$ and $t_{\perp}(x,y,z)$ to be independent random complex numbers with Gaussian distributions. Using the same procedure of getting Eq. \[spinchain\] from Eq. \[originalH\], after the random averages, the model can be mapped to the system of coupled SU$(2N)$ quantum spin chains. When the size of the sample is finite in the $x$ direction such that $0 \le x \le L$, the coupled spin chain model can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
H &=&
\sum_{0 \le x \le L} \sum_{z} \ J_{x,z}
\ {\rm Tr} \left [ {\hat S} (x+1,z) {\hat S} (x,z) \right ] \cr &&
+ \sum_{0 \le x \le L} \sum_{z} \ J_{\perp}
\ {\rm Tr} \left [ {\hat S} (x,z+1) {\hat S} (x,z) \right ] \ ,\end{aligned}$$ where $J_{x,z} = \langle |t|^2 \rangle (x,z)$ and $J_{\perp} = - \langle |t_{\perp}|^2 \rangle$[@kim]. The above Hamiltonian gives nearest-neighbor antiferromagnetic couplings ($J_{x,z} > 0$) in each spin chain $z$. On the other hand, for each $x$, the coupling between spins on adjacent chains, $z+1$ and $z$, is ferromagnetic ($J_{\perp} < 0$) and uniform. In terms of the original problem, the energy gap of the coupled layered system corresponds to the existence of an energy gap in the spectrum of this spin chain (in the replica limit of $N \rightarrow 0$).
In the first place, let us consider the infinite sample ($-\infty < x < \infty$). The two-layer case ($z = 1,2$) has been studied[@wang; @dkklee] and it is found that there are two transitions as the single particle energy is changed, where the change of the single particle energy corresponds to the change in the ratio between two different measures of dimerization $R_{z} = [J_{x+1,z} - J_{x,z}]/[J_{x+1,z} + J_{x,z}]$ ($z=1,2$). It is found that three massive phases are separated by two transitions which correspond to massless points in the parameter space of the model. These are two dimerized states and the intervening Haldane phase. One can expect that, as the number of chains is increased, the change in single particle energy in the original layered material depends on more and more parameters $R_z$ so that there will be many transitions which correspond to gapless points. Also the energy gaps of the intervening massive phases become smaller and smaller. Therefore, in the limit of infinite number of chains, except two dimerized phases in the tails of the band, the intervening phase has no energy gap. These results imply that, in the original problem, there are two localized phases (insulator or quantum-Hall-liquid) in the tails of the single particle energy band and there is a band of extended states between them, which corresponds to a metallic phase. Note that this conclusion from the coupled spin chains is consistent with the results of the numerical calculation[@chalker].
Now let us come back to the case of the finite-size sample. Suppose that the system is in the quantum-Hall-liquid phase. If the single particle energy is far away from those of the extended states, the localization length is very short so that we can consider the chiral surface state being almost decoupled from the bulk of the sample. In this case, for instance, the chiral surface states at $x = L$ corresponds to the following spin chain model. $$H = \sum_z J_{\perp} \ {\rm Tr} \left
[ {\hat S} (x=L,z+1) {\hat S} (x=L,z) \right ] \ .$$ Note that $J_{\perp}$ is ferromagnetic so that the model becomes a uniform ferromagnetic SU$(2N)$ spin chain. If one assumes that the results of finite $N$ still apply to the $N \rightarrow 0$ limit, this model has no energy gap. This implies that, in the original problem of the chiral surface state, there is no localization even though the system is disordered.
In summary, it is shown that the edge states of integral quantum Hall liquid can be mapped to the edge states of an SU$(2N)$ quantum antiferromagnetic spin chain in the $N \rightarrow 0$ limit. Using the gauge field theory of the large $N$ limit of the spin chain and assuming that some of the large $N$ results are robust even in the small $N$ limit, the relation between two edge states is studied. This relation is used to confirm some of the recent results on two dimensional non-interacting electron systems coupled in layers. In particular, it is shown that the chiral surface state of the finite-size coupled-layered system can be regarded as an SU$(2N)$ quantum ferromagnetic spin chain in the $N \rightarrow 0$ limit and the absence of the localization in the disordered chiral surface state can be explained by the absence of the excitation gap in the corresponding ferromagnetic spin chain.
We would like to thank B. I. Halperin, D. K. K. Lee, P. B. Littlewood, A. J. Millis, T. -K. Ng, A. M. Sengupta, B. I. Shraiman and C. M. Varma for helpful discussions.
B. I. Halperin, Phys. Rev. B [**25**]{}, 2185 (1982). X.-G. Wen, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**64**]{}, 2206 (1990); Phys. Rev. B [**43**]{}, 11025 (1991). A. H. MacDonald, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**64**]{}, 220 (1990). C. L. Kane and M. P. A. Fisher, Phys. Rev. B [**51**]{}, 13449 (1995). J. T. Chalker and P. D. Coddington, J. Phys. C [**21**]{}, 2665 (1988). M. Hagiwara, K. Katsumara, I. Affleck, B. I. Halperin, and J. P. Renard, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**65**]{}, 3181 (1990). S. H. Glarum, S. Geschwind, K. M. Lee, M. L. Kaplan, and J. Michael, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**67**]{}, 1614 (1991). T.-K. Ng, Phys. Rev. B [**45**]{}, 8181 (1992); Phys. Rev. B [**47**]{}, 11575 (1993); Phys. Rev. B [**50**]{}, 555 (1994). A. M. M. Pruisken, in [*The Quantum Hall Effect*]{}, eds. R. E. Prange and S. M. Girvin (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1990). F. D. M. Haldane, Phys. Lett. [**93 A**]{}, 464 (1983). I. Affleck, Nucl. Phys. [**B**]{} [**257**]{}, 397 (1985); Nucl. Phys. [**B**]{} [**265**]{}, 409 (1986). I. Affleck, in [*Field Theory Methods and Quantum Critical Phenomena*]{}, edited by E. Brezin and J. Zinn-Justin (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1990). J. T. Chalker and A. Dohmen, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**75**]{}, 4496 (1995). L. Balents and M. P. A. Fisher, [*Chiral surface states in the bulk quantum Hall effect*]{}, cond-mat/9510089. D. H. Lee, Phys. Rev. B [**50**]{}, 10788 (1994). Z. Wang, D. H. Lee, and X.-G. Wen, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**72**]{}, 2454 (1994). D. H. Lee and Z. Wang, [*Transitions between Hall plateaus and the dimerization transition of a Hubbard chain*]{}, cond-mat/9503021. D. H. Lee and Z. Wang, [*The effects of electron-electron interactions on the transition between quantized Hall plateaus*]{}, cond-mat/9511022. N. Read and S. Sachdev, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**62**]{}, 1694 (1989); Phys. Rev. B [**42**]{}, 4568 (1990). A. D’Adda, P. Di Vecchia, and M. Luscher, Nucl. Phys. [**B**]{} [**146**]{}, 63 (1978) E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. [**B**]{} [**149**]{}, 285 (1979). A. J. MacFarlane, Phys. Lett. [**82 B**]{}, 239 (1979). S. Coleman, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) [**101**]{}, 239 (1976). See, [*e.g.*]{} L. Balicas, G. Kriza, and F. I. B. Williams, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**75**]{}, 2000 (1995); S. M. McKernan, S. T. Hannahs, E. M. Scheven, G. M. Danner, and P. M. Chaikin, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**75**]{}, 1630 (1995). Y. B. Kim, A. Furusaki, and D. K. K. Lee, Phys. Rev. B [**52**]{}, 16646 (1995). D. K. K. Lee and J. T. Chalker, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**72**]{}, 1510 (1994); D. K. K. Lee, J. T. Chalker, and D. Y. K. Ko, Phys. Rev. B [**50**]{}, 5272 (1994).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
author:
- |
Savely G. Karshenboim[^1]\
D. I. Mendeleev Institute for Metrology,\
198005, St. Petersburg, Russia
title: ' Comments to [*On the Accuracy of Lamb Shift Measurements in Hydrogen*]{} (Physica Scripta, 55 (1997) 33–40) by V. G. Pal’chikov, Yu. L. Sokolov, and V. P. Yakovlev '
---
The major part of calculation in this work ([@Pal97]) is focused on the decay width evaluation of the 2p-state. They are contained in the appendix of the article. The current work seems to be interesting in view of existing discrepancy for the $2p$-state lifetime calculation between the former work [@Pal83] of the present authors and the results of Ref. [@JETP94].
It should be pointed out in this respect that the result of the paper under consideration are obtained within the framework of the nonrelativistic approach, whereas there exists a fully relativistic expression being cited by the authors (see eqs.(9,10)). The relativistic formula involves the terms containing derivatives
$$\Gamma^{(2)}(a)\,\frac{\partial}{\partial E}
\langle a\vert\Sigma^{(2)}(E)\vert a\rangle\bigg\vert_{E=E_a},$$
which are absent in its nonrelativistic analogue.
Furthermore, the calculationsi, which are carried out in the paper, are performed without specifying the gauge. This circumstance is rather important, since the mass operator is calculated off the mass shell. Thus, some diagrams in the Feynmann gauge contribute to the order of $\alpha$ in units of the non-relativistic contributuion. It is therefore obvious that the use of a fully relativistic treatment will be strongly required so as to obtain corrections of the order of $\alpha(Z\alpha)^2$.
One should also mention that the nonrelativistic formalism is valid solely in two particular cases. Namely, in the vacuum polarization calculation, as well as in obtaining the logarithmic part of the self-energy contribution in the Yennie gauge where the self-energy is described by means of the local potential (see Ref. [@JETP94] for details).
In the course of discussion dealing with the above-mentioned contributions, the inaccuracy of the answer is obvious. The authors’ result reduces then to the statement that the nonrelativistic formula to define the width of the level involves only corrections to the photon’s frequency, rather than to the dipole matrix element, provided that the vacuum polarization is described by only the local potential, whereas the operator of the vertex-type is absent.
The aforementioned result is closely connected with innacuracy while proceeding from eq.(16) to eq.(17). In particular, the work contains some misprints with one being the absence of the subscripts in eq.(16). After correcting these relations accordingly, eq. (16) should then take the form
$$M^{RAD}=-\frac{e}{(2\omega)^{1/2}}\langle 2p_{1/2}\vert\bigg\{
\sum_{n\neq 2p_{1/2}}{
\frac{\Sigma^{(2)}(E_{2p_{1/2}})\vert n\rangle\langle n\vert
\mbox{$\boldmath{\varepsilon\cdot \alpha}$} \,
exp(iqx)}{E_{2p}-E_{n}}
}$$
$$+
\sum_{n\neq 1s_{1/2}}{
\frac{\mbox{$\boldmath{\varepsilon\cdot \alpha}$} \,
exp(iqx)\vert n\rangle
\langle n\vert\Sigma^{(2)}(E_{1s})}{E_{1s}-E_{n}}
}
\bigg\}\vert 1s_{1/2}\rangle
.$$
That is the relativistic expession, but one can find the nonrelativistic analogue.
The denominator in the first term is equal to $E_{2p}-E_{n}$ and that is due to calculation of the correction to the $2p$-state wave function. However, using of the commutator of eq.(13) in the nominator matrix element between $1s$ and $n$-states leads to energy difference $E_{1s}-E_{n}$ (cf. intermediate step from eq. (12) to eq. (14)). This factor
$$\frac{E_{1s}-E_{n}}{E_{2p}-E_{n}}=1+\frac{E_{1s}-E_{2p}}{E_{2p}-E_{n}}$$
can never be equal to one and the result of eq.(18) can not be obtained. Some confusuion with the indexes has lead, therefore, to the mutual cancellation of completely different quantities. The result of the paper can not be also obtained in any approximation, as far as any energy values ($E_{1s},E_{2p}$ and $E_{n}$) are of the same order of magnitude.
The term of “1” in the equation above corresponds to the first term of eq.(17) and leads to the shift of the energy of the $2p$-state. The second term, which has been lost in the paper [@Pal97], associated with the correction to the $2p$-state wave function and leads to correction to the dipole matrix element, which is included in result of Ref. [@JETP94] and exluded in Ref. [@Pal97]. Conversely, one would get the result, analogous to that of Ref. [@JETP94] to define the vacuum polarization contribution, by recovering the indexes in the aforementioned expression. Furthermore, it should be noted that the analytic results obtained in Ref. [@IK96] can readily be used for the vacuum polarization calculation.
It should be emphasised, however, that our criticism concerns only the value of the lifetime employed, but not the main idea of the given experiment.
As for the calculation of the constant term, then it should be mentioned that\
(i) its correct definition can be achieved solely within the framework of the fully relativistic approach;\
(ii) the appropriate correction to the final results of the work may depend on the process considered;\
(iii) correction of the same order arise also when one would allow for the line shape. The latter was decribed in Ref. [@Pal83] by using the simple Lorenz contour.\
By summarizing the given arguments, one can state that the result of Refs. [@Pal83; @Pal97] constitutes the superfluous accuracy (which originates from the nonrelativistic treatment), as well as contains an apparent mistake. By correcting the latter, one ends up, as it have already been pointed out, with the result of Refs. [@JETP94; @IK96] being argued by the authors.
[9]{}
V. G. Pal’chikov, Yu. L. Sokolov, V. P. Yakovlev, Physica Scripta, [**55**]{} (1997) 33.
V. G. Pal’chikov, Yu. L. Sokolov, V. P. Yakovlev, Pis’ma ZhETF [**38**]{} (1983) 347 /in Russian/; JETP Letters [**38**]{} (1983) 418; Metrologia [**21**]{}, 99 (1985).
S. G. Karshenboim, ZhETF [**106**]{} (1994) 414 /in Russian/; JETP [**79**]{} (1994) 230; Yad. Fiz. [**58**]{} (1995) 901 /in Russian/; Phys. At. Nucl. [**58**]{} (1995) 835; ZhETF [**107**]{} (1995) 1061 /in Russian/; JETP [**80**]{} (1995) 593.
V. G. Ivanov and S. G. Karshenboim, Phys. Lett. [**A210**]{} (1996) 313; ZhETF [**109**]{} (1996) 1219 /in Russian/; JETP [**82**]{} (1996) 656.
[^1]: E-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
In this article we continue to explore the notion of Rota-Baxter algebras in the context of the Hopf algebraic approach to renormalization theory in perturbative quantum field theory. We show in very simple algebraic terms that the solutions of the recursively defined formulae for the Birkhoff factorization of regularized Hopf algebra characters, i.e. Feynman rules, naturally give a non-commutative generalization of the well-known Spitzer’s identity. The underlying abstract algebraic structure is analyzed in terms of complete filtered Rota-Baxter algebras.\
---
\[section\] \[theorem\][Proposition]{} \[theorem\][Definition]{} \[theorem\][Lemma]{} \[theorem\][Corollary]{} \[section\] \[section\] \[theorem\][Remark]{} \[theorem\][Example]{} \[section\]
1[]{} 2[]{} 3[]{} 31[]{} 4[]{} 41[]{} 42[]{} 43[]{} 5[]{} 51[]{} 52[]{} 53[]{} 54[]{} 55[]{} 56[]{} 57[]{} 58[]{} 1[]{} 1[]{} 2[]{} 3[]{} 31[]{} 4[]{} 41[]{} 42[]{} 43[]{} 5[]{} 51[]{} 52[]{} 53[]{} 54[]{} 55[]{} 56[]{} 57[]{} 58[]{} Ł ¶ ł
\
KURUSCH EBRAHIMI-FARD[^1]\
\
LI GUO[^2]\
\
DIRK KREIMER[^3]\
\
July 11, 2004\
\
Introduction
============
The theory of Rota-Baxter type algebras has a long and interesting history. It was introduced by the American mathematician Glen Baxter in 1960 [@Baxter] in the context of fluctuations in probability theory. The subject was further explored especially by F. V. Atkinson [@A], J. F. C. Kingman [@Kin], P. Cartier [@C] and others, but foremost by the mathematician Gian-Carlo Rota in his work in the late 1960s and early 1970s [@RSmith; @Rota1] and later in his beautiful reviews [@Rota2; @Rota3]. In the center of these works stood the category of commutative associative Rota-Baxter algebras and its free objects. Recently, one of us together with W. Keigher gave a very concise description of the latter in terms of a mixable shuffle product [@G-K1; @G-K2], which provides a generalization of the classical shuffle product [@E-G2]. As one of the main results of the above early work on (free) commutative Rota-Baxter algebras simple combinatorial and analytical proofs of Spitzer’s identity were obtained. The latter is in its classical form a well-known object in probability theory having many applications.
Let us mention here that the Lie algebraic version of the Rota-Baxter relation plays under the name (modified) classical Yang-Baxter[^4] equation a prominent rôle in the theory of integrable systems [@BBT; @STS2; @STS1; @STS3]. Classical R-matrices, i.e. solutions of this equation, are connected to the Riemann-Hilbert problem and related factorization problems.
Recently the notion of Rota-Baxter algebra reappeared in the mathematics and, above all, physics literature. On the mathematics side we would like to underline its intimate link to Loday’s dendriform algebra structures [@Agu1; @E-G1; @KEF; @PhL1; @JLL1]. From a physics viewpoint it appeared in the Hopf algebraic approach to the theory of renormalization in perturbative quantum field theory (pQFT). This approach provided a solid mathematical frame for renormalization theory in terms of combinatorial Hopf algebras of Feynman graphs [@CK1; @CK2; @Kreim1; @Kreim2].
Here, we will dwell mainly on the latter aspect by showing that the recently given solutions to the recursively defined formulae for the algebraic Birkhoff factorization of regularized Hopf algebra characters in terms of a so-called BCH-recursion [@EGK1; @EGK2] provide natural non-commutative generalizations of the above mentioned Spitzer’s identity. We introduce the notion of complete filtered not necessarily commutative Rota-Baxter algebras to underline the abstract algebraic structure giving rise to this factorization. This approach allows us to derive in a fairly simple manner an alternative recursion for renormalized Feynman rules.
The paper is organized as follows. In Section \[Rota-Baxter\] we collect some basic facts about (not necessarily commutative) Rota-Baxter algebras. Section \[Sect-spitzer\] contains the non-commutative generalization of Spitzer’s identity in the context of complete filtered Rota-Baxter algebras and an abstract algebraic formulation of Bogoliubov’s recursion. Using the above results we finish this paper with a short review of the Birkhoff decomposition of regularized Hopf algebra characters. This turns out to be an example for the more general content of the forgoing section, placed in the context of the Hopf algebra approach to renormalization theory. It allows us to derive a new recursion formula for renormalized Feynman rules solely based on iterating the renormalized character $\phi_+$ instead of the countertem $\phi_-$. We finish this article with a short summary and outlook.
Rota-Baxter algebras {#Rota-Baxter}
====================
Let $\K$ be a field of characteristic $0$. By a $\K$-algebra we mean an associative algebra over $\K$ that is not necessarily unital nor commutative unless stated otherwise.
Let $\A$ be a $\K$-algebra with a $\K$-linear map $R: \A \to \A$. We call $\A$ a Rota-Baxter $\K$-algebra and $R$ a Rota-Baxter map (of weight $\theta \in \K$) if the operator $R$ holds the following Rota-Baxter relation of weight $\theta \in \K$ [^5]: $$R(x)R(y) + \theta R(xy) = R\big(R(x)y + xR(y)),\ \forall x,y \in \A.
\label{RBR}$$
\(0) Obviously, the above definition extends to non-associative algebras in general, and the field $\K$ may be replaced by an arbitrary commutative ring.
\(1) In the rest of the paper we will fix the weight $\theta=1$, which is called the standard form or the Rota-Baxter relation.
\(2) If $R$ fulfills the standard form of (\[RBR\]) then $\tilde{R}:=id_{\A}-R$ fulfills the same Rota-Baxter relation.
\(3) The ranges of $R$ and $\tilde{R}=id_{\A}-R$ give subalgebras in $\A$.
\(4) $R$ and $\tilde{R}=id_{\A}-R$ fulfill the following mixed relations
\(0) On the algebra of Laurent series $\C[\epsilon^{-1},
\epsilon]]$ we have (up to automorphisms,) only the following two Rota-Baxter maps $R^{(r)},\; r=0,1$. Both are of weight $\theta=1$ and defined as follows. For $\sum_{k=-m}^{\infty}c_k\epsilon^{k}
\in \C[\epsilon^{-1},\epsilon]]$ they give: $$R^{(r)} \big(\sum_{k = -m}^{\infty}c_k\epsilon^{k}\big):=\sum_{k=-m}^{-r}c_k\epsilon^{k},\; r=0,1.
\label{Rms}$$ Within renormalization theory, so-called dimensional regularization together with the minimal subtraction scheme, i.e. $R_{MS}:=R^{(1)}$, play an important r[ô]{}le [@Kreim2].
\(1) The case of a Rota-Baxter map of weight $\theta=0$, i.e. $R(x)R(y) = R\big(R(x)y + xR(y)\big)$, naturally translates into the ordinary shuffle relation, and finds its most prominent example in the integration by parts rule for the Riemann integral. On the other hand Jackson’s q-integral [@Rota2] gives a generalization of the Riemann integral to a Rota-Baxter map of weight $\theta=1-q$.
In the case of the Rota-Baxter algebra $\A$ to be a Lie admissible $\K$-algebra, the Rota-Baxter relation naturally extends to the Lie algebra $\L_{\A}$ with commutator bracket $[x,y]:=xy-yx,\;
\forall x,y \in \A$: $$\label{LieRBR} [R(x),R(y)] + R([x,y]) = R\big([R(x),y] +
[x,R(y)]\big).$$
\[prop-double\] Let $\A$ be a Rota-Baxter algebra with Rota-Baxter map $R$. Equipped with the new product
$$\label{double} a \ast_R b := R(a)b + aR(b) - ab, \\$$
the vector space underlying $\A$ is again a Rota-Baxter algebra of the same type, denoted by $\A_R$.
The proof of this Proposition is a fairly easy exercise and follows directly from the identity (\[RBR\]) for $\theta=1$. We call this new Rota-Baxter algebra $(\A_R,R)$ the double of $\A$, and $\ast_R$ the double product.
\(0) Let us remark here that this double construction appeared in a Lie algebraic context in [@STS1], where the name was coined.
\(1) The product $\ast_R$ can be written using $R$ and $\tilde{R}=id_{\A}-R$: $$a \ast_R b = R(a)b - a\tilde{R}(b), \label{double2}$$ which can be interpreted in terms of the dendriform dialgebra structure of Loday [@JLL1].
\(2) From the definition of the $\ast_R$ product in (\[double\]) it is obvious, that $R$ and $\tilde{R}=id_{\A}-R$ become an (not necessarily unital) algebra homomorphism and anti-homomorphism, respectively, from the double $\A_R$ to $\A$: (3) As $(\A_R,\ast_R)$ is again of Rota-Baxter type, the above construction of the double extends to the so-called Rota-Baxter double hierarchy [@EGK2].
By definition, for the double product (\[double\]) we have $$a \ast_R b = R(a)R(b)-\tilde{R}(a)\tilde{R}(b)$$ and so by (\[Rhom1\]), $$R(a)R(b)=R\big(R(a)R(b)-\tilde{R}(a)\tilde{R}(b)\big).$$ Inductively, this can be generalized to and then specialized to the following simple formula of Kingman which appeared in [@Kin]. $$R(u)^n = R\big(R(u)^n- (-\tilde{R}(u))^n\big ),\;\; u\in \A.
{\label{eq:Kingman}}$$
Non-commutative Spitzer’s formula {#Sect-spitzer}
=================================
In the following, we do assume that an algebra in general is associative and unital, the unit will be denoted by $1$, but we do not assume that the algebra is commutative.
Spitzer’s formula
-----------------
Spitzer’s formula [@Sp] is regarded as a remarkable stepping stone in the theory of sums of independent random variables in the fluctuation theory of probability. It was also the motivation for Baxter to define his identity [@Baxter]. The identity of Spitzer has the following algebraic formulation.
[[@RSmith]]{} Let $(\A,R)$ be an unital commutative Rota-Baxter $\Q$-algebra of weight $\theta = 1$. Then for $a \in \A$, we have $$\exp\left (R(\log(1-ax)^{-1}) \right )
=\sum_{n=0}^\infty x^n \underbrace{R\big( R( R( \cdots (R(a)a ) a ) a) \big)}_{n\mbox{\rm -}{\rm times}}
{\label{eq:si1}}$$ in the ring of power series $\A[[x]]$.
For other than the combinatorial proofs of Spitzer and Baxter, we refer the interested reader to see [@A; @C; @Kin; @RSmith; @We].
Using our previous work [@EGK2] on the Birkhoff decomposition of regularized characters in the Hopf algebraic approach to renormalization theory in pQFT, we will derive a non-commutative version of Spitzer’s formula. Quite remarkably, the proof presented here is similar to the one given in the commutative case by Kingman [@Kin]. Furthermore, once this formula is obtained, a simple but beautiful result of Atkinson in Theorem \[Atkinson2\] applies to give us a new recursive formula back in the realm of Birkhoff decomposition in renormalization theory with respect to the so-called renormalized character, which we will describe in the next section.
We first consider Rota-Baxter algebras with a complete filtration. This setup allows us to apply our results to the Rota-Baxter algebra of renormalization introduced in [@EGK1]. The general case of Rota-Baxter algebras $\A$ will be treated by considering the power series ring $\A[[x]]$ in the commuting variable $x$.
Complete Rota-Baxter algebras
-----------------------------
We first introduce the category of complete Rota-Baxter algebras.
A [**filtered Rota-Baxter algebra**]{} is a Rota-Baxter algebra $(\A,R)$ together with a decreasing filtration $\A_n, \: n\geq 0$ of Rota-Baxter subalgebras. Thus we have $$\A_n \A_m \subseteq \A_{n+m}$$ and $$R(\A_n) \subseteq \A_n.$$ Such a filtered Rota-Baxter algebra is called [**complete**]{}[^6] if $\cap \A_n = 0$ and if the resulting embedding $$\A \to \bar{\A}:= \varprojlim \A/\A_n$$ is an isomorphism.
By the completeness of the filtered Rota-Baxter algebra $(\A,R)$, the functions $$\exp: \A_1 \to 1+\A_1,\ \exp(a):=\sum_{n=0}^\infty \frac{a^n}{n!},$$ $$\log: 1+\A_1 \to \A_1,\ \log(1+a):=-\sum_{n=1}^\infty \frac{(-a)^n}{n}$$ are well-defined. This has the following (classical) interpretation of Lie groups and Lie algebras.
$1+\A_1$ has a Lie group structure by the multiplication in $\A$, and $\A_1$ has a Lie algebra structure by the commutator bracket $[a,b]:=ab-ba$. Then the maps $\exp$ and $\log$ are the isomorphisms from the Lie algebra to the Lie group and its inverse.
\[FG\] For the Hopf algebra $\H_{FG}$ of Feynman graphs (or rooted trees) and the ring of Laurent series $\A:=\C[\ep^{-1},\ep]]$ with the Rota-Baxter operator defined to be the projection to the pole part, i.e. $R:=R^{(1)}:\C[\ep^{-1},\ep]] \to
\epsilon^{-1}\C[\ep^{-1}]$ in (\[Rms\]), the algebra $L(\H_{FG},\A)$ with the convolution product and lifted Rota-Baxter map $\RB : L(\H_{FG},\A) \to L(\H_{FG},\A)$ is a complete Rota-Baxter algebra [@CK1; @FGV; @Kreim1]. See [@M II.3.3.] for the proof. Further in this setting $1 +
A_1$ is the group of (regularized) characters and $A_1$ is the Lie algebra of infinitesimal characters.
For $a \in \A$, inductively define $$(R a)^{[n+1]}:=R\big((Ra)^{[n]}\:a\big)\;\; \makebox{and} \;\;(R
a)^{\{n+1\}}:=R\big(a\:(Ra)^{\{n\}}\big)$$ with the convention that $(Ra)^{[1]}=R(a)=(Ra)^{\{1\}}$ and $(Ra)^{[0]}=1=(Ra)^{\{0\}}$.
Also by the completeness, there is a unique map $\chi: \A_1 \to
\A_1$ that satisfies the equation $$\chi(a)=a - BCH\big(R(\chi(a)),\tilde{R}(\chi(a))\big)
\label{BCH-recur}$$ which was introduced in [@EGK2] and will be coined as $BCH$-recursion for short. Here $BCH(x,y)$ denotes the Baker-Campbell-Hausdorff formula such that $$\exp(x)\exp(y)=\exp\big(x+y+BCH(x,y)\big)$$ which is a power series in $x,y$ of degree 2. Relation (\[BCH-recur\]) was used in our approach to the algebraic Birkhoff factorization, in connection with a classical R-matrix notion coming from a Lie Rota-Baxter relation (\[LieRBR\]), see Section \[Birkhoff\].
We call it the $BCH$-recursion since $\chi(a)$ is defined to be $\lim_{n \to \infty} \chi_n(a)$ where To see why this gives the unique solution to recursion relation (\[BCH-recur\]), we first define for $a \in \A$, $\Lambda : \A
\to \A$ [@EGK2] $$\Lambda(a):=BCH\big(R(a),\tilde{R}(a)\big).$$ Then for $s \in A_n, n \geq 1$, $\Lambda(a+s)$ is $\Lambda(a)$ plus a sum in which each term has $s$ occurring at least once, and hence is contained in $A_{n+1}$. Thus we have $$\Lambda(a \mod A_n) \equiv \Lambda(a) \mod A_{n+1}.
{\label{eq:cong}}$$ Now we have $$\chi_1(a)= a + \Lambda(\chi_0(a)) = a + \Lambda(a) \equiv a \equiv
\chi_0(a) \mod A_{2}.$$ By induction on $n$ and (\[eq:cong\]), we have $$\begin{aligned}
\chi_{n+1}(a)& =& a + \Lambda(\chi_n(a)) \\
&\equiv & a + \Lambda(\chi_{n-1}(a) \mod A_{n+1}) \\
& \equiv & a + \Lambda(\chi_{n-1}(a)) \mod A_{n+2}\\
& \equiv & \chi_n(a) \mod A_{n+2}.\end{aligned}$$ Thus $\lim_{n\to \infty} \chi_n(a)$ exists and is a solution of (\[BCH-recur\]).
Suppose $b$ is another solution. Then, as above, we have $$\chi_0(a) = a \equiv a + \Lambda(b) \equiv b \mod A_2.$$ Induction on $n$ gives the following $$\begin{aligned}
\chi_{n+1}(a) &=& a+\Lambda(\chi_n(a)) \\
&\equiv & a + \Lambda(b \mod A_{n+2})\\
&\equiv & a + \Lambda(b) \mod A_{n+3}\\
&\equiv & b \mod A_{n+3}.\end{aligned}$$ Thus $b=\lim_{n\to \infty} \chi_n(a).$ The reader may find it helpful to consult the nice expository work of Manchon [@M] for a more conceptual proof in the context of Lie algebras.
\[spitzer\] Let $(\A,R,\A_n)$ be a complete filtered Rota-Baxter algebra of weight $\theta=1$. Let $a \in \A_1$.
1. The equation $$b=1-R(ba)
{\label{eq:recurs}}$$ has a unique solution $$b= \exp\big(-R(\chi(\log (1+a)))\big). {\label{eq:exp}}$$
2. The equation $$b=1-\tilde{R}(ab) {\label{eq:recurs2}}$$ has a unique solution $$b= \exp\big(-\tilde{R}(\chi(\log (1+a)))\big). {\label{eq:exp2}}$$
[\[thm:equation\]]{}
We only need to verify for the first equation. The proof for the second equation is similar.
Since $a$ is in $A_1$ and $R$ preserves the filtration, the series $$b=1+ R(a)+ R(R(a)a) + \cdots +(Ra)^{[n]} + \cdots$$ defines a unique element in $\A$ and is easily seen to be a solution of (\[eq:recurs\]). Conversely, if $c \in \A$ is a solution of (\[eq:recurs\]), then by iterated substitution, we have $$c=1+R(a)+R(R(a)a)+ \cdots +(Ra)^{[n]}+\cdots.$$ Therefore, the equation (\[eq:recurs\]) has a unique solution.
To verify that (\[eq:exp\]) gives the solution, take $u:=\log
(1+a), \; a\in \A_1$. Using (\[eq:Kingman\]), for our chosen $b$ we have By the definition of the $BCH$-recursion $\chi$ in equation (\[BCH-recur\]), we have Thus This verifies the first equation.
Let $(\A,R,\A_n)$ be a complete filtered Rota-Baxter algebra of weight $\theta=1$. For $a \in \A_1$, we have $$\sum_{n=0}^\infty \big(Ra\big)^{[n]}
= \exp\big(-R(\chi(\log (1+a)))\big)
{\label{eq:Spitzer1}}$$ $$\sum_{n=0}^\infty \big(\tilde{R}a\big)^{\{n\}}
= \exp\big(-\tilde{R}(\chi(\log (1+a)))\big)
{\label{eq:Spitzer2}}$$ [\[co:Spitzer\]]{}
By Theorem \[thm:equation\] and its proof, both sides of (\[eq:Spitzer1\]) are solutions of (\[eq:recurs\]). This proves (\[eq:Spitzer1\]).
The proof of (\[eq:Spitzer2\]) is the same, by considering solutions of the recursive equation (\[eq:recurs2\])
For later reference, we record here a simple and attractive theorem of Atkinson [@A] whose proof just uses relations (\[ab\]) and (\[ba\]).
Let $(\A,R)$ be an associative unital but not necessarily commutative Rota-Baxter algebra. Assume $b$ and $b'$ to be solutions of the recursive equations (\[eq:recurs\]) and (\[eq:recurs2\]), then $$b (1+a) b' = 1.$$ \[Atkinson2\]
We now prove the Birkhoff decomposition of filtered Rota-Baxter algebras.
Let $(\A,R)$ be an associative unital complete Rota-Baxter algebra with filtration $A_n,\ n\geq 0$. The following conditions are equivalent.
1. $R$ is idempotent: $R^2=R$ when restricted to $A_1$.
2. There is a direct product decomposition of algebras $$A_1 = R(A_1) \times \tilde{R}(A_1).$$
3. There is a direct product decomposition of groups $$(1+A_1)= (1+R(A_1)) \times (1+\tilde{R}(A_1)).$$
[\[thm:Birkhoff\]]{}
Under the assumption in ($i$), the statement in ($ii$) is the Atkinson decomposition [@A] and the statement in ($iii$) specializes to give the uniqueness of the Birkhoff decomposition of Connes and Kreimer. See Section \[Birkhoff\] for details.
\(1) $\Leftrightarrow$ (2) is clear and does not need the completeness assumption.
\(2) $\Rightarrow$ (3): We just need to show that, for each $a\in
A_1$, there is a unique $c\in R(A_1)$ and a unique $\tilde{c}\in
\tilde{R}(A_1)$ such that $$1+a = (1+c)(1+\tilde{c}).$$
Let $a\in A_1$ be given, and let $b$ and $\tilde{b}$ be the solution of (\[eq:recurs\]) and (\[eq:recurs2\]) respectively. Then by Theorem \[Atkinson2\], we have $$b(1+a)\tilde{b}=1.$$ By their constructions and (\[Rhom1\],\[Rhom2\]), we have $b=1-b_1$ and $\tilde{b}=1-\tilde{b}_1$ for $b_1\in R(A_1)$ and $\tilde{b}_1\in \tilde{R}(A_1)$. Thus $$b^{-1} =1+b_1+b_1^2+\cdots \in 1+ R(A_1),$$ $$\tilde{b}^{-1} = 1+\tilde{b}_1+\tilde{b}_1^2+ \cdots \in 1+\tilde{R}(A_1).$$ This proves the existence.
For the uniqueness, suppose we have $$1+a = (1+c)(1+\tilde{c}) = (1+d) (1+\tilde{d})$$ with $c,d\in R(A_1)$ and $\tilde{c},\tilde{d}\in \tilde{R}(A_1)$. Then $$(1+d)^{-1}(1+c) = (1+\tilde{d})(1+\tilde{c})^{-1}$$ which is in $(1+R(A_1)) \cap (1+\tilde{R}(A_1))$. But this intersection is $\{1\}$ because $$1+R(d)=1+\tilde{R}(d') \Rightarrow R(d)=\tilde{R}(d')\Rightarrow R(d)=0.$$
\(3) $\Rightarrow$ (2): Since $R+\tilde{R}=\id$, we have $A_1 =
R(A_1)+\tilde{R}(A_1)$. So we just need to show $R(A_1)\cap
\tilde{R}(A_1)=0$. This is true if and only if $(1+R(A_1))\cap
(1+\tilde{R}(A_1))=\{1\}.$.
Algebraic Bogoliubov map
------------------------
For $a \in A_1$, let $a_-$ be the unique solution of $b=1-R(ba)$ from Theorem \[thm:equation\] and let $$\gamma(a)=a_-\, a.$$ Similarly, let $\tilde{a}$ be the unique solution of $
b=1-\tilde{R}(ab)$ and let $$\tilde{\gamma}(a)=a\tilde{a}.$$ By Proposition \[prop-double\], $A_1$ with the product $\ast_R$ is still a complete algebra. Define $$\exp_R: A_1 \to 1+A_1,\ \exp_R(a) := \sum_{n=0}^\infty
\frac{a^{\ast_R n}}{n!}$$ where $a^{\ast_R n}$ is the $n$-th power of $a$ under the product $\ast_R$.
The following diagram commutes. $$\xymatrix{ A_1 \ar[rr]^{\exp} \ar[dd]_{-\chi} & & 1+A_1
\ar[dd]^{\beta}
\ar[rr]^{\theta} && A_1 \ar[dd]^{-\gamma}\\
&&\\
A_1 \ar[rr]^{\exp_R} \ar[dd]_{R \times (-\tilde{R})}
& & 1+A_1 \ar[dd]^{R'\times (-\tilde{R}')}
\ar[rr]^{\theta} && A_1 \ar[dd]^{R\times (-\tilde{R})} \\
&& \\
R(A_1) \times \tilde{R}(A_1) \ar[rr]^{\exp\times \exp}
& & (1+R(A_1)) \times (1+\tilde{R}(A_1))
\ar[rr]^{\theta\times \theta} && R(A_1) \times \tilde{R} (A_1)
} {\label{eq:diag}}$$ Here $\theta(x)=x-1$ and $\beta$ is defined to be the composite $$\beta = \theta^{-1} \circ (-\gamma) \circ \theta.$$ So $\beta(c)=1-\gamma(c-1)$. Similarly define $R'\times
(-\tilde{R}')$. So [\[thm:algCK\]]{}
We call the map $\beta$ the algebraic Bogoliubov because it gives the Bogoliubov map in renormalization theory.
We only need to prove the commutativity of the upper half and the lower half of the diagram. By the way the two maps in the middle column are defined and by the bijectivity of the horizontal maps in the right half of the diagram, it follows that the other squares are also commutative.
Verifying the commutativity of the top half means to verify $$-\gamma \circ \theta \circ \exp (u)=\theta \circ \exp_R \circ
(-\chi(u)),$$ that is, $$-\gamma (\exp(u)-1) = \exp_R(-\chi(u))-1.$$ By Theorem \[thm:equation\], and reversing the derivations in its proof, we have By (\[Rhom1\]) and (\[Rhom2\]) we obtain Thus the last term of the earlier equation is as is desired.
Verifying the commutativity of the lower half of the diagram means to verify the two equations $$\exp\big(R(u)\big)-1=R\big(\exp_R(u)-1\big),\quad
\exp\big(-\tilde{R}(u)\big)-1
= -\tilde{R}\big(\exp_R(u)-1\big)$$ which are immediately from (\[eq:double1\]) and (\[eq:double2\]).
General Rota-Baxter algebras
----------------------------
Now let $(\A,R)$ be any Rota-Baxter algebra of weight $\theta=1$. Consider the power series ring $\A[[x]]$ on one (commuting) variable x. So $\A[[x]]=\Z[[x]]\otimes \A$. Define an operator, $$\RB: \A[[x]] \to \A[[x]],\ \RB(\sum_{n=0}^\infty a_n x^n)=\sum_{n=0}^\infty R(a_n)x^n.$$
$(\A[[x]],\RB)$ is a Rota-Baxter algebra.
This is a straight forward verification. For $f=\sum_n a_n x^n$, $g=\sum_m b_m x^m$, we have
Now it is easy to verify that, with the filtration $$\A_n:= x^n \A[[x]],\ n \geq 0,$$ $\A[[x]]$ is a complete Rota-Baxter algebra. By Theorem \[spitzer\], we have
For $a \in \A$, we therefore have $$\sum_{n=0}^\infty (\RB(ax))^{[n]}
= \exp\big(-\RB(\chi(\log (1+ax)))\big)
{\label{eq:Spitzer3}}$$
[[ Obviously, for $\A$ being commutative, we have $\chi(a)=a$, and relation (\[eq:Spitzer1\]) just reduces to the classical Spitzer’s identity. Our result therefore is the natural non-commutative generalization of this well-known identity.]{}]{}
By comparing coefficients of similar powers of $x$ on the two sides of the equation (\[eq:Spitzer3\]), we obtain identities in Rota-Baxter algebras that are not necessarily commutative.
Birkhoff decomposition in renormalization theory {#Birkhoff}
================================================
Now we consider the case when the complete Rota-Baxter algebra is as in Example \[FG\]. We will use the notations in articles [@EGK1] and [@EGK2]. For a general review on the Hopf algebraic approach to renormalization theory in pQFT, we refer the reader to the original work [@CK3; @CK1; @Kreim1; @Kreim2]. For a recent and elaborate review of the Connes-Kreimer work on renormalization theory, we refer the reader to the work by Manchon [@M].
Kreimer and later Connes and Kreimer were able to uncover the mathematical content underlying the algebraic combinatorial process of renormalization theory in pQFT, by organizing the combinatorics in terms of a combinatorial, i.e. graded connected Hopf algebra structure on Feynman graphs, denoted by $\H_{FG}$. Furthermore, by interpreting Feynman rules as regularized characters, i.e. multiplicative maps from the above Hopf algebra of Feynman graphs into an associative unital and commutative Rota-Baxter algebra, the process of renormalization became a Birkhoff decomposition of these characters.
We will denote the space of linear functionals from $\H_{FG}$ into the Rota-Baxter algebra $(\A,R)$ by $L(\H_{FG},\A)$. $L(\H_{FG},\A)$ carries the structure of an associative unital non-commutative algebra with respect the convolution product, denoted by $$f \star g := m_{\A}(f \otimes g)\Delta, \; f,g\in L(\H_{FG},\A).$$ Here $\Delta$ denotes the coproduct in $\H_{FG}$. The unit in $L(\H_{FG},\A)$ is given by the counit $\epsilon:\H_{FG} \to 1\K$. Let $\phi$ be a regularized character, i.e. an element in the group $G \subset L(\H_{FG},\A)$, generated by the infinitesimal characters forming a Lie algebra $g \subset L(\H_{FG},\A)$. We then lift the Rota-Baxter map $R: \A \to \A$ to the algebra $L(\H_{FG},\A)$, see Proposition (\[lift\]) below.
In [@CK1], it was shown that for arbitrary $\phi \in G$ there exist two unique characters, defined recursively for $\Gamma \in
ker(\epsilon)\subset \H_{FG}$ by such that $$\phi=\phi^{-1}_{-} \star \phi_{+}. \label{CK}$$ Here we used Sweedler’s notation, $\Delta(\Gamma):=\Gamma\otimes 1
+ 1 \otimes \Gamma + \sum_{(\Gamma)}' \Gamma' \otimes \Gamma''$ for $\Gamma \in \H_{FG}$. The character $S_R^{\phi}:=\phi_{-}$ was called twisted antipode, and provides the counterterm. The so-called renormalized character $\phi_{+}$ gives the renormalized Feynman rules. To proof the multiplicativity of $\phi_{-}$ and $\phi_{+}$ essential use of the Rota-Baxter structure on the target space $\A$ of the characters was made. Using the following
[[@EGK1]]{} \[lift\] Define the linear map $\RB: L(\H_{FG},\A) \to L(\H_{FG},\A)$ by $f
\mapsto \RB(f):=R \circ f: \H_{FG} \to R(\A)$. Then $L(\H_{FG},\A)$ becomes an associative, unital non-commutative Rota-Baxter algebra. The Lie algebra of infinitesimal characters $g \subset L(\H_{FG},\A)$ becomes a Lie Rota-Baxter algebra, i.e. for $Z',Z'' \in g$, $$[\RB(Z'),\RB(Z'')]=\RB\big([Z',\RB(Z'')]\big) + \RB\big([\RB(Z'),Z'']\big) - \RB \big([Z',Z'']\big).
\label{Lie}$$
We can write equivalently, $\phi_{-}$ in terms of the recursive equation $$\phi_{-} = \epsilon - \RB\big[\phi_{-} \star (\phi \circ J)\big],
\label{phi-}$$ where $J$, the projector onto the augmentation ideal $ker(\epsilon)$, is defined in terms of the unit map $\eta:1\K \to
\H_{FG}$, $J:=id_{\H_{FG}} - \eta\epsilon$. Note that by linearity of $\phi$ we have $$(\epsilon + \phi \circ J)= \phi.$$ Let $\phi \in G$ be generated by $Z \in g$, i.e. $\phi=\exp^{\star}(Z)$. So by Theorem \[spitzer\], the recursion (\[phi-\]) for $\phi_{-}$ is solved by as proved in [@EGK2].
We now let $\tilde{\phi}$ be defined by the recursive equation So by Theorem \[Atkinson2\], we have $$\phi_{-} \star \phi \star \tilde{\phi} = \epsilon.$$ On the other hand, following (\[CK\]), it is well-known that, for the unique renormalized character $\phi_+$, we have $$\phi_{-} \star \phi \star \phi_{+}^{-1} = \epsilon.$$ Since both equations hold in the Lie group $G$ of regularized characters, we must have The second equality follows by Theorem \[spitzer\] equation (\[eq:exp2\]) and was shown for $\phi_{+}$ directly in [@EGK2]. This simple result implies a new recursive relation for $\phi_{+}$ in terms of $\tilde{\RB}$
Note that this result is completely natural. The antipode $S$ ($S^2={\rm id}$) can be written in terms of the projector $J$ as $$S=-m \circ (S \otimes J)\circ\Delta=-m\circ (J \otimes
S)\circ\Delta.$$ Iterating $\phi_-$ on the left hand side of the tensor product, it was used to deform the character $\phi\circ S$ to the counterterm character $\phi_-$. But one naturally expects that one also can derive the forest formula by recursing $\phi_+$, and this is what the above formula achieves. The appearance of $\phi^{-1}$ then instead of $\phi$ compensates for the minus sign in front of $\tilde{\RB}$, making use of the very exponentiation in (\[expo\]).
Also, we remind ourselves that the renormalized character is a character in the image of $\tilde{\RB}$, where, $\tilde{\RB}$ acts on the Bogoliubov character, a map which replaces all subdivergences by their evaluation under $\phi_+$, a fact guaranteed by the structure of the Hochschild cohomology of such Hopf algebras [@Bergbau; @Houches]. Thus, one naturally recurses $\phi_+$ in terms of itself, a fact evident also in the basic structure of renormalized Dyson–Schwinger equations, which can be completely written in terms of themselves. The above formula makes that fact self-evident on a combinatorial level.
Summarizing, by the above argument we find naturally the following two recursions for the factors of the Birkhoff decomposition of a character $\phi$: Using the augmentation ideal projector we can derive the simple identity which allows us to show, using , that This allows us to get back the original $\phi_{+}$-recursion (\[renorm\]) in terms of the Bogoliubov character [@EGK2], i.e. Bogoliubov’s R-map, defined via the double product $\star_\RB$, $\exp^{\star_{\RB}}(\chi(Z))=\phi_{-} \star \phi
\circ J$ $$\phi_{+} = \epsilon + \tilde{\RB}\big[\phi_{-} \star (\phi \circ
J)\big].$$
Let us for the sake of clarity compare the above results in the setting of combinatorial Hopf algebras and regularized characters with the findings of Section 3, i.e. general filtered Rota-Baxter algebras. To clearly show the connection, we display the following ”dictionary". We fix a character $\phi: \H_{FG} \to \A$ in $G$ and let $a:=\phi \circ J$. In the following table, entries in the left column are results proved earlier in this paper for general complete filtered Rota-Baxter algebras, and entries in the right column are their interpretations in the non-commutative associative unital Rota-Baxter algebra $(L(\H_{FG},\A), \RB)$.
$$\allowdisplaybreaks{
\begin{array}{lll}
a & & \phi\circ J \\[0.1cm]
a_-=1 - R(a_-\, a) & & \phi_- = \ep - \RB\big(\phi_- \star (\phi\circ J)\big)\\[0.1cm]
\tilde{a}=1 - \tilde{R}(a \tilde{a}) & &
\tilde{\phi} = \ep - \tilde{\RB}\big((\phi\circ J) \star \tilde{\phi}\big)\\[0.1cm]
a_-\, (1+a) \tilde{a} = 1 & & \phi_- \star (\ep + \phi\circ J)
\star \tilde{\phi}
=\phi_- \star \phi \star \tilde{\phi} =\ep\\[0.1cm]
a_+:=\tilde{a}^{-1} = a_-\,(1+a) && \phi_+:= \phi_- \star \phi = \tilde{\phi}^{-1}\\[0.1cm]
a_+ \stackrel{(i)}{=} 1-\tilde{R}\big(a_+ (\frac{-a}{1+a})\big)
&& \phi_+=\ep -\tilde{\RB}\big(\phi_+ \star (\phi^{-1}\circ J)\big)\\[0.1cm]
-a_+ \big(\frac{-a}{1+a}\big)\stackrel{(ii)}{=}a_-\, a && -\phi_+
\star (\phi^{-1}\circ J) =\phi_- \star (\phi\circ J)
\end{array}}$$
(i)
(ii)
The diagram (\[eq:diag\]) specializes to the following diagram in the case of renormalization: Let $g$ be the complete filtered Lie algebra of derivations in $L(\H_{FG},\A)$, $G$ the Lie group of characters. For $\Gamma \in \H_{FG}$, let $b[\phi](\Gamma) =
-(\phi(\Gamma)+\sum'_{(\Gamma)} \phi_-(\Gamma')\phi(\Gamma''))$ be the Bogoliubov map. We have the following diagram when restricted to $\ker \ep$ $$\xymatrix{
g \ar[rr]^{\exp^\star} \ar[dd]_{-\chi} & & G \ar[dd]^{b} \\
&&\\
g \ar[rr]^{\exp^{\star_\RB}} \ar[dd]_{\RB \times (\RB-\id)}
& & G_\RB \ar[dd]^{\RB \times (\RB-\id)} \\
&& \\
g^- \times g^+ \ar[rr]^{\exp^\star} & & G^- \times G^+ }$$ This is the reason that the map $\beta$ in (\[eq:diag\]) is called the algebraic Bogoliubov map.
Summary and Outlook
===================
In this work we derived, in the realm of complete filtered Rota-Baxter algebras, by simple algebraic terms a non-commutative version of Spitzer’s identity. The latter is a well-known object in the theory of random variables. The simplicity of the proofs relies on a more general result obtained in previous work by solving the recursively defined formulae of the Birkhoff decomposition of regularized characters in terms of a co-called $BCH$-recursion. Initially, this was done in the Connes-Kreimer Hopf algebraic approach to renormalization theory in pQFT. This approach allowed us to derive a new forest-like formula for the renormalized character.
Also, we believe that the fact that the classical Spitzer’s formula is intimately related to theory of symmetric functions and generalizations of the shuffle product might allow us to extend these connections via its non-commutative version given here.\
[*Acknowledgements*]{}: The first author warmly thanks the Ev. Studienwerk for financial support, and the Institut Henri Poincaré for hospitality.
[0]{}
[^1]: [email protected]
[^2]: [email protected]
[^3]: [email protected] and [email protected], Center for Math.Phys., Boston University.
[^4]: Here the relation is named after the physicists C.-N.Yang and Rodney Baxter.
[^5]: Some authors denote this relation in the form $R(x)R(y)=R\big(R(x)y + xR(y)+\lambda xy\big)$. So that $\lambda =
-\theta$.
[^6]: To avoid possible confusions, we alert the reader that in [@G-K2] the concept of complete filtered Rota-Baxter algebras has been defined, where the filtration is canonically derived from the Rota-Baxter operator. That definition is not needed in this paper.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'For a nonsingular real algebraic curve in $3$-dimensional projective space or $3$-sphere, a new integer-valued characteristic is introduced. It is invariant under rigid isotopy and multiplied by $-1$ under mirror reflections. In a sense, it is a Vassiliev invariant of degree $1$ and a counterpart of a link diagram writhe.'
address: 'Matematiska institutionen, Box 480, Uppsala universitet, 751 06, Uppsala, Sweden'
author:
- Oleg Viro
title: Encomplexing the writhe
---
Introduction {#sI}
============
This paper is a detailed version of my preprint [@Viro0], which was written about five years ago. Here I do not discuss results that have appeared since then. I plan to survey them soon in another paper. The subject is now evolving into a *real algebraic knot theory*.
This paper is dedicated to the memory of my teacher Vladimir Abramovich Rokhlin. It was V. A. Rokhlin, who suggested to me, a long time ago, in 1977, to develop a theory of real algebraic knots. He suggested this as a topic for my second dissertation (after PhD, like habilitation). Following this suggestion, I moved then from knot theory and low-dimensional topology to the topology of real algebraic varieties. However, in the topology of real algebraic varieties, problems on spatial surfaces and plane curves were more pressing than problems on spatial curves, and my second dissertation defended in 1983 was devoted to the constructions of real algebraic plane curves and spatial surfaces with prescribed topology.
The change in the topic occured mainly because I managed to obtain decent results in another direction, on plane curves. There was also a less respectable reason: I failed to relate the traditional techniques of classical knot theory to real algebraic knots. One of the obstacles was a phenomenon which became the initial point of this paper. A large part of the traditional techniques in knot theory uses plane knot diagrams, i.e., projections of knots to the plane. The projection of an algebraic curve is algebraic, and one could try to apply results on plane real algebraic curves. However, the projection contains extra real points, which do not correspond to real points of the knot. These points are discussed below. In the seventies they ruined my weak attempts to study real algebraic knots. Now they allow us to detect crucial differences between topological and real algebraic knots.
I am grateful to Alan Durfee, Tobias Ekholm, and V. M. Kharlamov for stimulating conversations.
The lengthy informal introduction, which follows, is intended to explain the matter prior to going into details. I cannot resist the temptation to write in the style of popular mathematics and apologize to the reader whom this style may irritate.
Knot theory and algebraic geometry {#sI0}
----------------------------------
In classical knot theory, by a link one means a smooth closed $1$-dimensional submanifold of the $3$-dimensional sphere $S^3$, i.e., the union of several disjoint circles smoothly embedded into $S^3$. A link may be equipped with various additional structures such as orientation or framing and considered up to various equivalence relations like smooth (or ambient) isotopy, PL-isotopy, cobordism or homotopy. See, e.g., [@Rolfsen] or [@Burde-Zieschang].
In algebraic geometry classical links naturally appear as links of singular points of complex plane algebraic curves. Given a singular point $p$ of a complex plane algebraic curve $C$, the intersection of $C$ with the boundary of a sufficiently small ball centered at $p$ is called the *link of the singularity*. It provides a base for a fruitful interaction between topology and algebraic geometry with a long history and lots of important results.
Another obvious opportunity for interaction between algebraic geometry and knot theory is based on the fact that a classical link may emerge as the set of real points of a real algebraic curve. This opportunity was completely ignored, besides that a number of times it was proved that any classical link is approximated by (and hence isotopic to) the set of real points of a real algebraic curve. There are two natural directions in which algebraic geometry and knot theory may interact in the study of real algebraic links: first, the study of relationships between invariants which are provided by link theory and algebraic geometry, second, developing a theory parallel to the classical link theory, but taking into account the algebraic nature of the objects. From the viewpoint of this second direction, it is more natural to consider real algebraic links up to isotopy consisting of real algebraic links, which belong to the same continuous family of algebraic curves, rather than up to smooth isotopy in the class of classical links. I call an isotopy of the former kind a *rigid isotopy*, following the terminology established by Rokhlin [@R] in a similar study of real algebraic plane projective curves and the likes (see, e.g., the survey [@Viro; @New; @pr.]). Of course, there is a forgetting functor: any real algebraic link can be regarded as a classical link and a rigid isotopy as a smooth isotopy. It is interesting to see how much is lost under that transition.
In this paper I point out a real algebraic link invariant which is lost. It is unexpectedly simple. In an obvious sense it is a nontrivial Vassiliev invariant of degree $1$ on the class of real algebraic knots (recall that a knot is a link consisting of one component). In classical knot theory the lowest degree of a nontrivial Vassiliev knot invariant is $2$. Thus there is an essential difference between classical knot theory and the theory of real algebraic knots. Of course this difference has a simple topological explanation: a real algebraic link is more complicated topologically, besides its set of real points contains the set of complex points invariant under the complex conjugation and a rigid isotopy induces an equivariant smooth isotopy of this set.
The invariant of real algebraic links which is defined below is very similar to the self-linking number of a framed knot. In [@Viro0] I call it also the *self-linking number*. Its definition looks like a replacement of an elementary definition of the writhe of a knot diagram, but taking into consideration the imaginary part of the knot.
The word ‘encomplex’ {#sI1.5}
--------------------
Here I propose to change this name (i.e., self-linking number) to *encomplexed writhe*, and, in general, since many other characteristics can also be enhanced in a similar way, I suggest a new verb *encomplex* for similar enhancements by taking into consideration additional imaginary ingredients. This would agree with the general usage of the prefix *en-* which is described in the Oxford Dictionary of Current English as follows: “en- *prefix* $\dots$ forming verbs $\dots$ **1** from nouns, meaning ‘put into or on’ (*engulf; entrust; embed*), **2** from nouns or adjectives, meaning ‘bring into the condition of’ (*enslave*) $\dots$”.
The word *complexification* does not seem to be appropriate for what we do here with the writhe. A complexification of the writhe should be a complex counterpart for the writhe, it should be a characteristic of complex objects, while our enhancement of the writhe is defined only for real objects possessing complexification.
Self-linking and writhe of nonalgebraic knots {#sI2}
---------------------------------------------
The linking number is a well-known numerical characteristic of a pair of disjoint oriented circles embedded in three-dimensional Euclidean space. Roughly speaking, it measures how many times one of the circles runs around the other. It is one of the most classical topological invariants, introduced in the nineteenth century by Gauss [@Gauss].
In the classical theory, a self-linking number of a knot is defined if the knot is equipped with an additional structure like a framing or just a vector field nowhere tangent to the knot.[^1] The self-linking number is the linking number of the knot oriented somehow and its copy obtained by a small shift in the direction specified by the vector field. It does not depend on the orientation, since reversing the orientation of the knot is compensated by reversing the induced orientation of its shifted copy. Of course, the self-linking number depends on the homotopy class of the vector field.
A knot has no natural preferable homotopy class of framings, which would allow us to speak about a self-linking number of the knot without a special care on the choice of the framing.[^2] Some framings appear naturally in geometric situations. For example, if one fixes a generic projection of a knot to a plane, the vector field of directions of the projection appears. The corresponding self-linking number is called the *writhe* of the knot. However, it depends on the choice of the projection and changes under isotopy.
The linking number is a Vassiliev invariant of order $1$ of two-component oriented links. This means that it changes by a constant (in fact, by $2$) when the link experiences a homotopy with the generic appearance of an intersection point of the components. Whether the linking number increases or decreases depends only on the local picture of orientations near the double point: when it passes from $\vcenter{\hbox{\includegraphics[bb=0 0 16 16,scale=.7,clip]{fo1.eps}}}$ through $\vcenter{\hbox{\includegraphics[bb= 0 0 16 16,scale=.7,clip]{fo2.eps}}}$ to $\vcenter{\hbox{\includegraphics[bb= 0 0 16 16,scale=.7,clip]{fo3.eps}}}$, the linking number increases by $2$. Generalities on Vassiliev invariants see, e.g., in [@V].
In a sense the linking number is the only Vassiliev invariant of degree $1$ of two-component oriented links: any Vassiliev invariant of degree $1$ of two-component oriented links is a linear function of the linking number. Similarly, the self-linking number is a Vassiliev invariant of degree $1$ of framed knots (it changes by $2$ when the knot experiences a homotopy with a generic appearance of a self-intersection point) and it is the only Vassiliev of degree $1$ of framed knots in the same sense. The necessity of a framing for the definition of self-linking number can now be formulated more rigorously: only constants are Vassiliev invariants of degree $1$ of (non-framed) knots.
The diagrammatical definition of the writhe, which is imitated below, runs as follows: for each crossing point of the knot projection, one defines a *local writhe* equal to $+1$ if near the point the knot diagram looks like $\vcenter{\hbox{\includegraphics[bb= 0 0 16 16,scale=.7,clip]{fo3.eps}}}$ and $-1$ if it looks like $\vcenter{\hbox{\includegraphics[bb=0 0 16 16,scale=.7,clip]{fo1.eps}}}$. Then one sums the local writhes over all double points of the projection. The sum is the writhe.
A continuous change of the projection may cause the vanishing of a crossing point. This happens under the first Reidemeister move shown in the left hand half of Figure \[f1\]. This move changes the writhe by $\pm 1$.
Algebraicity enhances the writhe {#SI3}
--------------------------------
If a link is algebraic, then its projection to a plane is algebraic, too. A generic projection has only ordinary double points and the total number of its complex double points is constant.[^3] The number of real double points can vary, but only by an even number. A real double point cannot turn alone into an imaginary one, as it seems to happen under the first Reidemeister move. Under an algebraic version of the first Reidemeister move, the double point stays in the real domain, but becomes solitary, like the only real point of the curve $x^2+y^2=0$. The algebraic version of the first Reidemeister move is shown in the right hand half of Figure \[f1\].
It is not difficult to prove that the family of spatial curves that realizes this move can be transformed by a local diffeomorphism to the family of affine curves defined by the following system of equations $$\left\{\begin{aligned}
xz+y&=0,\\
x+z^2+\tau&=0,
\end{aligned}\right.$$ where $\tau$ is the parameter of the deformation. These are rational curves, admitting a rational parametrization $$\left\{\begin{aligned}
x&=-t^2-\tau,\\
y&=-t(t^2+\tau),\\
z&=-t.
\end{aligned}\right.$$ The projection corresponds to the standard projection $(x,y,z)\mapsto(x,y)$ to the coordinate $xy$-plane. It maps these curves to the family of affine plane rational cubic curves defined by $y^2+x^2(\tau+x)=0$ with $\tau\in \R$.
A solitary double point of the projection is not the image of any real point of the link. It is the image of two imaginary complex conjugate points of the complexification of the link. The preimage of the point in the 3-space under the projection is a real line. It is disjoint from the real part of the link, but intersects its complexification in a couple of complex conjugate imaginary points.
In the model of the first Reidemeister move above, $(0,0)$ is the double point of the projection for each $\tau\ne0$. If $\tau<0$, it is a usual crossing point. Its preimage consists of two real points $(0,0,\sqrt{-\tau})$ and $(0,0,-\sqrt{-\tau})$. If $\tau>0$, it is a solitary double point. Its preimage consists of two imaginary conjugate points $(0,0,i\sqrt{\tau})$ and $(0,0,-i\sqrt{\tau})$, which lie on a real line $x=y=0$
Below, in Section \[s0.3\], with any solitary double point of the projection, a local writhe equal to $\pm1$ is associated. This is done in such a way that the local writhe of the crossing point vanishing in the first Reidemeister move is equal to the local writhe of the new-born solitary double point. In the case of an algebraic knot, the sum of local writhes of all double points, both solitary and crossings, does not depend on the choice of projection and is invariant under rigid isotopy. This sum is the encomplexed writhe.
Encomplexed writhe for nonoriented and semi-oriented links {#sI5}
----------------------------------------------------------
A construction similar to the construction of the encomplexed writhe number of an algebraic knot can be applied to an algebraic *link*. However in this case there are two versions of the construction.
In the first of these, we define an encomplexed writhe number generalizing the encomplexed writhe number defined above for knots. We consider a link diagram and the sum of local writhes at solitary double points and crossing points where the branches belong the same connected component of the set of real points. At these crossing point, to define a local writhe, we need orientations of the branches. As above, we choose an orientation on each of the components. If we make another choice, at a crossing point for which the branches belong the same component, either both orientations change or none. Hence the local writhe numbers at crossing points of this kind do not depend on the choice. In Section \[s0.1\] below, we prove that the whole sum of local writhes over crossing points of this kind and solitary double points does not depend on the projection and is invariant under rigid isotopy. We call this sum the *encomplexed writhe number* of the link $A$ and denote by $\C w(A)$.
In the second version of the construction, we consider a real algebraic link which is equipped with an orientation of the set of real points, use these orientations to define local writhe numbers at all crossing points and sum the local writhe numbers over all crossing points and all solitary double points. The result is called the *encomplexed writhe number of an oriented real algebraic link*. This encomplexed writhe number does not change when the orientation reverses. An orientation considered up to reversing is called a *semi-orientation*. Thus the encomplexed writhe number depends only on the semi-orientation of the link.
The (semi-)orientation may be an artificial extra structure, but it may also appear in a natural way, say, as a complex orientation, if the set of real points divides the set of real points, see [@R]. In fact, the complex orientation is defined up to reversing, so it is indeed a semi-orientation. Another important class of semi-oriented algebraic links appears as transversal intersections of two real algebraic surfaces of degrees $p$ and $q$ with $p\equiv q\mod2$.
The encomplexed writhe number of (semi-)oriented real algebraic link differs from the encomplexed writhe number of the same link without orientation by the sum of all pairwise linking numbers of the components multiplied by $2$: let $A$ be a real algebraic link, let $\bar A$ be the same link equipped with an orientation of its set of real points and $\bar A_1,\dots,\bar A_n$ the (oriented) connected components of this set, then $$\C w(\bar A)=\C w(A)+2\sum_{1\le i\le j\le n}
\operatorname{lk}(\bar A_i,\bar A_j).$$
Encomplexed writhe and framings {#sI6}
-------------------------------
In the case of a knot, the encomplexed writhe number defines a natural class of framings, since homotopy classes of framings are enumerated by their self-linking numbers and we can choose the framing having the self-linking number equal to the algebraic encomplexed writhe number. I do not know any direct construction of this framing. Moreover, there seems to be a reason for the absence of such a construction. In the case of links, the construction above gives a single number, while framings are enumerated by sequences of numbers with entries corresponding to components.
Real algebraic projective links {#s0.1}
===============================
Let $A$ be a nonsingular real algebraic curve in $3$-dimensional projective space. Then the set $\R A$ of its real points is a smooth closed $1$-dimensional submanifold of $\R P^3$, i.e., a smooth projective link. The set $\C A$ of its complex points is a smooth complex $1$-dimensional submanifold of $\C P^3$.
Let $c$ be a point of $\R P^3$. Consider the projection $p_c\colon\C P^3{\smallsetminus}c\to \C P^2$ from $c$. Assume that $c$ is such that the restriction to $\C A$ of $p_c$ is generic. This means that it is an immersion without triple points and at each double point the images of the branches have distinct tangent lines. It follows from well-known theorems that those $c$’s for which this is the case form an open dense subset of $\R P^3$ (in fact, it is the complement of a $2$-dimensional subvariety).
The real part $p_c(\C A)\cap\R P^2$ of the image consists of the image $p_c(\R A)$ of the real part and, maybe, several solitary points, which are double points of $p_c(\C A)$.
The local writhe of a crossing {#s0.2}
------------------------------
There is a purely topological construction which assigns a local writhe equal to $\pm1$ to a crossing belonging to the image of only one component of $\R A$. This construction is well-known in the case of classical knots. Here is its projective version. I borrow it from Drobotukhina’s paper [@Dr] on the generalization of Kauffman brackets to links in projective space.
![Construction of the frame $v$, $l$, $w'$.[]{data-label="f2"}](f2.eps)
Let $K$ be a smooth connected one-dimensional submanifold of $\R P^3$, and $c$ be a point of $\R P^3{\smallsetminus}K$. Let $x$ be a generic double point of the projection $p_c(K)\subset \R P^2$ and $L\subset \R P^3$ be the line which is the preimage of $x$ under the projection. Denote by $a$ and $b$ the points of $L\cap \R P^3$. The points $a$ and $b$ divide the line $L$ into two segments. Choose one of them and denote it by $S$. Choose an orientation of $K$. Let $v$ and $w$ be tangent vectors of $K$ at $a$ and $b$ respectively directed along the selected orientation of $K$.
Let $l$ be a vector tangent to $L$ at $a$ and directed inside $S$. Let $w'$ be a vector at $a$ such that it is tangent to the plane containing $L$ and $w$ and is directed to the same side of $S$ as $w$ (in an affine part of the plane containing $S$ and $w$). See Figure \[f2\]. The triple $v$, $l$, $w'$ is a base of the tangent space $T_a\R P^3$. Define the local writhe of $x$ to be the value taken by the orientation of $\R P^3$ on this frame.
The construction of the local writhe of $x$ contains several choices. Here is a proof that the result does not depend on them.
We have chosen an orientation of $K$. Had the opposite orientation been selected, then $v$ and $w'$ would be replaced by the opposite vectors $-v$ and $-w'$. This would not change the result, since $-v$, $l$, $-w'$ defines the same orientation as $v$, $l$, $w'$.
We have chosen the segment $S$. If the other half of $L$ was selected, then $l$ and $w'$ would be replaced by the opposite vectors. But $v$, $-l$, $-w'$ defines the same orientation as $v$, $l$, $w'$.
The construction depends on the order of points $a$ and $b$. The other choice (with the same choice of the orientation of $K$ and segment $S$) gives a triple of vectors at $b$. It can be moved continuously without degeneration along $S$ into the triple $w'$, $-l$, $v$, which defines the same orientation as $v$, $l$, $w'$.
Local writhe of a solitary double point {#s0.3}
---------------------------------------
Let $A$, $c$, and $p_c$ be as in the beginning of Section \[s0.1\] and let $s\in\R P^2$ be a solitary double point of $p_c$. Here is a construction assigning $\pm1$ to $s$. I will also call the result a *local writhe* of $s$.
Denote the preimage of $s$ under $p_c$ by $L$. This is a real line in $\R P^3$ connecting $c$ and $s$. It intersects $\C A$ in two imaginary complex conjugate points, say, $a$ and $b$. Since $a$ and $b$ are conjugate, they belong to different components of $\C L{\smallsetminus}\R L$.
Choose one of the common points of $\C A$ and $\C L$, say, $a$. The natural orientation of the component of $\C L{\smallsetminus}\R L$ defined by the complex structure of $\C L$ induces an orientation on $\R L$ as on the boundary of its closure. The image under $p_c$ of the local branch of $\C A$ passing through $a$ intersects the plane of the projection $\R P^2$ transversally at $s$. Take the local orientation of the plane of projection such that the local intersection number of the plane and the image of the branch of $\C A$ is $+1$.
Thus the choice of one of two points of $\C A\cap\C L$ defines an orientation of $\R L$ and a local orientation of the plane of projection $\R P^2$ (we can speak only of a local orientation of $\R P^2$, since the whole $\R P^2$ is not orientable). The plane of projection intersects[^4] transversally $\R L$ in $s$. The local orientation of the plane, the orientation of $\R L$ and the orientation of the ambient $\R P^3$ determine the intersection number. This is the local writhe.
It does not depend on the choice of $a$. Indeed, if one chooses $b$ instead, then both the orientation of $\R L$ and the local orientation of $\R P^2$ would be reversed. The orientation of $\R
L$ would be reversed, because $\R L$ inherits opposite orientations from the different halves of $\C L{\smallsetminus}\R L$. The local orientation of $\R P^2$ would be reversed, because the complex conjugation involution $\conj\colon\C P^2\to\C P^2$ preserves the complex orientation of $\C P^2$, preserves $\R P^2$ (point-wise) and maps one of the branches of $p_c(\C A)$ at $s$ to the other reversing its complex orientation.
Encomplexed writhe and its invariance {#s0.4}
-------------------------------------
Now for any real algebraic projective link $A$, choose a point $c\in\R P^3$ such that the projection of $A$ from $c$ is generic and sum the writhes of all crossing points of the projection belonging to the image of only one component of $\R A$ and the writhes of all solitary double points. This sum is called the *encomplexed writhe number of $A$*.
I have to show that it does not depend on the choice of projection. The proof given below proves more: the sum is invariant under *rigid isotopy* of $A$. By rigid isotopy we mean an isotopy consisting of nonsingular real algebraic curves. The effect of a movement of $c$ on the projection can be achieved by a rigid isotopy defined by a path in the group of projective transformations of $\R P^3$. Therefore the following theorem implies both the independence of the encomplexed writhe number from the choice of projection and its invariance under rigid isotopy.
\[mainth\] For any two rigidly isotopic real algebraic projective links $A_1$ and $A_2$ whose projections from the same point $c\in\R P^3$ are generic, the encomplexed writhe numbers of $A_1$ and $A_2$ defined via $c$ are equal.
This theorem is proved in Section \[s0.6\].
\[cor1\] The encomplexed writhe number of a real algebraic projective link does not depend on the choice of the projection involved in its definition.
A projection depends only on the center from which it is done. The effect on the projection of a movement of the center can be achieved by a rigid isotopy defined by a path in the group of projective transformations of $\R P^3$.
Thus the encomplexed writhe number is a characteristic of a real algebraic link.
\[cor2\] The encomplexed writhe number of a real algebraic projective link is invariant under rigid isotopy.
![[]{data-label="o23"}](o23.eps)
Algebraic counterparts of Reidemeister moves {#s0.5}
--------------------------------------------
As in the purely topological situation of an isotopy of a classical link, a generic rigid isotopy of a real algebraic link may be decomposed into a composition of rigid isotopies, each of which involves a single local standard move of the projection. There are $5$ local standard moves. They are similar to the Reidemeister moves. The first of these $5$ moves is shown in the right hand half of Figure \[f1\]. The other moves are shown in Figure \[o23\]. The first two of these coincide with the second and third Reidemeister moves. The fourth move is similar to the second Reidemeister move: also two double points of projection come to each other and disappear. However the double points are solitary. The fifth move is similar to the third Reidemeister move: a triple point also appears for a moment. But at this triple point only one branch is real, the other two are imaginary conjugate to each other. In this move a solitary double point traverses a real branch.
Reduction of Theorem \[mainth\] to Lemmas {#s0.6}
-----------------------------------------
To prove Theorem \[mainth\], first replace the rigid isotopy by a generic one and then decompose the latter into local moves described above, in Section \[s0.5\]. Only in the first, fourth and fifth moves solitary double points are involved. The invariance under the second and the third move follows from the well-known fact of knot theory that the topological writhe is invariant under the second and third Reidemeister moves. Cf. [@Dr]. Thus the following three lemmas imply Theorem \[mainth\].
\[lem1\] In the fifth move the writhe of the solitary point does not change.
\[lem2\] In the fourth move the writhes of the vanishing solitary points are opposite.
\[lem3\] In the first move the writhe of vanishing crossing point is equal to the writhe of the new-born solitary point.
Proof of Lemmas \[lem1\] and \[lem2\] {#s0.7}
-------------------------------------
Proof of Lemma \[lem3\] is postponed to Section \[s0.9\]. Note that although Lemma \[lem3\] is the most difficult to prove, it is the least significant: here its only role is to justify the choice of sign made in the definition of local writhe in solitary double point of the projection. It is clear that the writhes of vanishing double points involved in the first move are related, and if they were opposite to each other, then the definition of the encomplexed writhe number should be changed, but would not be destroyed irrecoverably.
This is obvious. Indeed, the real branch of the projection does not interact with the imaginary branches, it just passes through their intersection point.
At the moment of the fourth move take a small ball $B$ in the complex projective plane centered in the solitary self-tangency point of the projection of the curve. Its intersection with the projection of the complex point set of the curve consists of two smoothly embedded disks tangent to each other and to the disk $B\cap\R P^2$. Under the move each of the disks experiences a diffeotopy. Before and after the move the intersection the curve with $B$ is the union of the two disks meeting each other transversally in two points, but before the move the disks do not intersect $\R P^2$, while after the move they intersect $\R P^2$ in their common points.
To calculate the writhe at both vanishing solitary double points, let us select the same imaginary branch of the projection of the curve passing through the points. This means that we select one of the disks described above. The sum of the local intersection numbers of this disk (equipped with the complex orientation) and $B\cap\R P^2$ (equipped with some orientation) is zero since under the fourth move the intersection disappears, while in the boundary of $B$ no intersection happens.
Therefore the local orientations of the projective plane in the vanishing solitary double points defined by this branch define opposite orientations of $B\cap\R P^2$. (Recall that the local orientations are distinguished by the condition that the local intersection numbers are positive.)
On the other hand, under the move the preimages of the vanishing solitary double points come to each other up to coincidence at the moment of the move and their orientations defined by the choice of the same imaginary branch are carried to the same orientation of the preimage of the point of solitary self-tangency. Indeed, the preimages are real lines and points of intersection of their complexifications with the selected imaginary branch of the curve also come to the same position. Therefore the halves of the complexifications containing the points come to coincidence, as well as the orientations defined by the halves on the real lines.
It follows that the intersection numbers of $B$ with the preimages of the vanishing solitary double points equipped with these orientations are equal. Since the local orientations of the projective plane in the vanishing solitary double points define distinct orientations of $B\cap\R P^2$, the writhes are opposite to each other.
Proof of Lemma \[lem3\] {#s0.9}
-----------------------
It is sufficient to consider the model family of curves described in Section \[SI3\]. Recall that the curves of this family are defined by the following system of equations $$\left\{\begin{aligned}
xz+y&=0,\\
x+z^2+\tau&=0,
\end{aligned}\right.$$ where $\tau$ is the parameter of the deformation. These curves admit a rational parametrization $$\left\{\begin{aligned} x&=-t^2-\tau,\\
y&=-t(t^2+\tau),\\
z&=-t.
\end{aligned}\right.$$ The projection corresponds to the standard projection $(x,y,z)\mapsto(x,y)$ to the coordinate $xy$-plane. It maps these curves to the family of affine plane rational cubic curves defined by $y^2+x^2(\tau+x)=0$ with $\tau\in \R$.
We must prove that the local writhe at $(0,0)$ for $\tau<0$ coincides with the local writhe at $(0,0)$ for $\tau>0$.
Let us calculate the local writhe for $\tau<0$. Denote $\sqrt{-\tau}$ by $\rho$. The preimage of $(0,0)$ consists of points $a=(0,0,\rho)$ and $b=(0,0,-\rho)$ corresponding to the values $-\rho$ and $\rho$ of $t$, respectively, see Figure \[f3\]. The tangent vectors to the curve at these points are $v=(2\rho,-2\rho^2,-1)$ and $w=(-2\rho,-2\rho^2,-1)$. The vector $l$ connecting $a$ and $b$ is $(0,0,-2\rho)$. By definition, the writhe is the value taken by the orientation of $\R
P^3$ on the frame $v$, $l$, $w'$. This value is equal to the value of this orientation on the frame $(1,0,0)$, $(0,1,0)$, $(0,0,1)$ multiplied by the sign of $$\det\begin{pmatrix}2\rho & -2\rho^2 & -1\\
0 & 0 &
-2\rho\\
-2\rho&-2\rho^2&-1 \end{pmatrix}= -16\rho^4<0.$$
Let us calculate the local writhe for $\tau>0$. Denote $\sqrt{\tau}$ by $\rho$. The preimage of $(0,0)$ consists of points $a'=(0,0,i\rho)$ and $b'=(0,0,-i\rho)$ corresponding to the values $- i\rho$ and $i\rho$ of $t$. Choose the branch which passes through $a'$. It belongs to the upper half of the line $x=y=0$, which induces the positive orientation of the real part directed along $(0,0,1)$. At $a'$ the branch of the curve has tangent vector $v=(2i\rho,2\rho^2,-1)$ and the real basis consisting of $v$ and $iv=(-2\rho,2i\rho^2,-i)$ positively oriented with respect to the complex orientation of this branch. The projection maps this basis to the positively oriented basis $(2i\rho,2\rho^2)$, $(-2\rho,2i\rho^2)$ of the projection of the branch. The intersection number of this projection and $\R^2$ in $\C^2$ is the sign of $$\det\begin{pmatrix} 0& 2\rho& 2\rho^2 &0\\
-2\rho&0 &0&2\rho^2 \\
1 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 &1 & 0
\end{pmatrix}=-4\rho^3<0.$$ Hence the orientation of $\R^2$ such that its local intersection number with the selected branch of the projection does not coincide with the orientation defined by the standard basis. The intersection number of the line $x=y=0$ with the standard orientation and the $xy$-plane with the standard orientation is the value of the orientation of the ambient space $\R^3$ taken on the standard basis $(1,0,0)$, $(0,1,0)$, $(0,0,1)$. Therefore the local writhe is opposite to this value.
\[rem\] There is a more conceptual proof of Lemma \[lem3\]. It is based on a local version of the Rokhlin Complex Orientation Formula, see [@R] and [@Viro; @New; @pr.]. In fact, the original proof was done in that way. However, the Complex Orientation Formula is more complicated than the calculation above.
Encomplexed writhe of an algebraic link as a Vassiliev invariant of degree one {#sI4}
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To speak about Vassiliev invariants, we need to fix a connected family of curves, in which links under consideration comprise the complement to a hypersurface. In the case of classical knots one could include all knots in such a family by adjoining knots with self-intersections and other singularities. A singular knot is a right equivalence class of a smooth map of the circle to the space (recall that two maps from a circle are right equivalent if one of them is a composition of a self-diffeomorphism of the circle with the other one).
In the case of real algebraic knots, such a family including all real algebraic knots does not exist. Even the space of complex curves in the three-dimensional projective space consists of infinitely many components. It is impossible to change the homology class realized by the set of complex points of an algebraic curve in $\C P^3$ by a continuous deformation. Recall that the homology class belongs to the group $H_2(\C P^3)=\mathbb{Z}$ and is a positive multiple $d[\C P^1] $ of the natural generator of $[\C P^1]\in H_2(\C P^3)$ realized by a line. The coefficient $d$ is called the *order* of the curve. The genus is another numerical characteristic of a complex curve which takes the same value for all nonsingular curves in any irreducible family. As is well known, the nonsingular complex curves of given order and genus in three-dimensional projective space are parametrized by a finite union of quasi-projective varieties. For each of these varieties, one can try to build a separate theory of Vassiliev invariants on a class of nonsingular real algebraic curves whose complexifications are parametrized by points of this variety. (A similar phenomenon takes place in topology: links with different numbers of components cannot be included into a reasonable connected family, and therefore for each number of components there is a separate theory of Vassiliev invariants.)
Among the varieties of algebraic curves in three-dimensional projective space, there are two special families: for each natural number $d$ there is an irreducible variety of rational curves of order $d$ (recall that a an algebraic curve is called rational if it admits an algebraic parametrization by a line), and for each pair of natural numbers $p$ and $q$ there is an irreducible variety of curves which can be presented as intersection of surfaces of degrees $p$ and $q$.
In the class of real algebraic rational curves of order $d$, singular curves comprise a *discriminant hypersurface* in which a generic point is a rational curve such that it has exactly one singular point and this point is an ordinary double point. An ordinary double point may be of one of the following two types: either it is an intersection point of two real branches, or two imaginary conjugate branches.
Any two real algebraic rational nonsingular curves of order $d$ can be connected by a path in the space of real rational curves of degree $d$ that intersects the discriminant hypersurface only transversally at a finite number of generic points. Such a path can be regarded as a deformation of a curve to the other one. When it intersects the discriminant hypersurface at a point, which is a curve with singularity on real branches, the set of real points of the curve behaves as in classical knot theory: two pieces of the set of real points come to each other and pass through each other. As in classical knot theory, at the moment of intersection, the generic projection of the curve experiences an isotopy. Nothing happens besides that one crossing point becomes for a moment the image of a double point and then changes back into a crossing point, but with the opposite writhe. When the path intersects the discriminant hypersurface at a point, which is a curve with singularity on imaginary branches, two complex conjugate imaginary branches pass through each other. At the moment of passing, they intersect in a real isolated double point. At this moment the set of real points of a generic projection experiences an isotopy. No event happens besides that a solitary double point becomes for a moment the image of a solitary real double point of the curve and then changes back into an ordinary solitary double point of the projection (which is not the image of a real point of the knot), but with the opposite writhe number.
It is clear that the encomplexed writhe number of an algebraic curve changes under a modification of each of these kinds by $\pm2$, with the sign depending only on the local structure of the modification near the double point. This means that *the encomplexed writhe number on the family of real rational curves under consideration is a Vassiliev invariant of degree $1$*.
This is true also for any space of nonsingular real algebraic curves that can be included into a connected family of real algebraic curves by adjoining a hypersurface, penetration through which at a generic point looks as in the family of rational curves described above.
There are many families of this kind besides the families of rational knots. However, in many families of algebraic curves a transversal penetration through the discriminant hypersurface in a generic point looks differently. In particular, for intersections of two surfaces it is a Morse modification of the real part of the curve. At the moment, the old double points of the projection, both solitary and crossing, do not change. An additional double point appears just for a moment. However the division of crossing points to self-crossing points of a single component and crossing points of different components may change. Therefore the encomplexed writhe number changes in a complicated way. If the degrees of the surfaces defining the curve are of the same parity, the real part of the curve has a natural semi-orientation. The Morse modification respects this semi-orientation. Therefore the encomplexed writhe number of the semi-oriented curve does not change.
\[vanishsl\] The encomplexed writhe number of any nonsingular semi-oriented real algebraic link which is a transversal intersection of two real algebraic surfaces whose degrees are of the same parity is zero.
Any two nonsingular real curves of the type under consideration can be connected by a path as above. Hence their self-linking numbers coincide. On the other hand, it is easy to construct, for any pair of natural numbers $p$ and $q$ of the same parity, a pair of nonsingular real algebraic surfaces of degrees $p$ and $q$ transversal to each other in three-dimensional projective space such that their intersection has zero self-linking number.
In contrast to this vanishing result, one can prove that the *encomplexed writhe number of a real algebraic rational knots of degree $d$ can take any value in the interval between $-(d-1)(d-2)/2$ and $(d-1)(d-2)/2$ including these limits and congruent to them modulo $2$*.
Generalizations {#s1}
===============
The case of an algebraic link with imaginary singularities {#s0.10}
----------------------------------------------------------
The same construction may be applied to real algebraic curves in $\R P^3$ having singular imaginary points, but no real singularities. In the construction we can eliminate projections from the points such that some singular point is projected from them to a real point. Indeed, for any imaginary point there exists only one real line passing through it (the line connecting the point with its complex conjugate), thus we have to exclude a finite number of real lines.
This gives a generalization of encomplexed writhe numbers with the same properties: it is invariant with respect to rigid isotopies (i.e., isotopies made of curves from this class), and is multiplied by $-1$ under a mirror reflection.
Real algebraic links in the sphere {#srS}
----------------------------------
The construction of this paper can be applied to algebraic links in the sphere $S^3$. Although from the viewpoint of knot theory this is the most classical case, from the viewpoint of algebraic geometry the case of curves in the projective space is simpler. The three-dimensional sphere $S^3$ is a real algebraic variety. It is a quadric in four-dimensional real affine space. The stereographic projection is a birational isomorphism of $S^3$ onto $\R P^3$. It defines a diffeomorphism between the complement of the center of the projection in $S^3$ and a real affine space.
Given a real algebraic link in $S^3$, one may choose a real point of $S^3$ from the complement of the link and project the link from this point to an affine space. Then include the affine space into the projective space and apply the construction above. The image has no real singular points, therefore we can use the result of the previous section.
This construction blows up the center of projection, making a real projective plane out of it, and maps the complement to the center of the projection in the set of real points of the sphere isomorphically onto the complement of the projective plane. In the imaginary domain, it contracts each generatrix of the cone which is the intersection of the sphere with its tangent plane at the center of projection. The image of the cone is an imaginary quadric curve contained in the projective plane which appeared as the result of blowing up of the central point.
Other generalizations {#sGeneralizations}
---------------------
It is difficult to survey all possible generalizations. Here I indicate only two directions.
First, consider the most straightforward generalization. Let $L$ be a nonsingular real algebraic $(2k-1)$-dimensional subvariety in the projective space of dimension $4k-1$. Its generic projection to $\R
P^{4k-2}$ has only ordinary double points. At each double point either both branches of the image are real or they are imaginary complex conjugate. If the set of real points is orientable, then one can repeat everything with obvious changes and obtain a definition of a numeric invariant generalizing the encomplexed writhe number defined above.
Let $M$ be a nonsingular three-dimensional real algebraic variety with oriented set of real points equipped with a real algebraic fibration over a real algebraic surface $F$ with fiber a projective line. There is a construction which assigns to a real algebraic link (i.e., a nonsingular real algebraic curve in $M$) with a generic projection to $F$ an integer, which is invariant under rigid isotopy, is multiplied by $-1$ under the orientation reversal in $M$ and is a Vassiliev invariant of degree $1$. This construction is similar to the one presented above, but uses, instead of the projection to $\R P^2$, an algebraic version of Turaev’s shadow descriptions of links [@T].
Not only writhe can be encomplexed {#sW}
----------------------------------
Here we discuss only one example. However it can be easily generalized. Consider immersions of the sphere $S^{2n}$ to $\R^{4n}$. Up to regular homotopy (i.e., a homotopy consisting of immersions whose differentials also comprise a homotopy), an immersion $S^{2n}\to\R^{4n}$ is defined by its Smale invariant [@Smale], which is an element of $\pi_{2n}(V_{4n,2n})=\mathbb{Z}$. For a generic immersion, it can be expressed as the sum of local self-intersection numbers over all double points of the immersion, see [@Smale].
Let us encomplex the Smale invariant. For this, first, we have to consider a real algebraic counterpart for the notion of generic immersion $S^{2n}\to\R^{4n}$. The identification is defined via the universal covering $\R^{4n}\to(S^1)^{4n}$. Replace Euclidean space $\R^{4n}$ by torus $(S^1)^{4n}$, which has the advantage of being compact. The classification of immersions $S^{2n}\to(S^1)^{4n}$ up to regular homotopy coincides with the Smale classification of immersions $S^{2n}\to\R^{4n}$. The sphere $S^{2n}$ is the real part of a quadric projective hypersurface. The torus $(S^1)^{4n}$ is the real part of a complex Abelian variety. Consider real regular maps of the quadric to the Abelian variety. A generic map defines an immersion both for the complex and real parts. The only singularities are transversal double points. Double points in the real part of the target variety are of two kinds. At a double point of the first kind two sheets of the image of $S^{2n}$ meet. At a double point of the second kind the images two complex conjugate sheets of the complexification of $S^{2n}$ meet. The Smale invariant is the sum of the local intersection numbers over the double points of the first kind. One can extend the definition of the local intersection number to the double points of the second kind in such a way that the total sum of the local intersection numbers over double points of both kinds would be invariant under continuous deformations of regular maps.
This total sum is the *encomplexed Smale invariant*. Notice that it is, in a sense, more invariant than the original Smale invariant. The Smale invariant may change under homotopy, it is invariant only under regular homotopy. The encomplexed Smale invariant does not change under a homotopy in the class of regular maps, which corresponds to the class of all continuous maps.
[10]{}
G. Burde and H. Zieschang, *Knots*, de Gruyter Studies in Mathematics, vol. 5, Walter de Gruyter, Berlin–New York, 1985.
Yu. Drobotukhina, *An analogue of the Jones polynomial for links in $\mathbb RP^3$ and a generalization of the Kauffman–Murasugi theorem*, Algebra i Analiz **2** (1990), no. 3, 171–191; English transl. Leningrad Math. J. **2** (1991), no. 3, 613–630.
K. F. Gauss, *Zur Mathematischen Theorie der electrodynamischen Wirkungen*, Manuscript, First published in his *Werke* Vol. 5, Königl. Ges. Wiss. Göttingen, Göttingen, 1877, p. 605.
V. A. Rokhlin, *Complex topological characteristics of real algebraic curves*, Uspekhi Mat. Nauk **33** (1978), no. 5, 77–89; English transl. Russian Math. Surveys **33** (1978), no. 5, 85–98.
D. Rolfsen, *Knots and links*, Publish or Perish, Inc., 1990. Mathematics Lecture Series, vol. 7, Houston, TX, Publish Perish, 1990.
S. Smale, *The classification of immersions of spheres in Euclidean spaces*, Ann. of Math. (2) **69** (1959), 327–344.
V. G. Turaev, *Shadow links and face models of statistical mechanics*, J. Differential Geom. **36** (1992), 35–74.
V. Vassiliev, *Cohomology of knot spaces*, Adv. Soviet Math., vol. 1, Amer. Math. Soc, 1990, pp. 23–70.
O. Ya. Viro, *Progress in the topology of real algebraic varieties over the last six years*, Uspekhi Mat. Nauk **41** (1986), no. 3, 45–67; English transl. Russian Math. Surveys **41** (1986), no. 3, 55–82.
, *Self-linking number of real algebraic link*, Preprint of Uppsala University, U.U.D.M. Report 1994:35, see also http://xxx.lanl.gov/list/math/9410, alg-geom/9410030.
[^1]: A framing is a pair of normal vector fields on the knot orthogonal to each other. There is an obvious construction that makes a framing from a nontangent vector field and establishes a one-to-one correspondence between homotopy classes of framings and nontangent vector fields. The vector fields are more flexible and relevant to the case.
[^2]: Moreover, the self-linking number is used to define a natural class of framings: namely, the framings with self-linking number zero.
[^3]: Here by a generic projection we mean a projection from a generic point. When one says that a generic projection has some properties, this means that for an open everywhere dense set of points the projection from any point of this set has these properties. The whole set of undesirable points is closed nowhere dense although it depends on the properties under consideration. A proof is an easy exercise either on Sard’s Lemma, or Bertini’s Theorem.
[^4]: We may think on the plane of projection as embedded into $\R P^3$. If you would like to think on it as on the set of lines of $\R P^3$ passing through $c$, please, identify it in a natural way with any real projective plane contained in $\R P^3$ and disjoint from $c$. All such embeddings $\R P^2\to\R P^3$ are isotopic.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Initial conditions in cosmology in the form of the microcanonical density matrix of the Universe predict a thermal nature of the primordial CMB power spectrum with a nonzero temperature of the resulting relict temperature distribution. This effect generates a thermal contribution to the red tilt of this spectrum, additional to its vacuum component. In the cosmological model with a large number of free fields conformally coupled to gravity the magnitude of this effect is determined by the Gauss-Bonnet coefficient $\mbox{\boldmath$a$}$ of the trace anomaly. For low spins it is too small to be presently observable, but it can be amplified by the mechanism of the $\mbox{\boldmath$a$}$-theorem applied to the renormalization group flow which interpolates between the ultraviolet and infrared domains associated respectively with early and late stages of cosmological evolution.'
author:
- 'A.O.Barvinsky'
title: ' The $\mbox{\boldmath$a$}$-theorem and temperature of the CMB temperature in cosmology'
---
Introduction
============
As has recently been persuasively advocated, the renormalization group (RG) flow in 4D conformal field theory (CFT) is subject to the so-called $\mbox{\boldmath$a$}$-theorem [@KomargodskiSchwimmer; @Komargodski] – the analogue of the 2D $c$-theorem [@Zamolodchikov]. For the 4D CFT embedded in curved spacetime with metric $g_{\mu\nu}$ and having the effective action $W[\,g_{\mu\nu}]$, $$\begin{aligned}
e^{iW[\,g_{\mu\nu}]}=\int D\phi\,e^{iS_{CFT}[\,g_{\mu\nu},\phi\,]}, \label{W0}
\end{aligned}$$ this is a statement, made on the basis of the trace anomaly matching [@matching], that the coefficient $\mbox{\boldmath$a$}$ of the Gauss-Bonnet invariant $E=R_{\mu\nu\alpha\gamma}^2- 4R_{\mu\nu}^2+ R^2$ in the trace anomaly $$\langle\, T^\mu_\mu\,\rangle\equiv
\frac2{g^{1/2}}\,g^{\mu\nu}\frac{\delta
W}{\delta g^{\mu\nu}} =
\mbox{\boldmath$a$} E -\mbox{\boldmath$c$}\, C_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}^2
+\mbox{\boldmath$b$}\, \Box R \label{Wanomaly}$$ monotonically decreases in the course of this flow from the ultraviolet (UV) to infrared (IR) limits of the theory. According to [@KomargodskiSchwimmer; @Komargodski] the difference between the UV and IR values of $\mbox{\boldmath$a$}$ is related to the total cross section $\sigma(s)=s\,{\rm Im} {\cal A}(s,t)_{t=0}>0$ of the forward $2\to2$ scattering of the dilaton – Nambu-Goldstone boson of broken conformal symmetry, and the positivity of $\sigma(s)$ in unitary theory provides the positive increment of running $\mbox{\boldmath$a$}(\mu^2)$ $$\begin{aligned}
\mbox{\boldmath$a$}_{UV}
-\mbox{\boldmath$a$}_{IR}=
\frac1{4\pi}\int_{s>0} ds\,
\frac{\sigma(s)}{s^2}>0. \label{dispersionrelation}
\end{aligned}$$
The purpose of this Letter is to suggest a possible application of this theorem – enhancement of the red tilt of the CMB spectrum in the CFT driven cosmology due to the thermal (rather than vacuum [@ChibisovMukhanov]) origin of this spectrum from the microcanonical initial conditions in cosmology [@slih; @why]. These initial conditions were recently put forward as the concept of the density matrix of the Universe – the projector onto the subspace of physical states satisfying the full system of the Wheeler-DeWitt equations [@why]. When applied to the CFT cosmology this concept suggests a number of interesting conclusions including a limited range of the effective cosmological constant in the early Universe [@slih] and prediction of a thermal primordial CMB spectrum – a nonvanishing temperature of the CMB temperature in cosmology [@bigboost]. Here we show that due to the $\mbox{\boldmath$a$}$-theorem amplification of this effect is possible within the RG flow, which interpolates between the early and present states of the Universe, by increasing in the UV the number of higher-spin conformal degrees of freedom.
Dilaton dynamics
================
Critical point associated with the $\mbox{\boldmath$a$}$-theorem is that the Gauss-Bonnet invariant itself, being a total derivative part of UV divergences, never contributes to local dynamics of the theory and seemingly does not lead to any positivity bounds. Indeed, in contrast to $E$-invariant, the Weyl squared part of the effective action contributes not only to UV divergences, which are just the integrated conformal anomaly (\[Wanomaly\]) (say, in dimensional regularization with $d\to 4$), but also to their finite tail – the logarithmic nonlocal part $$\begin{aligned}
&&\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!W=\frac1{32\pi^2(2-\frac{d}2)}
\int d^4x\, g^{1/2}\Big(\mbox{\boldmath$c$}\,C_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}^2
-\mbox{\boldmath$a$}\,E\Big)\nonumber\\
&&
-\frac{\mbox{\boldmath$c$}}{32\pi^2}\int d^4x\,g^{1/2} C_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}
\ln\frac{-\Box
-i\varepsilon}{\mu^2}\,C^{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}. \label{W}
\end{aligned}$$ In the momentum representation the nonlocal logarithm equals $\ln[(-\Box
-i\varepsilon)/\mu^2]=
\ln(|p^2|/\mu^2)-i\pi\theta(-p^2)$, so that the imaginary part of the effective action is quadratic in the Fourier transform of the Weyl tensor $\hat C_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}(p)$ $$\begin{aligned}
{\rm Im} W=\frac{\mbox{\boldmath$c$}}{32\pi}\int d^4p\, \hat C_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}^2(p)\,\theta(-p^2).
\end{aligned}$$ Then, unitarity, ${\rm Im} W>0$, implies positivity of $\mbox{\boldmath$c$}$. No such restriction holds for $\mbox{\boldmath$a$}$, because the $E$-term in the divergent part of the action (\[W\]) being a total derivative does not have a logarithmic counterpart among finite nonlocal terms of $W$. Nevertheless, the Gauss-Bonnet coefficient $\mbox{\boldmath$a$}$ is not dynamically inert but rather effects the scattering of the dilaton field – the parameter of broken local Weyl invariance. As shown in [@KomargodskiSchwimmer; @Komargodski], unitarity of this scattering gives a restriction on the RG flow of $\mbox{\boldmath$a$}$, which is more complicated than a simple restriction on the sign of $\mbox{\boldmath$c$}$. This dilaton field and its action induced by $E$-part of the trace anomaly both arise as a consequence of this symmetry breakdown and can be derived by the Wess-Zumino procedure of anomaly integration along the orbit of the conformal group $g_{\mu\nu}=e^\sigma \bar g_{\mu\nu}$, $$\frac{\delta \varGamma[\,e^\sigma\bar g\,]}{\delta\sigma}\,=g^{1/2}
\big(\mbox{\boldmath$b$}\, \Box R +
\mbox{\boldmath$a$}\, E -\mbox{\boldmath$c$}\, C_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}^2\big)
\Big|_{\;g\,=\,e^\sigma\bar g}\,. \label{orbiteq}$$ The resulting Wess-Zumino action for $\sigma$ is just the difference of effective actions calculated on two members of this orbit $g_{\mu\nu}$ and $\bar g_{\mu\nu}$. It reads [@anomalyaction] $$\begin{aligned}
&&\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\varGamma[\,g\,]-\varGamma[\,\bar g\,]=
\frac12\,\int d^4x \bar g^{1/2} \left\{\vphantom{\frac23}\,\mbox{\boldmath$a$}\,\sigma{\cal \bar D}\sigma
\right.\nonumber\\
&&\left.+\Big[\,\mbox{\boldmath$a$}\,\Big(\bar E-\frac{2}{3}\bar\Box \bar R\Big)-\mbox{\boldmath$c$}\, \bar C_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}^2\,\Big]\,\sigma
\right\}\nonumber\\
&&-\Big(\,\frac{\mbox{\boldmath$a$}}{18}
+\frac{\mbox{\boldmath$b$}}{12}\,\Big)
\int d^4x\,\Big(g^{1/2}R^2-
\bar{g}^{1/2}\bar R^2\Big), \label{RTF}
\end{aligned}$$ where all barred quantities are built in terms of $\bar g_{\mu\nu}$ and ${\cal D}={\cal D} = \Box^2 + 2R^{\mu\nu}\nabla_{\mu}\nabla_{\nu} -
\frac{2}{3} R\,\Box
+ \frac{1}{3}(\nabla^{\mu}R)\nabla_{\mu}$. This operator has a number of special properties, including the local Weyl invariance of its densitized version $\bar g^{1/2}{\cal\bar D}=g^{1/2}{\cal D}$ and the linear transformation law for the Gauss-Bonnet density (modified by the $\Box R$ term) $g^{1/2}(E-\frac23\,\Box R)=
\bar g^{1/2}(\bar E-\frac23\,\bar\Box\bar R)
+2\,\bar g^{1/2}{\cal\bar D}\sigma$. Absence of its local Weyl invariance – “non-abelian" nature of the Gauss-Bonnet anomaly – is a main source of the nontrivial Wess-Zumino action [@KomargodskiSchwimmer].
Integration of Eq.(\[orbiteq\]) a priori leads to a fourth-order polynomial in $\sigma$, whose cubic and quartic terms are collected in (\[RTF\]) into the curvature squared invariant, $\int d^4x\,\big(g^{1/2}R^2(g)-\bar g^{1/2} R^2(\bar g)\big)$. Therefore, the finite renormalization by the local counterterm (admissible from the viewpoint of UV renormalization), $\varGamma\to \varGamma_{R}
=\varGamma
+\frac1{12}\,\mbox{\boldmath$b$}\int d^4x\,g^{1/2}R^2$, effectively puts $\mbox{\boldmath$b$}$ to zero and yields the following [*minimal*]{} dilaton action $$\begin{aligned}
&&\!\!\!\!\!\!\varGamma_R[\,g\,]-\varGamma_R[\,\bar g\,]=
-\frac{\mbox{\boldmath$c$}}2\int d^4x\,\bar g^{1/2}\,\sigma
\,\bar C_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}^2 \nonumber\\
&&\,\,
+\,\mbox{\boldmath$a$}\int d^4x\,\bar g^{1/2}\! \left\{\frac{1}{2}\,
\sigma\bar E-\Big(\bar R^{\mu\nu}-\frac12\bar g^{\mu\nu}\bar
R\Big)\partial_\mu\sigma\,\partial_\nu\sigma \right. \nonumber\\
&&\qquad\quad\left.-
\,\frac12\,\bar\Box\sigma\,
(\bar\nabla^\mu\sigma\,\bar\nabla_\mu\sigma)
-\frac18\,(\bar\nabla^\mu\sigma\,
\bar\nabla_\mu\sigma)^2\right\}. \label{minimal}
\end{aligned}$$
This expression was used in [@KomargodskiSchwimmer] for the derivation of the $\mbox{\boldmath$a$}$-theorem (\[dispersionrelation\]), unitarity (and, therefore, positivity of (\[dispersionrelation\])) being guaranteed by the absence of higher-derivative ghosts in (\[minimal\]). The dynamical nature of the dilaton and its contribution to $\mbox{\boldmath$a$}$ was, however, later retracted in [@Komargodski] where $\sigma$ was assumed to be an external field never forming quantum loops. In contrast to the usual CFT setup, using $g_{\mu\nu}$ merely as an auxiliary tool which probes stress tensor correlators, in cosmology $\sigma$ serves as a physical observable – the metric scale factor. Still it is not dynamically independent, but for another reason – due to gravitational constraint equations, and we will consider its dynamical properties in more detail.
To begin with, absence of hihger-derivative modes of $\sigma$ in (\[minimal\]) is the result of renormalization of $\mbox{\boldmath$b$}$ to zero, because quartic derivatives of $\sigma$ completely cancel out in the combination $\sigma\bar{\cal D}\sigma-\frac19 e^{2\sigma}R^2(e^\sigma\bar g)$ of Eq.(\[RTF\]) [@slih]. This is true also for the third term in curly brackets of Eq.(\[minimal\]), because its variation yields maximum second order derivatives $$\begin{aligned}
&&\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\frac{\delta}{\delta\sigma}
\int d^4x \bar g^{1/2}\,\bar\Box\sigma\,
(\bar\nabla^\mu\sigma\,\bar\nabla_\mu\sigma)\nonumber\\
&&\!\!\!\!\!\!=
2\,\bar g^{1/2}\Big((\bar\nabla_\mu\bar
\nabla_\nu\sigma)^2
-(\bar\Box\sigma)^2
+\bar R^{\mu\nu}\bar\nabla_\mu
\sigma\bar\nabla_\nu\sigma\Big) \label{sigmaeq}
\end{aligned}$$ and for $\nabla_\mu\sigma\neq 0$ forces the characteristic surface (sound cone) to deviate from the light cone, $$\begin{aligned}
&&\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\frac1{4\bar g^{1/2}}\frac{\delta^2}{\delta\sigma(y)\,\delta\sigma(x)}
\int d^4x \bar g^{1/2}\,\bar\Box\sigma\,
(\bar\nabla^\mu\sigma\,\bar\nabla_\mu\sigma)\nonumber\\
&&\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!=
\big[\big(\bar\nabla^\mu\bar\nabla^\nu\sigma-\bar g^{\mu\nu}\bar\Box\sigma\big)
\bar\nabla_\mu\bar\nabla_\nu+\bar R^{\mu\nu}\bar\nabla_\mu\sigma
\bar\nabla_\nu\big] \delta(x,y). \label{kinetic}
\end{aligned}$$ This cubic term plays a special role in recent modifications of gravity theory like brane induced gravity models and massive graviton models where it survives the so-called decoupling limit [@DGP; @boxnablapi] and represents the ghost-free higher-derivative braiding of metric and matter [@Vikmanetal].
CFT driven cosmology
====================
The CFT cosmology is governed by the Einstein-Hilbert action with the cosmological constant $\varLambda$ and the matter action dominated by many field multiplets $\phi$ conformally coupled to metric [@slih]. Their microcanonical statistical sum has the representation of the [*Euclidean*]{} path integral over periodic metric and matter fields with their full action $I[g_{\mu\nu},\phi]$ [@why]. Integrating $\phi$ out, $$Z=\int D[g_{\mu\nu},\phi]\,
e^{-I[g_{\mu\nu},\phi]}=
\int Dg_{\mu\nu}\,
e^{-I_{\rm eff}[g_{\mu\nu}]}, \label{Z}$$ one obtains the effective action $$I_{\rm eff}[g_{\mu\nu},\phi]=-\frac1{16\pi G}
\int d^4x\,g^{1/2}(R-2\varLambda)
+\varGamma[g_{\mu\nu},\phi], \label{tree}$$ where $\varGamma[g_{\mu\nu}]=-iW[g_{\mu\nu}]$ is the Euclidean version of the CFT effective action (\[W0\]).
Physics of the CFT driven cosmology is entirely determined by this effective action. Solutions of its equations of motion, which give a dominant contribution to the statistical sum, are the cosmological instantons of $S^1\times S^3$ topology, which have the Friedmann-Robertson-Walker metric $g_{\mu\nu}dx^\mu dx^\nu=N^2(\tau)\,d\tau^2
+a^2(\tau)\,d^2\Omega^{(3)}$ with the periodic scale factor $a(\tau)$ – the function of the Euclidean time belonging to the circle $S^1$ [@slih]. These instantons serve as initial conditions for the cosmological evolution $a_L(t)$ in the physical Lorentzian spacetime. The latter follows from $a(\tau)$ by analytic continuation $a_L(t)=a(\tau_++it)$ at the point of the maximum value of the Euclidean scale factor $a_+=a(\tau_+)$. As it was discussed in [@bigboost] this evolution can incorporate a finite inflationary stage if the model (\[tree\]) is generalized to the case when $\varLambda$ is replaced by a composite operator $\varLambda(\phi)=8\pi GV(\phi)/3$ – the potential of the inflaton $\phi$ staying in the slow-roll regime during the Euclidean and inflationary stages and decaying in the end of inflation by a usual exit scenario.
In cosmology the dilaton $\sigma$ corresponds to the scale factor $a$ in the FRW metric and the conformal mode of the metric perturbations. Like in Einstein theory, it is non-dynamical because it is eliminated by the Hamiltonian constraint, even though the variation of (\[minimal\]) with respect to the lapse function $N$ contains second order derivative $\ddot\sigma$, because the latter expresses in terms of $\sigma$ and its spatial gradients from the variational equation for $\sigma$ – its linearity in $\ddot\sigma$ (cf. Eq.(\[sigmaeq\])) allows one to do it. This mechanism looks even simpler in the long wavelengths limit of the scalar sector of cosmological variables, which corresponds to the FRW metric and spatially homogeneous dilaton $\sigma(\tau)$.
In this case $\bar g_{\mu\nu}$ in (\[minimal\]) should be identified with the metric of the Einstein static Universe of a unit radius, $d\bar s^2=d\eta^2+d\Omega_3^2$, $\eta$ is a conformal time, $d\eta=d\tau\,N/a$, and $e^\sigma=a^2$. Then the action (\[minimal\]) on the FRW background reads $$\begin{aligned}
&&\varGamma_R[\,g\,]-\varGamma_R[\,\bar g\,]
=\frac{3\beta}4\int_{S^1} d\tau N
\left(\frac{a'^2}{a}
-\frac{a'^4}{6 a}\right), \label{anomalyaction}\\
&&\beta=32\pi^2 \mbox{\boldmath$a$}. \label{beta}
\end{aligned}$$ Here $a'=da/Nd\tau$, and we introduce a new notation $\beta$ for the rescaled $\mbox{\boldmath$a$}$-coefficient (to avoid confusion with the notation for the FRW scale factor and match with notations of [@slih; @why]). It does not contain $a''$, because $\bar\Box\sigma(\bar\nabla\sigma)^2\sim
\sigma''(\sigma')^2$ is a total derivative, and $\varGamma_R[\,\bar g\,]$ consists of the free energy $F(\eta)$ and the contribution of the vacuum Casimir energy $E^{\rm vac}_R$, $\varGamma[\,\bar g\,]=F(\eta)+ E^{\rm vac}_R\eta$ [@slih]. Here $F(\eta)=\pm\sum_{\omega} \ln\big(1\mp e^{-\omega\eta}\big)$ is a typical boson or fermion sum over conformal field oscillators with energies $\omega$ on a unit 3-sphere with the temperature given by the inverse of the Euclidean time period in units of the conformal time $\eta=\oint_{S^1} d\tau N/a$, and $E^{\rm vac}_R=\sum_\omega\omega/2|_{\,\rm renorm} =3\beta/8$ is a covariantly renormalized Casimir energy [@slih].
These expressions together with the Einstein-Hilbert term lead to the total effective action derived in [@slih], $I_{\rm eff}[\,a,N\,]= \frac{3\pi}{4G}\int d\tau\,N {\cal L}(a,a')+ F(\eta)$, with the local Lagrangian $${\cal L}(a,a')=-aa'^2
-a+ \frac{\varLambda}3a^3
+\frac{\beta G}\pi\!\left(\frac{a'^2}{a}
-\frac{a'^4}{6 a}+\frac1{2a}\right). \label{Gamma}$$ By the variation of $N$ it gives the Hamiltonian constraint and indicates the absence of dynamical modes in the minisuperspace sector, mentioned above. This nonlocal Euclidean Friedmann equation for $a(\tau)$ generates periodic cosmological instantons which specify the initial state of the Universe and give rise to inflationary evolution. The latter is driven by the inflaton $\phi$ with $\varLambda=\varLambda(\phi)$, which in view of the non-dynamical nature of $a$ turns out to be a single dynamical degree of freedom in the scalar sector of the theory. This dynamics crucially depends on the overall Gauss-Bonnet coefficient (\[beta\]). For the set of $\mathbb{N}_s$ free field multiplets of spin $s$ their contributions to $\beta$ are weighted by well-known coefficients $\beta_s$, $\beta=\sum_s\beta_s\mathbb{N}_s$.
Due to thermal nature of the initial state all modes, including non-conformal inflaton and cosmological perturbations, have a spectrum modified by the Boltzmann factor $1/(e^{k\eta}-1)$ (cf. the expression for bosonic $F(\eta)$). With the comoving momentum of the non-conformal modes denoted by $k$ (contrary to $\omega$ for conformal ones) the power spectrum of cosmological perturbations reads $$\begin{aligned}
&&\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\delta_\phi^2(k)=
\langle\, \hat a^\dagger_k
\hat a_k+\hat a_k
\hat a^\dagger_k\,\rangle_{\rm thermal}
\,|u_k(t)|^2\nonumber\\
&&\,=|u_k(t)|^2\big(1+{2N_k(\eta)}\big),
\quad N_k(\eta)=\frac1{e^{k\eta}-1}, \label{occupation}
\end{aligned}$$ where $u_k(t)$ is the positive frequency basis function in the $k$-mode and $N_k(\eta)$ is the occupation number in the thermal state with the “comoving" temperature $1/\eta$. In particular, the spectral index acquires the thermal contribution, $n_s(k)=n_s^{\rm vac}(k)+\Delta n_s^{\rm thermal}(k)$, $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta n_s^{\rm thermal}(k)
=\frac{d}{d\ln k}\ln\big(1+{2N_k(\eta)}\big).
\end{aligned}$$
For high temperature instantons the comoving temperature equals $1/\eta=(180 \tilde\beta)^{1/6}/2\pi\gg 1$ [@CMBA-theorem], where $\tilde\beta$ is a specific value of $\beta$ per one conformal degree of freedom $$\tilde\beta=\frac1{\mathbb{N}}\sum_s\beta_s \mathbb{N}_s, \quad\mathbb{N}=\mathbb{N}_0+2\left(\frac78\, \mathbb{N}_{1/2}+\mathbb{N}_1\right),$$ with $\mathbb{N}$ – the effective number of degrees of freedom modified by the well-known coefficient 7/8 for the thermal contribution of fermions. Therefore, the Boltzmann factor with the comoving momentum expressed in terms of the CMB multipole number $l$, $k_l\eta=l\,a_0 H_0\eta/\pi=l\,(\Omega_0-1)^{-1/2}\eta/\pi$, reads $N_{k_l}\simeq
\exp[-2l/(\Omega_0-1)^{1/2}(180\tilde\beta)^{1/6}]$, where $\Omega_0\simeq 1.01$ is the present cosmological density parameter of the closed cosmology. Thus, $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta n_s^{\rm thermal}(k_l)\simeq-2\,k\eta\,e^{-k\eta}\simeq
-\frac{20\,l}{(3\tilde\beta)^{1/6}}
e^{-\frac{10\,l}{(3\tilde\beta)^{1/6}}},
\end{aligned}$$ which is too small to be observed at the pivotal scale $l\sim 10$ for low-spin models with $3\tilde\beta=O(1)$.
Enhancing the thermal effect can be based on climbing up the ladder of higher spins with the increasing $\beta_s$ [@ChristensenDuff], as shown for conformal invariant gravitino and graviton (Weyl theory) [@Tseytlinconf] as compared to low spins – real scalar, Dirac spinor and vector multiplets, $$\beta_s\!=\!\frac1{180}\!\times\!
\left\{\begin{array}{cl} 1 & s=0\\
11 & s=\frac12\\
62 & s=1
\end{array}\right.\!,\;\;
\beta_s^{\rm Weyl}\!=\!\frac1{180}\!\times\!
\left\{\begin{array}{cl} -548 & s=\frac32\\
1566 & s=2\\
{...} & s>2\end{array}\right.\! \label{betas}.$$ The logic of the $\mbox{\boldmath$a$}$-theorem application is that the cosmological expansion can be associated with the transition from deep UV to IR regimes. The RG running in interacting and gravitating CFT can lead to the redistribution in the UV limit of the full set of conformal degrees of freedom to a higher spin domain, possessing according to the $\mbox{\boldmath$a$}$-theorem higher values of $\beta$ and $\tilde\beta$. The present value of $\beta_{IR}=32\pi^2\mbox{\boldmath$a$}_{IR}$ can be a result of the evolution from a much larger initial value $\beta_{UV}=32\pi^2\mbox{\boldmath$a$}_{UV}$ responsible for the formation of a considerable thermal part of CMB.
Conclusions
===========
New WMAP and Planck CMB data [@WMAP9] inspires interest in variety of modified vacuum and non-vacuum states of cosmological perturbations [@vacua]. The microcanonical state in the CFT cosmology has an advantage that it comes from first principles of quantum gravity [@slih; @why] rather than from some ad hoc assumptions. Quite remarkably its formalism and physical predictions are determined by the Gauss-Bonnet anomaly and tightly related to the dilaton dynamics associated with the $\mbox{\boldmath$a$}$-theorem. In particular, stronger “heating" of the CMB spectrum can be mediated by the RG flow interpolating between the UV and IR stages of cosmological expansion and, in view of this theorem, shifting the CFT model in UV to a higher spin phase. This opens a number of prospects for further research. Vacuum part of the spectrum determined by $|u_k(t)|^2$ in (\[occupation\]) is needed: though only the inflaton mode remains dynamical, its effect for large $\beta$ is strongly mediated by the dilaton $\sigma$ whose sound cone in (\[kinetic\]) might cause superluminal phenomena [@superluminality]. The efficiency of higher-spin mechanism should be verified, as its RG increment $\mbox{\boldmath$a$}_{UV}-\mbox{\boldmath$a$}_{IR}$ is advocated to be always bounded [@PolchinskiRattazzi]. Moreover, [*gravitating*]{} higher-spin conformal fields do not seem to be explicitly known yet except $s=3/2$ and $s=2$, and they are anticipated to suffer from unitarity violation caused by higher derivatives [@Tseytlinconf; @higherspin] (cf. $\beta_{3/2}<0$ in (\[betas\]) for Weyl invariant gravitino with a third order wave operator [@Tseytlinconf]). Thus, the progress here strongly depends on advancing theory of conformal higher spin models [@higherspin]. There is a lot more to be learned within a remarkable interplay between $\mbox{\boldmath$a$}$-theorem and physics of the very early Universe.
[**Acknowledgements.**]{} I am grateful to J.Garriga and S.Sibiryakov for helpful discussions and acknowledge support at the workshop YITP-T-12-03. This work was supported by the RFBR grant No. 11-02-00512.
[99]{} Z. Komargodski and A. Schwimmer, JHEP 1112 (2011) 099.
Z. Komargodski, JHEP 1207 (2012) 069.
A. B. Zamolodchikov, JETP Lett. [**43**]{} (1986) 730.
I. Jack and H. Osborn, Nucl. Phys. [**B343**]{} (1990) 647; A. Schwimmer and S. Theisen, Nucl. Phys. [**B847**]{} (2011) 590.
V. F. Mukhanov and G. V. Chibisov, JETP Lett. [**33**]{} (1981) 532; V. Mukhanov, H. Feldman and R. Brandenberger, Phys. Rep. [**215**]{} (1992) 203.
A. O. Barvinsky and A. Yu. Kamenshchik, JCAP [**09**]{} (2006) 014; Phys. Rev. [**D74**]{} (2006) 121502.
A. O. Barvinsky, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**99**]{} (2007) 071301.
A. O. Barvinsky, C. Deffayet and A. Yu. Kamenshchik, JCAP [**05**]{} (2008) 020; JCAP [**05**]{} (2010) 034.
R.J.Riegert, Phys. Lett. [**B134**]{} (1984) 56; E.S.Fradkin and A.A.Tseytlin, Phys. Lett. [**B134**]{} (1984) 187; I.Antoniadis, P.O.Mazur and E.Mottola, Phys. Lett. [**B323**]{} (1994) 284; A.O.Barvinsky, A.G.Mirzabekian and V.V.Zhytnikov, [*Conformal decomposition of the effective action and covariant curvature expansion*]{}, gr-qc/9510037.
G.R.Dvali, G.Gabadadze and M.Porrati, Phys. Lett. [**B485**]{} (2000) 208.
M. A. Luty, M. Porrati and R. Rattazzi, JHEP [**0309**]{} (2003) 029, arXiv:hep-th/0303116.
C.Deffayet, O.Pujolas, I.Sawicki and A.Vikman, JCAP [**1010**]{} (2010) 026.
A. O. Barvinsky, [*Thermal CMB in the CFT driven cosmology*]{}, to be published.
S.M.Christensen and M.J.Duff, Nucl. Phys. [**B154**]{} (1979) 301.
E.S.Fradkin and A.A.Tseytlin, Nucl. Phys. [**B203**]{} (1982) 157; Phys. Rep. [**119**]{} (1985) 233.
G.Hinshaw et al, [*Nine-Year WMAP Observations: Cosmological Parameter Results*]{}, arXiv:1212.5226; P. A. R. Ade et al, [*Planck 2013 Results.XXII. Constraints on Inflation*]{}, arXiv:1303.5082.
I.Agullo and L.Parker, Phys. Rev. [**D83**]{} (2011) 063526; J.Ganc and E.Komatsu, Phys.Rev. [**D86**]{} (2012) 023518; I. Agullo and S. Shandera, JCAP [**1209**]{} (2012) 007.
A.Adams, N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dubovsky, A. Nicolis and R. Rattazzi, JHEP [**0610**]{} (2006) 014.
M. A. Luty, J. Polchinski, R. Rattazzi, JHEP [**1301**]{} (2013) 152.
M.A.Vasiliev, Nucl. Phys. [**B829**]{} (2010) 176; R. R. Metsaev, Mod. Phys. Lett. [**A10**]{} (1995) 1719.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
=1200 2truecm =cmbx12
Some Remarks on the Matching Conditions
1truecm
D. Espriu and J. Matias
*D.E.C.M., Facultat de Física and I.F.A.E.*
*Universitat de Barcelona*
*Diagonal, 647*
*E-08028 Barcelona*
1.5truecm
ABSTRACT
We analyze the matching conditions to determine the values that the ${\cal O}(p^4)$ coefficients of an Effective Chiral Lagrangian take in the Standard Model in the limit of a large Higgs mass, pointing out a number of subtleties that appear to have gone unnoticed previously. We apply the resulting Effective Chiral Lagrangian, including the leading two loop effects, to analyze the most recent electroweak data assuming $m_{top}=174\pm 10$ GeV.
=1 =
Using an Effective Chiral Lagrangian \[1\] has been a popular approach to study the Symmetry Breaking Sector of the Standard Model in recent times. The reasons for this popularity are twofold. On the one hand, some calculations concerning the scattering of longitudinally polarized $W$’s and $Z$’s are greatly simplified in the limit where the Higgs mass is large if, instead of the full Standard Model, one just replaces these longitudinal degrees of freedom by the corresponding Goldstone bosons\[2\] and works with the self-interaction part of the scalar sector of the Standard Model. In the limit where the Higgs is very massive this self-interaction sector becomes a non-linear sigma model. Secondly, it was realized some time ago\[3,4\] that if one assumes a certain gap between the electroweak scale $G_F^{-1}$ and new resonances either scalar, such as the Higgs (in the minimal Standard Model), or vector-like, such as e.g. technirhos (in composite models), it was possible to parametrize in full generality the Symmetry Breaking Sector by the ${\cal O}(p^4)$ coefficients of an Effective Chiral Lagrangian describing the interactions of the Goldstone bosons associated to the breaking of the group $SU(2)_L\times SU(2)_R$ down to its diagonal subgroup.
We have examined the way these ${\cal O}(p^4)$ coefficients are determined in the Standard Model and we have found a number of difficulties in the way the problem is usually addressed. These can be summarized as follows: a) at what level one should impose matching between the effective and fundamental theory (S-matrix elements, light particle 1PI Green functions, connected Green functions)? b) should one also consider gauge non-invariant effective operators in the effective theory since gauge invariance is lost in Green functions once the gauge is fixed?
The experimental precision for some experiments sensitive to these coefficients is such\[5\] that the days of order-of-magnitude estimates are gone. It is essential to be able to determine as precisely as possible the values of these ${\cal O}(p^4)$ coefficients in the different models one chooses to compare with the experimental data. The differences are often minute, but this is where the clues as to what lies beyond the Standard Model are.
We have used the most recent available electroweak data, combined with the preliminary determination of the top quark mass by CDF, to set bounds on the values of the Effective Chiral Lagrangian. The ‘oblique’ corrections —by far the dominant ones— turn out to be sensitive in a non-ambiguous manner to [*only one*]{} combination of coefficients of this effective theory. Our analysis, including the leading two loop effects, is presented in the last section.
In the usual representation of the Symmetry Breaking Sector of the Standard Model, the Goldstone bosons transform linearly under the $SU(2)_L\times
U(1)_Y$ gauge group. However, if one is interested in a comparison with an effective lagrangian approach where the Goldstone bosons transform non-linearly it seems natural to implement a change of variables in the Standard Model itself to make the goldstones transform non-linearly too. In this way the identification of fields and Green functions will be clearer.
We write the Weinberg-Salam model (without fermions) in the following form $${\cal L}_{SM}=-{1 \over 2}{\rm Tr} W_{\mu\nu} W^{\mu\nu}
-{1 \over 4} B_{\mu\nu} B^{\mu\nu}+{1 \over 4}{\rm Tr} D_{\mu} M^{\dag}
D^{\mu} M -{1 \over 4} \lambda ({1 \over 2}
{\rm Tr} M^{\dag} M+{\mu^2 \over \lambda})^{2} \eqno(2.1)$$ $M$ collects the scalar fields. Writing $M=\sigma+i\vec{\tau}\vec{\omega}$ one recovers the familiar lagrangian. Under the local $SU(2)_{L}\times U(1)_Y$ group $M$ transforms as $$M'(x)=e^{i {\vec{\alpha} \vec{\tau} \over 2}} M(x) e^{-i {\beta
\tau^{3} \over 2}}\eqno(2.2)$$ The covariant derivative $D_{\mu}$ acts on $M$ as $$D_{\mu} M=\partial_{\mu} M + i g W_{\mu} M(x) -
ig' B_{\mu} M(x){ \tau^{3} \over 2}\eqno(2.3)$$ $B_{\mu}$ and $W_{\mu}={1 \over 2} W_{\mu}^i
\tau^{i} $ are the vector boson fields, and $B_{\mu\nu}$ and $W^{\mu\nu}$ are the corresponding field strength tensors. The fields $W_{\mu}^{3}$ and $B_{\mu}$ are a combination of the physical degrees of freedom $A_{\mu},Z_{\mu}$ $$\eqalign{
A_{\mu} = W_{\mu}^{3} s_{w} + B_{\mu} c_{w} \qquad \qquad
Z_{\mu} = W_{\mu}^{3} c_{w} - B_{\mu} s_{w} }\eqno(2.4)$$ $c_{w}$ and $s_{w}$ being the cosinus and sinus of the Weinberg angle, respectively. In the on-shell scheme, which we shall use, $c_{w}\equiv M_{W}/M_{Z}$.
One should add to (2.1) the gauge-fixing and Faddeev-Popov terms $${\cal L}_{GF}=-{1 \over 2\xi_{W}}\sum_{i=1,3} (\partial^{\mu}
W_{\mu}^{i}+ {i \over 4} g v \xi_{W}{\rm Tr}\tau^{i} M)^2
-{1 \over 2\xi_{B}}(\partial^{\mu} B_{\mu}-
{i \over {4 }} g^\prime v \xi_{B}{\rm Tr}\tau^{3} M)^2 \eqno(2.5)$$ $$\eqalign{
{\cal L}_{FP}=& \partial^\mu c^{\dag}_{0} \partial_{\mu}
c_{0} +
\partial^\mu c^{\dag}_{i} \partial_{\mu} c_{i}
-{1 \over 8}
g^{\prime 2}
v \xi_{B} c^{\dag}_{0} {\rm Tr} M c_{0}
+g\, c^{\dag}_{i} (\partial^{\mu} W_{\mu}^{k} \epsilon ^{ikj} - {1
\over 8} g v \xi_{W} {\rm Tr} \tau^{i} \tau^{j} M) c_{j} \cr
&+{1 \over 8} \sqrt{g g^\prime}
\,v \, (g^\prime \xi_{B}
c^{\dag}_{0} c_{i}+g \xi_{W} c^{\dag}_{i} c_{0}) {\rm Tr} \tau^{3}
\tau^{i} M }
\eqno(2.6)$$ In Landau gauge ($\xi=0$) ghosts decouple from Goldstone bosons.
We are free to choose a different parametrization for the matrix $M$, implying a field redefinition. Not any transformation leaves the S-matrix elements between physical states unchanged, however. In the functional integral ${\cal Z}=\int {\cal D}
\phi e^{i {\cal S}+J \phi}$, where $\phi$ and $J$ collectively stand for field and sources, respectively, such a field redefinition will induce a jacobian. It was demonstrated in \[6\] that if this jacobian is the identity when all fields are set to zero then the corresponding transformation is an allowed one. One of such allowed field redefinitions in the Standard Model is precisely the one mapping the linear onto the non-linear realization $$M=(v+\rho)U\qquad\qquad
U=\exp{i {{\vec{\pi}\vec{\tau}}\over v}} \eqno(2.7)$$ where we already allow for a non-zero expectation value of the matrix $M$ by introducing $v$. In the Standard Model, $v=\sqrt{-\mu^2/\lambda}\simeq 250$ GeV.
We have $$\sigma=(\rho+v) \cos{{\pi \over v}}-v=
\rho -{1 \over 2v}\pi^{2}-{\rho \over {2v^2}} \pi^{2}+...\eqno(2.8)$$ $$\omega^{i}=(\rho+v) {\pi^{i} \over \pi} \sin{{\pi \over v}}
=\pi^{i}+{\rho \over v} \pi^{i}-{1 \over {6v^2}}{\pi^{2}}
\pi^{i}+... \eqno(2.9)$$ with $\pi=\sqrt{\sum_{i=1,3}}(\pi^i)^2$. The jacobian of the change is $$J(\rho,\pi^i)=\left\vert {{\partial (\sigma,\omega^i)} \over {\partial
(\rho,\pi^j)}}
\right\vert={1 \over v} (\rho+v)^3 {\sin^2{\pi \over v} \over \pi^2}
\eqno(2.10)$$ so indeed $J(0,0)=1$, checking that the transformation is an allowed one.
In fact, in the non-linear realization one expects the covariant group measure $d\mu(U)= \prod{d\pi^i}\sqrt{\det{g} }$ to appear. Here $g$ is the group metric, given by $$g_{jk}={\delta^2 \over \delta(\partial_\nu \pi^{j}) \delta
(\partial^\nu\pi^{k})} ({v^2 \over 4}{\rm Tr}
\partial_{\mu} U^{\dag} \partial^{\mu}U)
=v^2 {\sin^2{\pi \over v} \over \pi^2} (\delta_{jk}-{\pi_{j} \pi_{k}
\over \pi^2}) + {\pi_{j} \pi_{k} \over \pi^2} \eqno(2.11)$$ Working out $\sqrt{\det g}$ one finds $$\sqrt{\det {g} }=v^2 {\sin^2{\pi \over v} \over \pi^2}\eqno(2.12)$$ which is indeed contained in (2.10). The jacobian (2.10) can be exponentiated $$\det{J}=\exp{\delta^{(4)}(0){\rm Tr}\ln{J}}\eqno(2.13)$$ In dimensional regularization $\delta^{4}(0)$ is zero. But in other possible regularization methods\[7\] this term will generate some tadpoles that will be needed to yield a consistent result\[8\]. We will only use dimensional regularization here and accordingly we will ignore the jacobian altogether.
After substituting the parametrization (2.7) in (2.1) one finds $$\eqalign{
{\cal L}_{SM}=&{1 \over 2} \partial_{\mu} \rho \partial^{\mu} \rho
-\rho {\lambda v} (v^2+{\mu^2\over \lambda})
-{1 \over 2} \rho^2 (\mu^2 + 3 v^2 \lambda)
- \lambda v \rho^3 - {1\over 4}\lambda\rho^4 \cr
&+{1 \over 4} (\rho+v)^2 {\rm Tr}D_{\mu} U^{\dag} D^{\mu} U +
{\cal L}_{GF}^\prime
+ {\cal L}_{FP}^\prime}\eqno(2.14)$$ The primes in ${\cal L}_{FP}$ and ${\cal L}_{GF}$ indicate that they also change under the redefinition (2.7).
The couplings involving Goldstone bosons, collected in the matrix $U$, have changed completely when compared to the linear realization. All these couplings now involve derivatives and there are an infinite number of them since we have a non-linear theory. Yet, this non-linear theory is strictly equivalent to the Standard Model. The couplings involving at least one gauge field remain unchanged up to three fields, but for four fields and beyond this is no longer the case. For instance, there is no vertex $ W^{\mu +} W_{\mu}^{-} \pi^{+} \pi^{-} $. Some new vertices appear, e.g. $ \partial_{\mu} \pi^3 Z^{\mu}\rho^2 $, and others change their coefficients. The vertex that in the old variables was ${i \over 2}g g^\prime s_{w} Z_{\mu} W_{\mu}^{+}
\omega^{-} \sigma$ now gets an extra factor of 2 and becomes $ i g g' s_{w} Z_{\mu}
W_{\mu}^{+} \pi^{-} \rho$. As befits a non-linear theory, we have vertices with five, six, etc. fields, but they do not contribute to the Green functions we will be interested in at the one loop level. Of course, the different coefficients have just the right values so as to render a renormalizable and unitary theory as the Standard Model should be.
The parametrization (2.7) is particularly useful in discussing the limit, within the minimal Standard Model, when the Higgs particle is very heavy. All the $M_{H}$ (or $\lambda$) dependence is contained only in the propagator and self-interactions of the $\rho$ field, while in the linear realization there are $\lambda$ dependences in any scalar vertex.
The $\rho$ field itself interacts with the Goldstone bosons and the gauge bosons through the operator $O_{1}(x)= {\rm Tr}D_{\mu}
U^{\dag} D^{\mu} U$ and through the gauge-fixing and Fadeev-Popov terms. The familiar ’t Hooft gauge-fixing term (2.5) in the non-linear variables reads $${\cal L}_{GF}=-{1 \over 2\xi_{W}}\sum_{i=1,3} (\partial^{\mu}
W_{\mu}^{i}+ {i \over 4} g v \xi_{W}(v+\rho) {\rm Tr}\tau^{i} U)^2
-{1 \over 2\xi_{B}}(\partial^{\mu} B_{\mu}-
{i \over {4 }} g^\prime v \xi_{B}(v+\rho){\rm Tr}\tau^{3} U)^2
\eqno(3.1)$$ Unlike the usual formulation the Higgs field $\rho$ appears in the gauge-fixing term. Of course one could well have chosen some other gauge-fixing term, since amplitudes are after all gauge independent, but, in practice, we will be interested in making comparisons at other levels. Most calculations in the Standard Model are done in the ’t Hooft gauge. In fact, the comparison between theory and experiment is usually done for LEP physics in the ’t Hooft-Feynman gauge ($\xi=1$) \[9,10\]. ‘Observables’ such as the effective Weinberg angle $\bar{s}^2_w$ are actually gauge dependent\[13\]. The $\rho$ couplings are simplest in the ’t Hooft-Landau gauge where the Faddeev-Popov term does not lead to new Higgs interactions and the additional $\rho$ dependence appears only through the coupling $$\rho (x)O_2(x)=-
{iv \over 4}\rho (g\sum_{i=1,3}\partial^\mu W_\mu^i {\rm Tr}
\tau^i U -{g^\prime} \partial^\mu B_\mu {\rm Tr}
\tau^3 U)\eqno(3.2)$$ One can now formally perform the functional integration over the Higgs field. The result of such an integration will be a non-local effective lagrangian of the type $$\int dk_{1} \int dk_{2} \dots \int dk_{n}
G_{\lambda}(k_{1},k_{2}, \dots ,k_{n}){\hat
O}(k_{1}){\hat O}(k_{2}) \dots {\hat O}(k_{n})
\eqno(3.3)$$ where $G_{\lambda}(k_{1},k_{2},\dots k_{n})$ are Green functions that can be computed in a scalar field theory involving only the $\rho$ field without any reference to the gauge fields or Goldstone bosons. These Green functions will depend on $\lambda$ (or $M_{H}$) and an obviously important question is which is the behaviour of $G_\lambda (k_1,k_2,\dots ,k_n)$ when $\lambda\to\infty$. On general grounds we expect (3.3) to become a local action in that limit.
A delicate point is whether one is allowed to take the $\lambda\to\infty$ limit directly in the non-local lagrangian (3.3) and use the resulting local effective field theory to compute quantum fluctuations for the remaining fields\[14\]. Doing so would require the uniform convergence of any momentum integral in which (3.3) is inserted, a strong requirement that it is not always fulfilled. After introducing the usual counterterms (e.g. using the on-shell scheme\[9-12\] in the Standard Model) one is able to make all integrals convergent, but typically they will be only conditionally convergent, being the difference of two logarithmically divergent integrals.
In the on-shell scheme, if one considers observables that depend only on renormalized self-energies (like the celebrated ‘oblique’ corrections\[9\] contained in $\Delta r$, $\Delta\kappa$ and $\Delta\rho$) $$\hat{\Sigma}(k^2)={\Sigma}(k^2)-{\Sigma}(M^2)+\delta Z_{2}
(k^2-M^2)
\eqno(3.4)$$ only one integral that depends on $M_H$ (actually $\sim$ $\log M_H$) and that is not uniformly convergent appears. Thus combinations that are finite in the large $M_H$ limit are combinations where the potentially dangerous integral actually drops. In these combinations (which, by the way, are the ones unambiguosly predictable by an Effective Chiral Lagrangian\[4,7\]) we are free to take the $M_H\to \infty$ limit [*before*]{} integrating over the light degrees of freedom, simplifying the calculation considerably. This was the method used in \[15\] to determine the contribution of the Standard Model to some LEP observables in the large $M_H$ limit.
Unfortunately, it is not justified to retain only the leading terms in the $1/M_H$ expansion of (3.3) for the three and four point functions. In the on-shell scheme the renormalized three and four point functions and their related observables will only be conditionally convergent, in general. We have to keep the full non-local effective action (3.3). (This point was overlooked in \[15\], but subsequently realized in \[16\].) To determine the coefficients of the effective theory reproducing the Standard Model we will use the matching conditions, which will be discussed in the next section.
It may be argued that one could expand the non-local action in inverse powers of $M_H$ anyway provided that a physical scale $\Lambda$ is introduced as cut-off. This is certainly correct, since all integrals are then finite and well behaved. Then one obtains a local action, equivalent to (3.3) up to scales $k^2\sim \Lambda^2$ with some definite values of the coefficients in this effective action. (These coefficients, by the way, need not coincide with those obtained by the use of the matching conditions, since the latter contain some contribution from the light particles.) The above procedure, however, for a gauge theory is very difficult to implement in an invariant way and we shall not pursue this approach further here. Dimensional regularization is the most useful regulator for gauge theories and in dimensional regularization there is no manifest decoupling of the heavy modes.
We want to construct an effective theory that reproduces the results of the Standard Model without the Higgs. An obvious requirement this effective theory should meet is to reproduce the same S-matrix elements. This is certainly a necessary condition, but it is not the most useful way to proceed. For instance, if we want to compare the fundamental and effective theories at some intermediate steps (e.g. at the level of the ‘oblique’ corrections) we shall need to deal with Green functions defined off-shell both in the fundamental and in the effective theory. Furthermore, to express these ‘observables’ in terms of the same set of parameters ($\alpha$, $M_W$, $M_Z$) it will be mandatory to renormalize both theories with the same conventions, requiring again off-shell Green functions.
It is often stated\[17\] that the matching can be done at the level of the quantum effective action for the light fields; that is, at the level of the (light-fields) irreducible Green functions. This is not quite correct. Let us see why.
From the generating functional $W=\log Z$ the renormalized connected Green functions of the theory are obtained $$G_{c}(x_{1},x_{2},...,x_{n};\mu)={\delta^n W \over {\delta
J(x_{1}) \delta J(x_{2})... \delta
J(x_{n})}}\big\vert_{J=0}\eqno(4.1)$$ $\mu$ is some renormalization scale, chosen to be below the mass of the particle we wish to integrate out, in our case $\mu<M_H$. Since the gauge fields have not been modified by the change of variables (2.7), the connected Green functions with only external gauge fields should coincide when evaluated in the variables ($\sigma,\omega$) or ($\rho,\pi$).
This is not the case if one considers only one-particle irreducible Green functions. The Legendre transform involves the scalar fields too and these have changed. For instance, the 1PI Green functions $\Gamma_{Z W W}$ and $\Gamma_{A W W}$ computed in the $(\sigma,\omega)$ or $(\rho,\pi)$ variables at one loop change. In the large $M_H$ limit, the differences between the linear $(\sigma,\omega)$ and non-linear $(\rho,\pi)$ realization, denoted by $L$ and $NL$, respectively, are at one loop $$\Gamma^{NL}_{ZWW}-\Gamma^{L}_{ZWW}=
c_{w}{ 1\over 8} {g g'^2 \over {16 \pi^2}}(p_{2 \mu}g_{\lambda\nu}-p_{3
\nu}g_{\lambda\mu})\eqno(4.2)$$ $$\Gamma^{NL}_{AWW}-\Gamma^{L}_{AWW}=
- s_{w} {1\over 8} {g^3 \over {16 \pi^2}}(p_{2 \mu}g_{\lambda\nu}-p_{3
\nu}g_{\lambda\mu}) \eqno(4.3)$$ The culprit is one of the vertices containing four fields that have changed in the non-linear realization. (The full $M_H$ dependence of these 1PI Green functions at one loop in the linear realization can be found in \[10\].) This simple example should suffice to convince us that matching the Standard Model to an effective theory by demanding the equality of the 1PI Green functions is not correct, since a mere change of variables (that does not affect the S-matrix elements) in the Standard Model itself already changes these Green functions.
Of course when we put everything together we must recover the same connected functions with external gauge fields. One can check this point easily for the connected Green function $\langle Z W^{+} W^{-}\rangle$ and $\langle A
W^{+} W^{-}\rangle$. To find the connected Green functions one should add to Fig.1a the reducible diagrams of Fig.1b. It turns out that the 1PI Green function $\Sigma_{W\pi}$ also changes when we go to the $(\rho,\pi)$ variables; there appears a new piece proportional to the squared momentum of the internal $\pi$ field that cancels the $1/p^2_2$ of the propagator, yielding a local contribution making up for the differences (4.2) and (4.3).
The matching conditions between an Effective Chiral Lagrangian (ECL) and the Symmetry Breaking sector of the Standard Model (SM) have therefore to be imposed at the level of renormalized connected Green functions for external gauge fields (or on arbitrary S-matrix elements between physical states, of course). We will therefore tentatively demand that $$G_{\mu_1,\mu_2,\dots,\mu_n}^{SM}(x_1,x_2,\dots,x_n;\mu)=
G_{\mu_1,\mu_2,\dots,\mu_n}^{ECL}(x_1,x_2,\dots,x_n;\mu)
\eqno(4.4)$$
The effective low energy theory that one gets after integrating out the heavy degrees of freedom in the Standard Model, or, for that matter, in any theory with the same local symmetry and the same $SU(2)_L\times SU(2)_R\to SU(2)_V$ breaking pattern, is the gauged non-linear sigma model $${\cal L}^{eff}=-{1 \over 2} {\rm Tr} W_{\mu\nu} W^{\mu\nu}
-{1 \over 4} B_{\mu\nu} B^{\mu\nu}+{v^2 \over 4} {\rm Tr} D_{\mu} U^{\dag}
D^{\mu} U + \sum_{i=0,13} a_i {\cal L}_{i}
+{\cal L}_{GF}+{\cal L}_{FP}
\eqno (5.1)$$ A complete set of the operators ${\cal L}_i$ up to four derivatives was given in \[1\]. Some of the operators are custodially invariant, like those corresponding to the coefficients $a_1$-$a_5$ (in the notation of \[18,19\] which we follow), while others, such as $a_0$ and $a_6$-$a_{13}$, are not. All of them are gauge invariant operators.
This is a non-renormalizable theory but it may be rendered finite at ${\cal O}(p^4)$ by redefining the $a_{i}
$ coefficients (only a few of them pick up divergent counterterms actually\[1\]). The value (at scale $\mu$) of these coefficients is fixed by demanding the agreement with the Standard Model, thus trading the dependence in the scale $\mu$ by $M_H$. In the Standard Model therefore the bare coefficients are of the form $$a_i={1\over {16\pi^2}}( c^{1}_i(C_{\epsilon}-
\log {M_H^2 \over \mu^2})+c^{2}_i)\eqno(5.2)$$ with $C_\epsilon= {2 \over \epsilon} -\gamma + \ln 4 \pi$. In another theory, $M_H^2$ is replaced by some other scale $\Lambda$.
It is obvious that, in the Standard Model after gauge-fixing the action, gauge non-invariant terms are introduced. In fact, the l.h.s. of the matching conditions (4.4) is gauge dependent. Gauge non-invariant pieces are also generated on the r.h.s. since in the effective theory one needs to impose some gauge-fixing condition as well. One might use gauge conditions such as e.g. $${\cal L}_{GF}^1=
-{1\over 2\xi_W}\sum_{i=1,3}
(\partial^\mu W_\mu^i +{i\over 4}gv^2\xi_W {\rm Tr}
\tau^i U)^2+\dots\eqno(5.3)$$ $${\cal L}_{GF}^2=
-{1\over 2\xi_W}\sum_{i=1,3}
(\partial^\mu W_\mu^i -{1\over 2}gv \xi_W \pi^i)^2
+\dots\eqno(5.4)$$ In fact, at the one loop level, for the Green functions we are interested both are equivalent. At this point, it is not obvious at all that the gauge non-invariant pieces that are generated at one loop in the Standard Model with the usual ’t Hooft-type gauge should be the same that appear from a one-loop calculation with the pieces of ${\cal O}(p^2)$ in ${\cal L}^{eff}$ using one of the gauge-fixings (5.3) or (5.4). Rather, one will have to ‘fine tune’ the gauge-fixing in the effective theory to accomplish that. In other words, one should also include at ${\cal O}(p^4)$ some gauge non-invariant operators on the r.h.s of the matching conditions. If not, the matching conditions will overdetermine the coefficients in the Effective Chiral Lagrangian and lead to inconsistencies.
This is an unwelcome complication. Either we keep all BRS-invariant operators on the r.h.s of the matching conditions or we eliminate from the Green functions to be matched the gauge dependent structures. Clearly the latter is the simplest one and the one we take. We shall therefore project the connected Green functions on both sides of (4.4) on their tranversal components, by multiplying them with the factor $$\prod_{i=1}^n (g^{\nu_i\mu_i}-{{k_i^{\nu_i} k_i^{\mu_i}}
\over k_i^2})\eqno(5.5)$$ This automatically eliminates all gauge-non invariant terms. Of course even transverse parts may depend on the value of the gauge parameter $\xi$. Fortunately, it can be easily seen\[19\] that at the one loop level in the limit of a large Higgs mass\[12\] all dependence on $\xi$ drops in diagrams containing at least one Higgs internal line. In the $M_H\to \infty$ limit the transverse projection of the set of diagrams in the Standard Model that contains the Higgs field; i.e. the set of diagrams whose contribution will be implemented by the coefficients $a_i$ forms a gauge invariant subset. One is then free to determine these coefficients using, for instance, $\xi=0$ where the chiral properties of the effective theory are manifest\[1,18\]. (The gauge-fixing term (5.3) respects the global $SU(2)_L\times SU(2)_R$ invariance in this gauge.)
Let us now write explicitly the matching conditions for the two point functions. The renormalization constants for the fields and coupling constants are defined in the usual way following the on-shell prescriptions on both sides of (4.4). The relevant diagrams will be those not common to both sides of the equation and surviving the large Higgs mass limit. They are discussed in \[19\]. We do not consider tadpole diagrams since they are exactly cancelled by redefining the second term in (2.14).
$$\eqalignno{
\Delta \hat{\Sigma}_{WW}=-
&{g^2 v^2 \over 4} (\Delta Z_{\pi} -2
{\Delta
g \over g} -2 {\Delta v \over v} ) - {g^2 \over {16 \pi^2}}({1
\over
8} M_{H}^2
-g^2 v^2 {3 \over 16} (C_{\epsilon} - \log {M_{H}^2 \over \mu^2}
+ {5 \over 6}))\cr
&+ q^2 (\Delta Z_{W}+
{g^2 \over {16 \pi^2}} {1 \over
12} (C_{\epsilon} - \log {M_{H}^2 \over \mu^2}
+ {5 \over 6})) = 0 &(5.6) \cr \cr
\Delta \hat{\Sigma}_{\gamma\gamma}=&q^2 (s_{w}^2 \Delta Z_{W} + c_{w}^2
\Delta Z_{B} -s_{w}^2 g^2 (a_{8}-2 a_{1})) = 0 &(5.7) \cr \cr
\Delta \hat{\Sigma}_{ZZ}=-
&{g^2 v^2 \over {4 c_{w}^2}}(\Delta Z_{\pi} -2 c_{w}^2 {\Delta g
\over g} -2 s_{w}^2 {\Delta g' \over g'} - 2{\Delta v
\over v}+2 a_{0})\cr
&-{g^2 \over {16 \pi^2 c_{w}^2}}({1 \over 8}
M_{H}^2
-{g^2 v^2 \over c_{w}^2} {3 \over 16} (C_{\epsilon} - \log {M_{H}^2 \over
\mu^2}
+ {5 \over 6}))\cr
&+q^2 (c_{w}^2 \Delta Z_{W}
+s_{w}^2 \Delta Z_{B}
-c_{w}^2 g^2 a_{8} -2
s_{w}^2 g^2 a_{1} -(g^2 + g'^2)a_{13} \cr
&+ {g^2 \over {16 \pi^2 c_{w}^2}} {1 \over
12} (C_{\epsilon} - \log {M_{H}^2 \over \mu^2}
+ {5 \over 6})) = 0 & (5.8)\cr}$$
$$\Delta \hat{\Sigma}_{\gamma Z}=-
gg'{v^2 \over 4} ({\Delta g' \over
g'}-{\Delta g
\over g}) + q^2 s_{w} c_{w} (\Delta Z_{W}-\Delta Z_{B} -
g^2 a_{8})
+q^2(c_{w}^2-s_{w}^2) gg'a_{1}=0 \eqno (5.9)$$ where $\Delta$ means the difference between any quantity (self-energy, renormalization constant) evaluated in the Standard Model minus the same quantity evaluated in ${\cal L}^{eff}$. Since we work in the on-shell scheme and the renormalization constants of both theories have been generated by the same renormalization conditions[^1][In the effective theory it is unnatural to demand ${\hat \Sigma}^\prime_H(M_H^2)=0$ as is usually done in the on-shell scheme, since the Higgs is integrated out. It would be better to demand a similar condition on the $\pi$ fields. However this does not affect the present calculation]{} we know \[9\] that they can be expressed in terms of the unrenormalized self-energies. One can calculate their difference in both theories $$\eqalign{
\Delta Z_{W}=&{1 \over s_{w}^2} (s_{w}^4-c_{w}^4) g^2
(a_{8}+a_{13}) -2 g^2 (a_{1}+a_{13})
-2 {c_{w}^2 \over s_{w}^2} a_{0}+
{g^2 \over {16 \pi^2}} {5 \over 6} (C_{\epsilon}-\log{M_{H}^2 \over
\mu^2}+{5 \over 6}) \cr
\Delta Z_{B}=&g^2 (a_{8}+a_{13}) +2 a_{0}
-{g'^2 \over {16 \pi^2}} {5 \over 6} (C_{\epsilon}-\log{M_{H}^2 \over
\mu^2}+{5 \over 6}) + g'^2 a_{13} \cr}\eqno(5.10)$$ $$\Delta g =\Delta g'=0$$ Putting together (5.6) to (5.10) one can determine some coefficients $$\eqalign{
&a_{0}={g'^2 \over 16 \pi^2} {3 \over 8} (C_{\epsilon}-\log{M_{H}^2
\over \mu^2} + {5 \over 6}) \cr
&a_{1}+a_{13}={1 \over {16 \pi^2}}{1 \over 12}
(C_{\epsilon}-\log{M_{H}^2 \over \mu^2}+{5 \over 6}) \cr
&a_{8}+a_{13}=0 \cr}\eqno(5.11)$$ Repeating the same procedure for the three and four point Green functions one gets $$\eqalign{
&a_{2}={1 \over {16 \pi^2}}{1 \over 24}
(C_{\epsilon}-\log{M_{H}^2 \over \mu^2}+{17 \over 6}) \cr
&a_{3}=-{1 \over {16 \pi^2}}{1 \over 24}
(C_{\epsilon}-\log{M_{H}^2 \over \mu^2}+{17 \over 6}) \cr
&a_{4}-a_{13}=-{1 \over 16 \pi^2}{1 \over 12}(C_{\epsilon}-\log{M_{H}^2
\over \mu^2} + {17 \over 6}) \cr
&a_{5}+a_{13}={v^2 \over 8 M_{H}^2} -{1 \over 16 \pi^2}{1 \over
24}(C_{\epsilon}-\log{M_{H}^2
\over \mu^2} - {27 \pi \over {2 \sqrt{3}}} + {79 \over 3}) \cr
&a_{6}-a_{13}=a_{7}+a_{13}=a_{9}=a_{10}=0 \cr}\eqno(5.12)$$ To determine $a_4$ to $a_7$ and $a_{10}$ we have used the Equivalence Theorem \[2,20-21\]. See also \[22\].
These values basically, but not quite, agree with those obtained in \[19\]. As we have discussed in this section we cannot determine with two, three and four point gauge Green functions alone the values of all coefficients $a_i$ in the effective chiral lagrangian. For instance $a_1$, $a_8$ and $a_{13}$ always appears in the combinations $a_1+a_{13}$ and $a_8+a_{13}$ while $a_{11}$ and $a_{12}$ drop from all transverse structures in the Green functions considered. Note that in the evaluation of the functional integral at the order we are working it is legitimate to use the equations of motion for the $\pi$ fields coming from the ${\cal O}(p^2)$ operators in the ${\cal
O}(p^4)$ terms and, if so, ${\cal L}_{11}$ and ${\cal L}_{12}$ vanish, and ${\cal L}_{13}$ does not provide new independent structures, so things really are as they should.
Although we are not able to determine with gauge Green functions alone all coefficients but only some combinations of them, these are precisely the ones that enter the physical observables. For instance, we may choose to parametrize possible departures from the Standard Model predictions in terms of the quantities $\epsilon_1$, $\epsilon_2$ and $\epsilon_3$\[23\] (or $S$,$T$,$U$ \[24\]). Then, the contribution to these quantities from the operators ${\cal L}_i^\prime$ s are $$2a_{0}\to \epsilon_1 \qquad -g^2 (a_{8}+a_{13})\to\epsilon_2
\qquad -g^2 (a_{1}+a_{13})\to \epsilon_3\eqno(6.1)$$ One way to proceed is to parametrize the ‘universal’ part of the radiative corrections in terms of the $\epsilon_i$ (basically combinations of self-energies) and use the experimental data to set constraints on them. In the SM each of the $\epsilon_i$ takes a well defined value and depends logarithmically on the top-quark mass. Beyond the Standard model, the Effective Chiral Lagrangian is non-renormalizable theory and some cut-off effects remain. The latter can be traced using (5.2) and (6.1) and we can form combinations that are cut-off independent, at least at the one loop level.
We prefer however to set the discussion in terms of quantities which are directly observable. LEP basically measures two quantities of relevance in the present discussion, namely the effective mixing angle $\bar{s}_w$, extracted from the forward-backward asymmetry $A_{FB}$ through $$\bar{s}^2_w= {1\over 4}(1-g_{V}/g_{A}) \qquad A_{FB}=
{3 \over 4}\left( {2 g_{V } g_{A } \over g_{V }^2+g_{A }^2}
\right)^2
\eqno(6.2)$$ and the leptonic width $$\Gamma_l = {G_{F} M_{Z}^3 \over 6 \sqrt{2} \pi}(g_{V}^2+g_{A}^2)
\left ( 1+ {3 \over 4} {\alpha \over \pi} \right)
\eqno(6.3)$$ $\Gamma_l$ is proportional to $\rho_Z$. $\rho_Z$ parametrizes the strength of the neutral current at $s=M_Z^2$ in the improved Born approximation (at tree level $\rho_Z= 1$). In this sense is the counterpart of the more familiar $\rho$ parameter (defined at $s=0$) $${\cal A}^{NC}(s=M_{Z}^2)= \rho_{Z} \sqrt{2} G_{F} M_{Z}^2 {{J_{\mu}
J^{\mu}
} \over {{s - M_{Z}^2+ i {s \over M_{Z}^2} M_{Z} \Gamma_{Z}}}}
\qquad
{\cal A}^{NC}(s=0)=- \rho \sqrt{2} G_{F} J_{\mu} J^{\mu}
\eqno (6.4)$$ The experimental data \[5\], assuming lepton universality and correcting for the $\tau$ mass, gives $A_{FB} = 0.0170 \pm 0.0016 $, $\Gamma_l= 83.98 \pm 0.18$ MeV, which translates into $g_{A}^2=0.25123 \pm 0.00056$, $g_{V}^2=0.00144 \pm 0.00014$ and $\bar{s}^2_W= 0.23107 \pm 0.00092$. Given $m_{top}$ and $M_H$, the SM value is just a dot in the ($\bar{s}^2_w,\Gamma_l$) plane. In any effective theory we have instead a line of points obtained by varying the (unknown) value of the cut-off. While we are unsure what value to take for it, the line itself is unambiguously predicted by one-loop chiral perturbation theory, independently of the regulator one uses\[7\]. Finding out which self-energies contribute to $g_A, g_V$ we see that, in agreement with \[4\], at the one loop level, we are sensitive to only one combination of coefficients in the Effective Chiral Lagrangian, namely $$L= -{2 \over 9} c_{w}^2 a_{0} + g^2 s_{w}^2 (a_{1}+a_{13})
+g^2 c_{w}^2 (a_{8}+a_{13})
\eqno(6.5)$$ From (5.11-12), in the Standard Model $L=0$\[4\].
With a relatively heavy top, such as the one preliminarily reported in \[25\], $m_{top}=174 \pm
10^{+13}_{-12}$ GeV) some two-loop corrections are known to be important. Sizeable contributions originate from a few genuine two-loop diagrams that yield a $m_{top}^4$ dependence\[26\] and from the iteration of one loop corrections through resummed propagators. The former, although not negligible, give a small contribution for our purposes. We have examined the contribution from the Effective Chiral Lagrangian to the resummed propagators checking that $a_{11}$, $a_{12}$ and $a_{13}$ still drop from the observables. Notice that with a two loop precision we are not entitled to appeal to the equations of motion derived from the ${\cal O}(p^2)$ terms. The set of points obtained by varying $\log M_H$ (or $\Lambda$ in the effective theory) is no longer a straight line, but deviations are really not perceptible.
The results are shown in fig. 2. We have plotted in addition of $L=0$ (the value in the Minimal Standard Model) lines for the values $L= -{e^2 / 12 \pi^2}$ and $L=-{e^2 / 6 \pi^2}$. These correspond to theoretical estimates\[27\] for $L$ in one-generation technicolor models with $N_{TC}=2, 4$, respectively. The same estimates in QCD would give values which are between 30% and 40% below the experimental results, so we regard those as [*lower bounds*]{}. (A fact that can be rigorously established in the large $N_{TC}$ limit.) These lines do not agree in slope with the one presented in \[28\].
Unless one is willing to make somewhat uncertain extrapolations from QCD, the model with $N_{TC}=4$ and one full generation of technifermions is not quite excluded at the 99% confidence level, a conclusion that somehow runs contrary to a widespread belief. A model with $N_{TC}=2$ falls within the 68% c.l. boundary. Even allowing for somewhat larger values for $L$ it is hard to convincingly exclude this model at this point.
In conclusion, we have revised thoroughly the procedure by means of which one determines the coefficients in an Effective Chiral Lagrangian that reproduce the Standard Model in the large $M_H$ limit. We have pointed out a number of subtleties regarding gauge invariance, commutation of limits and the precise formulation of the matching conditions. At the end, we can determine all experimentally relevant coefficients (but not [*all*]{} coefficients). We have included the leading two loop corrections to take a fresh look at the issue whether LEP data really excludes technicolor models or not with the current level of precision and the preliminary determination of $m_{top}$.
We thank M.J.Herrero and H.Leutwyler for discussions that have triggered different parts of this work. The thank very specially M.Martinez who has helped us in the analysis of the experimental data. We acknowledge the financial support from CICYT grant AEN93-0695 and CEE grant CHRX CT93 0343. J.M. acknowledges a fellowship from Ministerio de Educacion y Ciencia. D.E. would like to thank C.Garcia-Canal and the Theory Group at Universidad de La Plata for the hospitality extended to him.
[\[1\] ]{}[ T.Appelquist and C.Bernard, Phys. Rev. D22 (1980) 200; A.Longhitano, Phys. Rev. D22 (1980) 1166; A. Longhitano, Nucl. Phys. B188 (1981) 118]{}
[\[2\] ]{}[ M. Chanowitz and M.K. Gaillard, Nucl. Phys. B261 (1985) 379; G.J. Gounaris, R. Kogerler and H. Neufeld, Phys. Rev. D34 (1986) 3257; M. Chanowitz, M. Golden and H.Georgi, Phys.Rev. D36 (1987) 1490; O.Cheyette and M.K.Gaillard, Phys. Lett B197 (1987) 205; Y.P.Yao and C.P.Yuan, Phys. Rev. D38 (1988) 2237; H.Veltman, Phys. Rev. D41 (1990) 2294 ]{}
[\[3\] ]{}[R. Renken and M.Peskin, Nucl. Phys. B211 (1983) 93; T.Appelquist, T. Takeuchi, M. Einhorn and L.C.R. Wijewardhana, Phys. Lett. B 232 (1989) 211; A.Dobado and M.J.Herrero, Phys.Lett. B228 (1989) 495; J.F.Donoghue and C.Ramirez, Phys. Lett. B234 (1990) 361; B.Holdom and J.Terning, Phys. Lett. B247 (1990) 88; A.Dobado and M.J.Herrero and J.Terron, Z.Phys. C50 (1991) 205, 465; S.Dawson and G.Valencia, Nucl.Phys. B352 (1991) 27; M.Golden and L.Randall, Nucl. Phys. B361 (1991) 3; T. Appelquist and G. Triantaphyllou, Phys. Lett. B278 (1992) 345; J.Bagger, S.Dawson and G.Valencia, Fermilab-Pub-92/75-T,1992; T. Appelquist and G-H. Wu, Phys.Rev.D 48 (1993) 3235]{}
[\[4\] ]{}[A.Dobado, D.Espriu and M.J. Herrero, Phys. Lett. B255 (1991) 405]{}
[\[5\] ]{}[Internal Note LEPEWWG/94-01 ALEPH 94-74 PHYSIC 94-63,DELPHI 94-33 PHYS 364 L3 Note 1599, OPAL Technical Note TN235 , May (1994)]{}
[\[6\] ]{}[R.Haag , Phys. Rev. 112 (1958) 669;S.Coleman, J.Wess and B.Zumino, Phys.Rev.177 (1969) 2239;C.G.Callan, S Coleman, J.Wess and B.Zumino, Phys.Rev. 177 (1969) 2247]{}
[\[7\] ]{}[D. Espriu and J.Matias, Nucl. Phys. B 418 (1994) 494]{}
[\[8\] ]{}[J.Honerkamp and K.Meetz, Phys. Rev. D3 (1971) 1996; G.Ecker and J.Honerkamp, Nucl. Phys. B 35(1971) 481; 52(1973) 211; 62 (1973) 509; T. Appelquist and C.Bernard, Phys. Rev D 23 (1981) 425]{}
[\[9\] ]{}[G. Burgers and W. Hollik, in Polarization at LEP, CERN Yellow Report, ed. G. Alexander et al. (CERN, Geneva, 1988); M.Consoli and W.Hollik , in Z Physics at LEP1, CERN Yellow Report, ed. G.Altarelli et al. (CERN, Geneva, 1989) G.Burgers and F.Jegerlehner, ibid]{}
[\[10\]]{}[M.Bohm,H.Spiesberger and W.Hollik, Fortschr. Phys. 34 (1986) 687]{}
[\[11\]]{}[W.J.Marciano and A.Sirlin, Phys.Rev. D22 (1980) 2695, J.Fleischer and F.Jegerlehner Nucl.Phys. B 228 (1983) 1]{}
[\[12\]]{}[K.I.Aoki, Z.Hioki,R.Kawabe,M.Konuma and T.Muta, Suppl. of the Progress of Theoretical Physics 73 (1982) 1]{}
[\[13\]]{}[G. Degrassi and A.Sirlin, Nucl.Phys. B352 (1991) 342; P.Gambino and Phys.Rev. D49 (1994) 1160]{}
[\[14\]]{}[ B.Ovrut and H.Schnitzer,Phys. Rev. D21 (1980) 3369; Phys. Rev. D22 (1980) 2518; Phys. Rev. D24 (1981) 1695 and references therein]{}
[\[15\]]{}[D. Espriu and M.J. Herrero, Nucl. Phys. B 373 (1992) 117]{}
[\[16\]]{}[M.J.Herrero and E.R. Morales, Phys.Lett. B296 (1992) 397]{}
[\[17\]]{}[H.Georgi, in Proc. of the Workshop on Effective Field Theories of the S.M., Dobogoko, Hungary, August 1991 (ed. U-G. Meissner, World Scientific); H.Georgi, L.Kaplan and D.Morin , Phys.Rev. D49 (1994) 2457]{}
[\[18\]]{}[F.Feruglio in Lectures at the $2^{nd}$ NATO Seminar, Parma, Univ. di Padova (1992) DFPD92-TH-/50]{}
[\[19\]]{}[M.J.Herrero and E.R.Morales, Nucl.Phys. B418 (1994) 431]{}
[\[20\]]{}[A. Dobado and J.R. Pelaez Preprint SU-ITP-93-33 (to be published in NPB) and Phys.Lett. B329 (1994) 469; D. Espriu and J. Matias, in preparation]{}
[\[21\]]{}[M.J.G. Veltman and F.J.Yndurain, Nucl.Phys. B325 (1989) 1; S. Dawson and S. Willenbrock, Phys. Rev. Lett. 62 (1989) 1232]{}
[\[22\]]{}[M.J.Herrero and E.R.Morales, Preprint Universidad Autonoma de Madrid, (1994) FTUAM 94/11 and FTUAM 94/12]{}
[\[23\]]{}[G.Altarelli and R.Barbieri, Phys. Lett. B253 (1991) 161; G.Altarelli and R.Barbieri and S.Jadach, Nucl.Phys. B369 (1992) 3]{}
[\[24\]]{}[ M.Peskin and T.Takeuchi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 65 (1990) 964]{}
[\[25\]]{}[F.Abe et al. The CDF Collaboration FERMILAB Pub-94/097-E CDF]{}
[\[26\]]{}[R. Barbieri et al., Phys. Lett. B288 (1992) 95; J. Fleischer, O.V. Tarasov and F.Jegerlehner, Phys. Lett. B319 (1993) 249]{}
[\[27\]]{}[D.Espriu, E. de Rafael and J.Taron, Nucl.Phys. B345 (1990) 22]{}
[\[28\]]{}[D.Buskulic et al.,The ALEPH Collaboration, Z.Phys. C60 (1993) 71]{}
[**Fig. 1.-**]{} [a) One-Particle-Irreducible diagrams that enter the $W^{+} W^{-} Z$ (or $A$) vertex. b) Reducible diagrams that restore the equality of the connected gauge Green functions, as discussed in the text.]{}
[**Fig. 2.-** ]{} [Plot of $\Gamma_l$, the leptonic width, versus the effective mixing angle $\bar{s}^2_w$ for $m_{top}=174 \pm 10$ Gev and 100 GeV $\ge M_H \le$ 1500 Gev in the Minimal Standard Model (solid line). The leading two-loop corrections have been included. The dashed line (A) corresponds to the same quantity (again including the leading two-loop corrections) calculated in an Effective Lagrangian for $m_{top}=174$. The agreement is exact when $M_H\to \infty$. We then modify the coefficients of the Effective Chiral Lagrangian to include QCD-like models for the symmetry breaking sector with $N_{TC}\times N_D=$ 8 (B) and 16 (C). The values chosen correspond to theoretical calculations that are really lower bounds in vector-like models. The elipsis corresponds to the experimental data with 68% and 99% C.L. The one-loop SM results are also shown (dotted line).]{}
/Mathdict 150 dict def Mathdict begin /Mlmarg 1.0 72 mul def /Mrmarg 1.0 72 mul def /Mbmarg 1.0 72 mul def /Mtmarg 1.0 72 mul def /Mwidth 8.5 72 mul def /Mheight 11 72 mul def /Mtransform [ ]{} bind def /Mnodistort true def /Mfixwid true def /Mfixdash false def /Mrot 0 def /Mpstart [ MathPictureStart ]{} bind def /Mpend [ MathPictureEnd ]{} bind def /Mscale [ 0 1 0 1 5 -1 roll MathScale ]{} bind def /ISOLatin1Encoding dup where [ pop pop ]{} [ \[ /.notdef /.notdef /.notdef /.notdef /.notdef /.notdef /.notdef /.notdef /.notdef /.notdef /.notdef /.notdef /.notdef /.notdef /.notdef /.notdef /.notdef /.notdef /.notdef /.notdef /.notdef /.notdef /.notdef /.notdef /.notdef /.notdef /.notdef /.notdef /.notdef /.notdef /.notdef /.notdef /space /exclam /quotedbl /numbersign /dollar /percent /ampersand /quoteright /parenleft /parenright /asterisk /plus /comma /minus /period /slash /zero /one /two /three /four /five /six /seven /eight /nine /colon /semicolon /less /equal /greater /question /at /A /B /C /D /E /F /G /H /I /J /K /L /M /N /O /P /Q /R /S /T /U /V /W /X /Y /Z /bracketleft /backslash /bracketright /asciicircum /underscore /quoteleft /a /b /c /d /e /f /g /h /i /j /k /l /m /n /o /p /q /r /s /t /u /v /w /x /y /z /braceleft /bar /braceright /asciitilde /.notdef /.notdef /.notdef /.notdef /.notdef /.notdef /.notdef /.notdef /.notdef /.notdef /.notdef /.notdef /.notdef /.notdef /.notdef /.notdef /.notdef /dotlessi /grave /acute /circumflex /tilde /macron /breve /dotaccent /dieresis /.notdef /ring /cedilla /.notdef /hungarumlaut /ogonek /caron /space /exclamdown /cent /sterling /currency /yen /brokenbar /section /dieresis /copyright /ordfeminine /guillemotleft /logicalnot /hyphen /registered /macron /degree /plusminus /twosuperior /threesuperior /acute /mu /paragraph /periodcentered /cedilla /onesuperior /ordmasculine /guillemotright /onequarter /onehalf /threequarters /questiondown /Agrave /Aacute /Acircumflex /Atilde /Adieresis /Aring /AE /Ccedilla /Egrave /Eacute /Ecircumflex /Edieresis /Igrave /Iacute /Icircumflex /Idieresis /Eth /Ntilde /Ograve /Oacute /Ocircumflex /Otilde /Odieresis /multiply /Oslash /Ugrave /Uacute /Ucircumflex /Udieresis /Yacute /Thorn /germandbls /agrave /aacute /acircumflex /atilde /adieresis /aring /ae /ccedilla /egrave /eacute /ecircumflex /edieresis /igrave /iacute /icircumflex /idieresis /eth /ntilde /ograve /oacute /ocircumflex /otilde /odieresis /divide /oslash /ugrave /uacute /ucircumflex /udieresis /yacute /thorn /ydieresis \] def ]{} ifelse /MFontDict 50 dict def /MStrCat [ exch dup length 2 index length add string dup 3 1 roll copy length exch dup 4 2 roll exch putinterval ]{} def /MCreateEncoding [ 1 index 255 string cvs (-) MStrCat 1 index MStrCat cvn exch (Encoding) MStrCat cvn dup where [ exch get ]{} [ pop StandardEncoding ]{} ifelse 3 1 roll dup MFontDict exch known not [ 1 index findfont dup length dict begin [1 index /FID ne [def]{} [pop pop]{} ifelse]{} forall /Encoding 3 index def currentdict end 1 index exch definefont pop MFontDict 1 index null put ]{} if exch pop exch pop ]{} def /ISOLatin1 [ (ISOLatin1) MCreateEncoding ]{} def /ISO8859 [ (ISOLatin1) MCreateEncoding ]{} def /Mcopyfont [ dup maxlength dict exch [ 1 index /FID eq [ pop pop ]{} [ 2 index 3 1 roll put ]{} ifelse ]{} forall ]{} def /Plain /Courier findfont Mcopyfont definefont pop /Bold /Courier-Bold findfont Mcopyfont definefont pop /Italic /Courier-Oblique findfont Mcopyfont definefont pop /MathPictureStart [ gsave Mtransform Mlmarg Mbmarg translate Mwidth Mlmarg Mrmarg add sub /Mwidth exch def Mheight Mbmarg Mtmarg add sub /Mheight exch def /Mtmatrix matrix currentmatrix def /Mgmatrix matrix currentmatrix def ]{} bind def /MathPictureEnd [ grestore ]{} bind def /MFill [ 0 0 moveto Mwidth 0 lineto Mwidth Mheight lineto 0 Mheight lineto fill ]{} bind def /MPlotRegion [ 3 index Mwidth mul 2 index Mheight mul translate exch sub Mheight mul /Mheight exch def exch sub Mwidth mul /Mwidth exch def ]{} bind def /MathSubStart [ Momatrix Mgmatrix Mtmatrix Mwidth Mheight 7 -2 roll moveto Mtmatrix setmatrix currentpoint Mgmatrix setmatrix 9 -2 roll moveto Mtmatrix setmatrix currentpoint 2 copy translate /Mtmatrix matrix currentmatrix def 3 -1 roll exch sub /Mheight exch def sub /Mwidth exch def ]{} bind def /MathSubEnd [ /Mheight exch def /Mwidth exch def /Mtmatrix exch def dup setmatrix /Mgmatrix exch def /Momatrix exch def ]{} bind def /Mdot [ moveto 0 0 rlineto stroke ]{} bind def /Mtetra [ moveto lineto lineto lineto fill ]{} bind def /Metetra [ moveto lineto lineto lineto closepath gsave fill grestore 0 setgray stroke ]{} bind def /Mistroke [ flattenpath 0 0 0 [ 4 2 roll pop pop ]{} [ 4 -1 roll 2 index sub dup mul 4 -1 roll 2 index sub dup mul add sqrt 4 -1 roll add 3 1 roll ]{} [ stop ]{} [ stop ]{} pathforall pop pop currentpoint stroke moveto currentdash 3 -1 roll add setdash ]{} bind def /Mfstroke [ stroke currentdash pop 0 setdash ]{} bind def /Mrotsboxa [ gsave dup /Mrot exch def Mrotcheck Mtmatrix dup setmatrix 7 1 roll 4 index 4 index translate rotate 3 index -1 mul 3 index -1 mul translate /Mtmatrix matrix currentmatrix def grestore Msboxa 3 -1 roll /Mtmatrix exch def /Mrot 0 def ]{} bind def /Msboxa [ newpath 5 -1 roll Mvboxa pop Mboxout 6 -1 roll 5 -1 roll 4 -1 roll Msboxa1 5 -3 roll Msboxa1 Mboxrot \[ 7 -2 roll 2 copy \[ 3 1 roll 10 -1 roll 9 -1 roll \] 6 1 roll 5 -2 roll \] ]{} bind def /Msboxa1 [ sub 2 div dup 2 index 1 add mul 3 -1 roll -1 add 3 -1 roll mul ]{} bind def /Mvboxa [ Mfixwid [ Mvboxa1 ]{} [ dup Mwidthcal 0 exch [ add ]{} forall exch Mvboxa1 4 index 7 -1 roll add 4 -1 roll pop 3 1 roll ]{} ifelse ]{} bind def /Mvboxa1 [ gsave newpath \[ true 3 -1 roll [ Mbbox 5 -1 roll [ 0 5 1 roll ]{} [ 7 -1 roll exch sub (m) stringwidth pop .3 mul sub 7 1 roll 6 -1 roll 4 -1 roll Mmin 3 -1 roll 5 index add 5 -1 roll 4 -1 roll Mmax 4 -1 roll ]{} ifelse false ]{} forall [ stop ]{} if counttomark 1 add 4 roll \] grestore ]{} bind def /Mbbox [ 1 dict begin 0 0 moveto /temp (T) def [ gsave currentpoint newpath moveto temp 0 3 -1 roll put temp false charpath flattenpath currentpoint pathbbox grestore moveto lineto moveto]{} forall pathbbox newpath end ]{} bind def /Mmin [ 2 copy gt [ exch ]{} if pop ]{} bind def /Mmax [ 2 copy lt [ exch ]{} if pop ]{} bind def /Mrotshowa [ dup /Mrot exch def Mrotcheck Mtmatrix dup setmatrix 7 1 roll 4 index 4 index translate rotate 3 index -1 mul 3 index -1 mul translate /Mtmatrix matrix currentmatrix def Mgmatrix setmatrix Mshowa /Mtmatrix exch def /Mrot 0 def ]{} bind def /Mshowa [ 4 -2 roll moveto 2 index Mtmatrix setmatrix Mvboxa 7 1 roll Mboxout 6 -1 roll 5 -1 roll 4 -1 roll Mshowa1 4 1 roll Mshowa1 rmoveto currentpoint Mfixwid [ Mshowax ]{} [ Mshoway ]{} ifelse pop pop pop pop Mgmatrix setmatrix ]{} bind def /Mshowax [ 0 1 4 index length -1 add [ 2 index 4 index 2 index get 3 index add moveto 4 index exch get Mfixdash [ Mfixdashp ]{} if show ]{} for ]{} bind def /Mfixdashp [ dup length 1 gt 1 index true exch [ 45 eq and ]{} forall and [ gsave (–) stringwidth pop (-) stringwidth pop sub 2 div 0 rmoveto dup length 1 sub [ (-) show ]{} repeat grestore ]{} if ]{} bind def /Mshoway [ 3 index Mwidthcal 5 1 roll 0 1 4 index length -1 add [ 2 index 4 index 2 index get 3 index add moveto 4 index exch get \[ 6 index aload length 2 add -1 roll [ pop Strform stringwidth pop neg exch add 0 rmoveto ]{} exch kshow cleartomark ]{} for pop ]{} bind def /Mwidthcal [ \[ exch [ Mwidthcal1 ]{} forall \] \[ exch dup Maxlen -1 add 0 1 3 -1 roll [ \[ exch 2 index [ 1 index Mget exch ]{} forall pop Maxget exch ]{} for pop \] Mreva ]{} bind def /Mreva [ \[ exch aload length -1 1 [1 roll]{} for \] ]{} bind def /Mget [ 1 index length -1 add 1 index ge [ get ]{} [ pop pop 0 ]{} ifelse ]{} bind def /Maxlen [ \[ exch [ length ]{} forall Maxget ]{} bind def /Maxget [ counttomark -1 add 1 1 3 -1 roll [ pop Mmax ]{} for exch pop ]{} bind def /Mwidthcal1 [ \[ exch [ Strform stringwidth pop ]{} forall \] ]{} bind def /Strform [ /tem (x) def tem 0 3 -1 roll put tem ]{} bind def /Mshowa1 [ 2 copy add 4 1 roll sub mul sub -2 div ]{} bind def /MathScale [ Mwidth Mheight Mlp translate scale /yscale exch def /ybias exch def /xscale exch def /xbias exch def /Momatrix xscale yscale matrix scale xbias ybias matrix translate matrix concatmatrix def /Mgmatrix matrix currentmatrix def ]{} bind def /Mlp [ 3 copy Mlpfirst [ Mnodistort [ Mmin dup ]{} if 4 index 2 index 2 index Mlprun 11 index 11 -1 roll 10 -4 roll Mlp1 8 index 9 -5 roll Mlp1 4 -1 roll and [ exit ]{} if 3 -1 roll pop pop ]{} loop exch 3 1 roll 7 -3 roll pop pop pop ]{} bind def /Mlpfirst [ 3 -1 roll dup length 2 copy -2 add get aload pop pop pop 4 -2 roll -1 add get aload pop pop pop 6 -1 roll 3 -1 roll 5 -1 roll sub div 4 1 roll exch sub div ]{} bind def /Mlprun [ 2 copy 4 index 0 get dup 4 1 roll Mlprun1 3 copy 8 -2 roll 9 -1 roll [ 3 copy Mlprun1 3 copy 11 -3 roll /gt Mlpminmax 8 3 roll 11 -3 roll /lt Mlpminmax 8 3 roll ]{} forall pop pop pop pop 3 1 roll pop pop aload pop 5 -1 roll aload pop exch 6 -1 roll Mlprun2 8 2 roll 4 -1 roll Mlprun2 6 2 roll 3 -1 roll Mlprun2 4 2 roll exch Mlprun2 6 2 roll ]{} bind def /Mlprun1 [ aload pop exch 6 -1 roll 5 -1 roll mul add 4 -2 roll mul 3 -1 roll add ]{} bind def /Mlprun2 [ 2 copy add 2 div 3 1 roll exch sub ]{} bind def /Mlpminmax [ cvx 2 index 6 index 2 index exec [ 7 -3 roll 4 -1 roll ]{} if 1 index 5 index 3 -1 roll exec [ 4 1 roll pop 5 -1 roll aload pop pop 4 -1 roll aload pop \[ 8 -2 roll pop 5 -2 roll pop 6 -2 roll pop 5 -1 roll \] 4 1 roll pop ]{} [ pop pop pop ]{} ifelse ]{} bind def /Mlp1 [ 5 index 3 index sub 5 index 2 index mul 1 index le 1 index 0 le or dup not [ 1 index 3 index div .99999 mul 8 -1 roll pop 7 1 roll ]{} if 8 -1 roll 2 div 7 -2 roll pop sub 5 index 6 -3 roll pop pop mul sub exch ]{} bind def /intop 0 def /inrht 0 def /inflag 0 def /outflag 0 def /xadrht 0 def /xadlft 0 def /yadtop 0 def /yadbot 0 def /Minner [ outflag 1 eq [ /outflag 0 def /intop 0 def /inrht 0 def ]{} if 5 index gsave Mtmatrix setmatrix Mvboxa pop grestore 3 -1 roll pop dup intop gt [ /intop exch def ]{} [ pop ]{} ifelse dup inrht gt [ /inrht exch def ]{} [ pop ]{} ifelse pop /inflag 1 def ]{} bind def /Mouter [ /xadrht 0 def /xadlft 0 def /yadtop 0 def /yadbot 0 def inflag 1 eq [ dup 0 lt [ dup intop mul neg /yadtop exch def ]{} if dup 0 gt [ dup intop mul /yadbot exch def ]{} if pop dup 0 lt [ dup inrht mul neg /xadrht exch def ]{} if dup 0 gt [ dup inrht mul /xadlft exch def ]{} if pop /outflag 1 def ]{} [ pop pop]{} ifelse /inflag 0 def /inrht 0 def /intop 0 def ]{} bind def /Mboxout [ outflag 1 eq [ 4 -1 roll xadlft leadjust add sub 4 1 roll 3 -1 roll yadbot leadjust add sub 3 1 roll exch xadrht leadjust add add exch yadtop leadjust add add /outflag 0 def /xadlft 0 def /yadbot 0 def /xadrht 0 def /yadtop 0 def ]{} if ]{} bind def /leadjust [ (m) stringwidth pop .5 mul ]{} bind def /Mrotcheck [ dup 90 eq [ yadbot /yadbot xadrht def /xadrht yadtop def /yadtop xadlft def /xadlft exch def ]{} if dup cos 1 index sin Checkaux dup cos 1 index sin neg exch Checkaux 3 1 roll pop pop ]{} bind def /Checkaux [ 4 index exch 4 index mul 3 1 roll mul add 4 1 roll ]{} bind def /Mboxrot [ Mrot 90 eq [ brotaux 4 2 roll ]{} if Mrot 180 eq [ 4 2 roll brotaux 4 2 roll brotaux ]{} if Mrot 270 eq [ 4 2 roll brotaux ]{} if ]{} bind def /brotaux [ neg exch neg ]{} bind def /Mabsproc [ 0 matrix defaultmatrix dtransform idtransform dup mul exch dup mul add sqrt ]{} bind def /Mabswid [ Mabsproc setlinewidth ]{} bind def /Mabsdash [ exch \[ exch [ Mabsproc ]{} forall \] exch setdash ]{} bind def /MBeginOrig [ Momatrix concat]{} bind def /MEndOrig [ Mgmatrix setmatrix]{} bind def /sampledsound where [ pop]{} [ /sampledsound [ exch pop exch 5 1 roll mul 4 idiv mul 2 idiv exch pop exch /Mtempproc exch def [ Mtempproc pop]{} repeat ]{} bind def ]{} ifelse /g [ setgray]{} bind def /k [ setcmykcolor]{} bind def /m [ moveto]{} bind def /p [ gsave]{} bind def /r [ setrgbcolor]{} bind def /w [ setlinewidth]{} bind def /C [ curveto]{} bind def /F [ fill]{} bind def /L [ lineto]{} bind def /P [ grestore]{} bind def /s [ stroke]{} bind def /setcmykcolor where [ pop]{} [ /setcmykcolor [ 4 1 roll \[ 4 1 roll \] [ 1 index sub 1 sub neg dup 0 lt [ pop 0 ]{} if dup 1 gt [ pop 1 ]{} if exch ]{} forall pop setrgbcolor ]{} bind def ]{} ifelse /Mcharproc [ currentfile (x) readhexstring pop 0 get exch div ]{} bind def /Mshadeproc [ dup 3 1 roll [ dup Mcharproc 3 1 roll ]{} repeat 1 eq [ setgray ]{} [ 3 eq [ setrgbcolor ]{} [ setcmykcolor ]{} ifelse ]{} ifelse ]{} bind def /Mrectproc [ 3 index 2 index moveto 2 index 3 -1 roll lineto dup 3 1 roll lineto lineto fill ]{} bind def /Mcolorimage [ 7 1 roll pop pop matrix invertmatrix concat 2 exch exp 1 sub 3 1 roll 1 1 2 index [ 1 1 4 index [ dup 1 sub exch 2 index dup 1 sub exch 7 index 9 index Mshadeproc Mrectproc ]{} for pop ]{} for pop pop pop pop ]{} bind def /Mimage [ pop matrix invertmatrix concat 2 exch exp 1 sub 3 1 roll 1 1 2 index [ 1 1 4 index [ dup 1 sub exch 2 index dup 1 sub exch 7 index Mcharproc setgray Mrectproc ]{} for pop ]{} for pop pop pop ]{} bind def
MathPictureStart /Helvetica findfont 12 scalefont setfont 0 1 0 1 MPlotRegion 0.0238095 0.01221 -0.348296 0.0145033 \[ \[(P)\] .06044 .5074 0 0 Msboxa p /Helvetica findfont 8 scalefont setfont \[(1)\] .06899 .50015 0 0 Msboxa P \[(P)\] .35348 .5074 0 0 Msboxa p /Helvetica findfont 8 scalefont setfont \[(1)\] .36203 .50015 0 0 Msboxa P \[(P)\] .64652 .5074 0 0 Msboxa p /Helvetica findfont 8 scalefont setfont \[(1)\] .65507 .50015 0 0 Msboxa P \[(P)\] .52442 .58571 0 0 Msboxa p /Helvetica findfont 8 scalefont setfont \[(2)\] .53297 .57846 0 0 Msboxa P \[(P)\] .81746 .58571 0 0 Msboxa p /Helvetica findfont 8 scalefont setfont \[(2)\] .82601 .57846 0 0 Msboxa P \[(P)\] .53053 .45954 0 0 Msboxa p /Helvetica findfont 8 scalefont setfont \[(3)\] .53907 .45228 0 0 Msboxa P \[(P)\] .82357 .45954 0 0 Msboxa p /Helvetica findfont 8 scalefont setfont \[(3)\] .83211 .45228 0 0 Msboxa P \[(P)\] .23748 .45954 0 0 Msboxa p /Helvetica findfont 8 scalefont setfont \[(3)\] .24603 .45228 0 0 Msboxa P \[(P)\] .23748 .55671 0 0 Msboxa p /Helvetica findfont 8 scalefont setfont \[(2)\] .24603 .54946 0 0 Msboxa P p /Courier-Bold findfont 16 scalefont setfont \[(Perm.)\] .97619 .47839 0 0 Msboxa P p /Courier-Bold findfont 24 scalefont setfont \[(+)\] .58181 .47839 0 0 Msboxa P p /Courier-Bold findfont 24 scalefont setfont \[(+)\] .87851 .47839 0 0 Msboxa P p /Courier-Bold findfont 24 scalefont setfont \[($a$)\] .14591 .24634 0 0 Msboxa P p /Courier-Bold findfont 24 scalefont setfont \[($b$)\] .69536 .24634 0 0 Msboxa P p /Courier-Bold findfont 24 scalefont setfont \[(Fig. 1)\] .51221 .01429 0 0 Msboxa P \[ 0 0 0 0 \] \[ 1 .6 0 0 \] \] MathScale 1 setlinecap 1 setlinejoin newpath \[ \] 0 setdash 0 g p P p \[(P)\] .06044 .5074 0 0 Mshowa p /Helvetica findfont 8 scalefont setfont \[(1)\] .06899 .50015 0 0 Mshowa P \[(P)\] .35348 .5074 0 0 Mshowa p /Helvetica findfont 8 scalefont setfont \[(1)\] .36203 .50015 0 0 Mshowa P \[(P)\] .64652 .5074 0 0 Mshowa p /Helvetica findfont 8 scalefont setfont \[(1)\] .65507 .50015 0 0 Mshowa P \[(P)\] .52442 .58571 0 0 Mshowa p /Helvetica findfont 8 scalefont setfont \[(2)\] .53297 .57846 0 0 Mshowa P \[(P)\] .81746 .58571 0 0 Mshowa p /Helvetica findfont 8 scalefont setfont \[(2)\] .82601 .57846 0 0 Mshowa P \[(P)\] .53053 .45954 0 0 Mshowa p /Helvetica findfont 8 scalefont setfont \[(3)\] .53907 .45228 0 0 Mshowa P \[(P)\] .82357 .45954 0 0 Mshowa p /Helvetica findfont 8 scalefont setfont \[(3)\] .83211 .45228 0 0 Mshowa P \[(P)\] .23748 .45954 0 0 Mshowa p /Helvetica findfont 8 scalefont setfont \[(3)\] .24603 .45228 0 0 Mshowa P \[(P)\] .23748 .55671 0 0 Mshowa p /Helvetica findfont 8 scalefont setfont \[(2)\] .24603 .54946 0 0 Mshowa P .004 w .06654 .47839 m .05791 .48865 L s .06654 .47839 m .05791 .46813 L s .35958 .47839 m .35095 .48865 L s .35958 .47839 m .35095 .46813 L s .65263 .47839 m .64399 .48865 L s .65263 .47839 m .64399 .46813 L s .52527 .54133 m .52913 .55509 L s .52527 .54133 m .53685 .53675 L s .81832 .54133 m .82217 .55509 L s .81832 .54133 m .82989 .53675 L s .51697 .43387 m .52855 .4399 L s .51697 .43387 m .52083 .42156 L s .81001 .43387 m .82159 .4399 L s .81001 .43387 m .81387 .42156 L s .22393 .43387 m .23551 .4399 L s .22393 .43387 m .22779 .42156 L s p /Courier-Bold findfont 16 scalefont setfont \[(Perm.)\] .97619 .47839 0 0 Mshowa P p /Courier-Bold findfont 24 scalefont setfont \[(+)\] .58181 .47839 0 0 Mshowa P p /Courier-Bold findfont 24 scalefont setfont \[(+)\] .87851 .47839 0 0 Mshowa P p /Courier-Bold findfont 24 scalefont setfont \[($a$)\] .14591 .24634 0 0 Mshowa P p /Courier-Bold findfont 24 scalefont setfont \[($b$)\] .69536 .24634 0 0 Mshowa P p /Courier-Bold findfont 24 scalefont setfont \[(Fig. 1)\] .51221 .01429 0 0 Mshowa P .22393 .52292 m .23551 .51688 L s .22393 .52292 m .22779 .53522 L s p p .00139 w newpath matrix currentmatrix .0273 .03243 scale 5.4497 14.7513 1 0 365.73 arc setmatrix s P p .00139 w .17063 .47839 m .17063 .49785 L .17063 .45893 L s P p .00139 w .16517 .47839 m .16517 .50434 L .16517 .45245 L s P p .00139 w .15971 .47839 m .15971 .50811 L .15971 .44867 L s P p .00139 w .15425 .47839 m .15425 .51017 L .15425 .44661 L s P p .00139 w .14879 .47839 m .14879 .51082 L .14879 .44596 L s P p .00139 w .14333 .47839 m .14333 .51017 L .14333 .44661 L s P p .00139 w .13787 .47839 m .13787 .50811 L .13787 .44867 L s P p .00139 w .13241 .47839 m .13241 .50434 L .13241 .45245 L s P p .00139 w .12695 .47839 m .12695 .49785 L .12695 .45893 L s P p .00139 w .12149 .47839 m .17609 .47839 L s P p .00139 w .12204 .48488 m .17554 .48488 L s P p .00139 w .12377 .49136 m .17381 .49136 L s P p .00139 w .12695 .49785 m .17063 .49785 L s P p .00139 w .13241 .50434 m .16517 .50434 L s P p .00139 w .12204 .4719 m .17554 .4719 L s P p .00139 w .12377 .46542 m .17381 .46542 L s P p .00139 w .12695 .45893 m .17063 .45893 L s P p .00139 w .13241 .45245 m .16517 .45245 L s P p .00139 w .17063 .47839 m .17063 .49785 L .17063 .45893 L s P p .00139 w .07265 .47471 m .07143 .47493 L .07021 .47558 L .06899 .47656 L .06777 .47777 L .06654 .47904 L .06532 .48023 L .0641 .48118 L .06288 .48178 L .06166 .48196 L .06044 .48169 L .05922 .481 L .058 .47998 L .05678 .47876 L .05556 .47749 L .05433 .47633 L .05311 .47541 L .05189 .47485 L .05067 .47473 L .04945 .47505 L .04823 .47578 L .04701 .47683 L .04579 .47807 L .04457 .47934 L .04335 .48048 L .04213 .48137 L .04091 .48188 L .03969 .48196 L .03847 .48159 L .03724 .48082 L .03602 .47975 L .0348 .47851 L .03358 .47725 L .03235 .47613 L .03113 .47528 L .02991 .47482 L .02869 .4748 L .02747 .47522 L .02625 .47603 L .02503 .47713 L .02381 .47839 L s P p .00139 w .07265 .47471 m .07387 .47493 L .07509 .47558 L .07631 .47656 L .07753 .47777 L .07875 .47904 L .07998 .48023 L .0812 .48118 L .08242 .48178 L .08364 .48196 L .08486 .48169 L .08608 .481 L .0873 .47998 L .08852 .47876 L .08974 .47749 L .09097 .47633 L .09219 .47541 L .09341 .47485 L .09463 .47473 L .09585 .47505 L .09707 .47578 L .09829 .47683 L .09951 .47807 L .10073 .47934 L .10195 .48048 L .10317 .48137 L .10439 .48188 L .10561 .48196 L .10683 .48159 L .10806 .48082 L .10928 .47975 L .1105 .47851 L .11172 .47725 L .11295 .47613 L .11417 .47528 L .11539 .47482 L .11661 .4748 L .11783 .47522 L .11905 .47603 L .12027 .47713 L .12149 .47839 L s P p .00139 w .19575 .45296 m .19687 .45232 L .19788 .45134 L .19882 .45008 L .1997 .44861 L .20055 .44705 L .20141 .4455 L .20231 .44409 L .20327 .4429 L .20431 .44202 L .20545 .44149 L .2067 .44132 L .20803 .44147 L .20944 .44189 L .2109 .44247 L .21237 .44312 L .21383 .44371 L .21525 .44415 L .21659 .44432 L .21784 .44417 L .21899 .44367 L .22004 .44281 L .22101 .44165 L .22191 .44025 L .22276 .43871 L .22361 .43714 L .22449 .43566 L .22542 .43438 L .22643 .43337 L .22753 .4327 L .22874 .43239 L .23004 .43242 L .23142 .43275 L .23287 .43328 L .23434 .43391 L .23581 .43454 L .23724 .43504 L .23862 .43533 L .2399 .43531 L .24109 .43494 L .24218 .43422 L .24318 .43316 L .2441 .43184 L .24497 .43034 L .24581 .42877 L .24668 .42724 L .24758 .42587 L .24856 .42475 L .24962 .42394 L .25079 .42349 L Mistroke .25205 .4234 L .25341 .42361 L .25483 .42407 L .2563 .42468 L .25777 .42532 L .25922 .42589 L .26062 .42626 L .26195 .42636 L .26317 .42613 L .2643 .42554 L .26533 .42461 L .26627 .42338 L .26716 .42194 L .26801 .42038 L Mfstroke P p .00139 w .19575 .50382 m .19687 .50446 L .19788 .50544 L .19882 .5067 L .1997 .50817 L .20055 .50973 L .20141 .51128 L .20231 .51269 L .20327 .51388 L .20431 .51476 L .20545 .51529 L .2067 .51546 L .20803 .51531 L .20944 .5149 L .2109 .51431 L .21237 .51366 L .21383 .51307 L .21525 .51263 L .21659 .51246 L .21784 .51261 L .21899 .51311 L .22004 .51397 L .22101 .51513 L .22191 .51653 L .22276 .51807 L .22361 .51964 L .22449 .52112 L .22542 .5224 L .22643 .52341 L .22753 .52408 L .22874 .52439 L .23004 .52436 L .23142 .52403 L .23287 .5235 L .23434 .52287 L .23581 .52224 L .23724 .52174 L .23862 .52145 L .2399 .52147 L .24109 .52184 L .24218 .52256 L .24318 .52362 L .2441 .52494 L .24497 .52644 L .24581 .52801 L .24668 .52954 L .24758 .53091 L .24856 .53203 L .24962 .53284 L .25079 .53329 L Mistroke .25205 .53339 L .25341 .53317 L .25483 .53271 L .2563 .5321 L .25777 .53146 L .25922 .5309 L .26062 .53052 L .26195 .53042 L .26317 .53065 L .2643 .53124 L .26533 .53217 L .26627 .5334 L .26716 .53484 L .26801 .5364 L Mfstroke P p .00139 w .19575 .50382 m .19454 .50354 L .19323 .5036 L .19184 .50394 L .1904 .50449 L .18893 .50513 L .18746 .50575 L .18603 .50625 L .18466 .50651 L .18338 .50647 L .1822 .50608 L .18112 .50533 L .18013 .50426 L .17921 .50292 L .17834 .50142 L .17749 .49985 L .17662 .49833 L .17571 .49698 L s P p .00139 w .19575 .45296 m .19454 .45324 L .19323 .45318 L .19184 .45284 L .1904 .45229 L .18893 .45165 L .18746 .45103 L .18603 .45053 L .18466 .45027 L .18338 .45031 L .1822 .4507 L .18112 .45145 L .18013 .45252 L .17921 .45386 L .17834 .45536 L .17749 .45693 L .17662 .45845 L .17571 .4598 L s P p .00139 w newpath matrix currentmatrix .0273 .03243 scale 17.8662 16.093 1 0 365.73 arc setmatrix s P p .00139 w .50963 .5219 m .50963 .54136 L .50963 .50244 L s P p .00139 w .50417 .5219 m .50417 .54784 L .50417 .49596 L s P p .00139 w .49871 .5219 m .49871 .55162 L .49871 .49218 L s P p .00139 w .49325 .5219 m .49325 .55368 L .49325 .49012 L s P p .00139 w .48779 .5219 m .48779 .55433 L .48779 .48947 L s P p .00139 w .48233 .5219 m .48233 .55368 L .48233 .49012 L s P p .00139 w .47687 .5219 m .47687 .55162 L .47687 .49218 L s P p .00139 w .47141 .5219 m .47141 .54784 L .47141 .49596 L s P p .00139 w .46595 .5219 m .46595 .54136 L .46595 .50244 L s P p .00139 w .46049 .5219 m .51509 .5219 L s P p .00139 w .46104 .52839 m .51454 .52839 L s P p .00139 w .46277 .53487 m .51281 .53487 L s P p .00139 w .46595 .54136 m .50963 .54136 L s P p .00139 w .47141 .54784 m .50417 .54784 L s P p .00139 w .46104 .51541 m .51454 .51541 L s P p .00139 w .46277 .50893 m .51281 .50893 L s P p .00139 w .46595 .50244 m .50963 .50244 L s P p .00139 w .47141 .49596 m .50417 .49596 L s P p .00139 w .43758 .49615 m .43877 .49661 L .44013 .49668 L .44162 .49644 L .44319 .49601 L .44478 .49552 L .44634 .49511 L .44781 .49493 L .44913 .49507 L .45029 .4956 L .45129 .49655 L .45212 .49786 L .45283 .49947 L .45347 .50124 L .4541 .50305 L .45478 .50473 L .45556 .50618 L .45649 .50728 L .45758 .50798 L .45884 .50827 L .46026 .50821 L .46178 .50787 L .46337 .5074 L s P p .00139 w .43758 .49615 m .43655 .49529 L .43569 .49404 L .43496 .49249 L .43431 .49073 L .43368 .48892 L .43302 .4872 L .43227 .4857 L .43137 .48452 L .43032 .48374 L .42909 .48336 L .4277 .48336 L .42619 .48365 L .42461 .4841 L .42302 .48459 L .42148 .48496 L .42004 .48508 L .41874 .48486 L .41761 .48424 L .41666 .48322 L .41585 .48183 L .41516 .48018 L .41453 .47839 L s P p .00139 w .36569 .47471 m .36447 .47493 L .36325 .47558 L .36203 .47656 L .36081 .47777 L .35959 .47904 L .35836 .48023 L .35714 .48118 L .35592 .48178 L .3547 .48196 L .35348 .48169 L .35226 .481 L .35104 .47998 L .34982 .47876 L .3486 .47749 L .34737 .47633 L .34615 .47541 L .34493 .47485 L .34371 .47473 L .34249 .47505 L .34127 .47578 L .34005 .47683 L .33883 .47807 L .33761 .47934 L .33639 .48048 L .33517 .48137 L .33395 .48188 L .33273 .48196 L .33151 .48159 L .33028 .48082 L .32906 .47975 L .32784 .47851 L .32662 .47725 L .32539 .47613 L .32417 .47528 L .32295 .47482 L .32173 .4748 L .32051 .47522 L .31929 .47603 L .31807 .47713 L .31685 .47839 L s P p .00139 w .36569 .47471 m .36691 .47493 L .36813 .47558 L .36935 .47656 L .37057 .47777 L .37179 .47904 L .37302 .48023 L .37424 .48118 L .37546 .48178 L .37668 .48196 L .3779 .48169 L .37912 .481 L .38034 .47998 L .38156 .47876 L .38278 .47749 L .38401 .47633 L .38523 .47541 L .38645 .47485 L .38767 .47473 L .38889 .47505 L .39011 .47578 L .39133 .47683 L .39255 .47807 L .39377 .47934 L .39499 .48048 L .39621 .48137 L .39743 .48188 L .39865 .48196 L .39987 .48159 L .4011 .48082 L .40232 .47975 L .40354 .47851 L .40476 .47725 L .40599 .47613 L .40721 .47528 L .40843 .47482 L .40965 .4748 L .41087 .47522 L .41209 .47603 L .41331 .47713 L .41453 .47839 L s P p .00139 w .53526 .55417 m .53645 .55462 L .53781 .55469 L .5393 .55445 L .54087 .55402 L .54246 .55353 L .54402 .55312 L .54549 .55294 L .54681 .55308 L .54797 .55362 L .54897 .55456 L .5498 .55588 L .55051 .55748 L .55115 .55926 L .55178 .56106 L .55246 .56275 L .55324 .56419 L .55417 .56529 L .55526 .56599 L .55652 .56628 L .55794 .56622 L .55946 .56589 L .56105 .56541 L s P p .00139 w .53526 .55417 m .53423 .5533 L .53337 .55205 L .53264 .5505 L .53199 .54875 L .53136 .54694 L .5307 .54521 L .52995 .54371 L .52905 .54254 L .528 .54175 L .52677 .54138 L .52538 .54137 L .52387 .54166 L .52229 .54212 L .5207 .5426 L .51916 .54297 L .51772 .54309 L .51642 .54287 L .51529 .54225 L .51434 .54123 L .51353 .53985 L .51284 .5382 L .51221 .5364 L s P p .00139 w .48879 .45296 m .48991 .45232 L .49092 .45134 L .49186 .45008 L .49274 .44861 L .49359 .44705 L .49445 .4455 L .49535 .44409 L .49631 .4429 L .49735 .44202 L .49849 .44149 L .49974 .44132 L .50107 .44147 L .50248 .44189 L .50394 .44247 L .50541 .44312 L .50687 .44371 L .50829 .44415 L .50963 .44432 L .51088 .44417 L .51203 .44367 L .51308 .44281 L .51405 .44165 L .51495 .44025 L .5158 .43871 L .51665 .43714 L .51753 .43566 L .51846 .43438 L .51947 .43337 L .52057 .4327 L .52178 .43239 L .52308 .43242 L .52446 .43275 L .52591 .43328 L .52738 .43391 L .52885 .43454 L .53028 .43504 L .53166 .43533 L .53294 .43531 L .53413 .43494 L .53522 .43422 L .53622 .43316 L .53714 .43184 L .53801 .43034 L .53885 .42877 L .53972 .42724 L .54062 .42587 L .5416 .42475 L .54266 .42394 L .54383 .42349 L Mistroke .54509 .4234 L .54645 .42361 L .54787 .42407 L .54934 .42468 L .55081 .42532 L .55226 .42589 L .55366 .42626 L .55499 .42636 L .55621 .42613 L .55734 .42554 L .55837 .42461 L .55931 .42338 L .5602 .42194 L .56105 .42038 L Mfstroke P p .00139 w .48879 .45296 m .48758 .45324 L .48627 .45318 L .48488 .45284 L .48344 .45229 L .48197 .45165 L .4805 .45103 L .47907 .45053 L .4777 .45027 L .47642 .45031 L .47524 .4507 L .47416 .45145 L .47317 .45252 L .47225 .45386 L .47138 .45536 L .47053 .45693 L .46966 .45845 L .46875 .4598 L .46776 .4609 L .46669 .46167 L .46551 .46209 L .46424 .46215 L .46288 .46191 L .46145 .46143 L .45999 .46081 L .45851 .46016 L .45707 .4596 L .45567 .45924 L .45436 .45915 L .45314 .4594 L .45202 .46001 L .45099 .46097 L .45005 .46221 L .44916 .46366 L .4483 .46522 L .44745 .46677 L .44655 .4682 L .4456 .4694 L .44456 .4703 L .44342 .47086 L .44218 .47105 L .44085 .47092 L .43945 .47052 L .438 .46994 L .43652 .46928 L .43506 .46868 L .43365 .46822 L .4323 .46802 L .43104 .46814 L .42988 .46861 L Mistroke .42882 .46943 L .42785 .47057 L .42694 .47195 L .42607 .47348 L .42522 .47505 L .42434 .47653 L .42341 .47783 L .4224 .47886 L .42131 .47955 L .42011 .47988 L .41881 .47987 L .41744 .47956 L .416 .47903 L .41453 .47839 L Mfstroke P p .00139 w .80267 .5219 m .80267 .54136 L .80267 .50244 L s P p .00139 w .79721 .5219 m .79721 .54784 L .79721 .49596 L s P p .00139 w .79175 .5219 m .79175 .55162 L .79175 .49218 L s P p .00139 w .78629 .5219 m .78629 .55368 L .78629 .49012 L s P p .00139 w .78083 .5219 m .78083 .55433 L .78083 .48947 L s P p .00139 w .77537 .5219 m .77537 .55368 L .77537 .49012 L s P p .00139 w .76991 .5219 m .76991 .55162 L .76991 .49218 L s P p .00139 w .76445 .5219 m .76445 .54784 L .76445 .49596 L s P p .00139 w .75899 .5219 m .75899 .54136 L .75899 .50244 L s P p .00139 w .75353 .5219 m .80813 .5219 L s P p .00139 w .75408 .52839 m .80758 .52839 L s P p .00139 w .75581 .53487 m .80585 .53487 L s P p .00139 w .75899 .54136 m .80267 .54136 L s P p .00139 w .76445 .54784 m .79721 .54784 L s P p .00139 w .75408 .51541 m .80758 .51541 L s P p .00139 w .75581 .50893 m .80585 .50893 L s P p .00139 w .75899 .50244 m .80267 .50244 L s P p .00139 w .76445 .49596 m .79721 .49596 L s P p \[ .01 .01 \] 0 setdash .00139 w .75641 .5074 m .70757 .47839 L s P p .00139 w newpath matrix currentmatrix .0273 .03243 scale 28.5993 16.093 1 0 365.73 arc setmatrix s P p .00139 w .65873 .47471 m .65751 .47493 L .65629 .47558 L .65507 .47656 L .65385 .47777 L .65263 .47904 L .6514 .48023 L .65018 .48118 L .64896 .48178 L .64774 .48196 L .64652 .48169 L .6453 .481 L .64408 .47998 L .64286 .47876 L .64164 .47749 L .64041 .47633 L .63919 .47541 L .63797 .47485 L .63675 .47473 L .63553 .47505 L .63431 .47578 L .63309 .47683 L .63187 .47807 L .63065 .47934 L .62943 .48048 L .62821 .48137 L .62699 .48188 L .62577 .48196 L .62455 .48159 L .62332 .48082 L .6221 .47975 L .62088 .47851 L .61966 .47725 L .61843 .47613 L .61721 .47528 L .61599 .47482 L .61477 .4748 L .61355 .47522 L .61233 .47603 L .61111 .47713 L .60989 .47839 L s P p .00139 w .65873 .47471 m .65995 .47493 L .66117 .47558 L .66239 .47656 L .66361 .47777 L .66484 .47904 L .66606 .48023 L .66728 .48118 L .6685 .48178 L .66972 .48196 L .67094 .48169 L .67216 .481 L .67338 .47998 L .6746 .47876 L .67582 .47749 L .67705 .47633 L .67827 .47541 L .67949 .47485 L .68071 .47473 L .68193 .47505 L .68315 .47578 L .68437 .47683 L .68559 .47807 L .68681 .47934 L .68803 .48048 L .68925 .48137 L .69047 .48188 L .69169 .48196 L .69291 .48159 L .69414 .48082 L .69536 .47975 L .69658 .47851 L .6978 .47725 L .69903 .47613 L .70025 .47528 L .70147 .47482 L .70269 .4748 L .70391 .47522 L .70513 .47603 L .70635 .47713 L .70757 .47839 L s P p .00139 w .8283 .55417 m .82949 .55462 L .83085 .55469 L .83234 .55445 L .83391 .55402 L .8355 .55353 L .83706 .55312 L .83853 .55294 L .83985 .55308 L .84102 .55362 L .84201 .55456 L .84284 .55588 L .84355 .55748 L .84419 .55926 L .84482 .56106 L .8455 .56275 L .84628 .56419 L .84721 .56529 L .8483 .56599 L .84956 .56628 L .85098 .56622 L .8525 .56589 L .85409 .56541 L s P p .00139 w .8283 .55417 m .82727 .5533 L .82641 .55205 L .82568 .5505 L .82503 .54875 L .8244 .54694 L .82374 .54521 L .82299 .54371 L .8221 .54254 L .82104 .54175 L .81981 .54138 L .81842 .54137 L .81691 .54166 L .81533 .54212 L .81374 .5426 L .8122 .54297 L .81076 .54309 L .80946 .54287 L .80833 .54225 L .80738 .54123 L .80657 .53985 L .80588 .5382 L .80525 .5364 L s P p .00139 w .78183 .45296 m .78295 .45232 L .78396 .45134 L .7849 .45008 L .78578 .44861 L .78663 .44705 L .78749 .4455 L .78839 .44409 L .78935 .4429 L .79039 .44202 L .79153 .44149 L .79278 .44132 L .79411 .44147 L .79552 .44189 L .79698 .44247 L .79845 .44312 L .79991 .44371 L .80133 .44415 L .80267 .44432 L .80392 .44417 L .80507 .44367 L .80612 .44281 L .80709 .44165 L .80799 .44025 L .80884 .43871 L .8097 .43714 L .81057 .43566 L .8115 .43438 L .81251 .43337 L .81361 .4327 L .81482 .43239 L .81612 .43242 L .8175 .43275 L .81895 .43328 L .82042 .43391 L .82189 .43454 L .82332 .43504 L .8247 .43533 L .82598 .43531 L .82717 .43494 L .82826 .43422 L .82926 .43316 L .83018 .43184 L .83105 .43034 L .8319 .42877 L .83276 .42724 L .83366 .42587 L .83464 .42475 L .8357 .42394 L .83687 .42349 L Mistroke .83813 .4234 L .83949 .42361 L .84091 .42407 L .84238 .42468 L .84385 .42532 L .8453 .42589 L .8467 .42626 L .84803 .42636 L .84925 .42613 L .85038 .42554 L .85141 .42461 L .85236 .42338 L .85324 .42194 L .85409 .42038 L Mfstroke P p .00139 w .78183 .45296 m .78062 .45324 L .77931 .45318 L .77792 .45284 L .77648 .45229 L .77501 .45165 L .77354 .45103 L .77211 .45053 L .77074 .45027 L .76946 .45031 L .76828 .4507 L .7672 .45145 L .76621 .45252 L .76529 .45386 L .76442 .45536 L .76357 .45693 L .7627 .45845 L .76179 .4598 L .7608 .4609 L .75973 .46167 L .75855 .46209 L .75728 .46215 L .75592 .46191 L .75449 .46143 L .75303 .46081 L .75155 .46016 L .75011 .4596 L .74871 .45924 L .7474 .45915 L .74618 .4594 L .74506 .46001 L .74403 .46097 L .74309 .46221 L .7422 .46366 L .74134 .46522 L .74049 .46677 L .73959 .4682 L .73864 .4694 L .7376 .4703 L .73646 .47086 L .73522 .47105 L .73389 .47092 L .73249 .47052 L .73104 .46994 L .72957 .46928 L .7281 .46868 L .72669 .46822 L .72534 .46802 L .72408 .46814 L .72292 .46861 L Mistroke .72186 .46943 L .72089 .47057 L .71998 .47195 L .71911 .47348 L .71826 .47505 L .71738 .47653 L .71645 .47783 L .71545 .47886 L .71435 .47955 L .71315 .47988 L .71185 .47987 L .71048 .47956 L .70904 .47903 L .70757 .47839 L Mfstroke P P P 0 0 m 1 0 L 1 .6 L 0 .6 L closepath clip newpath MathPictureEnd end showpage
newpath .072 .072 scale /gsdict 4 dict def gsdict begin /M /moveto load def /D /lineto load def /S /stroke load def /W /setlinewidth load def S 3 W S 2452 3340 M 7360 3340 D S 2452 3340 M 2452 3228 D S 2231 3188 M 2209 3181 D 2202 3174 D 2195 3159 D 2195 3138 D 2202 3124 D 2216 3117 D 2238 3117 D 2259 3124 D 2273 3131 D 2281 3145 D 2281 3167 D 2273 3181 D 2259 3188 D 2231 3188 D S 2245 3188 M 2209 3181 D S 2209 3174 M 2202 3159 D 2202 3131 D 2209 3124 D S 2202 3124 M 2223 3117 D S 2231 3117 M 2259 3124 D S 2266 3131 M 2273 3145 D 2273 3167 D 2266 3181 D S 2273 3181 M 2245 3188 D S 2231 3188 M 2216 3174 D 2209 3159 D 2209 3131 D 2216 3117 D S 2238 3117 M 2252 3124 D 2259 3131 D 2266 3145 D 2266 3174 D 2259 3188 D S 2216 3117 M 2188 3109 D 2173 3095 D 2166 3081 D 2166 3059 D 2173 3045 D 2195 3038 D 2223 3038 D 2252 3045 D 2259 3052 D 2266 3067 D 2266 3088 D 2259 3102 D 2252 3109 D 2238 3117 D S 2223 3117 M 2188 3109 D S 2195 3109 M 2181 3095 D 2173 3081 D 2173 3059 D 2181 3045 D S 2173 3045 M 2209 3038 D 2252 3045 D S 2252 3052 M 2259 3067 D 2259 3088 D 2252 3102 D S 2252 3109 M 2231 3117 D S 2216 3117 M 2202 3109 D 2188 3095 D 2181 3081 D 2181 3059 D 2188 3045 D 2195 3038 D S 2223 3038 M 2238 3045 D 2245 3052 D 2252 3067 D 2252 3095 D 2245 3109 D 2238 3117 D S 2352 3152 M 2352 3159 D 2359 3159 D 2359 3145 D 2345 3145 D 2345 3159 D 2352 3174 D 2359 3181 D 2381 3188 D 2402 3188 D 2423 3181 D 2431 3167 D 2431 3152 D 2423 3138 D 2416 3131 D 2402 3124 D 2381 3117 D S 2416 3181 M 2423 3167 D 2423 3152 D 2416 3138 D 2409 3131 D S 2402 3188 M 2409 3181 D 2416 3167 D 2416 3152 D 2409 3138 D 2395 3124 D 2381 3117 D S 2366 3117 M 2381 3117 D 2402 3109 D 2409 3102 D 2416 3088 D 2416 3067 D 2409 3052 D 2395 3045 D 2373 3038 D 2352 3038 D 2331 3045 D 2323 3052 D 2316 3067 D 2316 3081 D 2331 3081 D 2331 3067 D 2323 3067 D 2323 3074 D S 2402 3102 M 2409 3088 D 2409 3067 D 2402 3052 D S 2381 3117 M 2395 3109 D 2402 3095 D 2402 3067 D 2395 3052 D 2388 3045 D 2373 3038 D S 2473 3059 M 2466 3052 D 2466 3045 D 2473 3038 D 2481 3038 D 2488 3045 D 2488 3052 D 2481 3059 D 2473 3059 D S 2473 3052 M 2473 3045 D 2481 3045 D 2481 3052 D 2473 3052 D S 2595 3188 M 2559 3117 D S 2595 3188 M 2666 3188 D S 2595 3181 M 2652 3181 D S 2588 3174 M 2623 3174 D 2652 3181 D 2666 3188 D S 2559 3117 M 2566 3124 D 2588 3131 D 2609 3131 D 2631 3124 D 2638 3117 D 2645 3102 D 2645 3081 D 2638 3059 D 2623 3045 D 2595 3038 D 2573 3038 D 2559 3045 D 2552 3052 D 2545 3067 D 2545 3081 D 2559 3081 D 2559 3067 D 2552 3067 D 2552 3074 D S 2631 3117 M 2638 3102 D 2638 3081 D 2631 3059 D 2616 3045 D S 2609 3131 M 2623 3124 D 2631 3109 D 2631 3081 D 2623 3059 D 2609 3045 D 2595 3038 D S 2898 3340 M 2898 3265 D S 3344 3340 M 3344 3265 D S 3790 3340 M 3790 3228 D S 3569 3188 M 3547 3181 D 3540 3174 D 3533 3159 D 3533 3138 D 3540 3124 D 3554 3117 D 3576 3117 D 3597 3124 D 3611 3131 D 3619 3145 D 3619 3167 D 3611 3181 D 3597 3188 D 3569 3188 D S 3583 3188 M 3547 3181 D S 3547 3174 M 3540 3159 D 3540 3131 D 3547 3124 D S 3540 3124 M 3561 3117 D S 3569 3117 M 3597 3124 D S 3604 3131 M 3611 3145 D 3611 3167 D 3604 3181 D S 3611 3181 M 3583 3188 D S 3569 3188 M 3554 3174 D 3547 3159 D 3547 3131 D 3554 3117 D S 3576 3117 M 3590 3124 D 3597 3131 D 3604 3145 D 3604 3174 D 3597 3188 D S 3554 3117 M 3526 3109 D 3511 3095 D 3504 3081 D 3504 3059 D 3511 3045 D 3533 3038 D 3561 3038 D 3590 3045 D 3597 3052 D 3604 3067 D 3604 3088 D 3597 3102 D 3590 3109 D 3576 3117 D S 3561 3117 M 3526 3109 D S 3533 3109 M 3519 3095 D 3511 3081 D 3511 3059 D 3519 3045 D S 3511 3045 M 3547 3038 D 3590 3045 D S 3590 3052 M 3597 3067 D 3597 3088 D 3590 3102 D S 3590 3109 M 3569 3117 D S 3554 3117 M 3540 3109 D 3526 3095 D 3519 3081 D 3519 3059 D 3526 3045 D 3533 3038 D S 3561 3038 M 3576 3045 D 3583 3052 D 3590 3067 D 3590 3095 D 3583 3109 D 3576 3117 D S 3690 3152 M 3690 3159 D 3697 3159 D 3697 3145 D 3683 3145 D 3683 3159 D 3690 3174 D 3697 3181 D 3719 3188 D 3740 3188 D 3761 3181 D 3769 3167 D 3769 3152 D 3761 3138 D 3754 3131 D 3740 3124 D 3719 3117 D S 3754 3181 M 3761 3167 D 3761 3152 D 3754 3138 D 3747 3131 D S 3740 3188 M 3747 3181 D 3754 3167 D 3754 3152 D 3747 3138 D 3733 3124 D 3719 3117 D S 3704 3117 M 3719 3117 D 3740 3109 D 3747 3102 D 3754 3088 D 3754 3067 D 3747 3052 D 3733 3045 D 3711 3038 D 3690 3038 D 3669 3045 D 3661 3052 D 3654 3067 D 3654 3081 D 3669 3081 D 3669 3067 D 3661 3067 D 3661 3074 D S 3740 3102 M 3747 3088 D 3747 3067 D 3740 3052 D S 3719 3117 M 3733 3109 D 3740 3095 D 3740 3067 D 3733 3052 D 3726 3045 D 3711 3038 D S 3811 3059 M 3804 3052 D 3804 3045 D 3811 3038 D 3819 3038 D 3826 3045 D 3826 3052 D 3819 3059 D 3811 3059 D S 3811 3052 M 3811 3045 D 3819 3045 D 3819 3052 D 3811 3052 D S 3947 3188 M 3926 3181 D 3919 3174 D 3911 3159 D 3911 3138 D 3919 3124 D 3933 3117 D 3954 3117 D 3976 3124 D 3990 3131 D 3997 3145 D 3997 3167 D 3990 3181 D 3976 3188 D 3947 3188 D S 3961 3188 M 3926 3181 D S 3926 3174 M 3919 3159 D 3919 3131 D 3926 3124 D S 3919 3124 M 3940 3117 D S 3947 3117 M 3976 3124 D S 3983 3131 M 3990 3145 D 3990 3167 D 3983 3181 D S 3990 3181 M 3961 3188 D S 3947 3188 M 3933 3174 D 3926 3159 D 3926 3131 D 3933 3117 D S 3954 3117 M 3969 3124 D 3976 3131 D 3983 3145 D 3983 3174 D 3976 3188 D S 3933 3117 M 3904 3109 D 3890 3095 D 3883 3081 D 3883 3059 D 3890 3045 D 3911 3038 D 3940 3038 D 3969 3045 D 3976 3052 D 3983 3067 D 3983 3088 D 3976 3102 D 3969 3109 D 3954 3117 D S 3940 3117 M 3904 3109 D S 3911 3109 M 3897 3095 D 3890 3081 D 3890 3059 D 3897 3045 D S 3890 3045 M 3926 3038 D 3969 3045 D S 3969 3052 M 3976 3067 D 3976 3088 D 3969 3102 D S 3969 3109 M 3947 3117 D S 3933 3117 M 3919 3109 D 3904 3095 D 3897 3081 D 3897 3059 D 3904 3045 D 3911 3038 D S 3940 3038 M 3954 3045 D 3961 3052 D 3969 3067 D 3969 3095 D 3961 3109 D 3954 3117 D S 4236 3340 M 4236 3265 D S 4683 3340 M 4683 3265 D S 5129 3340 M 5129 3228 D S 4908 3188 M 4886 3181 D 4879 3174 D 4872 3159 D 4872 3138 D 4879 3124 D 4893 3117 D 4915 3117 D 4936 3124 D 4950 3131 D 4958 3145 D 4958 3167 D 4950 3181 D 4936 3188 D 4908 3188 D S 4922 3188 M 4886 3181 D S 4886 3174 M 4879 3159 D 4879 3131 D 4886 3124 D S 4879 3124 M 4900 3117 D S 4908 3117 M 4936 3124 D S 4943 3131 M 4950 3145 D 4950 3167 D 4943 3181 D S 4950 3181 M 4922 3188 D S 4908 3188 M 4893 3174 D 4886 3159 D 4886 3131 D 4893 3117 D S 4915 3117 M 4929 3124 D 4936 3131 D 4943 3145 D 4943 3174 D 4936 3188 D S 4893 3117 M 4865 3109 D 4850 3095 D 4843 3081 D 4843 3059 D 4850 3045 D 4872 3038 D 4900 3038 D 4929 3045 D 4936 3052 D 4943 3067 D 4943 3088 D 4936 3102 D 4929 3109 D 4915 3117 D S 4900 3117 M 4865 3109 D S 4872 3109 M 4858 3095 D 4850 3081 D 4850 3059 D 4858 3045 D S 4850 3045 M 4886 3038 D 4929 3045 D S 4929 3052 M 4936 3067 D 4936 3088 D 4929 3102 D S 4929 3109 M 4908 3117 D S 4893 3117 M 4879 3109 D 4865 3095 D 4858 3081 D 4858 3059 D 4865 3045 D 4872 3038 D S 4900 3038 M 4915 3045 D 4922 3052 D 4929 3067 D 4929 3095 D 4922 3109 D 4915 3117 D S 5086 3159 M 5050 3038 D 5065 3038 D S 5108 3188 M 5093 3159 D 5058 3038 D S 5108 3188 M 5065 3038 D S 5108 3188 M 4993 3081 D 5108 3081 D S 5150 3059 M 5143 3052 D 5143 3045 D 5150 3038 D 5158 3038 D 5165 3045 D 5165 3052 D 5158 3059 D 5150 3059 D S 5150 3052 M 5150 3045 D 5158 3045 D 5158 3052 D 5150 3052 D S 5293 3159 M 5258 3038 D 5272 3038 D S 5315 3188 M 5300 3159 D 5265 3038 D S 5315 3188 M 5272 3038 D S 5315 3188 M 5293 3167 D 5272 3152 D 5258 3145 D S 5293 3159 M 5279 3152 D 5258 3145 D S 5575 3340 M 5575 3265 D S 6021 3340 M 6021 3265 D S 6468 3340 M 6468 3228 D S 6247 3188 M 6225 3181 D 6218 3174 D 6211 3159 D 6211 3138 D 6218 3124 D 6232 3117 D 6254 3117 D 6275 3124 D 6289 3131 D 6297 3145 D 6297 3167 D 6289 3181 D 6275 3188 D 6247 3188 D S 6261 3188 M 6225 3181 D S 6225 3174 M 6218 3159 D 6218 3131 D 6225 3124 D S 6218 3124 M 6239 3117 D S 6247 3117 M 6275 3124 D S 6282 3131 M 6289 3145 D 6289 3167 D 6282 3181 D S 6289 3181 M 6261 3188 D S 6247 3188 M 6232 3174 D 6225 3159 D 6225 3131 D 6232 3117 D S 6254 3117 M 6268 3124 D 6275 3131 D 6282 3145 D 6282 3174 D 6275 3188 D S 6232 3117 M 6204 3109 D 6189 3095 D 6182 3081 D 6182 3059 D 6189 3045 D 6211 3038 D 6239 3038 D 6268 3045 D 6275 3052 D 6282 3067 D 6282 3088 D 6275 3102 D 6268 3109 D 6254 3117 D S 6239 3117 M 6204 3109 D S 6211 3109 M 6197 3095 D 6189 3081 D 6189 3059 D 6197 3045 D S 6189 3045 M 6225 3038 D 6268 3045 D S 6268 3052 M 6275 3067 D 6275 3088 D 6268 3102 D S 6268 3109 M 6247 3117 D S 6232 3117 M 6218 3109 D 6204 3095 D 6197 3081 D 6197 3059 D 6204 3045 D 6211 3038 D S 6239 3038 M 6254 3045 D 6261 3052 D 6268 3067 D 6268 3095 D 6261 3109 D 6254 3117 D S 6425 3159 M 6389 3038 D 6404 3038 D S 6447 3188 M 6432 3159 D 6397 3038 D S 6447 3188 M 6404 3038 D S 6447 3188 M 6332 3081 D 6447 3081 D S 6489 3059 M 6482 3052 D 6482 3045 D 6489 3038 D 6497 3038 D 6504 3045 D 6504 3052 D 6497 3059 D 6489 3059 D S 6489 3052 M 6489 3045 D 6497 3045 D 6497 3052 D 6489 3052 D S 6654 3159 M 6618 3038 D 6632 3038 D S 6675 3188 M 6661 3159 D 6625 3038 D S 6675 3188 M 6632 3038 D S 6675 3188 M 6561 3081 D 6675 3081 D S 6914 3340 M 6914 3265 D S 7360 3340 M 7360 3265 D S 1760 3704 M 1760 8940 D S 1760 3704 M 1648 3704 D S 944 3779 M 922 3772 D 908 3758 D 894 3736 D 887 3715 D 879 3686 D 879 3665 D 887 3643 D 894 3636 D 908 3629 D 922 3629 D 944 3636 D 958 3650 D 972 3672 D 979 3693 D 987 3722 D 987 3743 D 979 3765 D 972 3772 D 958 3779 D 944 3779 D S 922 3765 M 908 3750 D 901 3736 D 894 3715 D 887 3686 D 887 3658 D 894 3643 D S 944 3643 M 958 3658 D 965 3672 D 972 3693 D 979 3722 D 979 3750 D 972 3765 D S 944 3779 M 929 3772 D 915 3750 D 908 3736 D 901 3715 D 894 3686 D 894 3650 D 901 3636 D 908 3629 D S 922 3629 M 937 3636 D 951 3658 D 958 3672 D 965 3693 D 972 3722 D 972 3758 D 965 3772 D 958 3779 D S 1029 3650 M 1022 3643 D 1022 3636 D 1029 3629 D 1037 3629 D 1044 3636 D 1044 3643 D 1037 3650 D 1029 3650 D S 1029 3643 M 1029 3636 D 1037 3636 D 1037 3643 D 1029 3643 D S 1137 3743 M 1137 3750 D 1144 3750 D 1144 3736 D 1129 3736 D 1129 3750 D 1137 3765 D 1144 3772 D 1165 3779 D 1187 3779 D 1208 3772 D 1215 3758 D 1215 3743 D 1208 3729 D 1194 3715 D 1122 3672 D 1108 3658 D 1094 3629 D S 1201 3772 M 1208 3758 D 1208 3743 D 1201 3729 D 1187 3715 D 1165 3700 D S 1187 3779 M 1194 3772 D 1201 3758 D 1201 3743 D 1194 3729 D 1179 3715 D 1122 3672 D S 1101 3643 M 1108 3650 D 1122 3650 D 1158 3643 D 1194 3643 D 1201 3650 D S 1122 3650 M 1158 3636 D 1194 3636 D S 1122 3650 M 1158 3629 D 1179 3629 D 1194 3636 D 1201 3650 D 1201 3658 D S 1287 3743 M 1287 3750 D 1294 3750 D 1294 3736 D 1279 3736 D 1279 3750 D 1287 3765 D 1294 3772 D 1315 3779 D 1337 3779 D 1358 3772 D 1365 3758 D 1365 3743 D 1358 3729 D 1344 3715 D 1272 3672 D 1258 3658 D 1244 3629 D S 1351 3772 M 1358 3758 D 1358 3743 D 1351 3729 D 1337 3715 D 1315 3700 D S 1337 3779 M 1344 3772 D 1351 3758 D 1351 3743 D 1344 3729 D 1329 3715 D 1272 3672 D S 1251 3643 M 1258 3650 D 1272 3650 D 1308 3643 D 1344 3643 D 1351 3650 D S 1272 3650 M 1308 3636 D 1344 3636 D S 1272 3650 M 1308 3629 D 1329 3629 D 1344 3636 D 1351 3650 D 1351 3658 D S 1465 3779 M 1444 3772 D 1437 3765 D 1429 3750 D 1429 3729 D 1437 3715 D 1451 3708 D 1472 3708 D 1494 3715 D 1508 3722 D 1515 3736 D 1515 3758 D 1508 3772 D 1494 3779 D 1465 3779 D S 1479 3779 M 1444 3772 D S 1444 3765 M 1437 3750 D 1437 3722 D 1444 3715 D S 1437 3715 M 1458 3708 D S 1465 3708 M 1494 3715 D S 1501 3722 M 1508 3736 D 1508 3758 D 1501 3772 D S 1508 3772 M 1479 3779 D S 1465 3779 M 1451 3765 D 1444 3750 D 1444 3722 D 1451 3708 D S 1472 3708 M 1487 3715 D 1494 3722 D 1501 3736 D 1501 3765 D 1494 3779 D S 1451 3708 M 1422 3700 D 1408 3686 D 1401 3672 D 1401 3650 D 1408 3636 D 1429 3629 D 1458 3629 D 1487 3636 D 1494 3643 D 1501 3658 D 1501 3679 D 1494 3693 D 1487 3700 D 1472 3708 D S 1458 3708 M 1422 3700 D S 1429 3700 M 1415 3686 D 1408 3672 D 1408 3650 D 1415 3636 D S 1408 3636 M 1444 3629 D 1487 3636 D S 1487 3643 M 1494 3658 D 1494 3679 D 1487 3693 D S 1487 3700 M 1465 3708 D S 1451 3708 M 1437 3700 D 1422 3686 D 1415 3672 D 1415 3650 D 1422 3636 D 1429 3629 D S 1458 3629 M 1472 3636 D 1479 3643 D 1487 3658 D 1487 3686 D 1479 3700 D 1472 3708 D S 1760 4078 M 1685 4078 D S 1760 4452 M 1685 4452 D S 1760 4826 M 1685 4826 D S 1760 5200 M 1648 5200 D S 944 5275 M 922 5268 D 908 5254 D 894 5232 D 887 5211 D 879 5182 D 879 5161 D 887 5139 D 894 5132 D 908 5125 D 922 5125 D 944 5132 D 958 5146 D 972 5168 D 979 5189 D 987 5218 D 987 5239 D 979 5261 D 972 5268 D 958 5275 D 944 5275 D S 922 5261 M 908 5246 D 901 5232 D 894 5211 D 887 5182 D 887 5154 D 894 5139 D S 944 5139 M 958 5154 D 965 5168 D 972 5189 D 979 5218 D 979 5246 D 972 5261 D S 944 5275 M 929 5268 D 915 5246 D 908 5232 D 901 5211 D 894 5182 D 894 5146 D 901 5132 D 908 5125 D S 922 5125 M 937 5132 D 951 5154 D 958 5168 D 965 5189 D 972 5218 D 972 5254 D 965 5268 D 958 5275 D S 1029 5146 M 1022 5139 D 1022 5132 D 1029 5125 D 1037 5125 D 1044 5132 D 1044 5139 D 1037 5146 D 1029 5146 D S 1029 5139 M 1029 5132 D 1037 5132 D 1037 5139 D 1029 5139 D S 1137 5239 M 1137 5246 D 1144 5246 D 1144 5232 D 1129 5232 D 1129 5246 D 1137 5261 D 1144 5268 D 1165 5275 D 1187 5275 D 1208 5268 D 1215 5254 D 1215 5239 D 1208 5225 D 1194 5211 D 1122 5168 D 1108 5154 D 1094 5125 D S 1201 5268 M 1208 5254 D 1208 5239 D 1201 5225 D 1187 5211 D 1165 5196 D S 1187 5275 M 1194 5268 D 1201 5254 D 1201 5239 D 1194 5225 D 1179 5211 D 1122 5168 D S 1101 5139 M 1108 5146 D 1122 5146 D 1158 5139 D 1194 5139 D 1201 5146 D S 1122 5146 M 1158 5132 D 1194 5132 D S 1122 5146 M 1158 5125 D 1179 5125 D 1194 5132 D 1201 5146 D 1201 5154 D S 1287 5239 M 1287 5246 D 1294 5246 D 1294 5232 D 1279 5232 D 1279 5246 D 1287 5261 D 1294 5268 D 1315 5275 D 1337 5275 D 1358 5268 D 1365 5254 D 1365 5239 D 1358 5225 D 1351 5218 D 1337 5211 D 1315 5204 D S 1351 5268 M 1358 5254 D 1358 5239 D 1351 5225 D 1344 5218 D S 1337 5275 M 1344 5268 D 1351 5254 D 1351 5239 D 1344 5225 D 1329 5211 D 1315 5204 D S 1301 5204 M 1315 5204 D 1337 5196 D 1344 5189 D 1351 5175 D 1351 5154 D 1344 5139 D 1329 5132 D 1308 5125 D 1287 5125 D 1265 5132 D 1258 5139 D 1251 5154 D 1251 5168 D 1265 5168 D 1265 5154 D 1258 5154 D 1258 5161 D S 1337 5189 M 1344 5175 D 1344 5154 D 1337 5139 D S 1315 5204 M 1329 5196 D 1337 5182 D 1337 5154 D 1329 5139 D 1322 5132 D 1308 5125 D S 1472 5275 M 1451 5268 D 1437 5254 D 1422 5232 D 1415 5211 D 1408 5182 D 1408 5161 D 1415 5139 D 1422 5132 D 1437 5125 D 1451 5125 D 1472 5132 D 1487 5146 D 1501 5168 D 1508 5189 D 1515 5218 D 1515 5239 D 1508 5261 D 1501 5268 D 1487 5275 D 1472 5275 D S 1451 5261 M 1437 5246 D 1429 5232 D 1422 5211 D 1415 5182 D 1415 5154 D 1422 5139 D S 1472 5139 M 1487 5154 D 1494 5168 D 1501 5189 D 1508 5218 D 1508 5246 D 1501 5261 D S 1472 5275 M 1458 5268 D 1444 5246 D 1437 5232 D 1429 5211 D 1422 5182 D 1422 5146 D 1429 5132 D 1437 5125 D S 1451 5125 M 1465 5132 D 1479 5154 D 1487 5168 D 1494 5189 D 1501 5218 D 1501 5254 D 1494 5268 D 1487 5275 D S 1760 5574 M 1685 5574 D S 1760 5948 M 1685 5948 D S 1760 6322 M 1685 6322 D S 1760 6696 M 1648 6696 D S 944 6771 M 922 6764 D 908 6750 D 894 6728 D 887 6707 D 879 6678 D 879 6657 D 887 6635 D 894 6628 D 908 6621 D 922 6621 D 944 6628 D 958 6642 D 972 6664 D 979 6685 D 987 6714 D 987 6735 D 979 6757 D 972 6764 D 958 6771 D 944 6771 D S 922 6757 M 908 6742 D 901 6728 D 894 6707 D 887 6678 D 887 6650 D 894 6635 D S 944 6635 M 958 6650 D 965 6664 D 972 6685 D 979 6714 D 979 6742 D 972 6757 D S 944 6771 M 929 6764 D 915 6742 D 908 6728 D 901 6707 D 894 6678 D 894 6642 D 901 6628 D 908 6621 D S 922 6621 M 937 6628 D 951 6650 D 958 6664 D 965 6685 D 972 6714 D 972 6750 D 965 6764 D 958 6771 D S 1029 6642 M 1022 6635 D 1022 6628 D 1029 6621 D 1037 6621 D 1044 6628 D 1044 6635 D 1037 6642 D 1029 6642 D S 1029 6635 M 1029 6628 D 1037 6628 D 1037 6635 D 1029 6635 D S 1137 6735 M 1137 6742 D 1144 6742 D 1144 6728 D 1129 6728 D 1129 6742 D 1137 6757 D 1144 6764 D 1165 6771 D 1187 6771 D 1208 6764 D 1215 6750 D 1215 6735 D 1208 6721 D 1194 6707 D 1122 6664 D 1108 6650 D 1094 6621 D S 1201 6764 M 1208 6750 D 1208 6735 D 1201 6721 D 1187 6707 D 1165 6692 D S 1187 6771 M 1194 6764 D 1201 6750 D 1201 6735 D 1194 6721 D 1179 6707 D 1122 6664 D S 1101 6635 M 1108 6642 D 1122 6642 D 1158 6635 D 1194 6635 D 1201 6642 D S 1122 6642 M 1158 6628 D 1194 6628 D S 1122 6642 M 1158 6621 D 1179 6621 D 1194 6628 D 1201 6642 D 1201 6650 D S 1287 6735 M 1287 6742 D 1294 6742 D 1294 6728 D 1279 6728 D 1279 6742 D 1287 6757 D 1294 6764 D 1315 6771 D 1337 6771 D 1358 6764 D 1365 6750 D 1365 6735 D 1358 6721 D 1351 6714 D 1337 6707 D 1315 6700 D S 1351 6764 M 1358 6750 D 1358 6735 D 1351 6721 D 1344 6714 D S 1337 6771 M 1344 6764 D 1351 6750 D 1351 6735 D 1344 6721 D 1329 6707 D 1315 6700 D S 1301 6700 M 1315 6700 D 1337 6692 D 1344 6685 D 1351 6671 D 1351 6650 D 1344 6635 D 1329 6628 D 1308 6621 D 1287 6621 D 1265 6628 D 1258 6635 D 1251 6650 D 1251 6664 D 1265 6664 D 1265 6650 D 1258 6650 D 1258 6657 D S 1337 6685 M 1344 6671 D 1344 6650 D 1337 6635 D S 1315 6700 M 1329 6692 D 1337 6678 D 1337 6650 D 1329 6635 D 1322 6628 D 1308 6621 D S 1437 6735 M 1437 6742 D 1444 6742 D 1444 6728 D 1429 6728 D 1429 6742 D 1437 6757 D 1444 6764 D 1465 6771 D 1487 6771 D 1508 6764 D 1515 6750 D 1515 6735 D 1508 6721 D 1494 6707 D 1422 6664 D 1408 6650 D 1394 6621 D S 1501 6764 M 1508 6750 D 1508 6735 D 1501 6721 D 1487 6707 D 1465 6692 D S 1487 6771 M 1494 6764 D 1501 6750 D 1501 6735 D 1494 6721 D 1479 6707 D 1422 6664 D S 1401 6635 M 1408 6642 D 1422 6642 D 1458 6635 D 1494 6635 D 1501 6642 D S 1422 6642 M 1458 6628 D 1494 6628 D S 1422 6642 M 1458 6621 D 1479 6621 D 1494 6628 D 1501 6642 D 1501 6650 D S 1760 7070 M 1685 7070 D S 1760 7444 M 1685 7444 D S 1760 7818 M 1685 7818 D S 1760 8192 M 1648 8192 D S 944 8267 M 922 8260 D 908 8246 D 894 8224 D 887 8203 D 879 8174 D 879 8153 D 887 8131 D 894 8124 D 908 8117 D 922 8117 D 944 8124 D 958 8138 D 972 8160 D 979 8181 D 987 8210 D 987 8231 D 979 8253 D 972 8260 D 958 8267 D 944 8267 D S 922 8253 M 908 8238 D 901 8224 D 894 8203 D 887 8174 D 887 8146 D 894 8131 D S 944 8131 M 958 8146 D 965 8160 D 972 8181 D 979 8210 D 979 8238 D 972 8253 D S 944 8267 M 929 8260 D 915 8238 D 908 8224 D 901 8203 D 894 8174 D 894 8138 D 901 8124 D 908 8117 D S 922 8117 M 937 8124 D 951 8146 D 958 8160 D 965 8181 D 972 8210 D 972 8246 D 965 8260 D 958 8267 D S 1029 8138 M 1022 8131 D 1022 8124 D 1029 8117 D 1037 8117 D 1044 8124 D 1044 8131 D 1037 8138 D 1029 8138 D S 1029 8131 M 1029 8124 D 1037 8124 D 1037 8131 D 1029 8131 D S 1137 8231 M 1137 8238 D 1144 8238 D 1144 8224 D 1129 8224 D 1129 8238 D 1137 8253 D 1144 8260 D 1165 8267 D 1187 8267 D 1208 8260 D 1215 8246 D 1215 8231 D 1208 8217 D 1194 8203 D 1122 8160 D 1108 8146 D 1094 8117 D S 1201 8260 M 1208 8246 D 1208 8231 D 1201 8217 D 1187 8203 D 1165 8188 D S 1187 8267 M 1194 8260 D 1201 8246 D 1201 8231 D 1194 8217 D 1179 8203 D 1122 8160 D S 1101 8131 M 1108 8138 D 1122 8138 D 1158 8131 D 1194 8131 D 1201 8138 D S 1122 8138 M 1158 8124 D 1194 8124 D S 1122 8138 M 1158 8117 D 1179 8117 D 1194 8124 D 1201 8138 D 1201 8146 D S 1287 8231 M 1287 8238 D 1294 8238 D 1294 8224 D 1279 8224 D 1279 8238 D 1287 8253 D 1294 8260 D 1315 8267 D 1337 8267 D 1358 8260 D 1365 8246 D 1365 8231 D 1358 8217 D 1351 8210 D 1337 8203 D 1315 8196 D S 1351 8260 M 1358 8246 D 1358 8231 D 1351 8217 D 1344 8210 D S 1337 8267 M 1344 8260 D 1351 8246 D 1351 8231 D 1344 8217 D 1329 8203 D 1315 8196 D S 1301 8196 M 1315 8196 D 1337 8188 D 1344 8181 D 1351 8167 D 1351 8146 D 1344 8131 D 1329 8124 D 1308 8117 D 1287 8117 D 1265 8124 D 1258 8131 D 1251 8146 D 1251 8160 D 1265 8160 D 1265 8146 D 1258 8146 D 1258 8153 D S 1337 8181 M 1344 8167 D 1344 8146 D 1337 8131 D S 1315 8196 M 1329 8188 D 1337 8174 D 1337 8146 D 1329 8131 D 1322 8124 D 1308 8117 D S 1494 8238 M 1458 8117 D 1472 8117 D S 1515 8267 M 1501 8238 D 1465 8117 D S 1515 8267 M 1472 8117 D S 1515 8267 M 1401 8160 D 1515 8160 D S 1760 8566 M 1685 8566 D S 1760 8940 M 1685 8940 D S 1760 8940 M 7340 8940 D S 7360 3340 M 7360 8920 D S 1760 3340 M 1760 4340 D S 2760 3340 M 1760 3340 D S 4809 6123 M 4709 6272 D 4614 6380 D 4529 6465 D 4454 6536 D 4387 6597 D 4326 6651 D 4271 6698 D 4221 6741 D 4174 6780 D 4131 6816 D 4091 6849 D 4053 6880 D 4018 6908 D 3985 6935 D 3954 6961 D 3924 6985 D 3895 7008 D 3867 7029 D 3841 7050 D 3820 7070 D 3800 7089 D 3770 7107 D 3746 7124 D 3728 7141 D 3704 7157 D 3685 7173 D 3672 7188 D 3654 7202 D S 4807 6140 M 4799 6137 D 4795 6133 D 4792 6125 D 4792 6121 D 4795 6113 D 4799 6109 D 4807 6106 D 4811 6106 D 4819 6109 D 4823 6113 D 4826 6121 D 4826 6125 D 4823 6133 D 4819 6137 D 4811 6140 D 4807 6140 D 4819 6137 D 4799 6137 D 4819 6135 D 4799 6135 D 4823 6133 D 4795 6133 D 4823 6130 D 4795 6130 D 4823 6128 D 4795 6128 D 4826 6125 D 4792 6125 D 4826 6123 D 4792 6123 D 4826 6121 D 4792 6121 D 4823 6118 D 4795 6118 D 4823 6116 D 4795 6116 D 4823 6113 D 4795 6113 D 4819 6111 D 4799 6111 D 4819 6109 D 4799 6109 D 4811 6106 D S 4269 6715 M 4261 6712 D 4257 6708 D 4254 6700 D 4254 6696 D 4257 6688 D 4261 6684 D 4269 6681 D 4273 6681 D 4281 6684 D 4285 6688 D 4288 6696 D 4288 6700 D 4285 6708 D 4281 6712 D 4273 6715 D 4269 6715 D 4281 6712 D 4261 6712 D 4281 6710 D 4261 6710 D 4285 6708 D 4257 6708 D 4285 6705 D 4257 6705 D 4285 6703 D 4257 6703 D 4288 6700 D 4254 6700 D 4288 6698 D 4254 6698 D 4288 6696 D 4254 6696 D 4285 6693 D 4257 6693 D 4285 6691 D 4257 6691 D 4285 6688 D 4257 6688 D 4281 6686 D 4261 6686 D 4281 6684 D 4261 6684 D 4273 6681 D S 3983 6952 M 3975 6949 D 3971 6945 D 3968 6937 D 3968 6933 D 3971 6925 D 3975 6921 D 3983 6918 D 3987 6918 D 3995 6921 D 3999 6925 D 4002 6933 D 4002 6937 D 3999 6945 D 3995 6949 D 3987 6952 D 3983 6952 D 3995 6949 D 3975 6949 D 3995 6947 D 3975 6947 D 3999 6945 D 3971 6945 D 3999 6942 D 3971 6942 D 3999 6940 D 3971 6940 D 4002 6937 D 3968 6937 D 4002 6935 D 3968 6935 D 4002 6933 D 3968 6933 D 3999 6930 D 3971 6930 D 3999 6928 D 3971 6928 D 3999 6925 D 3971 6925 D 3995 6923 D 3975 6923 D 3995 6921 D 3975 6921 D 3987 6918 D S 3798 7106 M 3790 7103 D 3786 7099 D 3783 7091 D 3783 7087 D 3786 7079 D 3790 7075 D 3798 7072 D 3802 7072 D 3810 7075 D 3814 7079 D 3817 7087 D 3817 7091 D 3814 7099 D 3810 7103 D 3802 7106 D 3798 7106 D 3810 7103 D 3790 7103 D 3810 7101 D 3790 7101 D 3814 7099 D 3786 7099 D 3814 7096 D 3786 7096 D 3814 7094 D 3786 7094 D 3817 7091 D 3783 7091 D 3817 7089 D 3783 7089 D 3817 7087 D 3783 7087 D 3814 7084 D 3786 7084 D 3814 7082 D 3786 7082 D 3814 7079 D 3786 7079 D 3810 7077 D 3790 7077 D 3810 7075 D 3790 7075 D 3802 7072 D S 3652 7219 M 3644 7216 D 3640 7212 D 3637 7204 D 3637 7200 D 3640 7192 D 3644 7188 D 3652 7185 D 3656 7185 D 3664 7188 D 3668 7192 D 3671 7200 D 3671 7204 D 3668 7212 D 3664 7216 D 3656 7219 D 3652 7219 D 3664 7216 D 3644 7216 D 3664 7214 D 3644 7214 D 3668 7212 D 3640 7212 D 3668 7209 D 3640 7209 D 3668 7207 D 3640 7207 D 3671 7204 D 3637 7204 D 3671 7202 D 3637 7202 D 3671 7200 D 3637 7200 D 3668 7197 D 3640 7197 D 3668 7195 D 3640 7195 D 3668 7192 D 3640 7192 D 3664 7190 D 3644 7190 D 3664 7188 D 3644 7188 D 3656 7185 D S 3964 6618 M 3864 6768 D 3770 6877 D 3686 6963 D 3611 7035 D 3543 7096 D 3483 7150 D 3428 7198 D 3378 7241 D 3331 7280 D 3288 7316 D 3248 7350 D 3211 7381 D 3175 7410 D 3142 7437 D 3111 7463 D 3082 7487 D 3053 7510 D 3024 7532 D 2998 7553 D 2978 7573 D 2957 7592 D 2927 7611 D 2903 7628 D 2886 7645 D 2861 7661 D 2842 7677 D 2842 7677 D 2830 7692 D 2811 7707 D S 3962 6635 M 3954 6632 D 3950 6628 D 3947 6620 D 3947 6616 D 3950 6608 D 3954 6604 D 3962 6601 D 3966 6601 D 3974 6604 D 3978 6608 D 3981 6616 D 3981 6620 D 3978 6628 D 3974 6632 D 3966 6635 D 3962 6635 D 3974 6632 D 3954 6632 D 3974 6630 D 3954 6630 D 3978 6628 D 3950 6628 D 3978 6625 D 3950 6625 D 3978 6623 D 3950 6623 D 3981 6620 D 3947 6620 D 3981 6618 D 3947 6618 D 3981 6616 D 3947 6616 D 3978 6613 D 3950 6613 D 3978 6611 D 3950 6611 D 3978 6608 D 3950 6608 D 3974 6606 D 3954 6606 D 3974 6604 D 3954 6604 D 3966 6601 D S 3426 7215 M 3418 7212 D 3414 7208 D 3411 7200 D 3411 7196 D 3414 7188 D 3418 7184 D 3426 7181 D 3430 7181 D 3438 7184 D 3442 7188 D 3445 7196 D 3445 7200 D 3442 7208 D 3438 7212 D 3430 7215 D 3426 7215 D 3438 7212 D 3418 7212 D 3438 7210 D 3418 7210 D 3442 7208 D 3414 7208 D 3442 7205 D 3414 7205 D 3442 7203 D 3414 7203 D 3445 7200 D 3411 7200 D 3445 7198 D 3411 7198 D 3445 7196 D 3411 7196 D 3442 7193 D 3414 7193 D 3442 7191 D 3414 7191 D 3442 7188 D 3414 7188 D 3438 7186 D 3418 7186 D 3438 7184 D 3418 7184 D 3430 7181 D S 3140 7454 M 3132 7451 D 3128 7447 D 3125 7439 D 3125 7435 D 3128 7427 D 3132 7423 D 3140 7420 D 3144 7420 D 3152 7423 D 3156 7427 D 3159 7435 D 3159 7439 D 3156 7447 D 3152 7451 D 3144 7454 D 3140 7454 D 3152 7451 D 3132 7451 D 3152 7449 D 3132 7449 D 3156 7447 D 3128 7447 D 3156 7444 D 3128 7444 D 3156 7442 D 3128 7442 D 3159 7439 D 3125 7439 D 3159 7437 D 3125 7437 D 3159 7435 D 3125 7435 D 3156 7432 D 3128 7432 D 3156 7430 D 3128 7430 D 3156 7427 D 3128 7427 D 3152 7425 D 3132 7425 D 3152 7423 D 3132 7423 D 3144 7420 D S 2955 7609 M 2947 7606 D 2943 7602 D 2940 7594 D 2940 7590 D 2943 7582 D 2947 7578 D 2955 7575 D 2959 7575 D 2967 7578 D 2971 7582 D 2974 7590 D 2974 7594 D 2971 7602 D 2967 7606 D 2959 7609 D 2955 7609 D 2967 7606 D 2947 7606 D 2967 7604 D 2947 7604 D 2971 7602 D 2943 7602 D 2971 7599 D 2943 7599 D 2971 7597 D 2943 7597 D 2974 7594 D 2940 7594 D 2974 7592 D 2940 7592 D 2974 7590 D 2940 7590 D 2971 7587 D 2943 7587 D 2971 7585 D 2943 7585 D 2971 7582 D 2943 7582 D 2967 7580 D 2947 7580 D 2967 7578 D 2947 7578 D 2959 7575 D S 2828 7709 M 2820 7706 D 2816 7702 D 2813 7694 D 2813 7690 D 2816 7682 D 2820 7678 D 2828 7675 D 2832 7675 D 2840 7678 D 2844 7682 D 2847 7690 D 2847 7694 D 2844 7702 D 2840 7706 D 2832 7709 D 2828 7709 D 2840 7706 D 2820 7706 D 2840 7704 D 2820 7704 D 2844 7702 D 2816 7702 D 2844 7699 D 2816 7699 D 2844 7697 D 2816 7697 D 2847 7694 D 2813 7694 D 2847 7692 D 2813 7692 D 2847 7690 D 2813 7690 D 2844 7687 D 2816 7687 D 2844 7685 D 2816 7685 D 2844 7682 D 2816 7682 D 2840 7680 D 2820 7680 D 2840 7678 D 2820 7678 D 2832 7675 D S 7199 4386 M 7080 4477 D S 6961 4567 M 6841 4658 D S 6722 4749 M 6602 4840 D S 6483 4930 M 6364 5021 D S 6244 5112 M 6125 5203 D S 6005 5294 M 5964 5325 D 5886 5385 D S 5768 5477 M 5649 5568 D S 5530 5660 M 5411 5751 D S 5293 5843 M 5174 5935 D S 5055 6026 M 4936 6118 D S 4818 6210 M 4714 6289 D 4699 6301 D S 4581 6394 M 4493 6462 D 4462 6486 D S 4344 6578 M 4335 6585 D 4226 6671 D S 4108 6763 M 4029 6825 D 3990 6856 D S 3872 6948 M 3833 6979 D 3780 7020 D 3754 7041 D S 3636 7134 M 3609 7155 D 3574 7183 D 3540 7209 D 3518 7227 D S 3401 7320 M 3398 7322 D 3374 7341 D 3350 7360 D 3328 7378 D 3306 7395 D 3285 7411 D 3283 7413 D S 3166 7506 M 3068 7584 D 3048 7599 D S 2931 7693 M 2843 7762 D 2813 7786 D S 2696 7880 M 2684 7890 D 2618 7942 D 2579 7974 D S 2462 8067 M 2458 8070 D 2414 8106 D 2373 8139 D 2345 8161 D S 2228 8255 M 2111 8349 D S 1994 8443 M 1986 8450 D 1912 8510 D 1878 8537 D 1878 8537 D S 7341 5151 M 7316 5170 D 7249 5222 D 7071 5358 D 6883 5503 D 5656 6454 D 4791 7135 D 4416 7431 D 4040 7731 D 3820 7907 D 3663 8032 D 3542 8130 D 3442 8210 D 3358 8278 D 3285 8336 D 3221 8388 D 3163 8435 D 3111 8477 D 3063 8516 D 3020 8551 D 2979 8584 D 2960 8600 D 2941 8615 D 2923 8629 D 2906 8643 D 2889 8657 D 2873 8670 D 2857 8683 D 2841 8696 D 2783 8743 D 2770 8754 D 2767 8756 D 2757 8764 D 2731 8785 D 2707 8805 D 2683 8824 D 2661 8842 D 2639 8860 D 2619 8877 D 2599 8893 D 2579 8909 D 2561 8924 D 2552 8931 D 2543 8938 D S 3708 8935 M 3720 8925 D 3771 8883 D 4144 8580 D 4516 8279 D 5374 7590 D 6590 6627 D 6646 6583 D 6708 6535 D 6778 6480 D 6859 6417 D 6954 6342 D 7071 6251 D 7221 6133 D 7239 6119 D 7257 6105 D 7276 6090 D 7296 6075 D 7317 6059 D 7338 6042 D S 5537 5146 M 5503 5196 D S 5469 5245 M 5436 5295 D S 5399 5342 M 5360 5388 D S 5321 5434 M 5317 5438 D 5280 5478 D S 5239 5521 M 5225 5537 D 5197 5564 D S 5155 5607 M 5143 5619 D 5112 5649 D S 5070 5691 M 5026 5732 D S 4982 5773 M 4946 5807 D 4939 5814 D S 4894 5855 M 4892 5857 D 4850 5896 D S 4806 5936 M 4797 5944 D 4761 5976 D S 4717 6016 M 4714 6019 D 4677 6052 D 4672 6057 D S 4627 6097 M 4608 6114 D 4583 6136 D S 4538 6176 M 4518 6194 D 4493 6216 D S 4448 6256 M 4440 6263 D 4416 6284 D 4403 6296 D S 4358 6335 M 4350 6343 D 4329 6361 D 4313 6375 D S 4503 5866 M 4469 5916 D S 4436 5966 M 4403 6016 D S 4366 6063 M 4328 6110 D S 4290 6156 M 4289 6157 D 4249 6200 D S 4209 6244 M 4199 6255 D 4167 6288 D S 4126 6331 M 4120 6337 D 4083 6373 D S 4040 6415 M 3997 6457 D S 3954 6498 M 3927 6524 D 3910 6540 D S 3867 6581 M 3826 6619 D 3823 6622 D S 3779 6662 M 3739 6699 D 3735 6703 D S 3690 6744 M 3664 6768 D 3646 6784 D S 3602 6824 M 3597 6829 D 3566 6857 D 3557 6865 D S 3513 6905 M 3509 6908 D 3482 6932 D 3468 6945 D S 3423 6985 M 3409 6998 D 3387 7018 D 3379 7025 D S 3334 7065 M 3324 7075 D 3305 7092 D 3290 7105 D S 5537 5146 M 5488 5180 D S 5439 5215 M 5389 5249 D S 5340 5283 M 5291 5317 D S 5241 5351 M 5192 5385 D S 5143 5419 M 5093 5453 D S 5044 5488 M 5002 5517 D 4995 5522 D S 4945 5556 M 4896 5591 D S 4847 5625 M 4798 5659 D S 4749 5694 M 4700 5728 D S 4650 5763 M 4601 5797 D S 4552 5831 M 4503 5866 D S 4290 6395 M 4241 6430 D S 4192 6465 M 4143 6499 D S 4094 6534 M 4045 6568 D S 3996 6603 M 3947 6638 D S 3898 6672 M 3849 6707 D S 3800 6742 M 3770 6763 D 3751 6776 D S 3703 6811 M 3654 6846 D S 3605 6881 M 3556 6916 D S 3507 6951 M 3459 6986 D S 3410 7020 M 3361 7055 D S 3312 7090 M 3286 7109 D S 431 6033 M 440 6033 D 440 6043 D 431 6043 D 421 6033 D 412 6005 D 412 5976 D 421 5948 D 431 5938 D 450 5938 D 459 5948 D 497 6014 D 507 6024 D S 440 5938 M 450 5948 D 488 6014 D 497 6024 D 526 6024 D 535 6014 D 545 5986 D 545 5957 D 535 5929 D 526 5919 D 516 5919 D 516 5929 D 526 5929 D S 345 6148 M 355 6138 D 364 6148 D 355 6157 D 345 6148 D S 450 6071 M 431 6081 D 412 6100 D 412 6129 D 421 6138 D 450 6138 D 507 6119 D 535 6119 D 545 6129 D S 412 6119 M 421 6129 D 450 6129 D 507 6110 D 535 6110 D 545 6119 D 545 6148 D 526 6167 D 507 6176 D S 450 6195 M 431 6205 D 412 6224 D 412 6252 D 421 6262 D 440 6262 D 478 6252 D 545 6233 D S 412 6243 M 421 6252 D 440 6252 D 478 6243 D 545 6224 D S 478 6252 M 440 6271 D 421 6290 D 412 6310 D 412 6329 D 421 6348 D 431 6357 D 450 6357 D 507 6338 D 535 6338 D 545 6348 D S 412 6329 M 431 6348 D 450 6348 D 507 6329 D 535 6329 D 545 6338 D 545 6367 D 526 6386 D 507 6395 D S 292 6445 M 286 6445 D 286 6451 D 297 6451 D 297 6439 D 286 6439 D 274 6445 D 269 6451 D 263 6468 D 263 6485 D 269 6502 D 280 6508 D 292 6508 D 303 6502 D 314 6491 D 349 6434 D 360 6422 D 383 6411 D S 269 6496 M 280 6502 D 292 6502 D 303 6496 D 314 6485 D 326 6468 D S 263 6485 M 269 6491 D 280 6496 D 292 6496 D 303 6491 D 314 6479 D 349 6434 D S 372 6416 M 366 6422 D 366 6434 D 372 6462 D 372 6491 D 366 6496 D S 366 6434 M 377 6462 D 377 6491 D S 366 6434 M 383 6462 D 383 6479 D 377 6491 D 366 6496 D 360 6496 D S 545 6592 M 526 6573 D 497 6563 D 469 6563 D 431 6573 D 402 6582 D 374 6601 D 355 6620 D 345 6639 D 345 6658 D 355 6677 D 364 6687 D 393 6696 D 421 6696 D 459 6687 D 488 6677 D 516 6658 D 535 6639 D 545 6611 D 545 6592 D 535 6573 D 526 6563 D 497 6554 D 469 6554 D 431 6563 D 402 6573 D 374 6592 D 355 6611 D 345 6639 D S 545 6611 M 535 6630 D 516 6649 D 488 6668 D 459 6677 D 421 6687 D 393 6687 D 364 6677 D 345 6658 D S 431 6563 M 450 6687 D S 440 6563 M 459 6687 D S 354 6748 M 349 6771 D 343 6788 D 332 6805 D 320 6811 D 309 6805 D 303 6794 D 303 6776 D 309 6759 D 326 6748 D 343 6742 D 360 6742 D 372 6748 D 377 6754 D 383 6765 D 383 6776 D 377 6794 D 366 6805 D S 303 6776 M 309 6765 D 326 6754 D 343 6748 D 366 6748 D 377 6754 D S 269 6914 M 274 6908 D 280 6914 D 274 6919 D 269 6919 D 263 6914 D 263 6902 D 269 6891 D 274 6885 D 286 6879 D 303 6874 D 383 6856 D 406 6851 D 417 6845 D S 263 6902 M 274 6891 D 286 6885 D 309 6879 D 360 6868 D 383 6862 D 400 6856 D 412 6851 D 417 6845 D 423 6834 D 423 6822 D 417 6816 D 412 6816 D 406 6822 D 412 6828 D 417 6822 D S 303 6851 M 303 6908 D S 269 6999 M 274 6994 D 280 6999 D 274 7005 D 269 7005 D 263 6999 D 263 6988 D 269 6976 D 274 6971 D 286 6965 D 303 6959 D 383 6942 D 406 6936 D 417 6931 D S 263 6988 M 274 6976 D 286 6971 D 309 6965 D 360 6954 D 383 6948 D 400 6942 D 412 6936 D 417 6931 D 423 6919 D 423 6908 D 417 6902 D 412 6902 D 406 6908 D 412 6914 D 417 6908 D S 303 6936 M 303 6994 D S 1955 3755 M 1955 3655 D S 1962 3755 M 1962 3655 D S 1962 3734 M 1976 3748 D 1998 3755 D 2012 3755 D 2033 3748 D 2040 3734 D 2040 3655 D S 2012 3755 M 2026 3748 D 2033 3734 D 2033 3655 D S 2040 3734 M 2055 3748 D 2076 3755 D 2090 3755 D 2112 3748 D 2119 3734 D 2119 3655 D S 2090 3755 M 2105 3748 D 2112 3734 D 2112 3655 D S 1933 3755 M 1962 3755 D S 1933 3655 M 1983 3655 D S 2012 3655 M 2062 3655 D S 2090 3655 M 2140 3655 D S 2176 3709 M 2176 3636 D 2181 3623 D 2189 3619 D 2198 3619 D 2206 3623 D 2211 3632 D S 2181 3709 M 2181 3636 D 2185 3623 D 2189 3619 D S 2164 3679 M 2198 3679 D S 2258 3679 M 2245 3675 D 2236 3666 D 2232 3653 D 2232 3645 D 2236 3632 D 2245 3623 D 2258 3619 D 2266 3619 D 2279 3623 D 2288 3632 D 2292 3645 D 2292 3653 D 2288 3666 D 2279 3675 D 2266 3679 D 2258 3679 D 2249 3675 D 2241 3666 D 2236 3653 D 2236 3645 D 2241 3632 D 2249 3623 D 2258 3619 D S 2266 3619 M 2275 3623 D 2284 3632 D 2288 3645 D 2288 3653 D 2284 3666 D 2275 3675 D 2266 3679 D S 2326 3679 M 2326 3589 D S 2331 3679 M 2331 3589 D S 2331 3666 M 2339 3675 D 2348 3679 D 2356 3679 D 2369 3675 D 2378 3666 D 2382 3653 D 2382 3645 D 2378 3632 D 2369 3623 D 2356 3619 D 2348 3619 D 2339 3623 D 2331 3632 D S 2356 3679 M 2365 3675 D 2374 3666 D 2378 3653 D 2378 3645 D 2374 3632 D 2365 3623 D 2356 3619 D S 2314 3679 M 2331 3679 D S 2314 3589 M 2344 3589 D S 2395 3691 M 2509 3691 D S 2509 3734 M 2395 3734 D S 2588 3776 M 2602 3784 D 2624 3805 D 2624 3655 D S 2616 3798 M 2616 3655 D S 2588 3655 M 2652 3655 D S 2709 3805 M 2709 3762 D S 2709 3776 M 2716 3791 D 2731 3805 D 2745 3805 D 2781 3784 D 2795 3784 D 2802 3791 D 2809 3805 D S 2716 3791 M 2731 3798 D 2745 3798 D 2781 3784 D S 2809 3805 M 2809 3784 D 2802 3762 D 2774 3726 D 2766 3712 D 2759 3691 D 2759 3655 D S 2802 3762 M 2766 3726 D 2759 3712 D 2752 3691 D 2752 3655 D S 2916 3791 M 2916 3655 D S 2924 3805 M 2924 3655 D S 2924 3805 M 2845 3698 D 2959 3698 D S 2895 3655 M 2945 3655 D S 3140 3658 M 3217 3658 D S 3428 3776 M 3442 3784 D 3464 3805 D 3464 3655 D S 3456 3798 M 3456 3655 D S 3428 3655 M 3492 3655 D S 3592 3805 M 3571 3798 D 3556 3776 D 3549 3741 D 3549 3719 D 3556 3684 D 3571 3662 D 3592 3655 D 3606 3655 D 3628 3662 D 3642 3684 D 3649 3719 D 3649 3741 D 3642 3776 D 3628 3798 D 3606 3805 D 3592 3805 D 3578 3798 D 3571 3791 D 3564 3776 D 3556 3741 D 3556 3719 D 3564 3684 D 3571 3669 D 3578 3662 D 3592 3655 D S 3606 3655 M 3621 3662 D 3628 3669 D 3635 3684 D 3642 3719 D 3642 3741 D 3635 3776 D 3628 3791 D 3621 3798 D 3606 3805 D S 3942 3784 M 3949 3762 D 3949 3805 D 3942 3784 D 3928 3798 D 3906 3805 D 3892 3805 D 3871 3798 D 3856 3784 D 3849 3769 D 3842 3748 D 3842 3712 D 3849 3691 D 3856 3676 D 3871 3662 D 3892 3655 D 3906 3655 D 3928 3662 D 3942 3676 D S 3892 3805 M 3878 3798 D 3864 3784 D 3856 3769 D 3849 3748 D 3849 3712 D 3856 3691 D 3864 3676 D 3878 3662 D 3892 3655 D S 3942 3712 M 3942 3655 D S 3949 3712 M 3949 3655 D S 3921 3712 M 3971 3712 D S 4014 3712 M 4099 3712 D 4099 3726 D 4092 3741 D 4085 3748 D 4071 3755 D 4049 3755 D 4028 3748 D 4014 3734 D 4006 3712 D 4006 3698 D 4014 3676 D 4028 3662 D 4049 3655 D 4064 3655 D 4085 3662 D 4099 3676 D S 4092 3712 M 4092 3734 D 4085 3748 D S 4049 3755 M 4035 3748 D 4021 3734 D 4014 3712 D 4014 3698 D 4021 3676 D 4035 3662 D 4049 3655 D S 4142 3805 M 4192 3655 D S 4149 3805 M 4192 3676 D S 4242 3805 M 4192 3655 D S 4128 3805 M 4171 3805 D S 4214 3805 M 4256 3805 D S 4077 2826 M 4077 2576 D S 4088 2826 M 4088 2576 D S 4041 2826 M 4219 2826 D 4219 2755 D 4207 2826 D S 4041 2576 M 4124 2576 D S 4267 2667 M 4267 2517 D S 4274 2667 M 4274 2517 D S 4245 2667 M 4274 2667 D S 4245 2517 M 4295 2517 D S 4338 2574 M 4424 2574 D 4424 2588 D 4417 2603 D 4410 2610 D 4395 2617 D 4374 2617 D 4352 2610 D 4338 2596 D 4331 2574 D 4331 2560 D 4338 2538 D 4352 2524 D 4374 2517 D 4388 2517 D 4410 2524 D 4424 2538 D S 4417 2574 M 4417 2596 D 4410 2610 D S 4374 2617 M 4360 2610 D 4345 2596 D 4338 2574 D 4338 2560 D 4345 2538 D 4360 2524 D 4374 2517 D S 4481 2617 M 4481 2467 D S 4488 2617 M 4488 2467 D S 4488 2596 M 4502 2610 D 4517 2617 D 4531 2617 D 4552 2610 D 4567 2596 D 4574 2574 D 4574 2560 D 4567 2538 D 4552 2524 D 4531 2517 D 4517 2517 D 4502 2524 D 4488 2538 D S 4531 2617 M 4545 2610 D 4560 2596 D 4567 2574 D 4567 2560 D 4560 2538 D 4545 2524 D 4531 2517 D S 4460 2617 M 4488 2617 D S 4460 2467 M 4510 2467 D S 4631 2667 M 4631 2546 D 4638 2524 D 4652 2517 D 4667 2517 D 4681 2524 D 4688 2538 D S 4638 2667 M 4638 2546 D 4645 2524 D 4652 2517 D S 4610 2617 M 4667 2617 D S 4767 2617 M 4745 2610 D 4731 2596 D 4724 2574 D 4724 2560 D 4731 2538 D 4745 2524 D 4767 2517 D 4781 2517 D 4802 2524 D 4817 2538 D 4824 2560 D 4824 2574 D 4817 2596 D 4802 2610 D 4781 2617 D 4767 2617 D 4752 2610 D 4738 2596 D 4731 2574 D 4731 2560 D 4738 2538 D 4752 2524 D 4767 2517 D S 4781 2517 M 4795 2524 D 4810 2538 D 4817 2560 D 4817 2574 D 4810 2596 D 4795 2610 D 4781 2617 D S 4881 2617 M 4881 2517 D S 4888 2617 M 4888 2517 D S 4888 2596 M 4902 2610 D 4924 2617 D 4938 2617 D 4960 2610 D 4967 2596 D 4967 2517 D S 4938 2617 M 4952 2610 D 4960 2596 D 4960 2517 D S 4860 2617 M 4888 2617 D S 4860 2517 M 4910 2517 D S 4938 2517 M 4988 2517 D S 5231 2696 M 5217 2681 D 5202 2660 D 5188 2631 D 5181 2596 D 5181 2567 D 5188 2531 D 5202 2503 D 5217 2481 D 5231 2467 D S 5217 2681 M 5202 2653 D 5195 2631 D 5188 2596 D 5188 2567 D 5195 2531 D 5202 2510 D 5217 2481 D S 5288 2667 M 5288 2517 D S 5295 2667 M 5338 2538 D S 5288 2667 M 5338 2517 D S 5388 2667 M 5338 2517 D S 5388 2667 M 5388 2517 D S 5395 2667 M 5395 2517 D S 5267 2667 M 5295 2667 D S 5388 2667 M 5417 2667 D S 5267 2517 M 5310 2517 D S 5367 2517 M 5417 2517 D S 5460 2574 M 5545 2574 D 5545 2588 D 5538 2603 D 5531 2610 D 5517 2617 D 5495 2617 D 5474 2610 D 5460 2596 D 5452 2574 D 5452 2560 D 5460 2538 D 5474 2524 D 5495 2517 D 5510 2517 D 5531 2524 D 5545 2538 D S 5538 2574 M 5538 2596 D 5531 2610 D S 5495 2617 M 5481 2610 D 5467 2596 D 5460 2574 D 5460 2560 D 5467 2538 D 5481 2524 D 5495 2517 D S 5588 2667 M 5638 2517 D S 5595 2667 M 5638 2538 D S 5688 2667 M 5638 2517 D S 5574 2667 M 5617 2667 D S 5660 2667 M 5702 2667 D S 5731 2696 M 5745 2681 D 5760 2660 D 5774 2631 D 5781 2596 D 5781 2567 D 5774 2531 D 5760 2503 D 5745 2481 D 5731 2467 D S 5745 2681 M 5760 2653 D 5767 2631 D 5774 2596 D 5774 2567 D 5767 2531 D 5760 2510 D 5745 2481 D S 2506 8484 M 2449 8334 D S 2506 8463 M 2456 8334 D 2449 8334 D S 2506 8463 M 2556 8334 D 2564 8334 D S 2506 8484 M 2564 8334 D S 2471 8377 M 2542 8377 D S 2464 8370 M 2549 8370 D S 3551 8484 M 3551 8334 D S 3558 8484 M 3558 8334 D S 3529 8484 M 3615 8484 D 3636 8477 D 3644 8470 D 3651 8455 D 3651 8441 D 3644 8427 D 3636 8420 D 3615 8413 D S 3615 8484 M 3629 8477 D 3636 8470 D 3644 8455 D 3644 8441 D 3636 8427 D 3629 8420 D 3615 8413 D S 3558 8413 M 3615 8413 D 3636 8405 D 3644 8398 D 3651 8384 D 3651 8363 D 3644 8348 D 3636 8341 D 3615 8334 D 3529 8334 D S 3615 8413 M 3629 8405 D 3636 8398 D 3644 8384 D 3644 8363 D 3636 8348 D 3629 8341 D 3615 8334 D S 4888 8463 M 4896 8441 D 4896 8484 D 4888 8463 D 4874 8477 D 4853 8484 D 4838 8484 D 4817 8477 D 4803 8463 D 4796 8448 D 4788 8427 D 4788 8391 D 4796 8370 D 4803 8355 D 4817 8341 D 4838 8334 D 4853 8334 D 4874 8341 D 4888 8355 D 4896 8370 D S 4838 8484 M 4824 8477 D 4810 8463 D 4803 8448 D 4796 8427 D 4796 8391 D 4803 8370 D 4810 8355 D 4824 8341 D 4838 8334 D S 3172 3744 M 3172 3807 D S 3141 3775 M 3210 3775 D S 2452 3340 M 7360 3340 D S 2452 3340 M 2452 3228 D S 2231 3188 M 2209 3181 D 2202 3174 D 2195 3159 D 2195 3138 D 2202 3124 D 2216 3117 D 2238 3117 D 2259 3124 D 2273 3131 D 2281 3145 D 2281 3167 D 2273 3181 D 2259 3188 D 2231 3188 D S 2245 3188 M 2209 3181 D S 2209 3174 M 2202 3159 D 2202 3131 D 2209 3124 D S 2202 3124 M 2223 3117 D S 2231 3117 M 2259 3124 D S 2266 3131 M 2273 3145 D 2273 3167 D 2266 3181 D S 2273 3181 M 2245 3188 D S 2231 3188 M 2216 3174 D 2209 3159 D 2209 3131 D 2216 3117 D S 2238 3117 M 2252 3124 D 2259 3131 D 2266 3145 D 2266 3174 D 2259 3188 D S 2216 3117 M 2188 3109 D 2173 3095 D 2166 3081 D 2166 3059 D 2173 3045 D 2195 3038 D 2223 3038 D 2252 3045 D 2259 3052 D 2266 3067 D 2266 3088 D 2259 3102 D 2252 3109 D 2238 3117 D S 2223 3117 M 2188 3109 D S 2195 3109 M 2181 3095 D 2173 3081 D 2173 3059 D 2181 3045 D S 2173 3045 M 2209 3038 D 2252 3045 D S 2252 3052 M 2259 3067 D 2259 3088 D 2252 3102 D S 2252 3109 M 2231 3117 D S 2216 3117 M 2202 3109 D 2188 3095 D 2181 3081 D 2181 3059 D 2188 3045 D 2195 3038 D S 2223 3038 M 2238 3045 D 2245 3052 D 2252 3067 D 2252 3095 D 2245 3109 D 2238 3117 D S 2352 3152 M 2352 3159 D 2359 3159 D 2359 3145 D 2345 3145 D 2345 3159 D 2352 3174 D 2359 3181 D 2381 3188 D 2402 3188 D 2423 3181 D 2431 3167 D 2431 3152 D 2423 3138 D 2416 3131 D 2402 3124 D 2381 3117 D S 2416 3181 M 2423 3167 D 2423 3152 D 2416 3138 D 2409 3131 D S 2402 3188 M 2409 3181 D 2416 3167 D 2416 3152 D 2409 3138 D 2395 3124 D 2381 3117 D S 2366 3117 M 2381 3117 D 2402 3109 D 2409 3102 D 2416 3088 D 2416 3067 D 2409 3052 D 2395 3045 D 2373 3038 D 2352 3038 D 2331 3045 D 2323 3052 D 2316 3067 D 2316 3081 D 2331 3081 D 2331 3067 D 2323 3067 D 2323 3074 D S 2402 3102 M 2409 3088 D 2409 3067 D 2402 3052 D S 2381 3117 M 2395 3109 D 2402 3095 D 2402 3067 D 2395 3052 D 2388 3045 D 2373 3038 D S 2473 3059 M 2466 3052 D 2466 3045 D 2473 3038 D 2481 3038 D 2488 3045 D 2488 3052 D 2481 3059 D 2473 3059 D S 2473 3052 M 2473 3045 D 2481 3045 D 2481 3052 D 2473 3052 D S 2595 3188 M 2559 3117 D S 2595 3188 M 2666 3188 D S 2595 3181 M 2652 3181 D S 2588 3174 M 2623 3174 D 2652 3181 D 2666 3188 D S 2559 3117 M 2566 3124 D 2588 3131 D 2609 3131 D 2631 3124 D 2638 3117 D 2645 3102 D 2645 3081 D 2638 3059 D 2623 3045 D 2595 3038 D 2573 3038 D 2559 3045 D 2552 3052 D 2545 3067 D 2545 3081 D 2559 3081 D 2559 3067 D 2552 3067 D 2552 3074 D S 2631 3117 M 2638 3102 D 2638 3081 D 2631 3059 D 2616 3045 D S 2609 3131 M 2623 3124 D 2631 3109 D 2631 3081 D 2623 3059 D 2609 3045 D 2595 3038 D S 2898 3340 M 2898 3265 D S 3344 3340 M 3344 3265 D S 3790 3340 M 3790 3228 D S 3569 3188 M 3547 3181 D 3540 3174 D 3533 3159 D 3533 3138 D 3540 3124 D 3554 3117 D 3576 3117 D 3597 3124 D 3611 3131 D 3619 3145 D 3619 3167 D 3611 3181 D 3597 3188 D 3569 3188 D S 3583 3188 M 3547 3181 D S 3547 3174 M 3540 3159 D 3540 3131 D 3547 3124 D S 3540 3124 M 3561 3117 D S 3569 3117 M 3597 3124 D S 3604 3131 M 3611 3145 D 3611 3167 D 3604 3181 D S 3611 3181 M 3583 3188 D S 3569 3188 M 3554 3174 D 3547 3159 D 3547 3131 D 3554 3117 D S 3576 3117 M 3590 3124 D 3597 3131 D 3604 3145 D 3604 3174 D 3597 3188 D S 3554 3117 M 3526 3109 D 3511 3095 D 3504 3081 D 3504 3059 D 3511 3045 D 3533 3038 D 3561 3038 D 3590 3045 D 3597 3052 D 3604 3067 D 3604 3088 D 3597 3102 D 3590 3109 D 3576 3117 D S 3561 3117 M 3526 3109 D S 3533 3109 M 3519 3095 D 3511 3081 D 3511 3059 D 3519 3045 D S 3511 3045 M 3547 3038 D 3590 3045 D S 3590 3052 M 3597 3067 D 3597 3088 D 3590 3102 D S 3590 3109 M 3569 3117 D S 3554 3117 M 3540 3109 D 3526 3095 D 3519 3081 D 3519 3059 D 3526 3045 D 3533 3038 D S 3561 3038 M 3576 3045 D 3583 3052 D 3590 3067 D 3590 3095 D 3583 3109 D 3576 3117 D S 3690 3152 M 3690 3159 D 3697 3159 D 3697 3145 D 3683 3145 D 3683 3159 D 3690 3174 D 3697 3181 D 3719 3188 D 3740 3188 D 3761 3181 D 3769 3167 D 3769 3152 D 3761 3138 D 3754 3131 D 3740 3124 D 3719 3117 D S 3754 3181 M 3761 3167 D 3761 3152 D 3754 3138 D 3747 3131 D S 3740 3188 M 3747 3181 D 3754 3167 D 3754 3152 D 3747 3138 D 3733 3124 D 3719 3117 D S 3704 3117 M 3719 3117 D 3740 3109 D 3747 3102 D 3754 3088 D 3754 3067 D 3747 3052 D 3733 3045 D 3711 3038 D 3690 3038 D 3669 3045 D 3661 3052 D 3654 3067 D 3654 3081 D 3669 3081 D 3669 3067 D 3661 3067 D 3661 3074 D S 3740 3102 M 3747 3088 D 3747 3067 D 3740 3052 D S 3719 3117 M 3733 3109 D 3740 3095 D 3740 3067 D 3733 3052 D 3726 3045 D 3711 3038 D S 3811 3059 M 3804 3052 D 3804 3045 D 3811 3038 D 3819 3038 D 3826 3045 D 3826 3052 D 3819 3059 D 3811 3059 D S 3811 3052 M 3811 3045 D 3819 3045 D 3819 3052 D 3811 3052 D S 3947 3188 M 3926 3181 D 3919 3174 D 3911 3159 D 3911 3138 D 3919 3124 D 3933 3117 D 3954 3117 D 3976 3124 D 3990 3131 D 3997 3145 D 3997 3167 D 3990 3181 D 3976 3188 D 3947 3188 D S 3961 3188 M 3926 3181 D S 3926 3174 M 3919 3159 D 3919 3131 D 3926 3124 D S 3919 3124 M 3940 3117 D S 3947 3117 M 3976 3124 D S 3983 3131 M 3990 3145 D 3990 3167 D 3983 3181 D S 3990 3181 M 3961 3188 D S 3947 3188 M 3933 3174 D 3926 3159 D 3926 3131 D 3933 3117 D S 3954 3117 M 3969 3124 D 3976 3131 D 3983 3145 D 3983 3174 D 3976 3188 D S 3933 3117 M 3904 3109 D 3890 3095 D 3883 3081 D 3883 3059 D 3890 3045 D 3911 3038 D 3940 3038 D 3969 3045 D 3976 3052 D 3983 3067 D 3983 3088 D 3976 3102 D 3969 3109 D 3954 3117 D S 3940 3117 M 3904 3109 D S 3911 3109 M 3897 3095 D 3890 3081 D 3890 3059 D 3897 3045 D S 3890 3045 M 3926 3038 D 3969 3045 D S 3969 3052 M 3976 3067 D 3976 3088 D 3969 3102 D S 3969 3109 M 3947 3117 D S 3933 3117 M 3919 3109 D 3904 3095 D 3897 3081 D 3897 3059 D 3904 3045 D 3911 3038 D S 3940 3038 M 3954 3045 D 3961 3052 D 3969 3067 D 3969 3095 D 3961 3109 D 3954 3117 D S 4236 3340 M 4236 3265 D S 4683 3340 M 4683 3265 D S 5129 3340 M 5129 3228 D S 4908 3188 M 4886 3181 D 4879 3174 D 4872 3159 D 4872 3138 D 4879 3124 D 4893 3117 D 4915 3117 D 4936 3124 D 4950 3131 D 4958 3145 D 4958 3167 D 4950 3181 D 4936 3188 D 4908 3188 D S 4922 3188 M 4886 3181 D S 4886 3174 M 4879 3159 D 4879 3131 D 4886 3124 D S 4879 3124 M 4900 3117 D S 4908 3117 M 4936 3124 D S 4943 3131 M 4950 3145 D 4950 3167 D 4943 3181 D S 4950 3181 M 4922 3188 D S 4908 3188 M 4893 3174 D 4886 3159 D 4886 3131 D 4893 3117 D S 4915 3117 M 4929 3124 D 4936 3131 D 4943 3145 D 4943 3174 D 4936 3188 D S 4893 3117 M 4865 3109 D 4850 3095 D 4843 3081 D 4843 3059 D 4850 3045 D 4872 3038 D 4900 3038 D 4929 3045 D 4936 3052 D 4943 3067 D 4943 3088 D 4936 3102 D 4929 3109 D 4915 3117 D S 4900 3117 M 4865 3109 D S 4872 3109 M 4858 3095 D 4850 3081 D 4850 3059 D 4858 3045 D S 4850 3045 M 4886 3038 D 4929 3045 D S 4929 3052 M 4936 3067 D 4936 3088 D 4929 3102 D S 4929 3109 M 4908 3117 D S 4893 3117 M 4879 3109 D 4865 3095 D 4858 3081 D 4858 3059 D 4865 3045 D 4872 3038 D S 4900 3038 M 4915 3045 D 4922 3052 D 4929 3067 D 4929 3095 D 4922 3109 D 4915 3117 D S 5086 3159 M 5050 3038 D 5065 3038 D S 5108 3188 M 5093 3159 D 5058 3038 D S 5108 3188 M 5065 3038 D S 5108 3188 M 4993 3081 D 5108 3081 D S 5150 3059 M 5143 3052 D 5143 3045 D 5150 3038 D 5158 3038 D 5165 3045 D 5165 3052 D 5158 3059 D 5150 3059 D S 5150 3052 M 5150 3045 D 5158 3045 D 5158 3052 D 5150 3052 D S 5293 3159 M 5258 3038 D 5272 3038 D S 5315 3188 M 5300 3159 D 5265 3038 D S 5315 3188 M 5272 3038 D S 5315 3188 M 5293 3167 D 5272 3152 D 5258 3145 D S 5293 3159 M 5279 3152 D 5258 3145 D S 5575 3340 M 5575 3265 D S 6021 3340 M 6021 3265 D S 6468 3340 M 6468 3228 D S 6247 3188 M 6225 3181 D 6218 3174 D 6211 3159 D 6211 3138 D 6218 3124 D 6232 3117 D 6254 3117 D 6275 3124 D 6289 3131 D 6297 3145 D 6297 3167 D 6289 3181 D 6275 3188 D 6247 3188 D S 6261 3188 M 6225 3181 D S 6225 3174 M 6218 3159 D 6218 3131 D 6225 3124 D S 6218 3124 M 6239 3117 D S 6247 3117 M 6275 3124 D S 6282 3131 M 6289 3145 D 6289 3167 D 6282 3181 D S 6289 3181 M 6261 3188 D S 6247 3188 M 6232 3174 D 6225 3159 D 6225 3131 D 6232 3117 D S 6254 3117 M 6268 3124 D 6275 3131 D 6282 3145 D 6282 3174 D 6275 3188 D S 6232 3117 M 6204 3109 D 6189 3095 D 6182 3081 D 6182 3059 D 6189 3045 D 6211 3038 D 6239 3038 D 6268 3045 D 6275 3052 D 6282 3067 D 6282 3088 D 6275 3102 D 6268 3109 D 6254 3117 D S 6239 3117 M 6204 3109 D S 6211 3109 M 6197 3095 D 6189 3081 D 6189 3059 D 6197 3045 D S 6189 3045 M 6225 3038 D 6268 3045 D S 6268 3052 M 6275 3067 D 6275 3088 D 6268 3102 D S 6268 3109 M 6247 3117 D S 6232 3117 M 6218 3109 D 6204 3095 D 6197 3081 D 6197 3059 D 6204 3045 D 6211 3038 D S 6239 3038 M 6254 3045 D 6261 3052 D 6268 3067 D 6268 3095 D 6261 3109 D 6254 3117 D S 6425 3159 M 6389 3038 D 6404 3038 D S 6447 3188 M 6432 3159 D 6397 3038 D S 6447 3188 M 6404 3038 D S 6447 3188 M 6332 3081 D 6447 3081 D S 6489 3059 M 6482 3052 D 6482 3045 D 6489 3038 D 6497 3038 D 6504 3045 D 6504 3052 D 6497 3059 D 6489 3059 D S 6489 3052 M 6489 3045 D 6497 3045 D 6497 3052 D 6489 3052 D S 6654 3159 M 6618 3038 D 6632 3038 D S 6675 3188 M 6661 3159 D 6625 3038 D S 6675 3188 M 6632 3038 D S 6675 3188 M 6561 3081 D 6675 3081 D S 6914 3340 M 6914 3265 D S 7360 3340 M 7360 3265 D S 1760 3704 M 1760 8940 D S 1760 3704 M 1648 3704 D S 944 3779 M 922 3772 D 908 3758 D 894 3736 D 887 3715 D 879 3686 D 879 3665 D 887 3643 D 894 3636 D 908 3629 D 922 3629 D 944 3636 D 958 3650 D 972 3672 D 979 3693 D 987 3722 D 987 3743 D 979 3765 D 972 3772 D 958 3779 D 944 3779 D S 922 3765 M 908 3750 D 901 3736 D 894 3715 D 887 3686 D 887 3658 D 894 3643 D S 944 3643 M 958 3658 D 965 3672 D 972 3693 D 979 3722 D 979 3750 D 972 3765 D S 944 3779 M 929 3772 D 915 3750 D 908 3736 D 901 3715 D 894 3686 D 894 3650 D 901 3636 D 908 3629 D S 922 3629 M 937 3636 D 951 3658 D 958 3672 D 965 3693 D 972 3722 D 972 3758 D 965 3772 D 958 3779 D S 1029 3650 M 1022 3643 D 1022 3636 D 1029 3629 D 1037 3629 D 1044 3636 D 1044 3643 D 1037 3650 D 1029 3650 D S 1029 3643 M 1029 3636 D 1037 3636 D 1037 3643 D 1029 3643 D S 1137 3743 M 1137 3750 D 1144 3750 D 1144 3736 D 1129 3736 D 1129 3750 D 1137 3765 D 1144 3772 D 1165 3779 D 1187 3779 D 1208 3772 D 1215 3758 D 1215 3743 D 1208 3729 D 1194 3715 D 1122 3672 D 1108 3658 D 1094 3629 D S 1201 3772 M 1208 3758 D 1208 3743 D 1201 3729 D 1187 3715 D 1165 3700 D S 1187 3779 M 1194 3772 D 1201 3758 D 1201 3743 D 1194 3729 D 1179 3715 D 1122 3672 D S 1101 3643 M 1108 3650 D 1122 3650 D 1158 3643 D 1194 3643 D 1201 3650 D S 1122 3650 M 1158 3636 D 1194 3636 D S 1122 3650 M 1158 3629 D 1179 3629 D 1194 3636 D 1201 3650 D 1201 3658 D S 1287 3743 M 1287 3750 D 1294 3750 D 1294 3736 D 1279 3736 D 1279 3750 D 1287 3765 D 1294 3772 D 1315 3779 D 1337 3779 D 1358 3772 D 1365 3758 D 1365 3743 D 1358 3729 D 1344 3715 D 1272 3672 D 1258 3658 D 1244 3629 D S 1351 3772 M 1358 3758 D 1358 3743 D 1351 3729 D 1337 3715 D 1315 3700 D S 1337 3779 M 1344 3772 D 1351 3758 D 1351 3743 D 1344 3729 D 1329 3715 D 1272 3672 D S 1251 3643 M 1258 3650 D 1272 3650 D 1308 3643 D 1344 3643 D 1351 3650 D S 1272 3650 M 1308 3636 D 1344 3636 D S 1272 3650 M 1308 3629 D 1329 3629 D 1344 3636 D 1351 3650 D 1351 3658 D S 1465 3779 M 1444 3772 D 1437 3765 D 1429 3750 D 1429 3729 D 1437 3715 D 1451 3708 D 1472 3708 D 1494 3715 D 1508 3722 D 1515 3736 D 1515 3758 D 1508 3772 D 1494 3779 D 1465 3779 D S 1479 3779 M 1444 3772 D S 1444 3765 M 1437 3750 D 1437 3722 D 1444 3715 D S 1437 3715 M 1458 3708 D S 1465 3708 M 1494 3715 D S 1501 3722 M 1508 3736 D 1508 3758 D 1501 3772 D S 1508 3772 M 1479 3779 D S 1465 3779 M 1451 3765 D 1444 3750 D 1444 3722 D 1451 3708 D S 1472 3708 M 1487 3715 D 1494 3722 D 1501 3736 D 1501 3765 D 1494 3779 D S 1451 3708 M 1422 3700 D 1408 3686 D 1401 3672 D 1401 3650 D 1408 3636 D 1429 3629 D 1458 3629 D 1487 3636 D 1494 3643 D 1501 3658 D 1501 3679 D 1494 3693 D 1487 3700 D 1472 3708 D S 1458 3708 M 1422 3700 D S 1429 3700 M 1415 3686 D 1408 3672 D 1408 3650 D 1415 3636 D S 1408 3636 M 1444 3629 D 1487 3636 D S 1487 3643 M 1494 3658 D 1494 3679 D 1487 3693 D S 1487 3700 M 1465 3708 D S 1451 3708 M 1437 3700 D 1422 3686 D 1415 3672 D 1415 3650 D 1422 3636 D 1429 3629 D S 1458 3629 M 1472 3636 D 1479 3643 D 1487 3658 D 1487 3686 D 1479 3700 D 1472 3708 D S 1760 4078 M 1685 4078 D S 1760 4452 M 1685 4452 D S 1760 4826 M 1685 4826 D S 1760 5200 M 1648 5200 D S 944 5275 M 922 5268 D 908 5254 D 894 5232 D 887 5211 D 879 5182 D 879 5161 D 887 5139 D 894 5132 D 908 5125 D 922 5125 D 944 5132 D 958 5146 D 972 5168 D 979 5189 D 987 5218 D 987 5239 D 979 5261 D 972 5268 D 958 5275 D 944 5275 D S 922 5261 M 908 5246 D 901 5232 D 894 5211 D 887 5182 D 887 5154 D 894 5139 D S 944 5139 M 958 5154 D 965 5168 D 972 5189 D 979 5218 D 979 5246 D 972 5261 D S 944 5275 M 929 5268 D 915 5246 D 908 5232 D 901 5211 D 894 5182 D 894 5146 D 901 5132 D 908 5125 D S 922 5125 M 937 5132 D 951 5154 D 958 5168 D 965 5189 D 972 5218 D 972 5254 D 965 5268 D 958 5275 D S 1029 5146 M 1022 5139 D 1022 5132 D 1029 5125 D 1037 5125 D 1044 5132 D 1044 5139 D 1037 5146 D 1029 5146 D S 1029 5139 M 1029 5132 D 1037 5132 D 1037 5139 D 1029 5139 D S 1137 5239 M 1137 5246 D 1144 5246 D 1144 5232 D 1129 5232 D 1129 5246 D 1137 5261 D 1144 5268 D 1165 5275 D 1187 5275 D 1208 5268 D 1215 5254 D 1215 5239 D 1208 5225 D 1194 5211 D 1122 5168 D 1108 5154 D 1094 5125 D S 1201 5268 M 1208 5254 D 1208 5239 D 1201 5225 D 1187 5211 D 1165 5196 D S 1187 5275 M 1194 5268 D 1201 5254 D 1201 5239 D 1194 5225 D 1179 5211 D 1122 5168 D S 1101 5139 M 1108 5146 D 1122 5146 D 1158 5139 D 1194 5139 D 1201 5146 D S 1122 5146 M 1158 5132 D 1194 5132 D S 1122 5146 M 1158 5125 D 1179 5125 D 1194 5132 D 1201 5146 D 1201 5154 D S 1287 5239 M 1287 5246 D 1294 5246 D 1294 5232 D 1279 5232 D 1279 5246 D 1287 5261 D 1294 5268 D 1315 5275 D 1337 5275 D 1358 5268 D 1365 5254 D 1365 5239 D 1358 5225 D 1351 5218 D 1337 5211 D 1315 5204 D S 1351 5268 M 1358 5254 D 1358 5239 D 1351 5225 D 1344 5218 D S 1337 5275 M 1344 5268 D 1351 5254 D 1351 5239 D 1344 5225 D 1329 5211 D 1315 5204 D S 1301 5204 M 1315 5204 D 1337 5196 D 1344 5189 D 1351 5175 D 1351 5154 D 1344 5139 D 1329 5132 D 1308 5125 D 1287 5125 D 1265 5132 D 1258 5139 D 1251 5154 D 1251 5168 D 1265 5168 D 1265 5154 D 1258 5154 D 1258 5161 D S 1337 5189 M 1344 5175 D 1344 5154 D 1337 5139 D S 1315 5204 M 1329 5196 D 1337 5182 D 1337 5154 D 1329 5139 D 1322 5132 D 1308 5125 D S 1472 5275 M 1451 5268 D 1437 5254 D 1422 5232 D 1415 5211 D 1408 5182 D 1408 5161 D 1415 5139 D 1422 5132 D 1437 5125 D 1451 5125 D 1472 5132 D 1487 5146 D 1501 5168 D 1508 5189 D 1515 5218 D 1515 5239 D 1508 5261 D 1501 5268 D 1487 5275 D 1472 5275 D S 1451 5261 M 1437 5246 D 1429 5232 D 1422 5211 D 1415 5182 D 1415 5154 D 1422 5139 D S 1472 5139 M 1487 5154 D 1494 5168 D 1501 5189 D 1508 5218 D 1508 5246 D 1501 5261 D S 1472 5275 M 1458 5268 D 1444 5246 D 1437 5232 D 1429 5211 D 1422 5182 D 1422 5146 D 1429 5132 D 1437 5125 D S 1451 5125 M 1465 5132 D 1479 5154 D 1487 5168 D 1494 5189 D 1501 5218 D 1501 5254 D 1494 5268 D 1487 5275 D S 1760 5574 M 1685 5574 D S 1760 5948 M 1685 5948 D S 1760 6322 M 1685 6322 D S 1760 6696 M 1648 6696 D S 944 6771 M 922 6764 D 908 6750 D 894 6728 D 887 6707 D 879 6678 D 879 6657 D 887 6635 D 894 6628 D 908 6621 D 922 6621 D 944 6628 D 958 6642 D 972 6664 D 979 6685 D 987 6714 D 987 6735 D 979 6757 D 972 6764 D 958 6771 D 944 6771 D S 922 6757 M 908 6742 D 901 6728 D 894 6707 D 887 6678 D 887 6650 D 894 6635 D S 944 6635 M 958 6650 D 965 6664 D 972 6685 D 979 6714 D 979 6742 D 972 6757 D S 944 6771 M 929 6764 D 915 6742 D 908 6728 D 901 6707 D 894 6678 D 894 6642 D 901 6628 D 908 6621 D S 922 6621 M 937 6628 D 951 6650 D 958 6664 D 965 6685 D 972 6714 D 972 6750 D 965 6764 D 958 6771 D S 1029 6642 M 1022 6635 D 1022 6628 D 1029 6621 D 1037 6621 D 1044 6628 D 1044 6635 D 1037 6642 D 1029 6642 D S 1029 6635 M 1029 6628 D 1037 6628 D 1037 6635 D 1029 6635 D S 1137 6735 M 1137 6742 D 1144 6742 D 1144 6728 D 1129 6728 D 1129 6742 D 1137 6757 D 1144 6764 D 1165 6771 D 1187 6771 D 1208 6764 D 1215 6750 D 1215 6735 D 1208 6721 D 1194 6707 D 1122 6664 D 1108 6650 D 1094 6621 D S 1201 6764 M 1208 6750 D 1208 6735 D 1201 6721 D 1187 6707 D 1165 6692 D S 1187 6771 M 1194 6764 D 1201 6750 D 1201 6735 D 1194 6721 D 1179 6707 D 1122 6664 D S 1101 6635 M 1108 6642 D 1122 6642 D 1158 6635 D 1194 6635 D 1201 6642 D S 1122 6642 M 1158 6628 D 1194 6628 D S 1122 6642 M 1158 6621 D 1179 6621 D 1194 6628 D 1201 6642 D 1201 6650 D S 1287 6735 M 1287 6742 D 1294 6742 D 1294 6728 D 1279 6728 D 1279 6742 D 1287 6757 D 1294 6764 D 1315 6771 D 1337 6771 D 1358 6764 D 1365 6750 D 1365 6735 D 1358 6721 D 1351 6714 D 1337 6707 D 1315 6700 D S 1351 6764 M 1358 6750 D 1358 6735 D 1351 6721 D 1344 6714 D S 1337 6771 M 1344 6764 D 1351 6750 D 1351 6735 D 1344 6721 D 1329 6707 D 1315 6700 D S 1301 6700 M 1315 6700 D 1337 6692 D 1344 6685 D 1351 6671 D 1351 6650 D 1344 6635 D 1329 6628 D 1308 6621 D 1287 6621 D 1265 6628 D 1258 6635 D 1251 6650 D 1251 6664 D 1265 6664 D 1265 6650 D 1258 6650 D 1258 6657 D S 1337 6685 M 1344 6671 D 1344 6650 D 1337 6635 D S 1315 6700 M 1329 6692 D 1337 6678 D 1337 6650 D 1329 6635 D 1322 6628 D 1308 6621 D S 1437 6735 M 1437 6742 D 1444 6742 D 1444 6728 D 1429 6728 D 1429 6742 D 1437 6757 D 1444 6764 D 1465 6771 D 1487 6771 D 1508 6764 D 1515 6750 D 1515 6735 D 1508 6721 D 1494 6707 D 1422 6664 D 1408 6650 D 1394 6621 D S 1501 6764 M 1508 6750 D 1508 6735 D 1501 6721 D 1487 6707 D 1465 6692 D S 1487 6771 M 1494 6764 D 1501 6750 D 1501 6735 D 1494 6721 D 1479 6707 D 1422 6664 D S 1401 6635 M 1408 6642 D 1422 6642 D 1458 6635 D 1494 6635 D 1501 6642 D S 1422 6642 M 1458 6628 D 1494 6628 D S 1422 6642 M 1458 6621 D 1479 6621 D 1494 6628 D 1501 6642 D 1501 6650 D S 1760 7070 M 1685 7070 D S 1760 7444 M 1685 7444 D S 1760 7818 M 1685 7818 D S 1760 8192 M 1648 8192 D S 944 8267 M 922 8260 D 908 8246 D 894 8224 D 887 8203 D 879 8174 D 879 8153 D 887 8131 D 894 8124 D 908 8117 D 922 8117 D 944 8124 D 958 8138 D 972 8160 D 979 8181 D 987 8210 D 987 8231 D 979 8253 D 972 8260 D 958 8267 D 944 8267 D S 922 8253 M 908 8238 D 901 8224 D 894 8203 D 887 8174 D 887 8146 D 894 8131 D S 944 8131 M 958 8146 D 965 8160 D 972 8181 D 979 8210 D 979 8238 D 972 8253 D S 944 8267 M 929 8260 D 915 8238 D 908 8224 D 901 8203 D 894 8174 D 894 8138 D 901 8124 D 908 8117 D S 922 8117 M 937 8124 D 951 8146 D 958 8160 D 965 8181 D 972 8210 D 972 8246 D 965 8260 D 958 8267 D S 1029 8138 M 1022 8131 D 1022 8124 D 1029 8117 D 1037 8117 D 1044 8124 D 1044 8131 D 1037 8138 D 1029 8138 D S 1029 8131 M 1029 8124 D 1037 8124 D 1037 8131 D 1029 8131 D S 1137 8231 M 1137 8238 D 1144 8238 D 1144 8224 D 1129 8224 D 1129 8238 D 1137 8253 D 1144 8260 D 1165 8267 D 1187 8267 D 1208 8260 D 1215 8246 D 1215 8231 D 1208 8217 D 1194 8203 D 1122 8160 D 1108 8146 D 1094 8117 D S 1201 8260 M 1208 8246 D 1208 8231 D 1201 8217 D 1187 8203 D 1165 8188 D S 1187 8267 M 1194 8260 D 1201 8246 D 1201 8231 D 1194 8217 D 1179 8203 D 1122 8160 D S 1101 8131 M 1108 8138 D 1122 8138 D 1158 8131 D 1194 8131 D 1201 8138 D S 1122 8138 M 1158 8124 D 1194 8124 D S 1122 8138 M 1158 8117 D 1179 8117 D 1194 8124 D 1201 8138 D 1201 8146 D S 1287 8231 M 1287 8238 D 1294 8238 D 1294 8224 D 1279 8224 D 1279 8238 D 1287 8253 D 1294 8260 D 1315 8267 D 1337 8267 D 1358 8260 D 1365 8246 D 1365 8231 D 1358 8217 D 1351 8210 D 1337 8203 D 1315 8196 D S 1351 8260 M 1358 8246 D 1358 8231 D 1351 8217 D 1344 8210 D S 1337 8267 M 1344 8260 D 1351 8246 D 1351 8231 D 1344 8217 D 1329 8203 D 1315 8196 D S 1301 8196 M 1315 8196 D 1337 8188 D 1344 8181 D 1351 8167 D 1351 8146 D 1344 8131 D 1329 8124 D 1308 8117 D 1287 8117 D 1265 8124 D 1258 8131 D 1251 8146 D 1251 8160 D 1265 8160 D 1265 8146 D 1258 8146 D 1258 8153 D S 1337 8181 M 1344 8167 D 1344 8146 D 1337 8131 D S 1315 8196 M 1329 8188 D 1337 8174 D 1337 8146 D 1329 8131 D 1322 8124 D 1308 8117 D S 1494 8238 M 1458 8117 D 1472 8117 D S 1515 8267 M 1501 8238 D 1465 8117 D S 1515 8267 M 1472 8117 D S 1515 8267 M 1401 8160 D 1515 8160 D S 1760 8566 M 1685 8566 D S 1760 8940 M 1685 8940 D S 1760 8940 M 7340 8940 D S 7360 3340 M 7360 8920 D S 1760 3340 M 1760 4340 D S 2760 3340 M 1760 3340 D S 4593 4953 M 4554 4958 D S 4514 4960 M 4486 4960 D 4474 4961 D S 4434 4965 M 4394 4968 D S 4355 4975 M 4317 4983 D 4316 4983 D S 4277 4992 M 4250 4998 D 4238 5001 D S 4199 5012 M 4196 5013 D 4161 5024 D S 4124 5038 M 4087 5053 D S 4050 5069 M 4013 5084 D S 3976 5100 M 3940 5117 D S 3905 5137 M 3872 5159 D S 3838 5180 M 3817 5192 D 3805 5202 D S 3774 5228 M 3772 5230 D 3741 5251 D S 3711 5277 M 3683 5305 D S 3655 5333 M 3628 5363 D S 3600 5392 M 3598 5394 D 3577 5424 D S 3553 5457 M 3549 5462 D 3531 5490 D S 3509 5523 M 3505 5529 D 3489 5558 D S 3471 5593 M 3469 5596 D 3454 5630 D S 3437 5666 M 3424 5704 D S 3412 5742 M 3402 5781 D S 3393 5820 M 3386 5859 D S 3380 5899 M 3375 5933 D 3375 5938 D S 3375 5978 M 3375 6000 D 3375 6018 D S 3375 6058 M 3375 6068 D 3379 6098 D S 3385 6138 M 3393 6177 D S 3401 6216 M 3411 6255 D S 3423 6293 M 3436 6331 D S 3452 6367 M 3469 6404 D S 3487 6439 M 3505 6472 D 3506 6474 D S 3528 6507 M 3549 6539 D 3551 6541 D S 3574 6573 M 3598 6605 D S 3625 6635 M 3652 6664 D S 3680 6693 M 3708 6721 D S 3738 6748 M 3771 6770 D S 3802 6795 M 3817 6808 D 3834 6819 D S 3868 6840 M 3902 6861 D S 3937 6881 M 3973 6899 D S 4009 6915 M 4046 6930 D S 4083 6946 M 4120 6961 D S 4157 6976 M 4195 6987 D S 4234 6998 M 4250 7003 D 4273 7008 D S 4312 7016 M 4317 7018 D 4351 7024 D S 4390 7032 M 4393 7033 D 4430 7036 D S 4470 7039 M 4486 7040 D 4510 7040 D S 4593 7047 M 4633 7042 D S 4673 7040 M 4701 7040 D 4713 7039 D S 4753 7036 M 4793 7033 D S 4832 7025 M 4870 7018 D 4871 7017 D S 4910 7009 M 4937 7003 D 4949 6999 D S 4988 6988 M 4991 6988 D 5026 6977 D S 5063 6963 M 5100 6947 D S 5137 6932 M 5174 6916 D S 5211 6900 M 5247 6883 D S 5281 6863 M 5315 6842 D S 5349 6821 M 5370 6808 D 5382 6798 D S 5413 6772 M 5414 6771 D 5446 6750 D S 5476 6724 M 5504 6696 D S 5532 6667 M 5559 6638 D S 5586 6608 M 5588 6606 D 5610 6576 D S 5634 6544 M 5638 6539 D 5656 6511 D S 5678 6477 M 5682 6472 D 5698 6442 D S 5716 6407 M 5718 6404 D 5733 6371 D S 5750 6335 M 5762 6297 D S 5774 6258 M 5785 6220 D S 5794 6181 M 5801 6142 D S 5807 6102 M 5812 6068 D 5812 6062 D S 5812 6022 M 5812 6000 D 5812 5982 D S 5812 5942 M 5812 5933 D 5808 5902 D S 5802 5863 M 5794 5824 D S 5786 5785 M 5775 5746 D S 5764 5708 M 5751 5670 D S 5735 5633 M 5718 5597 D S 5699 5562 M 5682 5529 D 5680 5526 D S 5658 5493 M 5638 5462 D 5636 5460 D S 5613 5427 M 5589 5395 D S 5562 5366 M 5535 5336 D S 5507 5308 M 5479 5279 D S 5449 5253 M 5416 5231 D S 5385 5205 M 5370 5192 D 5352 5182 D S 5318 5161 M 5285 5139 D S 5250 5119 M 5214 5102 D S 5178 5086 M 5141 5070 D S 5104 5055 M 5067 5039 D S 5030 5025 M 4991 5013 D S 4953 5002 M 4937 4998 D 4914 4993 D S 4875 4984 M 4870 4983 D 4836 4976 D S 4797 4968 M 4794 4968 D 4757 4965 D S 4717 4962 M 4700 4960 D 4677 4960 D S 4593 3913 M 4513 3913 D S 4434 3917 M 4375 3921 D 4354 3923 D S 4274 3933 M 4195 3943 D S 4116 3954 M 4040 3966 D 4037 3966 D S 3959 3984 M 3906 3996 D 3881 4002 D S 3804 4023 M 3795 4025 D 3727 4046 D S 3652 4073 M 3577 4102 D S 3503 4132 M 3431 4166 D S 3359 4201 M 3288 4239 D S 3219 4278 M 3149 4318 D S 3083 4363 M 3041 4392 D 3018 4409 D S 2954 4457 M 2951 4459 D 2890 4506 D S 2829 4558 M 2771 4613 D S 2714 4668 M 2659 4726 D S 2603 4784 M 2599 4788 D 2557 4849 D S 2512 4915 M 2501 4931 D 2466 4980 D S 2420 5046 M 2411 5058 D 2382 5116 D S 2347 5188 M 2345 5192 D 2313 5261 D S 2280 5333 M 2255 5409 D S 2230 5486 M 2207 5562 D S 2190 5640 M 2177 5719 D S 2166 5798 M 2157 5866 D 2157 5878 D S 2157 5958 M 2157 6000 D 2157 6038 D S 2157 6118 M 2157 6135 D 2165 6197 D S 2176 6276 M 2189 6355 D S 2206 6433 M 2229 6510 D S 2253 6586 M 2278 6662 D S 2311 6735 M 2344 6808 D S 2380 6879 M 2411 6943 D 2417 6950 D S 2463 7016 M 2501 7070 D 2509 7081 D S 2554 7147 M 2599 7212 D 2600 7213 D S 2655 7271 M 2711 7328 D S 2768 7384 M 2826 7439 D S 2886 7492 M 2950 7540 D S 3014 7588 M 3041 7609 D 3079 7635 D S 3145 7679 M 3214 7720 D S 3284 7759 M 3354 7797 D S 3426 7832 M 3498 7866 D S 3572 7897 M 3647 7926 D S 3722 7953 M 3795 7975 D 3799 7976 D S 3876 7997 M 3906 8005 D 3954 8016 D S 4032 8033 M 4040 8035 D 4111 8045 D S 4190 8057 M 4192 8057 D 4269 8067 D S 4349 8077 M 4375 8080 D 4428 8084 D S 4593 8087 M 4673 8087 D S 4753 8084 M 4812 8080 D 4833 8077 D S 4912 8067 M 4992 8058 D S 5071 8046 M 5147 8035 D 5150 8034 D S 5228 8017 M 5281 8005 D 5306 7998 D S 5383 7977 M 5392 7975 D 5460 7954 D S 5535 7928 M 5610 7899 D S 5684 7869 M 5756 7834 D S 5828 7799 M 5898 7761 D S 5968 7722 M 6037 7682 D S 6104 7638 M 6146 7609 D 6169 7591 D S 6233 7543 M 6235 7541 D 6297 7495 D S 6357 7443 M 6415 7388 D S 6473 7332 M 6528 7274 D S 6584 7217 M 6588 7212 D 6630 7151 D S 6675 7086 M 6686 7070 D 6721 7020 D S 6767 6955 M 6775 6943 D 6805 6884 D S 6840 6812 M 6842 6808 D 6874 6740 D S 6907 6667 M 6932 6591 D S 6957 6515 M 6979 6438 D S 6997 6360 M 7010 6281 D S 7021 6202 M 7030 6135 D 7030 6123 D S 7030 6043 M 7030 6000 D 7030 5963 D S 7030 5883 M 7030 5866 D 7021 5803 D S 7011 5724 M 6998 5645 D S 6981 5567 M 6958 5490 D S 6934 5414 M 6909 5338 D S 6876 5265 M 6842 5193 D S 6807 5121 M 6775 5058 D 6770 5050 D S 6724 4985 M 6686 4931 D 6678 4919 D S 6633 4853 M 6588 4788 D 6587 4788 D S 6532 4730 M 6476 4672 D S 6419 4616 M 6361 4561 D S 6301 4509 M 6237 4460 D S 6173 4412 M 6146 4392 D 6108 4366 D S 6042 4321 M 5973 4281 D S 5903 4242 M 5832 4204 D S 5761 4168 M 5688 4134 D S 5615 4103 M 5540 4075 D S 5465 4048 M 5392 4025 D 5388 4024 D S 5311 4004 M 5281 3996 D 5233 3985 D S 5155 3967 M 5147 3966 D 5076 3955 D S 4997 3943 M 4995 3943 D 4917 3934 D S 4838 3924 M 4812 3921 D 4758 3917 D S 4809 6123 M 4373 6377 D 3964 6618 D S 3654 7202 M 3219 7461 D 2811 7707 D S 431 6033 M 440 6033 D 440 6043 D 431 6043 D 421 6033 D 412 6005 D 412 5976 D 421 5948 D 431 5938 D 450 5938 D 459 5948 D 497 6014 D 507 6024 D S 440 5938 M 450 5948 D 488 6014 D 497 6024 D 526 6024 D 535 6014 D 545 5986 D 545 5957 D 535 5929 D 526 5919 D 516 5919 D 516 5929 D 526 5929 D S 345 6148 M 355 6138 D 364 6148 D 355 6157 D 345 6148 D S 450 6071 M 431 6081 D 412 6100 D 412 6129 D 421 6138 D 450 6138 D 507 6119 D 535 6119 D 545 6129 D S 412 6119 M 421 6129 D 450 6129 D 507 6110 D 535 6110 D 545 6119 D 545 6148 D 526 6167 D 507 6176 D S 450 6195 M 431 6205 D 412 6224 D 412 6252 D 421 6262 D 440 6262 D 478 6252 D 545 6233 D S 412 6243 M 421 6252 D 440 6252 D 478 6243 D 545 6224 D S 478 6252 M 440 6271 D 421 6290 D 412 6310 D 412 6329 D 421 6348 D 431 6357 D 450 6357 D 507 6338 D 535 6338 D 545 6348 D S 412 6329 M 431 6348 D 450 6348 D 507 6329 D 535 6329 D 545 6338 D 545 6367 D 526 6386 D 507 6395 D S 292 6445 M 286 6445 D 286 6451 D 297 6451 D 297 6439 D 286 6439 D 274 6445 D 269 6451 D 263 6468 D 263 6485 D 269 6502 D 280 6508 D 292 6508 D 303 6502 D 314 6491 D 349 6434 D 360 6422 D 383 6411 D S 269 6496 M 280 6502 D 292 6502 D 303 6496 D 314 6485 D 326 6468 D S 263 6485 M 269 6491 D 280 6496 D 292 6496 D 303 6491 D 314 6479 D 349 6434 D S 372 6416 M 366 6422 D 366 6434 D 372 6462 D 372 6491 D 366 6496 D S 366 6434 M 377 6462 D 377 6491 D S 366 6434 M 383 6462 D 383 6479 D 377 6491 D 366 6496 D 360 6496 D S 545 6592 M 526 6573 D 497 6563 D 469 6563 D 431 6573 D 402 6582 D 374 6601 D 355 6620 D 345 6639 D 345 6658 D 355 6677 D 364 6687 D 393 6696 D 421 6696 D 459 6687 D 488 6677 D 516 6658 D 535 6639 D 545 6611 D 545 6592 D 535 6573 D 526 6563 D 497 6554 D 469 6554 D 431 6563 D 402 6573 D 374 6592 D 355 6611 D 345 6639 D S 545 6611 M 535 6630 D 516 6649 D 488 6668 D 459 6677 D 421 6687 D 393 6687 D 364 6677 D 345 6658 D S 431 6563 M 450 6687 D S 440 6563 M 459 6687 D S 354 6748 M 349 6771 D 343 6788 D 332 6805 D 320 6811 D 309 6805 D 303 6794 D 303 6776 D 309 6759 D 326 6748 D 343 6742 D 360 6742 D 372 6748 D 377 6754 D 383 6765 D 383 6776 D 377 6794 D 366 6805 D S 303 6776 M 309 6765 D 326 6754 D 343 6748 D 366 6748 D 377 6754 D S 269 6914 M 274 6908 D 280 6914 D 274 6919 D 269 6919 D 263 6914 D 263 6902 D 269 6891 D 274 6885 D 286 6879 D 303 6874 D 383 6856 D 406 6851 D 417 6845 D S 263 6902 M 274 6891 D 286 6885 D 309 6879 D 360 6868 D 383 6862 D 400 6856 D 412 6851 D 417 6845 D 423 6834 D 423 6822 D 417 6816 D 412 6816 D 406 6822 D 412 6828 D 417 6822 D S 303 6851 M 303 6908 D S 269 6999 M 274 6994 D 280 6999 D 274 7005 D 269 7005 D 263 6999 D 263 6988 D 269 6976 D 274 6971 D 286 6965 D 303 6959 D 383 6942 D 406 6936 D 417 6931 D S 263 6988 M 274 6976 D 286 6971 D 309 6965 D 360 6954 D 383 6948 D 400 6942 D 412 6936 D 417 6931 D 423 6919 D 423 6908 D 417 6902 D 412 6902 D 406 6908 D 412 6914 D 417 6908 D S 303 6936 M 303 6994 D S 6245 3604 M 6165 3604 D S 6085 3604 M 6005 3604 D S 5925 3604 M 5845 3604 D S 5765 3604 M 5685 3604 D S 6509 3622 M 6502 3608 D 6495 3600 D 6481 3593 D 6459 3593 D 6445 3600 D 6438 3608 D 6431 3622 D 6431 3643 D 6438 3658 D 6452 3672 D 6474 3679 D 6495 3679 D 6509 3672 D 6516 3665 D 6524 3643 D 6524 3622 D 6516 3593 D 6509 3572 D 6495 3550 D 6481 3536 D 6459 3529 D 6438 3529 D 6424 3536 D 6416 3550 D 6416 3565 D 6431 3565 D 6431 3550 D 6424 3550 D 6424 3558 D S 6445 3608 M 6438 3622 D 6438 3643 D 6445 3658 D S 6509 3665 M 6516 3650 D 6516 3622 D 6509 3593 D 6502 3572 D 6488 3550 D S 6459 3593 M 6452 3600 D 6445 3615 D 6445 3643 D 6452 3665 D 6459 3672 D 6474 3679 D S 6495 3679 M 6502 3672 D 6509 3658 D 6509 3622 D 6502 3593 D 6495 3572 D 6488 3558 D 6474 3536 D 6459 3529 D S 6659 3622 M 6652 3608 D 6645 3600 D 6631 3593 D 6609 3593 D 6595 3600 D 6588 3608 D 6581 3622 D 6581 3643 D 6588 3658 D 6602 3672 D 6624 3679 D 6645 3679 D 6659 3672 D 6666 3665 D 6674 3643 D 6674 3622 D 6666 3593 D 6659 3572 D 6645 3550 D 6631 3536 D 6609 3529 D 6588 3529 D 6574 3536 D 6566 3550 D 6566 3565 D 6581 3565 D 6581 3550 D 6574 3550 D 6574 3558 D S 6595 3608 M 6588 3622 D 6588 3643 D 6595 3658 D S 6659 3665 M 6666 3650 D 6666 3622 D 6659 3593 D 6652 3572 D 6638 3550 D S 6609 3593 M 6602 3600 D 6595 3615 D 6595 3643 D 6602 3665 D 6609 3672 D 6624 3679 D S 6645 3679 M 6652 3672 D 6659 3658 D 6659 3622 D 6652 3593 D 6645 3572 D 6638 3558 D 6624 3536 D 6609 3529 D S 6695 3529 M 6809 3643 D 6716 3643 D 6695 3622 D 6695 3608 D 6716 3586 D 6731 3586 D 6752 3608 D 6752 3622 D 6731 3643 D S 6774 3586 M 6752 3565 D 6752 3550 D 6774 3529 D 6788 3529 D 6809 3550 D 6809 3565 D 6788 3586 D 6774 3586 D S 6974 3665 M 6981 3665 D 6988 3679 D 6981 3636 D 6981 3650 D 6974 3665 D 6966 3672 D 6952 3679 D 6931 3679 D 6909 3672 D 6895 3658 D 6881 3636 D 6874 3615 D 6866 3586 D 6866 3565 D 6874 3543 D 6881 3536 D 6902 3529 D 6924 3529 D 6938 3536 D 6952 3550 D 6959 3565 D S 6909 3665 M 6895 3650 D 6888 3636 D 6881 3615 D 6874 3586 D 6874 3558 D 6881 3543 D S 6931 3679 M 6916 3672 D 6902 3650 D 6895 3636 D 6888 3615 D 6881 3586 D 6881 3550 D 6888 3536 D 6902 3529 D S 7016 3550 M 7009 3543 D 7009 3536 D 7016 3529 D 7024 3529 D 7031 3536 D 7031 3543 D 7024 3550 D 7016 3550 D S 7016 3543 M 7016 3536 D 7024 3536 D 7024 3543 D 7016 3543 D S 7138 3679 M 7095 3529 D S 7145 3679 M 7102 3529 D S 7152 3679 M 7109 3529 D S 7116 3679 M 7174 3679 D S 7074 3529 M 7181 3529 D 7195 3572 D S 7124 3679 M 7145 3672 D S 7131 3679 M 7138 3665 D S 7159 3679 M 7145 3665 D S 7166 3679 M 7145 3672 D S 7102 3536 M 7081 3529 D S 7102 3543 M 7088 3529 D S 7109 3543 M 7116 3529 D S 7102 3536 M 7124 3529 D S 7145 3529 M 7181 3536 D S 7159 3529 M 7188 3550 D S 7174 3529 M 7195 3572 D S 7238 3550 M 7231 3543 D 7231 3536 D 7238 3529 D 7245 3529 D 7252 3536 D 7252 3543 D 7245 3550 D 7238 3550 D S 7238 3543 M 7238 3536 D 7245 3536 D 7245 3543 D 7238 3543 D S 6245 3829 M 6205 3829 D S 6165 3829 M 6125 3829 D S 6085 3829 M 6045 3829 D S 6005 3829 M 5965 3829 D S 5925 3829 M 5885 3829 D S 5845 3829 M 5805 3829 D S 5765 3829 M 5725 3829 D S 5685 3829 M 5645 3829 D S 6516 3875 M 6516 3883 D 6509 3883 D 6509 3868 D 6524 3868 D 6524 3883 D 6516 3897 D 6502 3904 D 6481 3904 D 6459 3897 D 6445 3883 D 6431 3861 D 6424 3840 D 6416 3811 D 6416 3790 D 6424 3768 D 6431 3761 D 6445 3754 D 6466 3754 D 6488 3761 D 6502 3775 D 6509 3790 D 6509 3811 D 6502 3825 D 6495 3833 D 6481 3840 D 6459 3840 D 6445 3833 D 6438 3825 D 6431 3811 D S 6452 3883 M 6438 3861 D 6431 3840 D 6424 3811 D 6424 3783 D 6431 3768 D S 6495 3775 M 6502 3790 D 6502 3811 D 6495 3825 D S 6481 3904 M 6466 3897 D 6452 3875 D 6445 3861 D 6438 3840 D 6431 3811 D 6431 3775 D 6438 3761 D 6445 3754 D S 6466 3754 M 6481 3761 D 6488 3768 D 6495 3790 D 6495 3818 D 6488 3833 D 6481 3840 D S 6624 3904 M 6602 3897 D 6595 3890 D 6588 3875 D 6588 3854 D 6595 3840 D 6609 3833 D 6631 3833 D 6652 3840 D 6666 3847 D 6674 3861 D 6674 3883 D 6666 3897 D 6652 3904 D 6624 3904 D S 6638 3904 M 6602 3897 D S 6602 3890 M 6595 3875 D 6595 3847 D 6602 3840 D S 6595 3840 M 6616 3833 D S 6624 3833 M 6652 3840 D S 6659 3847 M 6666 3861 D 6666 3883 D 6659 3897 D S 6666 3897 M 6638 3904 D S 6624 3904 M 6609 3890 D 6602 3875 D 6602 3847 D 6609 3833 D S 6631 3833 M 6645 3840 D 6652 3847 D 6659 3861 D 6659 3890 D 6652 3904 D S 6609 3833 M 6581 3825 D 6566 3811 D 6559 3797 D 6559 3775 D 6566 3761 D 6588 3754 D 6616 3754 D 6645 3761 D 6652 3768 D 6659 3783 D 6659 3804 D 6652 3818 D 6645 3825 D 6631 3833 D S 6616 3833 M 6581 3825 D S 6588 3825 M 6574 3811 D 6566 3797 D 6566 3775 D 6574 3761 D S 6566 3761 M 6602 3754 D 6645 3761 D S 6645 3768 M 6652 3783 D 6652 3804 D 6645 3818 D S 6645 3825 M 6624 3833 D S 6609 3833 M 6595 3825 D 6581 3811 D 6574 3797 D 6574 3775 D 6581 3761 D 6588 3754 D S 6616 3754 M 6631 3761 D 6638 3768 D 6645 3783 D 6645 3811 D 6638 3825 D 6631 3833 D S 6695 3754 M 6809 3868 D 6716 3868 D 6695 3847 D 6695 3833 D 6716 3811 D 6731 3811 D 6752 3833 D 6752 3847 D 6731 3868 D S 6774 3811 M 6752 3790 D 6752 3775 D 6774 3754 D 6788 3754 D 6809 3775 D 6809 3790 D 6788 3811 D 6774 3811 D S 6974 3890 M 6981 3890 D 6988 3904 D 6981 3861 D 6981 3875 D 6974 3890 D 6966 3897 D 6952 3904 D 6931 3904 D 6909 3897 D 6895 3883 D 6881 3861 D 6874 3840 D 6866 3811 D 6866 3790 D 6874 3768 D 6881 3761 D 6902 3754 D 6924 3754 D 6938 3761 D 6952 3775 D 6959 3790 D S 6909 3890 M 6895 3875 D 6888 3861 D 6881 3840 D 6874 3811 D 6874 3783 D 6881 3768 D S 6931 3904 M 6916 3897 D 6902 3875 D 6895 3861 D 6888 3840 D 6881 3811 D 6881 3775 D 6888 3761 D 6902 3754 D S 7016 3775 M 7009 3768 D 7009 3761 D 7016 3754 D 7024 3754 D 7031 3761 D 7031 3768 D 7024 3775 D 7016 3775 D S 7016 3768 M 7016 3761 D 7024 3761 D 7024 3768 D 7016 3768 D S 7138 3904 M 7095 3754 D S 7145 3904 M 7102 3754 D S 7152 3904 M 7109 3754 D S 7116 3904 M 7174 3904 D S 7074 3754 M 7181 3754 D 7195 3797 D S 7124 3904 M 7145 3897 D S 7131 3904 M 7138 3890 D S 7159 3904 M 7145 3890 D S 7166 3904 M 7145 3897 D S 7102 3761 M 7081 3754 D S 7102 3768 M 7088 3754 D S 7109 3768 M 7116 3754 D S 7102 3761 M 7124 3754 D S 7145 3754 M 7181 3761 D S 7159 3754 M 7188 3775 D S 7174 3754 M 7195 3797 D S 7238 3775 M 7231 3768 D 7231 3761 D 7238 3754 D 7245 3754 D 7252 3761 D 7252 3768 D 7245 3775 D 7238 3775 D S 7238 3768 M 7238 3761 D 7245 3761 D 7245 3768 D 7238 3768 D S 4058 1740 M 4058 1540 D S 4068 1730 M 4068 1540 D 4058 1540 D S 4058 1740 M 4172 1740 D S 4068 1730 M 4172 1730 D 4172 1740 D S 4068 1645 M 4125 1645 D 4125 1635 D S 4068 1635 M 4125 1635 D S 4230 1740 M 4220 1730 D 4220 1721 D 4230 1711 D 4239 1711 D 4249 1721 D 4249 1730 D 4239 1740 D 4230 1740 D S 4230 1730 M 4230 1721 D 4239 1721 D 4239 1730 D 4230 1730 D S 4230 1673 M 4230 1540 D 4239 1540 D S 4230 1673 M 4239 1673 D 4239 1540 D S 4430 1673 M 4420 1673 D 4420 1530 D 4410 1502 D 4401 1492 D 4382 1483 D 4363 1483 D 4344 1492 D 4334 1502 D 4315 1502 D S 4430 1673 M 4430 1530 D 4420 1502 D 4401 1483 D 4382 1473 D 4353 1473 D 4334 1483 D 4315 1502 D S 4420 1645 M 4401 1664 D 4382 1673 D 4353 1673 D 4334 1664 D 4315 1645 D 4306 1616 D 4306 1597 D 4315 1569 D 4334 1550 D 4353 1540 D 4382 1540 D 4401 1550 D 4420 1569 D S 4420 1645 M 4382 1664 D 4353 1664 D 4334 1654 D 4325 1645 D 4315 1616 D 4315 1597 D 4325 1569 D 4334 1559 D 4353 1550 D 4382 1550 D 4420 1569 D S 4515 1569 M 4506 1559 D 4506 1550 D 4515 1540 D 4525 1540 D 4534 1550 D 4534 1559 D 4525 1569 D 4515 1569 D S 4515 1559 M 4515 1550 D 4525 1550 D 4525 1559 D 4515 1559 D S 4810 1692 M 4810 1702 D 4820 1721 D 4830 1730 D 4849 1740 D 4887 1740 D 4906 1730 D 4915 1721 D 4925 1702 D 4925 1683 D 4915 1664 D 4896 1635 D 4810 1540 D S 4810 1692 M 4820 1692 D 4820 1702 D 4830 1721 D 4849 1730 D 4887 1730 D 4906 1721 D 4915 1702 D 4915 1683 D 4906 1664 D 4887 1635 D 4801 1540 D S 4810 1550 M 4934 1550 D 4934 1540 D S 4801 1540 M 4934 1540 D S 3295 7673 M 3295 7553 D S 3300 7673 M 3335 7570 D S 3295 7673 M 3335 7553 D S 3375 7673 M 3335 7553 D S 3375 7673 M 3375 7553 D S 3380 7673 M 3380 7553 D S 3277 7673 M 3300 7673 D S 3375 7673 M 3397 7673 D S 3277 7553 M 3312 7553 D S 3357 7553 M 3397 7553 D S 3426 7596 M 3426 7524 D S 3430 7596 M 3430 7524 D S 3471 7596 M 3471 7524 D S 3474 7596 M 3474 7524 D S 3416 7596 M 3440 7596 D S 3460 7596 M 3484 7596 D S 3430 7562 M 3471 7562 D S 3416 7524 M 3440 7524 D S 3460 7524 M 3484 7524 D S 3514 7633 M 3611 7633 D 3611 7627 D S 3514 7633 M 3514 7627 D 3611 7627 D S 3514 7587 M 3611 7587 D 3611 7582 D S 3514 7587 M 3514 7582 D 3611 7582 D S 3668 7650 M 3680 7656 D 3697 7673 D 3697 7553 D S 3691 7667 M 3691 7553 D S 3668 7553 M 3720 7553 D S 3777 7673 M 3765 7616 D 3777 7627 D 3794 7633 D 3811 7633 D 3828 7627 D 3840 7616 D 3845 7599 D 3845 7587 D 3840 7570 D 3828 7559 D 3811 7553 D 3794 7553 D 3777 7559 D 3771 7564 D 3765 7576 D 3765 7582 D 3771 7587 D 3777 7582 D 3771 7576 D S 3811 7633 M 3823 7627 D 3834 7616 D 3840 7599 D 3840 7587 D 3834 7570 D 3823 7559 D 3811 7553 D S 3777 7673 M 3834 7673 D S 3777 7667 M 3805 7667 D 3834 7673 D S 3914 7673 M 3897 7667 D 3885 7650 D 3880 7622 D 3880 7604 D 3885 7576 D 3897 7559 D 3914 7553 D 3925 7553 D 3943 7559 D 3954 7576 D 3960 7604 D 3960 7622 D 3954 7650 D 3943 7667 D 3925 7673 D 3914 7673 D 3903 7667 D 3897 7662 D 3891 7650 D 3885 7622 D 3885 7604 D 3891 7576 D 3897 7564 D 3903 7559 D 3914 7553 D S 3925 7553 M 3937 7559 D 3943 7564 D 3948 7576 D 3954 7604 D 3954 7622 D 3948 7650 D 3943 7662 D 3937 7667 D 3925 7673 D S 4028 7673 M 4011 7667 D 4000 7650 D 3994 7622 D 3994 7604 D 4000 7576 D 4011 7559 D 4028 7553 D 4040 7553 D 4057 7559 D 4068 7576 D 4074 7604 D 4074 7622 D 4068 7650 D 4057 7667 D 4040 7673 D 4028 7673 D 4017 7667 D 4011 7662 D 4005 7650 D 4000 7622 D 4000 7604 D 4005 7576 D 4011 7564 D 4017 7559 D 4028 7553 D S 4040 7553 M 4051 7559 D 4057 7564 D 4063 7576 D 4068 7604 D 4068 7622 D 4063 7650 D 4057 7662 D 4051 7667 D 4040 7673 D S 3702 6296 M 3702 6176 D S 3707 6296 M 3742 6193 D S 3702 6296 M 3742 6176 D S 3782 6296 M 3742 6176 D S 3782 6296 M 3782 6176 D S 3787 6296 M 3787 6176 D S 3684 6296 M 3707 6296 D S 3782 6296 M 3804 6296 D S 3684 6176 M 3719 6176 D S 3764 6176 M 3804 6176 D S 3833 6219 M 3833 6147 D S 3837 6219 M 3837 6147 D S 3878 6219 M 3878 6147 D S 3881 6219 M 3881 6147 D S 3823 6219 M 3847 6219 D S 3867 6219 M 3891 6219 D S 3837 6185 M 3878 6185 D S 3823 6147 M 3847 6147 D S 3867 6147 M 3891 6147 D S 3921 6256 M 4018 6256 D 4018 6250 D S 3921 6256 M 3921 6250 D 4018 6250 D S 3921 6210 M 4018 6210 D 4018 6205 D S 3921 6210 M 3921 6205 D 4018 6205 D S 4075 6273 M 4087 6279 D 4104 6296 D 4104 6176 D S 4098 6290 M 4098 6176 D S 4075 6176 M 4127 6176 D S 4207 6296 M 4190 6290 D 4178 6273 D 4172 6245 D 4172 6227 D 4178 6199 D 4190 6182 D 4207 6176 D 4218 6176 D 4235 6182 D 4247 6199 D 4252 6227 D 4252 6245 D 4247 6273 D 4235 6290 D 4218 6296 D 4207 6296 D 4195 6290 D 4190 6285 D 4184 6273 D 4178 6245 D 4178 6227 D 4184 6199 D 4190 6187 D 4195 6182 D 4207 6176 D S 4218 6176 M 4230 6182 D 4235 6187 D 4241 6199 D 4247 6227 D 4247 6245 D 4241 6273 D 4235 6285 D 4230 6290 D 4218 6296 D S 4321 6296 M 4304 6290 D 4292 6273 D 4287 6245 D 4287 6227 D 4292 6199 D 4304 6182 D 4321 6176 D 4332 6176 D 4350 6182 D 4361 6199 D 4367 6227 D 4367 6245 D 4361 6273 D 4350 6290 D 4332 6296 D 4321 6296 D 4310 6290 D 4304 6285 D 4298 6273 D 4292 6245 D 4292 6227 D 4298 6199 D 4304 6187 D 4310 6182 D 4321 6176 D S 4332 6176 M 4344 6182 D 4350 6187 D 4355 6199 D 4361 6227 D 4361 6245 D 4355 6273 D 4350 6285 D 4344 6290 D 4332 6296 D S 2920 6953 M 2920 6833 D S 2925 6953 M 2960 6850 D S 2920 6953 M 2960 6833 D S 3000 6953 M 2960 6833 D S 3000 6953 M 3000 6833 D S 3005 6953 M 3005 6833 D S 2902 6953 M 2925 6953 D S 3000 6953 M 3022 6953 D S 2902 6833 M 2937 6833 D S 2982 6833 M 3022 6833 D S 3051 6876 M 3051 6818 D 3055 6807 D 3061 6804 D 3068 6804 D 3075 6807 D 3079 6814 D S 3055 6876 M 3055 6818 D 3058 6807 D 3061 6804 D S 3041 6852 M 3068 6852 D S 3108 6913 M 3205 6913 D 3205 6907 D S 3108 6913 M 3108 6907 D 3205 6907 D S 3108 6867 M 3205 6867 D 3205 6862 D S 3108 6867 M 3108 6862 D 3205 6862 D S 3262 6930 M 3274 6936 D 3291 6953 D 3291 6833 D S 3285 6947 M 3285 6833 D S 3262 6833 M 3314 6833 D S 3428 6936 M 3422 6930 D 3428 6924 D 3434 6930 D 3434 6936 D 3428 6947 D 3417 6953 D 3399 6953 D 3382 6947 D 3371 6936 D 3365 6924 D 3359 6902 D 3359 6867 D 3365 6850 D 3377 6839 D 3394 6833 D 3405 6833 D 3422 6839 D 3434 6850 D 3439 6867 D 3439 6873 D 3434 6890 D 3422 6902 D 3405 6907 D 3399 6907 D 3382 6902 D 3371 6890 D 3365 6873 D S 3399 6953 M 3388 6947 D 3377 6936 D 3371 6924 D 3365 6902 D 3365 6867 D 3371 6850 D 3382 6839 D 3394 6833 D S 3405 6833 M 3417 6839 D 3428 6850 D 3434 6867 D 3434 6873 D 3428 6890 D 3417 6902 D 3405 6907 D S 3525 6942 M 3525 6833 D S 3531 6953 M 3531 6833 D S 3531 6953 M 3468 6867 D 3559 6867 D S 3508 6833 M 3548 6833 D S 4453 6859 M 4453 6739 D S 4458 6859 M 4493 6756 D S 4453 6859 M 4493 6739 D S 4533 6859 M 4493 6739 D S 4533 6859 M 4533 6739 D S 4538 6859 M 4538 6739 D S 4435 6859 M 4458 6859 D S 4533 6859 M 4555 6859 D S 4435 6739 M 4470 6739 D S 4515 6739 M 4555 6739 D S 4584 6782 M 4584 6724 D 4588 6713 D 4594 6710 D 4601 6710 D 4608 6713 D 4612 6720 D S 4588 6782 M 4588 6724 D 4591 6713 D 4594 6710 D S 4574 6758 M 4601 6758 D S 4641 6819 M 4738 6819 D 4738 6813 D S 4641 6819 M 4641 6813 D 4738 6813 D S 4641 6773 M 4738 6773 D 4738 6768 D S 4641 6773 M 4641 6768 D 4738 6768 D S 4795 6836 M 4807 6842 D 4824 6859 D 4824 6739 D S 4818 6853 M 4818 6739 D S 4795 6739 M 4847 6739 D S 4921 6859 M 4904 6853 D 4898 6842 D 4898 6825 D 4904 6813 D 4921 6808 D 4944 6808 D 4961 6813 D 4967 6825 D 4967 6842 D 4961 6853 D 4944 6859 D 4921 6859 D 4910 6853 D 4904 6842 D 4904 6825 D 4910 6813 D 4921 6808 D S 4944 6808 M 4955 6813 D 4961 6825 D 4961 6842 D 4955 6853 D 4944 6859 D S 4921 6808 M 4904 6802 D 4898 6796 D 4892 6785 D 4892 6762 D 4898 6750 D 4904 6745 D 4921 6739 D 4944 6739 D 4961 6745 D 4967 6750 D 4972 6762 D 4972 6785 D 4967 6796 D 4961 6802 D 4944 6808 D S 4921 6808 M 4910 6802 D 4904 6796 D 4898 6785 D 4898 6762 D 4904 6750 D 4910 6745 D 4921 6739 D S 4944 6739 M 4955 6745 D 4961 6750 D 4967 6762 D 4967 6785 D 4961 6796 D 4955 6802 D 4944 6808 D S 5058 6848 M 5058 6739 D S 5064 6859 M 5064 6739 D S 5064 6859 M 5001 6773 D 5092 6773 D S 5041 6739 M 5081 6739 D S showpage end grestore
[^1]: $^1$
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We discuss a $4[k/2]$-dimensional complete hyperkähler submanifold of the $(4k-4)$-dimensional moduli space of strongly centred $SU(2)$-monopoles of charge $k$.'
address: |
Institut für Differentialgeometrie\
Universität Hannover\
Welfengarten 1\
D-30167 Hannover
author:
- Roger Bielawski
title: A hyperkähler submanifold of the monopole moduli space
---
The isometry group of ${{\mathbb{R}}}^3$ acts isometrically on the moduli space $M_k$ of Euclidean $SU(2)$-monopoles of charge $k$ and, consequently, a fixed point set of any subgroup of this group is a totally geodesic submanifold. Similar statement holds for any subgroup of the orthogonal group $O(3)$ acting on the submanifold $M_k^0$ consisting of [*strongly centred*]{} monopoles [@HMM] (these are monopoles with the centre at the origin and total phase equal to $1$). Houghton and Sutcliffe [@HS] have shown that the submanifold of $M^0_3$ consisting of monopoles symmetric about the origin is isometric to the Atiyah-Hitchin manifold (i.e. the moduli space of centred monopoles of charge $2$). Surprisingly, monopoles of higher charges invariant under the reflection $x\mapsto -x$ seem not to have been considered in the literature. This reflection is particularly interesting since it extends to a reflection $\tau:(x,t)\mapsto (-x,t^{-1})$ on ${{\mathbb{R}}}^3\times S^1$ which preserves the hyperkähler structure of ${{\mathbb{R}}}^3\times S^1$. It is then easy to deduce that the submanifold $N_k$ of strongly centred monopoles symmetric about the origin is a (complete) hyperkähler submanifold of $M_k^0$ for any charge $k$. We have stumbled upon this hyperkähler manifold (for even $k$) in a completely different context in [@slices] and realised only [*a posteriori*]{}, by identifying the twistor space, that it must be a submanifold of $M_k^0$.
In the present paper we describe the submanifold $N_k$ in terms of Nahm’s equations. Since $N_k$ is $SO(3)$-invariant, all of its complex structures are equivalent and can be identified with a complex submanifold of based rational maps of degree $k$. This is straightforward, given that the involution $\tau$ acts on rational maps via $p(z)/q(z)\mapsto \tilde{p}(z)/q(-z)$, where $\tilde p(-z)p(z)-1=0 \mod q(z)$, but we also show this directly using Nahm’s equations. We then show that $N_k$ is biholomorphic to the [*transverse Hilbert scheme*]{} of $n$ points [@slices §5] on the $D_1$-surface if $k=2n$, and on the $D_0$-surface if $k=2n+1$. This allows us to conclude that $N_{2n}$ is simply connected, while $N_{2n+1}$ has fundamental group of order $2$. In Section \[2\] we present an alternative construction, which also gives a description of hyperkähler deformations of $N_{2n}$.
Description in terms of Nahm’s equations
========================================
The moduli space $M_k^0$ of strongly centred $SU(2)$-monopoles of charge $k$ is isomorphic to the moduli space of ${{\mathfrak s \mathfrak u}}(k)$-valued solutions to Nahm’s equations on $(0,2)$ with $T_1(t),T_2(t),T_3(t)$ having simple poles at $t=0,2$, the residues of which define the standard $k$-dimensional irreducible representation of ${{\mathfrak s \mathfrak u}}(2)$, i.e. $${\operatorname{Res}}T_1(t)=i{\operatorname{diag}}(k-1,k-3,\dots,3-k,1-k),$$ $${\operatorname{Res}}(T_2+iT_3)(t)_{ij}=\begin{cases}\sqrt{j(k-j)} & \text{if $i=j+1$}\\ 0 & \text{otherwise}.\end{cases}$$ The corresponding representation of ${{\mathfrak{s}}}{{\mathfrak{l}}}_2({{\mathbb C}})$ is given by the action $y\partial_x,x\partial_y,x\partial_x-y\partial_y$ on binary forms of degree $k-1$ with a basis $$v_i=\begin{pmatrix} k-1\\i-1\end{pmatrix}^{1/2}x^{k-i}y^{i-1},\enskip i=1,\dots,k.\label{basis}$$ Write $V$ for the standard $2$-dimensional ${{\mathfrak{s}}}{{\mathfrak{l}}}_2({{\mathbb C}})$-module, so that the symmetric product $S^{k-1}V$ is the standard $k$-dimensional irreducible representation of ${{\mathfrak{s}}}{{\mathfrak{l}}}_2({{\mathbb C}})$. The equivariant isomorphisms $$\Lambda^2\bigl(S^{2n+1}V^\ast\bigr)\simeq \bigoplus_{i=0}^{n} S^{4i}V^\ast,\quad S^2 \bigl(S^{2n}V^\ast\bigr)\simeq\bigoplus_{i=0}^{n} S^{4i}V^\ast,$$ imply that, if $k$ is even (resp. if $k$ is odd), then there exists a unique (up to scaling) ${{\mathfrak{s}}}{{\mathfrak{l}}}_2({{\mathbb C}})$-invariant skew-symmetric (resp. symmetric) bilinear form on $S^{k-1}V$. This invariant form is a classical object and is called [*transvectant*]{}. In the basis the transvectant $T(f,g)$ of $f=\sum_{i=1}^k a_iv_i$, $g=\sum_{i=1}^k b_iv_i$ is given [@SJ Ex.2.7] $$T(f,g)=\sum_{i=0}^{k-1} (-1)^{i}a_{i+1}b_{k-i}.$$ We conclude that the residues of $T_1,T_2,T_3$ belong to a symplectic subalgebra of ${{\mathfrak s \mathfrak u}}(k)$ if $k$ is even, and to an orthogonal subalgebra if $k$ is odd. These subalgebras are defined as $$\left\{ A\in {{\mathfrak s \mathfrak u}}(k);\; AJ+JA^T=0\right\},\label{subgroup}$$ where $J$ is an antidiagonal matrix with $J_{i,k+1-i}=(-1)^{i-1}$. In other words, they are the fixed point sets of the involution $$\sigma(A)= -JA^TJ^{-1}. \label{tau}$$ We denote by ${{\mathfrak s \mathfrak u}}(k)^\sigma$ the subalgebra and by $SU(k)^\sigma$ the corresponding subgroup of $SU(k)$ ($SU(k)^\sigma\simeq Sp(n)$ if $k=2n$ and $SU(k)^\sigma\simeq SO(2n+1)$ if $k=2n+1$).
We consider the space ${{\mathcal{A}}}^\sigma$ of ${{\mathfrak s \mathfrak u}}(k)^\sigma$-valued solutions to Nahm’s equations on $[0,2]$. Let ${{\mathcal{G}}}$ denote the group of $SU(k)$-valued gauge transformations which are identity at $t=0,2$, and let ${{\mathcal{G}}}^\sigma$ be its subgroup of $SU(k)^\sigma$-valued gauge transformations. It is easy to verify that two ${{\mathcal{G}}}$-equivalent elements of ${{\mathcal{A}}}^\sigma$ are also ${{\mathcal{G}}}^\sigma$-equivalent. Thus the natural map ${{\mathcal{A}}}^\sigma/{{\mathcal{G}}}^\sigma\to M_k^0$ is an embedding and we view $N_k={{\mathcal{A}}}^\sigma/{{\mathcal{G}}}^\sigma$ as a submanifold of $M_k^0$. $N_k$ is the fixed point set of an involution $\sigma$ which sends each $T_i(t)$ to $\sigma(T_i(t))$ (and acts the same way on gauge transformations) and therefore a complete hyperkähler submanifold of $M_k^0$.
With respect to any complex structure $N_k$ is biholomorphic to the space of based rational maps $\frac{p(z)}{q(z)}$ of degree $k$ such that
- if $k=2n$, then $q(z)=\tilde q(z^2)$ for a monic polynomial $\tilde q$ of degree $n$ and $p(z)p(-z)\equiv 1\mod q(z)$;
- if $k=2n+1$, then $q(z)=z\tilde q(z^2)$ for a monic polynomial $\tilde q$ of degree $n$, $p(0)=1$ and $p(z)p(-z)\equiv 1\mod q(z)$.
In particular $\dim_{{{\mathbb{R}}}} N_{2n}=\dim_{{{\mathbb{R}}}} N_{2n+1}=4n$. \[hol\]
If the roots of $q(z)$ are distinct, then the above condition means that $p(w)p(-w)=1$ for each root $w$ of $q(z)$ (and $p(0)=1$ if $k$ is odd). The full $N_k$ is then the closure of this set inside the space of all rational maps.
Recall [@Don] that $M_k$ is biholomorphic to the space of based (i.e. $f(\infty)=0$) rational maps of degree $k$, and $M_k^0$ to the submanifold consisting of rational maps $p(z)/q(z)$ such that the sum of the poles $z_i$ is equal to $0$ and $\prod_{i=1}^k p(z_i)=1$. From the point of view of Nahm’s equations, the rational map is obtained by applying a (singular) complex gauge transformation $g$ to the complex Nahm equation $\dot\beta=[\beta,\alpha]$ in order to make $\beta$ a constant matrix of the form $$S=\begin{pmatrix} 0 & \dots & \dots & 0 & s_n\\ 1 & \ddots & & 0 & s_{n-1}\\ \vdots & \ddots &\ddots & \vdots &\vdots\\ 0 & \dots &\ddots & 0& s_2\\ 0 & \dots &\dots & 1 & s_1\end{pmatrix}.\label{S}$$ The value of the complex gauge transformation $g(t)$ at $t=2$ (modulo a fixed singular gauge transformation) is then an element $u$ of the centraliser of $S$ in $GL(k,{{\mathbb C}})$. The pair $(S,u)$ corresponds to the rational map ${\operatorname{tr}}u(z-S)^{-1}$ (this is the description given in [@JLMS]). The complex structures of $M_k^0$ and of $N_k$ are obtained by assuming that $S$ and $u$ belong to the appropriate subalgebra and subgroup (i.e. to ${{\mathfrak{s}}}{{\mathfrak{l}}}(k,{{\mathbb C}}),SL(n,{{\mathbb C}})$ for $M_k^0$ and to ${{\mathfrak{s}}}{{\mathfrak{l}}}(k,{{\mathbb C}})^\sigma,SL(n,{{\mathbb C}})^\sigma$ for $N_k$). It is enough to consider the subset where the poles of the rational map, i.e. the eigenvalues of $S$, are distinct (since $N_k$ is the closure of this set in the space of all rational maps). A Cartan subalgebra ${{\mathfrak{h}}}$ of ${{\mathfrak{s}}}{{\mathfrak{l}}}(k,{{\mathbb C}})^\sigma$ is given by the diagonal matrices $h$ satisfying $ h_{ii}+h_{k+1-i,k+1-i}=0$, $i=1,\dots,k$. It is then immediate that if $(S,u)$ is conjugate to an element of ${{\mathfrak{h}}}\times H$ ($H=\exp{{\mathfrak{h}}})$, then the corresponding rational map satisfies the conditions in the statement.
In [@slices Ex. 5.4] we have identified the complex manifold described in the above proposition for $k=2n$ as the [*Hilbert scheme of $n$ points on the $D_1$-surface $x^2-zy^2=1$ transverse to the projection $(x,y,z)\mapsto z$*]{} (similarly, the space of all rational maps of degree $k$ is the Hilbert scheme of $k$ points on ${{\mathbb C}}^\ast\times {{\mathbb C}}$ transverse to the projection onto the second factor [@AH Ch. 6]). It turns out that for odd $k$ the complex structure of $N_k$ is that of the transverse Hilbert scheme of points on the $D_0$-surface $x^2-zy^2-y=0$:
- With respect to any complex structure $N_{2n}$ is biholomorphic to the Hilbert scheme of $n$ points on the $D_1$-surface $x^2-zy^2=1$ transverse to the projection $(x,y,z)\mapsto z$.
- With respect to any complex structure $N_{2n+1}$ is biholomorphic to the Hilbert scheme of $n$ points on the $D_0$-surface $x^2-zy^2-y=0$ transverse to the projection $(x,y,z)\mapsto z$.
The fact that $N_3$ is biholomorphic to the $D_0$-surface has been observed by Houghton and Sutcliffe [@HS].
Part (i) has already been shown in [@slices Ex. 5.4]. For part (ii) recall from [@slices] that the Hilbert scheme of $n$ points on the $D_0$-surface $x^2-zy^2+y=0$ transverse to the projection $(x,y,z)\mapsto z$ is an affine variety in ${{\mathbb C}}^{3n}$ given by the same equation, but for polynomials. More precisely its points are polynomials $x(z),y(z),r(z)$ with degrees of $x$ and $y$ at most $n-1$ and $r(z)$ a monic polynomial of degree $n$, satisfying the condition $$x(z)^2-zy(z)^2-y(z)=0\mod r(z).$$ As in [@slices] write $z=u^2$ and rewrite the above equation as $$\bigl(x(u^2)+uy(u^2)\bigr)\bigl(x(u^2)-uy(u^2)\bigr)- \frac{ \bigl(x(u^2)+uy(u^2)\bigr)-\bigl(x(u^2)-uy(u^2)\bigr)}{u}=0\mod r(u^2).$$ Let us write $f(u)=x(u^2)+uy(u^2)$, $p(u)=1+uf(u)$, $q(u)=ur(u^2)$. Then it is easy to see that if the roots of $q$ are distinct, then the last equation is equivalent to the condition $p(w)p(-w)=1$ for any nonzero root $w$ of $q(u)$. Since this last equation is polynomial in the coefficients of $p$ and $q$, it describes a closed affine subvariety inside the affine variety of all rational maps. Since the two closed affine subvarieties, namely the transverse Hilbert scheme of points on the $D_0$-surface and the variety described in Proposition \[hol\], have a common open dense subset, they must coincide.
We can now compute the fundamental group of $N_k$:
$$\pi_1(N_k)=\begin{cases} 1 & \text{if $k$ is even,}\\ {{\mathbb{Z}}}_2 & \text{if $k$ is odd}.\end{cases}$$ \[pi1\]
The fundamental groups of the $D_0$- and $D_1$-surface (i.e. the Atiyah-Hitchin manifold and its double cover) are well-known [@AH] and equal to ${{\mathbb{Z}}}_2$ and to $1$ respectively. The result follows from
Let $X$ be a smooth complex surface and $\pi:X\to C$ a holomorphic submersion onto a connected Riemann surface $C$. Suppose further that, over an open dense subset of $C$, $\pi$ is a locally trivial fibration with connected fibres. Then the fundamental group of the transverse Hilbert scheme $X^{[n]}_\pi$ of $n$ points, $n\geq 2$, is equal to $H_1(X,{{\mathbb{Z}}})$.
We first observe that if $X$ is a smooth complex surface and $n\geq 2$, then the fundamental group of the full Hilbert scheme $X^{[n]}$ of $n$ points, $n\geq 2$, is equal to $H_1(X,{{\mathbb{Z}}})$. This follows by combining two facts: 1) a classical result of Dold and Puppe [@DP Thm. 12.15] which says that $\pi_1(S^n X)\simeq H_1(X,{{\mathbb{Z}}})$ for $n\geq 2$, and 2) a theorem of Kollár [@Koll Thm. 7.8] which implies that $\pi_1(X^{[n]})\simeq\pi_1(S^n X)$.
We now aim to show that $\pi_1\bigl(X^{[n]}_\pi\bigr)\simeq\pi_1\bigl(X^{[n]}\bigr)$. Let $Y$ denote a submanifold of $X^{[n]}$ consisting of $D\in X^{[n]}$ with $\pi(D)=z_0+ E$, where $E$ has length $n-2$ in $C$, $z_0\not\in {\operatorname{supp}}E$, and $D\cap \pi^{-1}(z_0)$ consists of two distinct points. Clearly $Y\cap X^{[n]}_\pi=\emptyset$. Denote by $U$ a tubular neigbourhood of $Y$ and let $Z=U\cup X^{[n]}_\pi$, $W=U\cap X^{[n]}_\pi$. Since the complement of $Z$ in $X^{[n]}$ has (complex) codimension $2$, the fundamental groups of $Z$ and of $X^{[n]}$ coincide. Since $W$ is a punctured disc bundle over $Y$, the long exact sequence of homotopy groups implies that the map $\pi_1(W)\to\pi_1(U)$ is surjective and its kernel consists of at most the “meridian loop" around $Y$. Owing to the assumption, we can choose a point $y$ of $Y$ so that a neighbourhood of the fibre containing two points is isomorphic to $B\times F$, where $B$ is a disc $\{z\in{{\mathbb C}}; |z|< 1+\epsilon\}$ and $F$ is the generic fibre of $\pi$. The intersection of a neighbourhood of $y$ in $Z$ with $W$ is then of the form $S^2_\pi(B\times F)\times V$, where the subscript $\pi$ means that the pair of points $\{x_1,x_2\}\in B\times F$ satisfies $\pi(x_1)\neq \pi(x_2)$ and $V$ is an open subset in $X^{[n-2]}_\pi$. Let $\rho$ be the projection $(B\times F)\times (B\times F)\to S^2(B\times F)$. A “meridian loop" in $W$ around $Y$ can be then chosen to be $$t\mapsto \bigl(\rho(e^{\pi it},f,e^{-\pi i t},f),v\bigr),\enskip t\in[0,1]$$ for constant $f$ and $v$. This loop is contractible in $X^{[n]}_\pi$: the homotopy $$H(r,t)= \bigl(\rho(re^{\pi it},f,re^{-\pi i t},f),v\bigr),\enskip t,r\in[0,1]$$ contracts it to $(D,v)$ where $D$ is the double point $(\{z^2=0\},f)$ in $B\times F$. To recapitulate: we have shown that the map $\pi_1(W)\to \pi_1(U)$ is surjective and its kernel has trivial image in $\pi_1(X^{[n]}_\pi)$. It follows that the amalgamated free product $\pi_1(U)\ast_{\pi_1(W)}\pi_1(X^{[n]}_\pi)$ is isomorphic to $\pi_1(X^{[n]}_\pi)$ and, hence, van Kampen’s theorem implies that $\pi_1(Z)\simeq \pi_1(X^{[n]}_\pi)$.
The $D_0$-surface $X$ is the quotient of the $D_1$-surface $\tilde X$ by a free action of ${{\mathbb{Z}}}_2$ given by $(x,y,z)\mapsto (-x,-y,z)$. This induces a free ${{\mathbb{Z}}}_2$-action on the transverse Hilbert scheme $\tilde X_\pi^{[n]}$ of $n$ points for any $n$, but $\tilde X_\pi^{[n]}/{{\mathbb{Z}}}_2\not\simeq X_\pi^{[n]}$, unless $n=1$. Certainly, there is a surjective holomorphic map $\tilde X_\pi^{[n]}\to X_\pi^{[n]}$ for any $n$, which, in the description of these spaces provided in Proposition \[hol\], sends a rational function $p(z)/q(z)\in \tilde X_\pi^{[n]}$ to $\bar{p}(z)/zq(z)$, where $\bar{p}(z)=p(z)^2\mod zq(z)$. This map is constant on ${{\mathbb{Z}}}_2$-orbits, but it is generically $2^n$-to-$1$ and not a covering (the preimage of a point consists of $2^m$ points, where $2m$ is the number of distint roots of $q(z)$). \[Z2\]
It is instructive to compare spectral curves of monopoles in $N_{2n+1}$ to those in $N_{2n}$. It follows from Proposition \[hol\] that the spectral curve $S$ of a monopole in $N_{2n+1}$ is always singular and given by an equation of the form $\eta P(\zeta,\eta)=0$, where $\zeta$ is the affine coordinate of ${{\mathbb{P}}}^1$, $\eta$ is the induced fibre coordinate in $T{{\mathbb{P}}}^1$, and $P$ a polynomial of the form $\eta^{2n}+\sum_{i=1}^{n}a_i(\zeta)\eta^{2n-2i}$, $\deg a_i(\zeta)=4i$. A spectral curve of a monopole satisfies [@AH] the condition $L^2|_S\simeq {{\mathcal{O}}}$, where $L^2$ is a line bundle on $T{{\mathbb{P}}}^1$ with transition function $\exp(2\eta/\zeta)$. It follows that the line bundle $L^2$ is also trivial on the curve $\tilde S$ defined by the equation $P(\zeta,\eta)=0$. Conversely, the spectral curve $\tilde S$ of a monopole in $N_{2n}$ admits a section $s(\zeta,\eta)$ of $L^2$ which satisfies $s(\zeta,\eta)s(\zeta,-\eta)\equiv 1\mod P(\zeta,\eta)$, where $P(\zeta,\eta)=0$ is the equation of $\tilde S$. It follows that $s(\zeta,0)=\pm 1$ and if we set $\bar{s}(\zeta,\eta)=s^2(\zeta,\eta)$ on $\tilde S$ and $\bar{s}(\zeta,\eta)\equiv 1$ on $\eta=0$, we obtain a nonvanishing section of $L^4$ on the curve $\eta P(\eta,\zeta)=0$, i.e. a section of $L^2$ on the curve $S$ given by $\tilde \eta P(\tilde\eta/2,\zeta)=0$, where $\tilde\eta=2\eta$. In the case $n=1$, Houghton and Sutcliffe [@HS] have shown that for $n=1$ these maps $S\mapsto \tilde S$ and $\tilde S\mapsto S$ send spectral curves of monopoles in $N_{3}$ to spectral curves of monopoles in $N_{2}$ and vice versa[^1], but for higher $n$ this is not the case. The reason is that Hitchin’s [@Hit] nonsingularity condition $H^0(S,L^t(k-2))=0$, $t\in (0,2)$, is not necessarily satisfied for the resulting curves.
Deformations and coverings\[2\]
===============================
Dancer [@Dan] has shown that the $D_1$-surface admits a $1$-parameter family of deformations carrying complete hyperkähler metrics. As we observed in [@slices], the transverse Hilbert schemes of points on these deformations also admit natural complete hyperkähler metrics. We wish to describe these metrics as deformations of manifolds $N_{2n}$. We begin by describing $N_k$ without reference to an embedding into $M_k^0$.
Let $G_k$ (resp. ${{\mathfrak g}}_k$) denote $Sp(n)$ (resp. ${{\mathfrak{s}}}{{\mathfrak{p}}}(n)$) if $k=2n$ and $SO(2n+1)$ (resp. ${{\mathfrak{s}}}{{\mathfrak{o}}}(k)$) if $k=2n+1$. The construction of the previous section shows that $N_k$ is the moduli space of ${{\mathfrak{g}}}_k$-valued solutions to Nahm’s equations on $(0,2)$ with simple poles at $t=0,2$ and residues defining the principal homomorphism ${{\mathfrak s \mathfrak u}}(2)\to {{\mathfrak g}}_k$, modulo $G_k$-valued gauge transformations which are identity at $t=0,2$. This moduli space is, in turn, a finite-dimensional hyperkähler quotient of a simpler hyperkähler manifold. Let $W_k^-$ (resp. $W_k^+$) be the moduli space of ${{\mathfrak{g}}}_k$-valued solutions to Nahm’s equations on $(0,1]$ (resp. $[1,2)$) with the above boundary behaviour at $t=0$ (resp. at $t=2$) and regular at $t=1$, modulo $G_k$-valued gauge transformations which are identity at $t=0,1$ (resp. at $t=1,2)$. $W_k^\pm$ are hyperkähler manifolds (biholomorphic to $G_k^{{\mathbb C}}\times {{\mathbb C}}^n$ [@JLMS]) with an isometric and triholomorphic action of $G_k$ obtained by allowing gauge transformations with an arbitrary value at $t=1$. Then $N_k$ is the hyperkähler quotient of $W_k^-\times W_k^+$ by the diagonal $G_k$.
We can also describe in a similar manner the universal (i.e. double) covering space of $N_{2n+1}$: it is given by the same construction, but with $G_{2n+1}=\text{\it Spin}(2n+1)$ instead of $SO(2n+1)$.
An alternative construction of the $N_k$ proceeds as follows. Let $G$ denote one of the groups $Sp(n)$, $SO(2n+1)$, or $\text{\it Spin}(2n+1)$ and let $\tau$ be an automorphic involution on $G$ with fixed point set $K$. Consider the hyperkähler quotient $Y^-$ of $W_k^-$ by $K$ (with zero-level set of the moment map). Let $(T_0,T_1,T_2,T_3)$ be a solution to Nahm’s equations corresponding to a point in $Y^-$. Modulo gauge transformations we can assume that $T_0(1)=0$. We can then extend this solution to a solution to Nahm’s equations on $(0,2)$ by setting $$T_i(2-t)=-\tau\bigl(T_i(t)),\enskip i=0,1,2,3.\label{tau2}$$ This solution has the boundary behaviour of a solution in $N_k$ and we can describe the moduli space $Y$ of such extended solutions as the space of solutions on $(0,2)$ having the correct poles and residues at $t=0,2$ and satisfying , modulo $G$-valued gauge transformations $g(t)$ such that $$g(0)=g(2)=1,\quad g(2-t)=\tau(g(t)), \enskip t\in [0,2].$$ The map $Y^-\to Y$ is a triholomorphic homothety with factor $2$. For dimensional reasons $Y^-$ (and consequently $Y$) is empty unless ${{\mathfrak{k}}}={{\mathfrak{u}}}(n)$ for $k=2n$ or ${{\mathfrak{k}}}={{\mathfrak{s}}}{{\mathfrak{o}}}(n)\oplus {{\mathfrak{s}}}{{\mathfrak{o}}}(n+1)$ for $k=2n+1$. Thus there are the following three possibilities for the symmetric pair $(G,K)$:
- $k=2n$, $G=Sp(n)$ and $K=U(n)$;
- $k=2n+1$, $G=SO(2n+1)$ and $K=S\bigl(O(n)\times O(n+1))$;
- $k=2n+1$, $G=\text{\it Spin}(2n+1)$ and $K$ is the diagonal double cover of $SO(n)\times SO(n+1)$ (i.e. $K=\text{\it Spin}(n)\times \text{\it Spin}(n+1)/\{(1,1),(-1,-1)\}$).
An easy computation shows that in each case $\dim Y=\dim N_k$. Moreover, the natural map $Y\to N_k$ is an isometric (and triholomorphic) immersion, and since both $N_k$ and $Y$ are complete ([@slices Thm. A.1]), this map must be a covering. Thus it follows from Proposition \[pi1\] that $Y$ is isometric to $N_k$ in cases (i) and (ii), while in case (iii) $Y$ is the universal cover of $N_{2n+1}$.
The above construction allows us easily to describe a family of deformations of $N_{2n}$. Indeed, the Lie algebra ${{\mathfrak{k}}}={{\mathfrak{u}}}(n)$ has a nontrivial centre and, therefore, we can take hyperkähler quotients of $W_{2n}^-$ by $K$ at nonzero level sets of the hyperkähler moment map. This produces a $3$-parameter family of hyperkähler deformations of $N_{2n}$. Arguments analogous to those in [@slices] show that these are the natural hyperkähler metrics on the transverse Hilbert schemes of points on Dancer’s deformations of the $D_1$-surface.
As already mentioned in Remark \[Z2\], $N_{2n}$ admits a free action of ${{\mathbb{Z}}}_2$ for any $n$. This action is also isometric and triholomorphic and, hence, $N_{2n}/{{\mathbb{Z}}}_2$ is a hyperkähler manifold. This manifold can be described in the same way as $N_{2n}$ but with $G_{2n}={{\mathbb{P}}}Sp(n)$ rather than $Sp(n)$.
[99]{}
, [*The geometry and dynamics of magnetic monopoles*]{}, Princeton University Press, Princeton (1988).
, ‘Hyperkähler structures and group actions’, [*J. London Math. Soc.*]{} 55 (1997), 400–414.
, ‘Slices to sums of adjoint orbits, the Atiyah-Hitchin manifold, and Hilbert schemes of points’, preprint, arxiv:1509.07764.
, ‘Nahm’s equations and hyper-Kähler geometry’, [*Comm. Math. Phys.*]{} 158 (1993), 545–568.
, ‘Homologie nicht-additiver Funktoren. Anwendungen’, [*Ann. Inst. Fourier*]{} 11 (1961), 201–231.
, ‘Nahm’s Equations and the Classification of Monopoles’, [*Comm. Math. Phys.*]{} 96 (1984), 387–407.
, ‘On the construction of monopoles’, [*Comm. Math. Phys.*]{} 89 (1983), 145–190.
, ‘Symmetric monopoles’, [*Nonlinearity*]{} 8 (1995), no. 5, 661–692.
, ‘Inversion symmetric 3-monopoles and the Atiyah-Hitchin manifold’, Nonlinearity 9 (1996), no. 6, 1609–1622.
S. Janson, ‘Invariants of polynomials and binary forms’, lecture notes, arXiv:1102.3568.
, ‘Shafarevich maps and plurigenera of algebraic varieties’, [*Invent. Math.*]{} 113 (1993), 177–216.
[^1]: Strictly speaking, the curve $\tilde S$ obtained from $S$ must be rescaled via $\eta=2\tilde\eta$ in order to be the spectral curve of a monopole in $N_{2}$.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
bibliography:
- 'biblio.bib'
---
[**A BGK model for high temperature rarefied gas flows**]{}
C. Baranger$^1$, Y. Dauvois$^1$, G. Marois$^1$, J. Mathé$^1$, J. Mathiaud$^{1,2}$, L. Mieussens$^2$
$^1$CEA-CESTA\
15 avenue des Sablières - CS 60001\
33116 Le Barp Cedex, France\
[ ([email protected], [email protected])]{}\
$^2$Univ. Bordeaux, CNRS, Bordeaux INP, IMB, UMR 5251, F-33400, Talence, France\
[ ([email protected])]{}
#### Abstract:
High temperature gases, for instance in hypersonic reentry flows, show complex phenomena like excitation of rotational and vibrational energy modes, and even chemical reactions. For flows in the continuous regime, simulation codes use analytic or tabulated constitutive laws for pressure and temperature. In this paper, we propose a BGK model which is consistent with any arbitrary constitutive laws, and which is designed to make high temperature gas flow simulations in the rarefied regime. A Chapman-Enskog analysis gives the corresponding transport coefficients. Our approach is illustrated by a numerical comparison with a compressible Navier-Stokes solver with rotational and vibrational non equilibrium. The BGK approach gives a deterministic solver with a computational cost which is close to that of a simple monoatomic gas.
#### Keywords:
rarefied gas dynamics, polyatomic gas, BGK model, real gas effect, [second principle]{}
Introduction
============
For atmospheric reentry of space vehicles, it is important to estimate the heat flux at the solid wall of the vehicle. In such hypersonic flows, the temperature is very large, and the air flow, which is a mixture of monoatomic and polyatomic gases, is modified by chemical reactions. The characteristics of the mixture (viscosity and specific heats) then depend on its temperature (see [@nbk86]).
One way to take into account this variability is to use appropriate constitutive laws for the air. For instance, quantum mechanics allows to derive a relation between internal energy and temperature that accounts for activation of vibrational modes of the molecules (see [@anderson]). When the temperature is larger, chemical reactions occur, and if the flow is in chemical equilibrium, empirically tabulated laws can be used to compute all the thermodynamical quantities (pressure, entropy, temperature, specific heats) in terms of density and internal energy, like the one given in [@anderson; @hansen]. These laws give a closure of the compressible Navier-Stokes equations, that are used for simulations in the continuous regime, at moderate to low altitudes (see, for example, [@mykv88]).
In high altitude, the flow is in the rarefied or transitional regime, and it is described by the Boltzmann equation of Rarefied Gas Dynamics, also called the Wang-Chang-Uhlenbeck equation in case of a reacting mixture. This equation is much too complex to be solved by deterministic methods, and such flows are generally simulated by the DSMC method [@BS_2017]. However, it is attractive to derive simplified kinetic models that account for high temperature effects, in order to obtain alternative and deterministic solvers[: for such computations, it is necessary to capture dense zones with high temperatures and very rarefied zones with low temperatures]{}. Up to our knowledge, the first attempt to introduce non ideal constitutive laws into a kinetic model has recently been published in [@rahimi16]. In this article, the authors define the constant volume specific heat $c_v$ as a third-order polynomial function of the temperature of the gas, and derive a mesoscopic model based on the moment approach. [A similar approach is proposed in [@KKA_2019] that gives a correct Prandtl number.]{} Simplified Boltzmann models for mixtures of polyatomic gases have also been proposed in [@andries2002; @bisi2016; @DESVILLETTES2005219], however, high temperature effects are not addressed in these references.
In this paper, [our goal is to construct models that are able to capture macroscopic effects as well as kinetic effects at a reasonable numerical cost, for an application to reentry flows.]{} We propose two ways to include high temperature effects (vibrational modes, chemical reactions) in a generalized BGK model.
First, we show that vibrational modes can be taken into account by using a temperature dependent number of degrees of freedom. This can be used in a BGK model for polyatomic gases, but we show that the choice of the variable used to describe the internal energy of the molecules is fundamental here. This model allows us to simulate a mixture of rarefied polyatomic gases (like the air) with rotational and vibrational non equilibrium, [with a single distribution function for the mixture]{}. As a consequence, we are able to simulate a polyatomic gas flow with a non-constant specific heat.
Then we propose a more general BGK model that can be used to describe a rarefied flow with both vibrational excitation and chemical reactions, at chemical equilibrium, based on arbitrary constitutive laws for pressure and temperature. Our BGK model is shown to be consistent with the corresponding Navier-Stokes model in the small Knudsen number limit. Finally, the internal energy variable of our BGK model can be eliminated by the standard reduced distribution technique [@HH_1968]: this gives a kinetic model for high temperature polyatomic gases with a computational complexity which is close to that of a simple monoatomic model.
[Up to our knowledge, the model proposed in this work is the first Boltzmann model equation that allows for realistic equations of state and includes concentration effects in the thermal flux. We point out that this article is a first step towards a correct computation of the parietal heat flux: since we use a BGK model, it is clear that our model does not have a correct Prandtl number, as usual. This might be solved by using the ES-BGK approach [@esbgk_poly; @Mathiaud2016; @Mathiaud2017] to capture the correct relaxation times for energy and fluxes [@kustova]]{}.
The outline of our paper is the following. First we remind a standard BGK model for polyatomic gases in section \[sec:polyatomicBGK\]. Then, in section \[sec:hightemp\], we explain how high temperature effects are taken into account to define the internal number of degrees of freedom of molecules and generalized constitutive laws. A first BGK model is proposed to allow for vibrational mode excitation with a temperature dependent number of degrees of freedom in section \[sec:deltaT\]. This model is extended to allow for arbitrary constitutive laws for pressure and temperature in section \[sec:BGK\_EOS\], and this model is also analyzed by the Chapman-Enskog expansion. [Some features of our new model are illustrated by a few numerical simulations in section \[sec:num\].]{}
Polyatomic BGK model {#sec:polyatomicBGK}
====================
For standard temperatures, a polyatomic perfect gas can be described by the mass distribution function $F(t,x,v,{\varepsilon})$ that depends on time $t$, position $x$, velocity $v$, and internal energy ${\varepsilon}$. The internal energy is described with a continuous variable, and takes into account rotational modes. The corresponding number of degrees of freedom for rotational modes is $\delta$ (see [@BL1975]).
Corresponding macroscopic quantities mass density $\rho$, velocity $u$, and specific internal energy $e$, are defined through the first 5 moments of $F$ with respect to $v$ and ${\varepsilon}$: $$\begin{aligned}
\rho(t,x) & = {\langle {\langle F \rangle} \rangle},\label{eq-rho} \\
\rho u (t,x) & = {\langle {\langle v F \rangle} \rangle}, \label{eq-rhou} \\
\rho e (t,x) & = {\langle {\langle ({\frac{1}{2}}|v-u|^2 + {\varepsilon}) F \rangle} \rangle} \label{eq-rhoe} ,\end{aligned}$$ where ${\langle {\langle \phi \rangle} \rangle} = \int_{{{\mathbb{R}}}^3}\int_0^{+\infty} \phi(v,{\varepsilon})\,
dvd{\varepsilon}$ denotes the integral of any scalar or vector-valued function $\phi$ with respect to $v$ and ${\varepsilon}$. The specific internal energy take into account translational and rotational modes. Other macroscopic quantities can be derived from these definitions. The temperature is $T$ is such that $e = \frac{3+\delta}{2}RT$, where $R$ is the gas constant. The pressure is given by the perfect gas equation of state (EOS) $p=\rho R T$.
For a gas in thermodynamic equilibrium, the distribution function reaches a Maxwellian state, defined by $$\label{eq-Maxwpoly}
M[F] = \frac{\rho}{(2\pi R T)^{\frac{3}{2}}}
\exp\left( - \frac{|v-u|^2}{2RT} \right)
\Lambda(\delta)\left(\frac{{\varepsilon}}{RT}\right)^{\frac{\delta}{2}-1}
\frac{1}{RT}\exp\left( -\frac{{\varepsilon}}{RT} \right),$$ where $\rho$, $u$, and $T$ are defined above. The constant $\Lambda(\delta)$ is a normalization factor defined by $\Lambda(\delta) = 1/\Gamma(\frac{\delta}{2})$, so that $M[F]$ has the same 5 moments as $F$ (see above).
The simplest BGK model that can be derived from this description is the following $$\label{eq-BGKpoly}
{\partial_t}F + v\cdot \nabla_x F = \frac{1}{\tau}( M[F]-F),$$ where $\tau$ is a relaxation time (see below).
The standard Chapman-Enskog expansion shows that this model is consistent, [with an error which is of second order with respect to the Knudsen number]{}, to the following compressible Navier-Stokes equations $$\begin{aligned}
& {\partial_t}\rho + \nabla\cdot \rho u = 0 \\
& {\partial_t}\rho u + \nabla \cdot (\rho u \otimes u) + \nabla p = -\nabla
\cdot \sigma \\
& {\partial_t}E + \nabla\cdot ((E+p)u) = -\nabla \cdot q - \nabla \cdot
(\sigma u), \end{aligned}$$ where $\sigma = -\mu (\nabla u + (\nabla u)^T - \frac{2}{3+\delta}
\nabla \cdot u \, Id)$ is the shear stress tensor and $q = -\kappa \nabla T$ is the heat flux. The transport coefficients $\mu$ and $\kappa$ are linked to the relaxation time by the relations $\mu = \tau p$ and $\kappa = \mu c_p$, where the specific heat at constant pressure is $c_p =
\frac{5+\delta}{2}R$. Actually, these relations define the correct value that has to be given to the relaxation time $\tau$ of (\[eq-BGKpoly\]), which is $$\label{eq-deftau}
\tau = \frac{\mu}{p},$$ where the viscosity is given by a standard temperature dependent law like $\mu(T) = \mu_{ref}(\frac{T}{T_{ref}})^{\omega}$ (see [@bird]). This implies that the Prandtl number ${\rm Pr} = \frac{\mu c_p}{\kappa}$ is equal to $1$. This incorrect result (it should be close to $\frac{5}{7}$ for a diatomic gas, for instance) is due to the fact that the BGK model contains only one relaxation time. Instead it would be more relevant to include at least three relaxation times in the model to allow for various different time scales (viscous versus thermal diffusion time scale, translational versus rotational energy relaxation rates). It is possible to take these different time scales into account by using the ESBGK polyatomic model (see [@esbgk_poly]), or the Rykov model (see [@LYXZ_2014] and the references therein). See also multiple relaxation time BGK models developed for polyatomic gases in [@ARS_2017; @ARS_2018]. However, in this work, the derivation of a model for high temperature gases is based on this simple polyatomic BGK model (with a single relaxation time).
Note that this model is generally simplified by using the variable $I$ such that the internal energy of a molecule is ${\varepsilon}=
I^{\frac{2}{\delta}}$ (see [@esbgk_poly]). Then the corresponding distribution ${\cal F}(t,x,v,I)$ is defined such that ${\cal F}dxdvdI = Fdxdvd{\varepsilon}$, which gives ${\cal F}
= I^{\frac{2}{\delta}-1}F$. The macroscopic quantities are defined by $$\rho(t,x) = {\langle {\langle {\cal F} \rangle} \rangle}, \qquad
\rho u (t,x) = {\langle {\langle v {\cal F} \rangle} \rangle},\qquad
\rho e (t,x) = {\langle {\langle ({\frac{1}{2}}|v-u|^2 + I^{\frac{2}{\delta}}) {\cal F} \rangle} \rangle},$$ where now ${\langle {\langle \phi \rangle} \rangle} = \int_{{{\mathbb{R}}}^3}\int_0^{+\infty} \phi(v,I)\,
dxdI$. The corresponding Maxwellian, which is simpler, is $$\label{eq-MaxwpolyI}
{\cal M}[{\cal F}] = \frac{\rho}{(2\pi R T)^{\frac{3}{2}}}
\exp\left( - \frac{|v-u|^2}{2RT} \right)
\frac{2}{\delta}\Lambda(\delta)\frac{1}{(RT)^{\frac{\delta}{2}}}
\exp\left( -\frac{I^{\frac{2}{\delta}}}{RT} \right).$$ The corresponding BGK equation is $$\label{eq-BGKpolyI}
{\partial_t}{\cal F} + v\cdot \nabla_x {\cal F} = \frac{1}{\tau}( {\cal M}[{\cal F}]-{\cal F}),$$ which is equivalent to .
[Moreover, note that these models can be derived from [@bourgat94]: in [that]{} paper, the authors first give a Boltzmann collision operator for polyatomic gases deduced from the Borgnakke-Larsen model. In this model, the internal energy variable ${\varepsilon}$ is described by a variable $I$ such that $I=\sqrt{{\varepsilon}}$. By using the corresponding Maxwellian, it is easy to derive a single relaxation time BGK model. When this model is written with ${\varepsilon}$, we exactly get model .]{}
[In the same paper [@bourgat94], the authors propose a second Boltzmann collision operator based on a model for a monoatomic gas in higher dimension, with an internal variable $w$ that lives in a $\delta$-dimension space, where $\delta$ is the number of internal degrees of freedom. The internal energy of the model is ${\varepsilon}=|w|^2$. This model is written in polar coordinates $w=I\theta$, where $I$ is the norm of $w$ (and hence again the square root of ${\varepsilon}$), and $\theta$ is the polar angle, and then it is reduced by integration with respect to $\theta$. The authors get a Boltzmann collision operator in which the distribution function is multiplied by a weight function $\phi(I)=I^{\delta -1}$. Again, a BGK model can be derived from this formulation, but it is different from models and . The resulting model has been extended by several authors to get BGK models for non polytropic gases (see section \[sec:hightemp\]). However, in the case of polytropic gases (i.e. constant $\delta$), this model can easily be shown to be equivalent to our model . ]{}
High temperature gases {#sec:hightemp}
======================
When the temperature of the gas is larger, new phenomena appear (vibration, chemical reactions, ionization). For instance, for dioxygen, at $800$K, the molecules begin to vibrate, and chemical reactions occur for much larger temperatures (for instance, dissociation of $O_2$ into $O$ starts at $2500$K).
The next sections explain how some of these effects (vibrations and chemical reactions) can be taken into accounts in terms of EOS and number of internal degrees of freedom.
Vibrations
----------
Of course, the definition of the specific internal energy must account for vibrational energy. A possible way to do so is to increase the number of internal degrees of freedom $\delta$, that now accounts for rotational and vibrational modes. However, a result of quantum mechanics implies that this number of degrees of freedom is not an integer anymore, and that it is even not a constant (it is temperature dependent), see the examples below. Vibrating gases have other properties that make them quite different to what is described by the standard kinetic theory of monoatomic gases. For instance, the specific heat at constant pressure $c_p$ becomes temperature dependent. However, vibrating gases can still be considered as perfect gases, so that the perfect EOS $p=\rho R T$ still holds (in fact, such gases are called thermally perfect gases, see [@anderson]).
Now we give two examples of gases with vibrational excitation, and we explain how their number of internal degrees of freedom is defined.
### Example 1: dioxygen {#subsubsec:example1}
At equilibrium, translational $e_{tr}$ and rotational $e_{rot}$ specific energies can be defined by $$e_{tr} = \frac{3}{2}RT \quad \text{ and } \quad e_{rot} = RT.$$ This shows that a molecule of dioxygen has $3$ degrees of freedom for translation, and $2$ for rotation. By using quantum mechanics [@anderson], vibrational specific energy $e_{vib}$ is found to be $$e_{vib} = \frac{T^{vib}_{O_2}/T}{\exp(T^{vib}_{O_2}/T)-1} RT,$$ where $T^{vib}_{O_2}=2256$K is a reference temperature.
The number of “internal” degrees of freedom $\delta$, related to rotation and vibration modes only, is defined such that the total specific internal energy $e$ is $$e = e_{tr}+e_{rot}+e_{vib} = \frac{3+\delta}{2}RT.$$ By combining this relation with the relations above, we find that $\delta$ is actually temperature dependent, and defined by $$\delta(T) = 2 + 2\frac{T^{vib}_{O_2}/T}{\exp(T^{vib}_{O_2}/T)-1}.$$
Accordingly, the specific heat at constant pressure $c_p$, which is defined by $dh = c_pdT$, where the enthalpy is $h = e +
\frac{p}{\rho}$, can be computed as follows. Since $p=\rho R T$, we find $h = \frac{5+\delta(T)}{2}RT$, and hence the enthalpy depends on $T$ only, through a nonlinear relation. This means that $c_p= h'(T)$ is not a constant anymore, while we have $c_p = \frac{5+\delta}{2}R$ without vibrations. Finally, note that the relation that defines the temperature $T$ through the internal specific energy $e =
\frac{3+\delta(T)}{2}RT $ now is nonlinear (it has to be inverted numerically to find $T$).
### Example 2: air {#subsubsec:example2}
The air at moderately high temperatures ($T<2500$K) is a non-reacting mixture of nitrogen $N_2$ and dioxygen $O_2$. To simplify, assume that their mass concentrations are $c_{N_2} = 75\%$ and $c_{O_2}=25\%$. These two species are perfect gases with their own gas constants $R_{N_2}$ and $R_{O_2}$. [The gas constant $R$ of the mixture can be defined by $R = c_{N_2}R_{N_2} + c_{O_2}R_{O_2}$ (see [@anderson]).]{}
The specific internal energy is defined by $e=
c_{O_2}e_{O_2}+c_{N_2}e_{N_2}$. The energy of each species can be computed like in our first example (see section \[subsubsec:example1\]), and we find: $$e_{N_2} = \frac{3+\delta_{N_2}(T)}{2}R_{N_2}T \qquad \text{and}
\qquad
e_{O_2} = \frac{3+\delta_{O_2}(T)}{2}R_{O_2}T,$$ where the number of internal degrees of freedom of each species are $$\label{eq-deltaO2N2}
\delta_{N_2}(T) = 2 + 2\frac{T^{vib}_{N_2}/T}{\exp(T^{vib}_{N_2}/T)-1}
\qquad \text{and} \qquad
\delta_{O_2}(T) = 2 + 2\frac{T^{vib}_{O_2}/T}{\exp(T^{vib}_{O_2}/T)-1},$$ with $T^{vib}_{N_2}=3373$K and $T^{vib}_{O_2}=2256$K. Then the specific internal energy of the mixture is $$\begin{split}
e& =c_{O_2}\frac{3+\delta_{O_2}(T)}{2} R_{O_2}T+c_{N_2}\frac{3+\delta_{N_2}(T)}{2} R_{N_2}T \\
&=\frac32RT+\frac12(c_{O_2}\delta_{O_2}(T)R_{O_2}+c_{N_2}\delta_{N_2}(T)R_{N_2})T
\\
& = \frac{3+\delta(T)}{2}RT
\end{split}$$ with the number of internal degrees of freedom given by $$\label{eq-deltaair}
\begin{split}
\delta(T) & =\frac{c_{O_2}\delta_{O_2}(T) R_{O_2}+c_{N_2}\delta_{N_2}(T)R_{N_2}}{R} \\
& = 2+\frac2R\left(c_{O_2}R_{O_2}\frac{T^{vib}_{O_2}/T}{\exp(T^{vib}_{O_2}/T)-1}+c_{N_2}R_{N_2}\frac{T^{vib}_{N_2}/T}{\exp(T^{vib}_{N_2}/T)-1}\right).
\end{split}$$
We show in figure \[fig:delta\] the number of internal degrees of freedom for each species and for the whole mixture. For all gases, $\delta$ is equal to $2$ below $500$K, which means that only the rotational modes are excited: each species is a diatomic gas with 2 degrees of freedom of rotation, and the mixture behaves like a diatomic gas too. Then the number of degrees of freedom increases with the temperature, and is greater than [$3$]{} for $T=3000$K. At this temperature, the number of degrees of freedom for vibrations is [around $1$]{}. Note that in addition to this graphical analysis, it can be analytically proved that all the $\delta$ computed here are increasing functions of $T$.
Chemical reactions {#subsec:chemical}
------------------
When chemical reactions have to be taken into account (for the air, this starts at $2500$K), the perfect gas EOS still holds for each species, but the EOS for the reacting mixture is less simple. To avoid the numerical solving of the Navier-Stokes equations for all the species, in the case of an equilibrium chemically reacting gas, it is convenient to use instead a Navier-Stokes model for the mixture (considered as a single species), for which tabulated EOS $p = p(\rho,e)$ and even a tabulated temperature law $T=T(\rho,e)$ are used (see [@anderson], chapter 11).
More precisely, it can be proved that for a mixture of thermally perfect gases in chemical equilibrium, with a constant atomic nuclei composition, two state variables, like $\rho$ and $e$, are sufficient to uniquely define the chemical composition of the mixture. Let us precise what this means, with notations that will be useful in the paper. For each species of the mixture, numbered with index $i$:
- its concentration $c_i$ depends on $\rho$ and $e$ only: $c_i =
c_i(\rho,e)$ ;
- its pressure $p_i$ satisfies the usual perfect gas law: $p_i =
\rho_i R_i T$, where $R_i$ is the gas constant of the species and $\rho_i = c_i(\rho,e) \rho$, so that $p_i =
p_i(\rho,e)$ ;
- its specific energy $e_i$ and enthalpy $h_i$ depend on $T$ only: $e_i = e_i(T)$ and $h_i=h_i(T)$, where $e_i(T) = \frac{3+\delta_i(T)}{2} R_iT+e_i^{f,0}$, with $e_i^{f,0}$ is the energy of formation of the $i$th molecule and $\delta_i(T) $ is the number of activated internal degrees of freedom of the molecule that might depend on the temperature, see the previous sections ($\delta_i
=0$ for monoatomic molecules).
For compressible Navier-Stokes equations for an equilibrium chemically reacting mixture, these quantities are not necessary. Instead, it is sufficient to define (with analytic formulas or tables):
- the total pressure $p = \sum_i p_i(\rho,e)$ so that $p =
p(\rho,e) = \rho R(\rho,e) T$, with $R(\rho,e)= \sum_i
c_i(\rho,e)R_i$ ;
- the temperature $T$, through the relation $e = \sum_i
c_i(\rho,e)e_i(T)$, so that $T = T(\rho,e)$ ;
- the total specific enthalpy $h = \sum_i c_ih_i$, so that $h =
h(\rho,e) = e + \frac{p(\rho,e)}{\rho}$.
We refer to [@anderson] for details on this subject.
BGK models for high temperature gases
=====================================
A polyatomic BGK model for a variable number of degrees of freedom {#sec:deltaT}
------------------------------------------------------------------
In this section, we propose an extension of the polyatomic BGK model (\[eq-BGKpoly\]) to take into account temperature dependent number of internal degrees of freedom, like in examples of sections \[subsubsec:example1\] and \[subsubsec:example2\].
This extension (already obtained in [@hdr]) is quite obvious, since we just replace the constant $\delta$ in (\[eq-Maxwpoly\]) by the temperature dependent $\delta(T)$. For completeness, this model is given below: $$\label{eq-BGKpolydelta}
{\partial_t}F + v\cdot \nabla_x F = \frac{1}{\tau}( M[F]-F),$$ with $$\label{eq-Maxwpolydelta}
M[F] = \frac{\rho}{(2\pi R T)^{\frac{3}{2}}}
\exp\left( - \frac{|v-u|^2}{2RT} \right)
\Lambda(\delta(T))\left(\frac{{\varepsilon}}{RT}\right)^{\frac{\delta(T)}{2}-1}
\frac{1}{RT}\exp\left( -\frac{{\varepsilon}}{RT} \right).$$ The macroscopic quantities are defined by (\[eq-rho\])–(\[eq-rhoe\]), while the temperature $T$ is defined by $$\label{eq-eT}
e = \frac{3+\delta(T)}{2}RT.$$ Indeed, this implicit relation is invertible if, for instance, $\delta(T)$ is an increasing function of $T$. This is true, at least for the examples shown in section \[subsubsec:example2\]: it can easily be shown that equations (\[eq-deltaO2N2\]) and (\[eq-deltaair\]) define increasing functions of $T$. Finally, the relaxation time $\tau$ is given by (\[eq-deftau\]) with $p=\rho R T$.
The same model has been proposed independently in [@KKA_2019], and extended to an ES-BGK version to have correct transport coefficients. [Note that in [@KKA_2019], the temperature dependent number of degrees of freedom $\delta(T)$ is constructed through a given law for $c_v$ (the specific heat at constant volume), which is different from our approach.]{}
[ Note that model (\[eq-MaxwpolyI\])–(\[eq-BGKpolyI\]) cannot be used here. Indeed, the change of variables $I = \varepsilon^{\frac{\delta(T)}{2}}$ now depends on time and space through $T$, and the corresponding model written with variable $I$ contains many more terms than (\[eq-MaxwpolyI\])–(\[eq-BGKpolyI\]).]{}
[Finally, we mention the alternate approach derived from the second polyatomic Boltzmann operator of [@bourgat94]: in [@ARS_2017; @BRS_2018], a weight function is used to fit any given non polytropic gas law. This requires to invert a Laplace transform, and is different from the approach presented here. ]{}
A more general BGK model for arbitrary constitutive laws {#sec:BGK_EOS}
--------------------------------------------------------
In this section, we now want to extend the polyatomic BGK model (\[eq-BGKpoly\]) so as to be consistent with arbitrary constitutive laws $p = p(\rho,e)$ and $T=T(\rho,e)$ that can be used for an equilibrium chemically reacting gas (see section \[subsec:chemical\]).
We define the gas constant of the mixture by $$\label{eq-Rrhoe}
R(\rho,e) = \frac{p(\rho,e)}{\rho T(\rho,e)}$$ so that the EOS of perfect gases $p(\rho,e) = \rho R(\rho,e) T(\rho,e)$ holds (note that a definition of $R$ from the concentrations and the gas constant of each species can also be used, see section \[subsec:chemical\]). We also note $\delta(\rho,e)$ the number of internal degrees of freedom defined such that $e =
\frac{3+\delta(\rho,e)}{2}R(\rho,e)T(\rho,e)$.
Our BGK model is obtained by using the same approach as in section \[sec:deltaT\]: we replace $R$ and $\delta$ in – by their non constant values $R(\rho,e)$ and $\delta(\rho,e)$, so that our model is $$\label{eq-BGK_EOS}
{\partial_t}F + v\cdot \nabla_x F = \frac{1}{\tau(\rho,e)}( M[F]-F),$$ with $$\label{eq-Maxwchimie}
M[F] = \frac{\rho}{(2\pi \theta(\rho,e))^{\frac{3}{2}}}
\exp\left( - \frac{|v-u|^2}{2\theta(\rho,e)} \right)
\Lambda(\delta(\rho,e))\left(\frac{{\varepsilon}}{\theta(\rho,e)}\right)^{\frac{\delta(\rho,e)}{2}-1}
\frac{1}{\theta(\rho,e)}\exp\left( -\frac{{\varepsilon}}{\theta(\rho,e)} \right),$$ where the macroscopic quantities are defined by $$\label{eq-moments_chimie}
\rho(t,x) = {\langle {\langle F \rangle} \rangle}, \qquad
\rho u (t,x) = {\langle {\langle v F \rangle} \rangle}, \qquad
\rho e (t,x) = {\langle {\langle ({\frac{1}{2}}|v-u|^2 + {\varepsilon}) F \rangle} \rangle},$$ the variable $\theta(\rho,e)$ is $$\label{eq-theta}
\theta(\rho,e) = R(\rho,e)T(\rho,e),$$ the number of internal degrees of freedom is $$\label{eq-deltarhoe}
\delta(\rho,e) = \frac{2e}{R(\rho,e)T(\rho,e)} -3.$$ and the relaxation time is $$\label{eq-tauchimie}
\tau(\rho,e) = \frac{\mu(T(\rho,e))}{p(\rho,e)},$$ while, $p(\rho,e)$ and $T(\rho,e)$ are given by analytic formulas or numerical tables.
\[rem:compat\_modeles\] This model is more general than our previous model – defined to account for vibrations. In other words, model – can be written under the previous form. This is explained below.
First, relation defines the temperature $T$ as a function of $e$, which can be written $T=T(\rho,e)$. Then, the perfect gas EOS $p=\rho R T(\rho,e)$ gives $p=p(\rho,e)$. Then, by definition of $T$, the number of internal degrees of freedom, given by analytic laws (\[eq-deltaO2N2\]) or (\[eq-deltaair\]) for instance, satisfies , and hence can be written $
\delta(T) = 2\frac{e}{RT} - 3 $, which is exactly (\[eq-deltarhoe\]). Moreover, the relaxation time $\tau$ given by (\[eq-deftau\]) is compatible with definition (\[eq-tauchimie\]). Finally, the Maxwellian defined by (\[eq-Maxwpolydelta\]) is clearly compatible with definition (\[eq-Maxwchimie\]).
Consequently, the analysis given in the next sections will be made with this more general model (\[eq-BGK\_EOS\])–(\[eq-tauchimie\]) only.
Compressible Navier-Stokes asymptotics {#subsec:CE}
--------------------------------------
In this section, we prove the following formal result.
\[prop:CE\] The moments of $F$, solution of the BGK model –, satisfy the following Navier-Stokes equations, up to $O({{\rm Kn}}^2)$: $$\label{eq:NS_chimie}
\begin{split}
& {\partial_t}\rho + \nabla \cdot \rho u = 0, \\
& {\partial_t}\rho u + \nabla\cdot (\rho u\otimes u) + \nabla p = -\nabla
\cdot \sigma , \\
& {\partial_t}E + \nabla \cdot (E+p)u = -\nabla\cdot q -
\nabla\cdot(\sigma u) ,
\end{split}$$ where ${{\rm Kn}}$ is the Knudsen number (defined below), $E$ is the total energy density defined by $E =
{\frac{1}{2}}\rho |u|^2 + \rho e$, and $\sigma$ and $q$ are the shear stress tensor and heat flux vector defined by $$\label{eq-sigmaq}
\begin{split}
& \sigma = - \mu \left(\nabla u + (\nabla u)^T
-{{\cal C}}\nabla \cdot u \, {{\it Id}}\right) ,\\
& q = - \mu\nabla h,
\end{split}$$ with $h= e + \frac{p(\rho,e)}{\rho}$ is the enthalpy, and ${{\cal C}}=
\frac{\rho^2}{p(\rho,e)} \partial_{\rho}(\frac{p(\rho,e)}{\rho})
+ \partial_e(\frac{p(\rho,e)}{\rho})$.
Note that this result is consistent with the Navier-Stokes equations obtained for non reacting gases. For instance, in case of a thermally perfect gas, i.e when the enthalpy depends only on the temperature (see [@anderson]), we find that the heat flux is $q = - \kappa\nabla T(\rho,e)$, where the heat transfer coefficient is $\kappa = \mu c_p$, with the heat capacity at constant pressure is $c_p = h'(T)$. In such case, the Prandtl number, defined by ${\rm Pr} = \frac{\mu c_p}{\kappa}$, is 1, like in usual BGK models.
Moreover, this result gives a volume viscosity (also called second coefficient of viscosity or bulk viscosity) which is $\omega = \mu(\frac{2}{3}
- {{\cal C}})$. In the case of a gas with a constant $\delta$, like in a non vibrating gas, this gives ${{\cal C}}= \frac{2}{3 + \delta}$, and hence $\omega = \frac{2\delta}{3(\delta +3)}\mu$. For a monoatomic gas, $\delta = 0$, and we find the usual result $\omega =0$.
This result is proved by using the standard Chapman-Enskog expansion. The main steps of this proof are given in sections \[subsubsec:ndf\] to \[subsubsec:ns\], while some technical details are given in appendix \[app:gaussian\].
### Comments on this model {#subsubsec:comments}
[For reacting gases, our model is consistent with the fact that the energy flux accounts for energy transfer by diffusion of chemical species. Indeed, if we assume that our constitutive laws satisfy the relations given in section \[subsec:chemical\], then the enthalpy $h$ that appears in the heat flux in is also $h=\sum_i c_i h_i$. Since $h_i$ is a function of $T$ only, we have $$\begin{aligned}
q & = - \mu\nabla h = - \mu \sum_i c_i\nabla h_i
-\mu \sum_i h_i\nabla c_i \\
& = - \mu c_p\nabla T -\mu \sum_i h_i\nabla c_i,\end{aligned}$$ where $c_p = \sum_ic_i h'_i(T)$.]{}
[Some standard compressible Navier-Stokes solvers for reacting gases in chemical equilibrium use the following heat flux $$q = - \kappa \nabla T + \sum_i \rho c_i U_i h_i,$$ in which the diffusion velocity $U_i$ can be modeled by the Fick law $\rho c_i
U_i=-\rho D_i \nabla c_i$ (see [@anderson]), where $D_i$ is the diffusion coefficient of the $ith$ species. ]{}
[Our heat flux can indeed be written under the same form, with $\kappa = \mu c_p$, and $D_i = \mu / \rho$. Consequently, the Prandtl number ${\rm Pr}= \mu c_p/\kappa$ and Schmidt numbers $S_i = \mu / \rho D_i$ are all equal to 1, which is the consequence of our single time relaxation in our model. Usually Schmidt and Prandtl numbers are very close, and hence recovering a correct Prandtl number with an ESBGK-like approach should also give more correct the Schmidt numbers.]{}
[However, note that the compressible Navier-Stokes model with heat flux given by the formula above leads to a violation of the second law of thermodynamics. Indeed, classical theory of non equilibrium thermodynamics states that the heat flux can only be given by a temperature gradient, so that the physical entropy production due to the heat flux ($-\frac{q}{T^2}\cdot \nabla T$) is non negative (see [@Struchtrup_moments]). Here, the heat flux depends on $c_i$, and hence on $\rho$. This implies that $q$ contains a $\nabla\rho$ term that will induce a $\nabla\rho\cdot \nabla T$ term, which has an undefined sign in the entropy production. This is clearly in contradiction with the second law.]{}
[This drawback]{} is consistent with the fact that we are not able to prove a H-theorem for our model. But we believe our model is still interesting, since in its hydrodynamic limit, it is consistent with compressible Navier-Stokes models that are used for atmospheric reentry. These models are also probably not compatible with the second principle too, due to some terms in the thermal flux that are usually neglected.
[Another]{} drawback of this model is its physical inconsistency at equilibrium, as it can be seen with the following example. Consider a mixture of two inert gases and suppose they are at collisional equilibrium with each other: then the equilibrium distribution is the sum of two Maxwellian distributions with different molar masses so that it cannot be reduced to a single Maxwellian distribution. At the contrary, our model, which describes the mixture by a single distribution, will necessarily give a single Maxwellian at equilibrium. In case of an air flow, the difference in molar mass of nitrogen and dioxygen is small (around 12%), and our single Maxwellian should not be very different from the exact equilibrium. Of course, the same problem occurs with reacting gases at equilibrium, except if the concentration of the product of chemical reactions (like O, NO, etc.) is small enough.
### Non-dimensional form {#subsubsec:ndf}
Now we start the proof of the result given in proposition \[prop:CE\]. We choose a characteristic length $x_*$, mass density $\rho_*$, and energy $e_*$. This induces characteristic values for pressure $p_* =\rho_*e_*$, temperature $T_* = T(\rho_*,e_*)$, molecular and bulk velocities $v_* = u_* = \sqrt{e_*}$, time $t_* = x_*/v_*$, internal energy ${\varepsilon}_* =
e_*$, viscosity $\mu_* = \mu(T_*)$, relaxation time $\tau_* = \mu_*/p_*$, and distribution $F_* = \rho_*/e_*^{5/2}$.
By using the non-dimensional variables $w' = w/w_*$ (where $w$ stands for any variables of the problem), model – can be written $$\label{eq-BGKpolydelta_adim}
\partial_{t'} F' + v'\cdot \nabla_{x'} F' = \frac{1}{{{\rm Kn}}\, \tau'(\rho',e')}( M'[F']-F'),$$ with $$\label{eq-Maxwchimie_adim}
M'[F'] = \frac{\rho'}{(2\pi \theta')^{\frac{3}{2}}}
\exp\left( - \frac{|v'-u'|^2}{2\theta'} \right)
\Lambda(\delta')\left(\frac{{\varepsilon}'}{\theta'}\right)^{\frac{\delta'}{2}-1}
\frac{1}{\theta'}\exp\left( -\frac{{\varepsilon}'}{\theta'} \right),$$ where the macroscopic quantities are defined by $$\label{eq-moments_chimie_adim}
\rho'(t',x') = {\langle {\langle F' \rangle} \rangle}, \qquad
\rho' u' (t',x') = {\langle {\langle v' F' \rangle} \rangle}, \qquad
\rho' e' (t',x') = {\langle {\langle ({\frac{1}{2}}|v'-u'|^2 + {\varepsilon}') F' \rangle} \rangle},$$ the variable $\theta'$ is $$\label{eq-theta_adim}
\theta' = R'T' $$ the number of internal degrees of freedom is $$\label{eq-deltarhoe_adim}
\delta' = \delta = \frac{2e'}{R'T'} -3, $$ and the relaxation time is $$\label{eq-tauchimie_adim}
\tau' = \frac{\mu'}{p'},$$ while $p' = p(\rho_*\rho',e_*e')/\rho_*e_*$, $T' = T(\rho_*\rho',e_*e')/T_*$, $R' = p'/\rho'T'$, and $\mu' =
\mu(T(\rho,e))/\mu_*$. Finally, the Knudsen number ${{\rm Kn}}$ that appears in (\[eq-BGKpolydelta\_adim\]) is defined by $$\label{eq-Kn}
{{\rm Kn}}= \frac{\tau_*}{t_*} = \frac{\lambda_*}{x_*},$$ where $\lambda_* = \tau_*v_*$ can be viewed as the mean free path.
Note that, to simplify the notations, the dependence of ($p'$, $\theta'$, $R'$, $\delta'$, $\tau'$, $p'$, $T'$) on $\rho'$ and $e'$ is not made explicit any more in the previous expressions. Moreover, in the sequel, the primes will be removed too.
### Conservation laws {#subsubsec:conslaw}
The conservation laws induced by the non-dimensional BGK model (\[eq-BGKpolydelta\_adim\]) are obtained by multiplying (\[eq-BGKpolydelta\_adim\]) by $1$, $v$, and $({\frac{1}{2}}|v|^2+ {\varepsilon})$, and then by integrating it with respect to $v$ and ${\varepsilon}$. By using the Gaussian integrals given in appendix \[app:gaussian\], we get $$\label{eq-cons}
\begin{split}
& {\partial_t}\rho + \nabla\cdot \rho u = 0, \\
& {\partial_t}\rho u + \nabla \cdot (\rho u\otimes u + \Sigma(F)) = 0, \\
& {\partial_t}E + \nabla \cdot (Eu + \Sigma(F) u + q(F)\cdot u) = 0,
\end{split}$$ where the stress tensor $\Sigma(F)$ and the heat flux vector $q(F)$ are defined by $$\begin{aligned}
& \Sigma(F) = {\langle {\langle (v-u)\otimes (v-u)F \rangle} \rangle}, \label{eq-SigmaF} \\
& q(F) = {\langle {\langle ({\frac{1}{2}}|v-u|^2+{\varepsilon})(v-u)F \rangle} \rangle} \label{eq-qF} .\end{aligned}$$
### Euler equations {#subsubsec:euler}
The Euler equations of compressible gas dynamics can be obtained as follows. Equation (\[eq-BGKpolydelta\_adim\]) implies the first order expansion $F =
M[F]+O({{\rm Kn}})$, and hence $\Sigma(F) = \Sigma(M[F]) + O({{\rm Kn}})$ and $q(F)
= q(M[F])+O({{\rm Kn}})$. Using Gaussian integrals given in appendix \[app:gaussian\] gives $$\Sigma(M[F]) = p {{\it Id}}, \quad \text{ and } \quad
q(M[F]) = 0.$$ Consequently, the conservation laws (\[eq-cons\]) yields $$\begin{split}
& {\partial_t}\rho + \nabla\cdot \rho u = 0, \\
& {\partial_t}\rho u + \nabla \cdot (\rho u\otimes u ) + \nabla p = O({{\rm Kn}}), \\
& {\partial_t}E + \nabla \cdot( (E+p)u) = O({{\rm Kn}}),
\end{split}$$ that are the Euler equations of compressible gas dynamics, up to $O({{\rm Kn}})$ terms, with the given EOS $p=p(\rho,e)$.
For the following, it is useful to rewrite these equations as evolution equations for non-conservatives variables $\rho$, $u$, and $\theta$. After some algebra, we get $$\label{eq-cons-theta}
\begin{split}
& {\partial_t}\rho + u \cdot\nabla \rho = - \rho \nabla \cdot u, \\
& {\partial_t}u + (u \cdot \nabla) u = -\frac{1}{\rho}\nabla p + O({{\rm Kn}}), \\
& {\partial_t}\theta + u\cdot \nabla \theta = -\theta {{\cal C}}\nabla \cdot u + O({{\rm Kn}}),
\end{split}$$ where ${{\cal C}}$ is given by $$\label{eq-C}
{{\cal C}}= \frac{\rho}{\theta}\partial_{\rho} \theta + \partial_e \theta.$$
### Navier-Stokes equation {#subsubsec:ns}
Navier-Stokes equations are obtained by using the higher order expansion $F =
M[F]+ {{\rm Kn}}\, G $. Introducing this expansion in (\[eq-SigmaF\]) and (\[eq-qF\]) gives $$\Sigma(F) = p {{\it Id}}+ {{\rm Kn}}\, \Sigma(G), \quad \text{ and } \quad
q(F) = {{\rm Kn}}\, q(G).$$ Then we have to approximate $\Sigma(G)$ and $q(G)$ up to $O({{\rm Kn}})$. This is done by using the expansion of $F$ and (\[eq-BGKpolydelta\_adim\]) to get $$G = -\tau({\partial_t}M[F] + v \cdot \nabla_x M[F]) + O({{\rm Kn}}).$$ This gives the following approximations $$\label{eq-Sigmaq_M}
\begin{split}
& \Sigma(G) = -\tau {\langle {\langle (v-u)\otimes (v-u)({\partial_t}M[F] + v \cdot \nabla_x M[F]) \rangle} \rangle} +
O({{\rm Kn}}) , \\
& q(G) = -\tau {\langle {\langle ({\frac{1}{2}}|v-u|^2+{\varepsilon})(v-u)({\partial_t}M[F] + v \cdot \nabla_x M[F]) \rangle} \rangle} + O({{\rm Kn}}).
\end{split}$$
Now, we have to make some long computations to reduce these expressions to those given in (\[eq-sigmaq\]). We start with the stress tensor $\Sigma(G)$. First, note that the Maxwellian $M[F]$ given by (\[eq-Maxwchimie\_adim\]) can be separated into $M[F] = M_{tr}[F]M_{int}[F]$, with $$M_{tr}[F] = \frac{\rho}{(2\pi \theta)^{\frac{3}{2}}}
\exp\left( - \frac{|v-u|^2}{2\theta} \right)
, \quad \text{ and }
\quad M_{int}[F] = \Lambda(\delta)\left(\frac{{\varepsilon}}{\theta}\right)^{\frac{\delta}{2}-1}
\frac{1}{\theta}\exp\left( -\frac{{\varepsilon}}{\theta} \right).$$ It is useful to introduce the notations ${\langle \phi \rangle}_v =
\int_{{{\mathbb{R}}}^3}\phi(v)\, dv$ and ${\langle \psi \rangle}_{{\varepsilon}} =
\int_0^{+\infty}\psi({\varepsilon})\, d{\varepsilon}$ for any velocity (resp. energy) dependent function $\phi$ (resp. $\psi$). Then it can easily be seen that $$\begin{split}
{\langle M_{int}[F] \rangle}_{{\varepsilon}} = 1, \quad {\langle {\partial_t}M_{int}[F] \rangle}_{{\varepsilon}} =
0,
\quad {\langle \nabla_x M_{int}[F] \rangle}_{{\varepsilon}} = 0.
\end{split}$$ This implies that $\Sigma(G)$ reduces to $$\label{eq-SigmaGMtr}
\Sigma(G) = -\tau {\langle (v-u)\otimes (v-u)({\partial_t}M_{tr}[F] + v \cdot \nabla_x M_{tr}[F]) \rangle}_v +
O({{\rm Kn}}).$$
Now it is standard to write ${\partial_t}M_{tr}[F]$ and $\nabla_x M_{tr}[F]$ as functions of derivatives of $\rho$, $u$, and $\theta$, and then to use Euler equations (\[eq-cons-theta\]) to write time derivatives as functions of the space derivatives only. After some algebra, we get $${\partial_t}M_{tr}[F] + v \cdot \nabla_x M_{tr}[F]
= \frac{\rho}{\theta^{\frac{3}{2}}}M_0(V)\left( A(V) \cdot
\frac{\nabla_x \theta}{\sqrt{\theta}}
+ B(V):\nabla_x u \right) + O({{\rm Kn}}),$$ where $$\begin{split}
& V = \frac{v-u}{\sqrt{\theta}}, \qquad M_0(V) =
\frac{1}{(2\pi)^{\frac32}}\exp(-\frac{|V|^2}{2}) , \\
& A(V) = \left(\frac{|V|^2}{2}- \frac52\right)V, \qquad
B(V) =
V\otimes V
- \left(
\left( \frac{|V|^2}{2}- \frac32\right) {{\cal C}}+ 1
\right) {{\it Id}}.
\end{split}$$ Then, we introduce the previous relations in (\[eq-SigmaGMtr\]) to get $$\Sigma_{ij}(G) = -\tau \rho \theta {\langle V_iV_j B(V)M_0 \rangle}_V
\nabla_{x_j} u_i + O({{\rm Kn}}),$$ where we have used the change of variables $v\mapsto V$ in the integral (the term with $A(V)$ vanishes due to the parity of $M_0$). Then standard Gaussian integrals (see appendix \[app:gaussian\]) give $$\Sigma(G) = -
\tau \rho \theta \left(\nabla u + (\nabla u)^T
-{{\cal C}}\nabla \cdot u \, Id\right) + O({{\rm Kn}}),$$ which is the announced result, in a non-dimensional form.
For the heat flux, we use the same technique to reduce $q(G)$ as given in (\[eq-Sigmaq\_M\]) to $$\begin{split}
q_i(G) & =
-\tau {\langle ({\frac{1}{2}}|v-u|^2)(v_i-u_i)({\partial_t}M_{tr}[F] + v_j \partial_{x_j}
M_{tr}[F]) \rangle}_v {\langle M_{int}[F] \rangle}_{{\varepsilon}} \\
& \quad -\tau {\langle (v_i-u_i)({\partial_t}M_{tr}[F] + v_j \partial_{x_j}
M_{tr}[F]) \rangle}_v {\langle {\varepsilon}M_{int}[F] \rangle}_{{\varepsilon}} \\
& \quad - \tau {\langle (v_i-u_i)M_{tr}[F] v_j \rangle}_v {\langle {\varepsilon}\partial_{x_j} M_{int} \rangle}_{{\varepsilon}} \\
& = - \tau {\langle {\frac{1}{2}}|V|^2V_i A_{j}M_0 \rangle}_V\partial_{x_j}\theta
- \tau {\langle V_i A_{j}M_0 \rangle}_V\frac{\delta}{2}\partial_{x_j}\theta
-\tau \rho \theta{\langle V_iV_jM_0 \rangle}_V \partial_{x_j} (\frac{\delta}{2}\theta),
\end{split}$$ where we have used the relation ${\langle {\varepsilon}M_{int}[F] \rangle}_{{\varepsilon}} = \frac{\delta}{2}\theta$. Using again Gaussian integrals, we get $$q(G) = -\tau \rho \theta \nabla h + O({{\rm Kn}}),$$ where $h=\frac{5+\delta}{2}\theta$ is indeed the enthalpy, since definitions (\[eq-theta\_adim\]) and (\[eq-deltarhoe\_adim\]) imply $h = e + p/\rho$.
To summarize, we have shown that the stress tensor and heat flux in conservation laws (\[eq-cons\]) are $$\begin{split}
& \Sigma(F) = p {{\it Id}}- {{\rm Kn}}\tau \rho \theta \left(\nabla u + (\nabla u)^T
-{{\cal C}}\nabla \cdot u \, Id\right) + O({{\rm Kn}}^2)\\
& q(F) = -{{\rm Kn}}\tau \rho \theta \nabla h + O({{\rm Kn}}^2).
\end{split}$$ Now, we can go back to the dimensional variables, and we find $$\begin{split}
& \Sigma(F) = p(\rho,e) {{\it Id}}- \mu(T(\rho,e)) \left(\nabla u + (\nabla u)^T
-{{\cal C}}\nabla \cdot u \, Id\right) + O({{\rm Kn}}^2)\\
& q(F) = - \mu(T(\rho,e)) \nabla h(\rho,e) + O({{\rm Kn}}^2),
\end{split}$$ where $h(\rho,e) = e + \frac{p(\rho,e)}{\rho}$ is the enthalpy, and ${{\cal C}}= \frac{\rho^2}{p(\rho,e)} \partial_{\rho}(p(\rho,e)/\rho)
+ \partial_e(p(\rho,e)/\rho)$. This concludes the proof of the result given at the beginning of this section.
Entropy
-------
Here, we prove that our model satisfies a local entropy dissipation property.
Let $F$ be the solution of equation –. Then the following inequality is satisfied: $${\langle {\langle (M[F]-F) \ln
\left( \frac{2}{\delta} {\varepsilon}^{1-\frac \delta 2 } F\right) \rangle} \rangle} \leq 0 \, .
\label{eq:second_principe}$$
The left-hand side can be decomposed into $$ [ ]{} = [ ]{} +[ ]{} .\
$$ The first term in the right-hand side is non-positive because the logarithm is a non-decreasing function. The second term vanishes since $M[F]$ and $F$ have the same first 5 moments: $$\begin{aligned}
{\langle {\langle (M[F]-F) \ln
\left( \frac{2}{\delta} {\varepsilon}^{1-\frac \delta 2 } M[F]\right) \rangle} \rangle}
&= {\langle {\langle (M[F]-F) \rangle} \rangle} \ln ( c(\delta,\rho,\theta)) \\
& \quad - \frac 1\theta {\langle {\langle (M[F]-F) \left( \frac{|v-u|^2}{2} +
{\varepsilon}\right) \rangle} \rangle}\\
&=0,\end{aligned}$$ with $c(\delta,\rho,\theta) = \frac 2 \delta \frac{\rho \Lambda(\delta)}{\sqrt{2\pi \theta}^3\theta^{\delta/2}}$, which does not depend on $v$ nor on ${\varepsilon}$.
This result does not imply the dissipation of a global entropy, except, for example, if $\delta$ is constant. In such a case, we can define the entropy $H(f) = {\langle {\langle h(F) \rangle} \rangle}$, where $h(F) = F\ln
\left(\frac{2}{\delta}{\varepsilon}^{1-\frac{\delta}{2}}F\right) - F$, and we have $$\begin{split}
{\partial_t}H(F) + \nabla \cdot {\langle {\langle v h(F) \rangle} \rangle} & = {\langle {\langle {\partial_t}h(F) +
v \cdot \nabla_x h(F) \rangle} \rangle} \\
& = {\langle {\langle ({\partial_t}F + v \cdot \nabla_x F)h'(F) \rangle} \rangle} \\
& = \frac{1}{\tau}{\langle {\langle (M[F]-F)h'(F) \rangle} \rangle} \leq 0,
\end{split}$$ from (\[eq:second\_principe\]), since $h'(F) = \ln
\left(\frac{2}{\delta}{\varepsilon}^{1-\frac{\delta}{2}}F\right)$.
In the general case, $\delta$ depends on $t$ and $x$: therefore, the relation ${\partial_t}h(F) = \ln
\left(\frac{2}{\delta}{\varepsilon}^{1-\frac{\delta}{2}}F\right) {\partial_t}F $ is not correct. Consequently, the local property (\[eq:second\_principe\]) cannot be used. It is not clear so far that our model satisfies a global dissipation property. This problem was also noticed in [@KKA_2019].
Reduced model
-------------
For computational reasons, it is interesting to reduce the complexity of model (\[eq-BGK\_EOS\]) by using the usual reduced distribution technique [@HH_1968]. We define reduced distributions $f(t,x,v) = \int_0^{+\infty}F(t,x,v,{\varepsilon})\, d{\varepsilon}$ and $g(t,x,v) = \int_0^{+\infty}{\varepsilon}F(t,x,v,{\varepsilon})\, d{\varepsilon}$, and by integration of (\[eq-BGK\_EOS\]) w.r.t ${\varepsilon}$, we can easily obtain the following closed system of two BGK equations $$\label{eq-reduced}
\begin{split}
& {\partial_t}f + v\cdot \nabla_x f = \frac{1}{\tau}(M[f,g]-f), \\
& {\partial_t}g + v\cdot \nabla_x g
= \frac{1}{\tau}( \frac{\delta}{2}
RT M[f,g]-g),
\end{split}$$ where $M[f,g]$ is the translational part of $M[F]$ defined by $$M[f,g] = \frac{\rho}{(2\pi RT)^{\frac{3}{2}}}
\exp\left( - \frac{|v-u|^2}{2 RT} \right) ,$$ and the macroscopic quantities are defined by $$\label{eq-mtsfg}
\rho(t,x) = \int_{{{\mathbb{R}}}^3} f \, dv, \qquad
\rho u (t,x) = \int_{{{\mathbb{R}}}^3} v f \, dv, \qquad
\rho e (t,x) = \int_{{{\mathbb{R}}}^3}( {\frac{1}{2}}|v-u|^2 f + g) \, dv,$$ while $\delta$, $R$ and $\tau$ are still defined by (\[eq-deltarhoe\]), and (\[eq-tauchimie\]). This reduced system is equivalent to (\[eq-BGK\_EOS\]), that is to say $F$ and $(f,g)$ have the same moments. Moreover, the compressible Navier-Stokes asymptotics obtained in section \[subsec:CE\] can also be derived from this reduced system. Consequently, [this system is the one we use for our numerical tests presented in the following section]{}.
Numerical results {#sec:num}
=================
Moderate temperature flow: vibrating molecules
----------------------------------------------
A numerical scheme for model (\[eq-reduced\]) has been implemented in the code of CEA-CESTA. [This code is a deterministic code based on the works presented in [@mieussens99; @bchm2013] which solves the BGK equation in 3 dimensions of space and 3 dimensions in velocity with a second order finite volume scheme on structured meshes]{}. It is remarkable that the original code (for non reacting gases, with no high temperature effects), presented in [@bchm2013], can be very easily adapted to this new model. Only a few modifications are necessary.
The goal of this section is to illustrate the capacity of our model to account for some high temperature gas effects. We only consider the case of a mixture of two vibrating, but non reacting, gases. A validation of our model for reacting gases will be given in a further work.
Our test is a 2D hypersonic plane flow of air–considered as a mixture of two vibrating gases, nitrogen and dioxygen–over a quarter of a cylinder which is supposed to be isothermal (see figure \[amont\]). Gas-solid wall interactions are modeled by the usual diffuse reflection. At the inlet, the flow is defined by the data given in table \[table:ci\].
Mass concentration of $N_2$ ($c_{N_2}$) $0.75$
----------------------------------------- ---------------------------------
Mass concentration of $O_2$ ($c_{O_2}$) $0.25$
Mach number of the mixture $10$
Velocity of the mixture $2267m.s^{-1}$
Density of the mixture $3.059\times 10^{-4} kg.m^{-3}$
Pressure of the mixture $11.22 Pa$
Temperature of the mixture $127.6 K$
Temperature of the cylinder $293K$
Radius of the cylinder $0.1m$
: Hypersonic flow around a cylinder: initial data[]{data-label="table:ci"}
In this case, the vibrational energy is taken into account as described in section \[subsubsec:example2\]. The corresponding constitutive relations are obtained as explained in remark \[rem:compat\_modeles\].
The flow conditions are such that molecules vibrate, but no chemical reactions are active (temperatures go up to $3000$K whereas chemical reactions occur at $5000$K at pressure $P=1$atm): our thermodynamical approach is reasonable. Since the test case is dense enough (the Knudsen number is around $0.01$) we can compare the new model with a Navier-Stokes code (a 2D finite volume code with structured meshes), in which are enforced the same viscosity and conductivity as in compressible Navier-Stokes asymptotics derived from the BGK model (see section \[subsec:CE\]). To validate the new model we have made four different simulations:
- a Navier-Stokes simulation without taking into account vibrations (called $NS1$),
- a Navier-Stokes simulation that takes into account vibrations (called $NS2$),
- a BGK simulation without taking into account vibrations (called $BGK1$),
- a BGK simulation that takes into account vibrations (called $BGK2$).
The first comparison is between $NS1$ and $BGK1$, in order to show that the two model are consistent in this dense regimes, when there are no vibration energy. As it can be seen in figure \[NSBGK1\], the results agree very well.
The second comparison is between $NS2$ and $BGK2$ to show we still have a good agreement when vibrations are taken into account. This is what we observe in figure \[NSBGK2\]. One can also observe that, due to vibrations, the temperature decreased from $2682K$ to $2358K$ for Navier-Stokes and from $2695K$ to $2365K$ for BGK.
The last comparison is to show the influence of vibrational energy on the results. We compare $BGK1$ and $BGK2$, and we observe that the shock is not at the same position. Since there is a transfer of energy from translational and rotational modes to vibrational modes, the maximum temperature is lower and the shock is slightly close to the cylinder with BGK2 (see figure \[bgkbgk2\]). We clearly see this difference with the temperature profile along the stagnation line, see figure \[stagnation\].
[To conclude this section, it can be said that when Navier-Stokes and BGK are set with the same viscosity and Prandtl number, results agree very well: but of course for more realistic test cases when the Prandtl number is not equal to one, there will be a discrepancy in the results that might be corrected with an ES-BGK extension of our model. This will be presented in a further work.]{}
High temperature flow: reacting gas {#subsec:result_chemical}
-----------------------------------
In this section, we illustrate the ability of our model to account for chemical reactions in a high temperature flow. In order to simplify the analysis of our results, we consider here a single species flow of dioxygen. The geometry of the test case is the same as in the previous section, and the parameters of the upstream flow are the followings: the Mach number is $12$, the density is $10^{-3}$ kg.m$^{-3}$, so that the flow is in the near continuous regime (Kn$=4.29\times 10^{-4}$), the pressure is $33.15$ Pa, the temperature is $127.6$ K, and the temperature of the cylinder is still $283$ K.
In this case, the chemical reactions are taken into account with pressure and temperature laws as given by Hansen [@hansen], both in our Navier-Stokes and BGK solvers. We obtain the comparison shown in figure \[NSchimie\_BGKchimie\] for the temperature field. The results given by both codes are very close. A closer look at the temperature profile along the stagnation line is also shown in figure \[T\_profile\]: this profile shows that BGK results are excellent.
We are also able to obtain the concentration $c_O$ of monoatomic oxygen (see section \[subsec:chemical\]), and this concentration is plotted in figure \[CO\_NSchimie\_BGKchimie\]. Again both codes are in very good agreement, and these results show that there is dissociation of $O_2$ molecules in the largest temperature zones, since the concentration rises up to 12Finally, the importance of chemical reactions (dissociation) in this test case can be seen as follows. In figure \[BGKvibra\_BGKchimie\], we compare the previous BGK results to a simulation made when vibrations are taken into account but the chemical reactions are not. This figure clearly shows that the non reacting BGK results are incorrect: the location of the shock is wrong, and the temperature is too high.
Conclusion {#sec:conclusion}
==========
In this paper, we have proposed several generalized BGK models to account for high temperature effects (vibrations and chemical reactions). The first model is able to account for the fact that, for polyatomic gases, some internal degrees of freedom are partially excited with a level of excitation that depends on the temperature. In other words, we have derived a model for a polyatomic gas with a non-constant specific heat $c_p = c_p(T)$.
This model has been extended to take into account general constitutive laws for pressure and temperature, like in equilibrium chemically reacting gases in high temperature flows. By using a Chapman-Enskog analysis, we have derived compressible Navier-Stokes equations from this model that are consistent with these constitutive laws. This consistency has been illustrated on preliminary numerical tests, in which the importance to take vibration modes into account is clearly seen.
We point out that this new model can be reduced to a BGK system in which the molecular velocity is the only kinetic variable. This makes it possible to simulate a high temperature polyatomic gas for the cost of a simple monoatomic rarefied gas flow simulation.
The model for chemically reacting gases [has been tested with a single species flow that shows its ability to account for dissociation, at least in the near continuum regime. Our model has still to be validated with comparisons to a full Boltzmann (DSMC) solver in the rarefied regime. It should also be ]{}extended to allow for various different time scales (viscous versus thermal diffusion time scale, translational versus rotational energy relaxation rates). This might be possible with the same approach as the one used to derive the ES-BGK model for polyatomic gases (see [@esbgk_poly]).
Gaussian integrals {#app:gaussian}
==================
We remind the definition of the absolute Maxwellian $M_0(V) =
\frac{1}{(2\pi)^{\frac32}}\exp(-\frac{|V|^2}{2})$. It is standard to derive the following integral relations (see [@chapmancowling], for instance), written with the Einstein notation: $$\begin{aligned}
& {\langle M_0 \rangle}_V = 1, \\
& {\langle V_iV_jM_0 \rangle}_V = \delta_{ij}, \qquad {\langle V_i^2M_0 \rangle}_V = 1,
\qquad {\langle |V|^2M_0 \rangle}_V = 3, \\
& {\langle V_i^2V_j^2M_0 \rangle}_V = 1 + 2\, \delta_{ij}, \qquad {\langle V_iV_jV_kV_lM_0 \rangle}_V = \delta_{ij}\delta_{kl} +
\delta_{ik}\delta_{jl} + \delta_{il}\delta_{jk} \\
& {\langle V_iV_j|V|^2M_0 \rangle}_V = 5 \,\delta_{ij}, \qquad {\langle |V|^4M_0 \rangle}_V
= 15, \\
& {\langle V_iV_j|V|^4M_0 \rangle}_V = 35 \,\delta_{ij}, \qquad {\langle |V|^6M_0 \rangle}_V = 105,\end{aligned}$$ while all the integrals of odd power of $V$ are zero.
From the previous Gaussian integrals, it can be shown that for any $3\times 3$ matrix $C$, we have $${\langle V_iV_jC_{kl}V_kV_lM_0 \rangle}_V = C_{ij} + C_{ji} + C_{ii}\delta_{ij}.$$
![Internal degrees of freedom as a function of the temperature[]{data-label="fig:delta"}](delta.pdf){width="70.00000%"}
![ [Plane flow around a cylinder: geometry and computational domain. By symmetry with respect to the horizontal axis, the computational domain is defined for the upper part only. The downstream flow is not simulated.]{}[]{data-label="amont"}](./geom_cylindre.pdf){width="70.00000%"}
![Non vibrating air: velocity and temperature fields (Top: NS1, bottom: BGK1)[]{data-label="NSBGK1"}](./NS1BGK1.png){width="90.00000%"}
![Vibrating air: velocity and temperature fields (Top: NS2, bottom: BGK2)[]{data-label="NSBGK2"}](./NS2BGK2.png){width="90.00000%"}
![Vibrating and non-vibrating air: velocity field and temperature field (Top: BGK2, bottom: BGK1)[]{data-label="bgkbgk2"}](./BGKBGK2.png){width="90.00000%"}
![Vibrating and non-vibrating air: temperature profile along the stagnation line.[]{data-label="stagnation"}](./Stagnation.png){width="90.00000%"}
![Dioxygen flow: temperature field obtained with a chemical equilibrium Navier-Stokes solver (top) and our chemical equilibrium BGK solver (bottom).[]{data-label="NSchimie_BGKchimie"}](./NSchimie_BGKchimie.pdf){width="50.00000%"}
![Dioxygen flow: temperature along the stagnation line.[]{data-label="T_profile"}](T_stag.pdf){width="90.00000%"}
![Dioxygen flow: concentration of monoatomic oxygen obtained with a chemical equilibrium Navier-Stokes solver (top) and our chemical equilibrium BGK solver (bottom).[]{data-label="CO_NSchimie_BGKchimie"}](./CO_NSchimie_BGKchimie.pdf){width="50.00000%"}
![Dioxygen flow: temperature field obtained with our BGK solver with only vibrational energy (top), and our chemical equilibrium BGK solver (bottom).[]{data-label="BGKvibra_BGKchimie"}](./BGKvibra_BGKchimie.pdf){width="50.00000%"}
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We give a new proof of the classification due to Peternell-Szurek-Wiśniewski of nef vector bundles on a projective space with the first Chern class less than three and on a smooth hyperquadric with the first Chern class less than two over an algebraically closed field of characteristic zero.'
address: 'Graduate School of Informatics and Engineering, The University of Electro-Communications, Chofu-shi, Tokyo, 182-8585 Japan '
author:
- Masahiro Ohno
bibliography:
- 'NefOnHyperquadrics.bib'
title: Nef vector bundles on a projective space or a hyperquadric with the first Chern class small
---
Introduction
============
Let $X$ be a smooth complex projective variety of dimension $n$, and $\mathcal{E}$ a nef vector bundle of rank $r$ on it. Many authors have studied a pair $(X,\mathcal{E})$ of $X$ and $\mathcal{E}$ in connection with classifications of special types of Fano (or Fano-like) manifolds, where $\mathcal{E}$ may be assumed to be spanned (i.e., globally generated) or ample, as the case may be. In these classifications, often appears a pair $(X, \mathbb{E})$ of $X$ of Picard number one and an ample vector bundle $\mathbb{E}$ with the adjoint bundle $K_X+\det\mathbb{E}$ trivial (i.e., isomorphic to the structure sheaf). In case $K_X+\det\mathbb{E}$ is trivial, we have $r\leqq n+1$ by Mori’s theory of extremal rays [@mo2], and such pairs $(X,\mathbb{E})$ are classified in the cases $r=n+1$, $n$, and $n-1$ by Ye-Zhang [@yz], Peternell [@p0] [@p], Fujita [@fn], and Peternell-Szurek-Wiśniewski [@psw]. Note here that the projective space bundle $\mathbb{P}(\mathbb{E})$ is a Fano manifold; in such a case, $\mathbb{E}$ is called a Fano bundle. In this vein, in view of $-K_{\mathbb{P}(\mathbb{E})}=rH(\mathbb{E})$, $\mathbb{E}$ might be called a “Del-Pezzo bundle” if $r=n-1$, and a “Mukai bundle” if $r=n-2$. As is well known, Mukai manifolds, i.e., Fano manifolds of coindex three, are described in [@MR0995400], whereas the “Mukai bundle” $\mathbb{E}$ has not been investigated for an arbitrary rank $r$ even if the underlying manifold $X$ is simple such as $\mathbb{P}^n$ or $\mathbb{Q}^n$. Thus the present deepest result in this direction is the classification of “Del-Pezzo bundles” due to Peternell-Szurek-Wiśniewski [@psw]. Roughly speaking, their method of classification is to relate the pair $(X,\mathbb{E})$ with a pair $(X,\mathcal{E})$ by setting $\mathcal{E}=\mathbb{E}(-1)$, and show that $\mathcal{E}$ is nef by their Comparison lemma [@psw (3.1)]: an ample $\mathbb{E}$ can be replaced by a nef $\mathcal{E}$. Then they classified such $(X,\mathcal{E})$’s in [@pswnef] in the following cases: if $X$ is isomorphic to a projective $\mathbb{P}^n$ and the first Chern class $c_1(\mathcal{E})$ of $\mathcal{E}$ is less than three; if $X$ is isomorphic to a hyperquadric $\mathbb{Q}^n$ ($n\geqq 3$) and $c_1(\mathcal{E})< 2$. (Here, for simplicity as in [@pswnef], we identify the first Chern class $c_1(\mathcal{E})$ with the corresponding non-negative integer via the isomorphism ${\mathop{\rm Pic}\nolimits}X\cong \mathbb{Z}$ by abuse of notation.) Thus the classification [@pswnef] of the pairs $(X,\mathcal{E})$ in the above cases has fundamental importance in their proof. Towards the classification of “Mukai bundles”, it seems therefore natural to consider the classification of $(X,\mathcal{E})$ in the next cases, e.g., $X=\mathbb{P}^n$ and $c_1(\mathcal{E})=3$, or $X=\mathbb{Q}^n$ and $c_1(\mathcal{E})=2$. However the classification of $(X,\mathcal{E})$ with $\mathcal{E}$ nef of an arbitrary rank $r$ in the next cases has not been pursued over twenty years.
One of the reason why such research has not been pursued seems to come from the fact that it is uncertain how to describe nef bundles in general. In order to overcome this situation, in this paper, we first propose a framework to describe nef bundles on a projective space or a smooth hyperquadric. Following this framework, we secondly give a new proof of the above classification of $(X,\mathcal{E})$ due to Peternell-Szurek-Wiśniewski [@pswnef]. In their proof, Peternell-Szurek-Wiśniewski analyze the contraction morphism of an extremal ray of the Fano manifold $\mathbb{P}(\mathcal{E})$. On the other hand, our proof depends only on the cohomological study of $\mathcal{E}$ with respect to a full strong exceptional sequence of vector bundles, and does not analyze any contraction morphism. (See Theorems \[d=1onProSpace\], \[d2OnProSpace\], and \[d=1OnHyperquadric\] and the proofs therein.)
More precisely our framework is based on the following observation. Suppose there exists a full strong exceptional sequence $G_0,\dots,G_m$ of vector bundles on $X$. Recall here that a projective space or a smooth hyperquadric admits such a full strong exceptional sequences of vector bundles by [@MR0509388] and [@MR0939472]. Denote by $G$ the direct sum $\bigoplus _{i=0}^m G_i$, and by $A$ the endomorphism ring $\operatorname{End}(G)$ of $G$. Let $F$ be a coherent sheaf on $X$. Then Bondal’s theorem [@MR992977 Theorem 6.2] implies an isomorhism $$\operatorname{RHom}(G,F)\operatorname{\otimes^{\mathbb{L}}}_A G\cong F.$$ Suppose first that $\operatorname{Ext}^q(G,F)=0$ for all $q>0$. Then $\operatorname{RHom}(G,F)\cong \operatorname{Hom}(G,F)$, and the isomorphism above implies that a projective resolution of the right $A$-module $\operatorname{Hom}(G,F)$ induces the following locally free resolution of $F$: $$0\to G_0^{\oplus e_{m,0}}\to\dots\to \bigoplus_{j=0}^{m-l}G_{j}^{\oplus e_{l,j}}\to\dots\to
\bigoplus_{j=0}^{m}G_{j}^{\oplus e_{0,j}}\to F\to 0$$ where $e_{0,j}=\dim \operatorname{Hom}(G_j,F)$ for all $j=0,\dots,m$ and, for any $l\geqq 1$ and any $j\leqq m-l$, $e_{l,j}$ is determined inductively by the following formula: $e_{l,j}=\sum_{j<k}e_{l-1,k}\dim \operatorname{Hom}(G_j,G_k)$. For an arbitrary coherent sheaf $F$, we have $\operatorname{Ext}^q(G,F(d))=0$ for all $q>0$ if $d$ is sufficiently large by Serre’s vanishing. Therefore we have a resolution of $F$ of the above form by replacing $(G_0,\dots, G_m)$ by a new full strong exceptional sequence $(G_0(-d),\dots,G_m(-d))$. Note here that Serre’s vanishing does not give, in general, an effective estimate of the integer $d$. However, on a projective space or a smooth hyperquadric, the full strong exceptional sequence $G_0,\dots,G_m$ can be chosen to be that of well-understood vector bundles so that, by applying the Kodaira or Kawamata–Viehweg vanishing theorem, we can give an *effective* estimate of the integers $d$ such that $\operatorname{Ext}^q(G,\mathcal{E}(d))=0$ for all $q>0$ for a *nef* vector bundle $\mathcal{E}$ (Corollaries \[ProSpaceResol\], \[quadricResol3\], and \[quadricResol\]).
Let us look at our proof more closely, e.g., in the case where $X$ is an odd dimensional smooth complex hyperquadric $\mathbb{Q}^n$; in this case, we can take the sequence $(G_0,\dots,G_m)$ to be $(\mathcal{O},\mathcal{S},\mathcal{O}(1), \dots,\mathcal{O}(n-1))$ where $\mathcal{S}$ is the (spanned) spinor bundle. For a nef vector bundle $\mathcal{E}$ on $X$, let $d_{\min}$ be the minimal integer $d_{\min}$ such that $\operatorname{Ext}^q(G,\mathcal{E}(d'))=0$ for all $q>0$ and all $d'\geqq d_{\min}$. Then the Kodaira vanishing theorem shows that $d_{\min}\leqq c_1(\mathcal{E})$ (Corollary \[quadricResol\]), and we have the following locally free resolution $$0\to G_0^{\oplus e_{m,0}}\to\dots\to \bigoplus_{j=0}^{m-l}G_{j}^{\oplus e_{l,j}}\to\dots\to
\bigoplus_{j=0}^{m}G_{j}^{\oplus e_{0,j}}\to \mathcal{E}(d_{\min})
\to 0.$$ By tensoring $\mathcal{O}(-d_{\min})$, we get a locally free resolution of $\mathcal{E}$ in term of a full strong exceptional sequence $(\mathcal{O}(-d_{\min}),\mathcal{S}(-d_{\min}),\mathcal{O}(1-d_{\min}), \dots,\mathcal{O}(n-d_{\min}))$. Moreover the fact that $\mathcal{E}$ is nef imposes several constraints on $e_{l,j}$’s and $d_{\min}$; some easy constraints are that $e_{l,j}=0$ if $l+j>d_{\min}+c_1(\mathcal{E})+1$ (Propositions \[easyConst\] and \[firstConstraint\] (2) (a)) and that $d_{\min}\geqq 0$ if $c_1(\mathcal{E})<r$ (Proposition \[firstConstraint\] (2) (d)). Therefore if $c_1(\mathcal{E})$ is small then $d_{\min}$ has very few possible values and most $e_{l,j}$’s vanish. Note that the above resolution contains superfluous direct summands, so that we have to remove redundant direct summands. If $c_1(\mathcal{E})=1$, other constraints among $e_{l,j}$’s and a more detailed analysis of the resolution enable us to do so and we get the desired resolution as described in the classification due to Peternell-Szurek-Wiśniewski [@pswnef].
In the subsequent papers [@Nefofc1=3OnPN] and [@Nefofc1=(21)OnQ2], following our framework, we classify nef vector bundles on a projective space with the first Chern class three and the second Chern class less than eight, and nef vector bundles on a smooth quadric surface with the first Chern class $(2,1)$.
Notation and conventions {#convention}
------------------------
In this paper, we work over an algebraically closed field $K$. Basically we follow the standard notation and terminology in algebraic geometry. For example, for a vector bundle $\mathcal{E}$, $\mathbb{P}(\mathcal{E})$ denotes ${\mathop{\rm Proj}\nolimits}S(\mathcal{E})$, where $S(\mathcal{E})$ denotes the symmetric algebra of $\mathcal{E}$. The tautological line bundle $\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}(\mathcal{E})}(1)$ is also denoted by $H(\mathcal{E})$. For a coherent sheaf $\mathcal{F}$ on a smooth projective variety $X$, we denote by $c_i(\mathcal{F})$ the $i$-th Chern class of $\mathcal{F}$. For a smooth projective variety $X$, denote by $D^b(X)$ the bounded derived category of the abelian category of coherent sheaves on $X$, and call $D^b(X)$ the bounded derived category of coherent sheaves on $X$ for short. We say that a vector bundle is spanned or globally generated if it is generated by global sections. For “spinor bundles”, we follow Kapranov’s convention [@MR0939472]; our spinor bundles are spanned and they are the duals of those of Ottaviani’s [@ot]. See [@MR3275418 §5 Definition 1] for a precise definition of our spinor bundles. Finally we refer to [@MR2095472] for the definition and basic properties of nef vector bundles.
Preliminaries {#Preliminaries}
=============
Let $X$ be an $n$-dimensional smooth projective variety over $K$, and suppose that there exists a full strong exceptional sequence $G_0,\dots,G_m$ of vector bundles on $X$.
Recall here the definition of a full strong exceptional sequence. An object $G_i$ of the bounded derived category $D^b(X)$ of coherent sheaves on $X$ is said to be exceptional if $\operatorname{RHom}(G_i, G_i)\cong K$ and a sequence $G_0,\dots,G_m$ of exceptional objects is said to be exceptional if $\operatorname{RHom}(G_i, G_j)=0$ for all $0\leqq j<i\leqq m$. An exceptional sequence $G_0,\dots,G_m$ is said to be strong if $\operatorname{Ext}^k(G_i, G_j)=0$ for all $k>0$ and $0\leqq i<j\leqq m$. Finally a strong exceptional sequence $G_0,\dots,G_m$ is said to be full if $D^b(X)$ is the smallest triangulated full subcategory containing $G_0,\dots,G_m$ and closed under isomorphism.
If $X$ is an $n$-dimensional projective space $\mathbb{P}^n$, then $(\mathcal{O},\mathcal{O}(1),\dots,\mathcal{O}(n))$ is a strong exceptional sequence of line bundles, and it is full by Beilinson’s theorem [@MR0509388 Theorem]. If $X$ is an odd-dimensional smooth hyperquadric $\mathbb{Q}^n$ and the characteristic $\operatorname{char}K$ of the base field $K$ is zero, then it follows from Bott’s vanishing theorem that $(\mathcal{O},\mathcal{S},\mathcal{O}(1),\dots,\mathcal{O}(n-1))$ is a strong exceptional sequence of vector bundles, where $\mathcal{S}$ is the spinor bundle, and it is full by Kapranov’s theorem [@MR0939472 Theorem 4.10]. If $X$ is an even-dimensional smooth hyperquadric $\mathbb{Q}^n$ and $\operatorname{char}K=0$, then Bott’s vanishing theorem shows that $(\mathcal{O},\mathcal{S}^+,\mathcal{S}^-,\mathcal{O}(1),\dots,\mathcal{O}(n-1))$ is a strong exceptional sequence of vector bundles, where $\mathcal{S}^+$ and $\mathcal{S}^-$ are spinor bundles, and it is full by Kapranov’s theorem [@MR0939472 Theorem 4.10]. Recall here that we follow Kapranov’s convention for “spinor bundles”; for example, on a smooth quadric surface $\mathbb{Q}^2$, spanned line bundles $\mathcal{O}(1,0)$ and $\mathcal{O}(0,1)$ are spinor bundles, and thus $(\mathcal{O},\mathcal{O}(1,0),\mathcal{O}(0,1),\mathcal{O}(1))$ is a full strong exceptional sequence on $\mathbb{Q}^2$.
For some other fundamental facts about derived categories, we refer to an excellent book [@MR2182076] of Kashiwara-Schapira as a literature written in English.
Denote by $G$ the direct sum $\bigoplus_{i=0}^mG_i$ of $G_0,\dots,G_m$, and by $A$ the endomorphism ring $\operatorname{End}(G)$ of $G$. Then $A$ is a finite-dimensional $K$-algebra. We refer to [@MR2197389 Chap. I, II, III] for some basic facts about modules over a finite-dimensional $K$-algebra. Note that we follow the convention that the composite of two arrows $\alpha:a\to b$ and $\beta:b\to c$ is denoted by $\beta\alpha$. In the same vein, we regard $G$ as a left $A$-module.
For a coherent sheaf $F$ on $X$, Bondal’s theorem [@MR992977 Theorem 6.2] implies that $$\operatorname{RHom}(G, F)\operatorname{\otimes^{\mathbb{L}}}_A F\cong F,$$ so that if $\operatorname{Ext}^q(G,F)=0$ for all $q>0$ then $\operatorname{RHom}(G, F)\cong \operatorname{Hom}(G, F)$, and a projective resolution of the right $A$-module $\operatorname{Hom}(G, F)$ will play a key role in this paper; let us recall here briefly a projective resolution of a right $A$-module.
Let $p_i:G\to G_i$ be the projection, and $\iota_i:G_i\hookrightarrow G$ the inclusion. Set $e_i=\iota_i\circ p_i$ in $A$. Denote $e_iA$ by $P_i$. Then $P_i\cong \operatorname{Hom}(G,G_i)$ as right $A$-modules, and $A=\bigoplus_{i=0}^m P_i$; $P_i$ is projective and $P_i\otimes_AG\cong G_i$.
For a finitely generated right $A$-module $V$, a right $A$-submodule $V^{\leqq i}$ of $V$ is defined by the formula $V^{\leqq i}=\bigoplus_{j\leqq i}Ve_j$. We have a natural isomorphism $V^{\leqq i}\cong V\otimes_A A^{\leqq i}$, and associated to every module $V$ is an ascending filtration $$0=V^{\leqq -1}\subset V^{\leqq 0}\subset V^{\leqq 1}\subset \dots\subset V^{\leqq m}=V$$ by right $A$-submodules. Set $\operatorname{Gr}^iV=V^{\leqq i}/V^{\leqq i-1}$; $\operatorname{Gr}^iV$ is a right $A$-module. Denote by $V^i$ the $K$-vector subspace $Ve_i$ of $V$. Note that $V^i$ is not a $A$-submodule of $V$, but we have an isomorphism $\operatorname{Gr}^iV\cong V^i$ of $K$-vector spaces. For example, we have $$P_k^{\leqq i}\cong \bigoplus_{j\leqq i}\operatorname{Hom}(G_j, G_k)
\textrm{ and }P_k^j\cong \operatorname{Hom}(G_j, G_k).$$ Note in particular that $P_k^k\cong K$ and that $P_k^j=0$ if $j>k$. For a homomorphism $\varphi:V\to W$ of right $A$-modules, we denote by $\varphi^i$ the induced homomorphism $V^i\to W^i$ of $K$-vector spaces.
We have a natural right $A$-linear map $$\varphi_{i,V}:V^i\otimes_KP_i\to V$$ sending $v\otimes a$ to $va$. Since every element $v$ of $V^i$ can be written as $v=v'e_i$ for some $v'\in V$, we see $\varphi_{i,V}(v\otimes e_i)=v$. Hence the induced $K$-linear $\varphi_{i,V}^i$ is an isomorphism: $$(V^i\otimes_KP_i)^i\cong V^i\otimes_KP_i^i\cong V^i.$$ All $\varphi_{i,V}$ together give a canonical surjection $$\varphi_V:\bigoplus_{j}V^j\otimes_KP_j\to V.$$ Set $W=\operatorname{Ker}\varphi_V$, and consider the canonical surjection $$\varphi_W:\bigoplus_{i}W^i\otimes_KP_i\to W$$ for $W$. Here, for a non-zero $V$, define $d(V)$ by the following formula: $$d(V)=\max \{j\in \mathbb{Z}_{\geqq 0}|V^j\neq 0\}.$$ Since $\varphi_V^i$ is a surjective $K$-linear $\oplus_{i\leqq j}V^j\otimes_KP_j^i\cong (\oplus_{j\leqq m}V^j\otimes_KP_j)^i\to V^i$, we see that $$\dim W^i
=\sum_{i<j\leqq d(V)}\dim V^j\dim P_j^i
=\sum_{i<j\leqq d(V)}\dim V^j\dim \operatorname{Hom}(G_i,G_j).$$ In particular, $W^{i}=0$ for all $i\geqq d(V)$. These consideration leads to the following.
\[projresol\] Every finitely generated right $A$-module $V$ has a bounded projective resolution of the following form $$0\to P_0^{\oplus e_{m,0}}\to\dots\to \bigoplus_{j=0}^{m-l}P_{j}^{\oplus e_{l,j}}\to\dots\to
\bigoplus_{j=0}^{m}P_{j}^{\oplus e_{0,j}}\to V\to 0$$ where $e_{0,j}=\dim V^j$ for all $j=0,\dots,m$ and, for any $l\geqq 1$ and any $j\leqq m-l$, $e_{l,j}$ is determined inductively by the following formula: $e_{l,j}=\sum_{j<k}e_{l-1,k}\dim \operatorname{Hom}(G_j,G_k)$.
\[MinimalResol\] The resolution above is not minimal in general. Throughout this paper, we shall denote by $$0\to P_0^{\oplus e_{m,0}'}\to\dots\to \bigoplus_{j=0}^{m-l}P_{j}^{\oplus e_{l,j}'}\to\dots\to
\bigoplus_{j=0}^{m}P_{j}^{\oplus e_{0,j}'}\to V\to 0$$ a minimal resolution of $V$ with $0\leqq e_{l,j}'\leqq e_{l,j}$ for all $0\leqq j\leqq m-l\leqq m$.
\[general resolution\] Under the assumption and notation as above, let $F$ be a coherent sheaf on $X$. Suppose that $\operatorname{Ext}^q(G,F)=0$ for all $q>0$. Then $F$ has a locally free resolution of the following form: $$0\to G_0^{\oplus e_{m,0}}\to\dots\to \bigoplus_{j=0}^{m-l}G_{j}^{\oplus e_{l,j}}\to\dots\to
\bigoplus_{j=0}^{m}G_{j}^{\oplus e_{0,j}}\to F\to 0$$ where $e_{0,j}=\dim \operatorname{Hom}(G_j,F)$ for all $j=0,\dots,m$ and, for any $l\geqq 1$ and any $j\leqq m-l$, $e_{l,j}$ is determined inductively by the following formula: $$e_{l,j}=\sum_{j<k}e_{l-1,k}\dim \operatorname{Hom}(G_j,G_k).$$
Since $\operatorname{Ext}^q(G,F)=0$ for all $q>0$, Bondal’s theorem [@MR992977 Theorem 6.2] implies that $\operatorname{Hom}(G, F)\operatorname{\otimes^{\mathbb{L}}}_A G\cong F$. Since $\operatorname{Hom}(G,F)^j\cong \operatorname{Hom}(G_j,F)$, Lemma \[projresol\] shows the following projective resolution of $\operatorname{Hom}(G,F)$: $$0\to P_0^{\oplus e_{m,0}}\to\dots\to \bigoplus_{j=0}^{m-l}P_{j}^{\oplus e_{l,j}}\to\dots\to
\bigoplus_{j=0}^{m}P_{j}^{\oplus e_{0,j}}\to \operatorname{Hom}(G,F)\to 0.$$ Since $P_j\otimes_AG\cong G_j$, the projective resolution above induces the desired locally free resolution of the coherent sheaf $F$.
Set $\mathcal{P}_l=\oplus_{j=0}^{m-l}G_{j}^{\oplus e_{l,j}}$ for $0\leqq l\leqq m$, and let $\mathcal{P}_{\bullet}$ denote the resulting complex.
Set $\operatorname{HN}_i(\mathcal{P}_{\bullet})=
\oplus_{j=i}^{m-\bullet}
G_j^{\oplus e_{\bullet,j}}$. Then $\mathcal{P}_{\bullet}$ has the following filtration of Harder-Narasimhan type $$0\to \operatorname{HN}_m(\mathcal{P}_{\bullet})\to \dots \to \operatorname{HN}_i(\mathcal{P}_{\bullet})\to \dots\to \operatorname{HN}_0(\mathcal{P}_{\bullet})=\mathcal{P}_{\bullet}$$ with $\operatorname{HN}_{i}(\mathcal{P}_{\bullet})/\operatorname{HN}_{i+1}(\mathcal{P}_{\bullet})\cong
\oplus_{i\leqq m-\bullet}G_i^{\oplus e_{\bullet,i}}\in \langle G_i\rangle
$, where $\langle G_i\rangle$ denotes the smallest triangulated subcategory of $D^b(X)$ containing $G_i$ and closed under isomorphism. Note that $\operatorname{Hom}_{D^b(X)}(\langle G_i\rangle,\langle G_j\rangle)=0$ if $i>j$. If we regard $\mathcal{P}_{\bullet}$ and $F$ as objects of $D^b(X)$ and the filtration above as that in $D^b(X)$, then $\mathcal{P}_{\bullet}\cong F$ and semiorthogonality of $\langle G_0\rangle,\dots,\langle G_m\rangle$ implies that the filtration above is unique and functorial with respect to $F$.
Let $\mathcal{E}$ be a coherent sheaf on $X$, and let $\mathcal{O}_X(1)$ be an ample line bundle on $X$. By Serre’s vanishing theorem, we see that if $d'\gg 0$ then $\operatorname{Ext}^q(G,\mathcal{E}(d'))=0$ for all $q>0$. Let $d_{\min}$ be the minimal integer $d_{\min}$ such that $\operatorname{Ext}^q(G,\mathcal{E}(d'))=0$ for all $q>0$ and all $d'\geqq d_{\min}$.
\[Resol\] Under the notation above, $\mathcal{E}(d_{\min})$ fits in the following exact sequence: $$0\to G_0^{\oplus e_{m,0}}\to\dots\to \bigoplus_{j=0}^{m-l}G_{j}^{\oplus e_{l,j}}\to\dots\to
\bigoplus_{j=0}^{m}G_{j}^{\oplus e_{0,j}}\to \mathcal{E}(d_{\min})\to 0,$$ where $e_{0,j}=\dim \operatorname{Hom}(G_j,\mathcal{E}(d_{\min}))$ for all $j=0,\dots,m$ and, for any $l\geqq 1$ and any $j\leqq m-l$, $e_{l,j}$ is determined inductively by $e_{l,j}=\sum_{j<k}e_{l-1,k}\dim \operatorname{Hom}(G_j,G_k)$. Moreover we can replace $e_{l,j}$ by some integer $e_{l,j}'$ such that $0\leqq e_{l,j}'\leqq e_{l,j}$ for all $0\leqq j\leqq m-l\leqq m$ corresponding to the minimal resolution (see Remark \[MinimalResol\] for the precise definition of $e_{l,j}'$).
In the rest of this paper, we call the exact sequence in Corollary \[Resol\] *the standard resolution of $\mathcal{E}(d_{\min})$ with respect to the (prescribed) full strong exceptional sequence $(G_0,\dots,G_m)$ of vector bundles*, and let $e_{l,j}'$ and $e_{l,j}$ be as in Corollary \[Resol\]. The following is an easy but fundamental relation among $e_{l,j}$’s.
\[easyConst\] If $e_{l,k}=0$ for all $k>j$, then $e_{l+1,k}=0$ for all $k>j-1$.
This follows immediately from the definition of $e_{l,j}$.
To reduce $e_{0,0}$ to $e_{0,0}'$, the following proposition is also fundamental.
\[secondconstraint\] If $\mathcal{E}(d_{\min})$ does not admit $G_0$ as a quotient. Then $e_{1,0}\geqq e_{0,0}$ and, in the standard resolution, we can replace $\mathcal{P}_0$ by $\mathcal{P}_0^0$ and $\mathcal{P}_1$ by $\mathcal{P}_1^0$, where $\mathcal{P}_0^0=\oplus_{j=1}^{m}G_{j}^{\oplus e_{0,j}}$ and $\mathcal{P}_1^0=G_0^{\oplus e_{1,0}-e_{0,0}}
\oplus(\oplus_{j=1}^{m-1}G_{j}^{\oplus e_{1,j}})$. In particular we see that $e_{0,0}'=0$.
Denote by $d_1$ the differential $\mathcal{P}_1\to \mathcal{P}_0$, and let $p_{l,0}:\mathcal{P}_l\to G_0^{\oplus e_{l,0}}$ be the projection. Then the composite $p_{0,0}\circ d_1$ factors through $p_{1,0}$: $p_{0,0}\circ d_1=d_{1,0}\circ p_{1,0}$ where $d_{1,0}:G_0^{\oplus e_{1,0}}\to G_0^{\oplus e_{0,0}}$ is the induced morphism. Suppose that $d_{1,0}$ is not surjective. Then we have a surjection $q:G_0^{\oplus e_{0,0}}\to G_0$ such that $q\circ d_{1,0}=0$. Since $(q\circ p_{0,0})\circ d_1=q\circ d_{1,0}\circ p_{1,0}=0$, there exists a surjection $\mathcal{E}(d_{\min})\to G_0$, which contradicts the assumption. Therefore $d_{1,0}$ is surjective and $e_{1,0}\geqq e_{0,0}$. Moreover $p_{0,0}\circ d_1
$ is surjective. Since $\operatorname{Ker}(p_{0,0})=
\mathcal{P}_0^0
$ and $\operatorname{Ker}(p_{0,0}\circ d_1)
=\mathcal{P}_1^0$, the desired replacement can be done in the standard resolution of $\mathcal{E}(d_{\min})$.
If $d_{\min}>0$, $G_0=\mathcal{O}$, and $\mathcal{E}$ is nef, then $\mathcal{E}(d_{\min})$ does not admit the sheaf $\mathcal{O}$ as a quotient.
Some easy constraints {#easyconstraints}
=====================
Let $X$, $G_0,\dots,G_m$, $\mathcal{E}$, $\mathcal{O}_X(1)$, $d_{\min}$, $e_{l,j}$, $e_{l,j}'$, and $\mathcal{P}_l
$ be as in § \[Preliminaries\] for $0\leqq j\leqq l\leqq m$. In the rest of this paper, we always assume that $\mathcal{E}$ is a nef vector bundle of rank $r$ and that $\mathcal{O}_X(1)$ is a “suitable" ample line bundle on $X$, e.g., an ample line bundle of “minimal degree". Then it is natural to consider the following
What constraints does the condition that $\mathcal{E}$ is nef impose on (or among) $d_{\min}$, $e_{l,j}$’s, and $e_{l,j}'$’s ? Find good constraints on (or among) them.
The rest of this paper addresses this problem in the following cases:
1. $X$ is a projective space $\mathbb{P}^n$, $\mathcal{O}_X(1)$ is the ample generator of ${\mathop{\rm Pic}\nolimits}X$, and $(G_0,\dots, G_m)$ is equal to $(\mathcal{O},\mathcal{O}(1),\dots,\mathcal{O}(n))$;
2. $X$ is an odd dimensional smooth hyperquadric $\mathbb{Q}^n$ with $n\geqq 3$, the field $K$ is of characteristic zero, $\mathcal{O}_X(1)$ is the ample generator of ${\mathop{\rm Pic}\nolimits}X$, and $(G_0,\dots, G_m)$ is equal to $(\mathcal{O},\mathcal{S},\mathcal{O}(1),\dots,
\mathcal{O}(n-1)
)$, where $\mathcal{S}$ is the spinor bundle on $\mathbb{Q}^{
n}$;
3. $X$ is an even dimensional smooth hyperquadric $\mathbb{Q}^{
n}$, the field $K$ is of characteristic zero, and $(G_0,\dots, G_m)$ is equal to $(\mathcal{O},\mathcal{S}^+,\mathcal{S}^-, \mathcal{O}(1),\dots,
\mathcal{O}(
n-1))$, where $\mathcal{S}^+$ and $\mathcal{S}^-$ are the spinor bundles on $\mathbb{Q}^{
n}$. If $n\geqq 4$, then $\mathcal{O}_X(1)$ is the ample generator of ${\mathop{\rm Pic}\nolimits}X$, and if $n=2$, then $\mathcal{O}_X(1)$ is the ample line bundle $\mathcal{O}(1,1)$ of minimal degree.
Thus we always assume, in the rest of the paper, that if $X$ is as in (1), (2), or (3), then $(G_0,\dots,G_m)$ is as in (1), (2), or (3) respectively.
If ${\mathop{\rm Pic}\nolimits}X\cong \mathbb{Z}$, we denote by $d$ the integer such that $\mathcal{O}_X(d)\cong \det\mathcal{E}$, and if $X\cong \mathbb{Q}^2$, we denote by $(a,b)$ the pair of integers such that $\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{Q}^2}(a,b)\cong \det\mathcal{E}$.
In this section, we give some easy constraints among $d_{\min}$ and $e_{l,j}$’s in the cases (1), (2), and (3) above.
\[firstConstraint\] We have the following constraints
1. Suppose that $X=\mathbb{P}^n$.
1. If $j>d+d_{\min}$, then $e_{0,j}=0$.
2. If $d<r$, then $d_{\min}\geqq 0$.
2. Suppose that $X=\mathbb{Q}^{n}$.
1. Suppose that $n$ is odd. If $j>d+d_{\min}+1$, then $e_{0,j}=0$.
2. Suppose that $n$ is even. If $j>d+d_{\min}+2$, then $e_{0,j}=0$.
3. Suppose that $n$ is even. If $e_{l,k}=0$ for all $k>2$, then $e_{l+1,k}=0$ for all $k>0$. In particular $e_{n,1}=0$ and $e_{n+1,0}=0$.
4. If $d<r$, then $d_{\min}\geqq 0$.
5. Suppose that $n=2$. If $\min \{a,b\}<r$, then $d_{\min}\geqq 0$.
The proofs of (1) (a), (2) (a), and (2) (b) are essentially the same; the only difference comes from the fact that there exists $\mathcal{S}$ or a pair of $\mathcal{S}^+$ and $\mathcal{S}^-$ between $\mathcal{O}$ and $\mathcal{O}(1)$, so that the numbering of $G_j$ differs. For simplicity, we only write explicitly the proof of (1) (a), but the reader will easily modify the proof for (2) (a), and (2) (b).
\(1) (a) Suppose that $e_{0,j}\neq 0$ for some $j> d+d_{\min}$. Then we have a non-zero map $\mathcal{O}(j)\to \mathcal{E}(d_{\min})$, which gives a non-zero map $\mathcal{O}_L(j)\to \mathcal{E}|_L(d_{\min})$ for a general line $L$ in $\mathbb{P}^n$. This implies that the maximal degree of a direct summand of $\mathcal{E}|_L(d_{\min})$ is at least $j$. On the other hand, since $\mathcal{E}$ is nef, the maximal degree of a direct summand of $\mathcal{E}|_L(d_{\min})$ is at most $d+d_{\min}$. This is a contradiction, since $j> d+d_{\min}$.
\(2) (c) This is because $e_{l+1,1}=\sum_{1<k}e_{l,k}\dim \operatorname{Hom}(G_1,G_k)=e_{l,2}\dim \operatorname{Hom}(\mathcal{S}^+,\mathcal{S}^-)$ and $\operatorname{Hom}(\mathcal{S}^+,\mathcal{S}^-)=0$.
The proofs of (1) (b), (2) (d), and (2) (e) are essentially the same; For simplicity, we only write explicitly the proof of (2) (d).
\(2) (d) We have a surjection $\mathcal{P}_0\to \mathcal{E}(d_{\min})$. Since $\mathcal{P}_0$ is globally generated, the restriction $\mathcal{E}|_L(d_{\min})$ to a line $L$ in $\mathbb{Q}^n$ is also globally generated. Hence the minimal degree of a direct summand of $\mathcal{E}|_L(d_{\min})$ is non-negative. Note here that the minimal degree of a direct summand of $\mathcal{E}|_L(d_{\min})$ is $d_{\min}$ since $r>d$. Therefore $d_{\min}\geqq 0$.
An upper bound for $d_{\min}$ {#UpperBound}
=============================
Let $X$, $G_0,\dots,G_m$, $G$, $\mathcal{E}$, $\mathcal{O}_X(1)$, and $d_{\min}$ be as in § \[Preliminaries\]. Assume that $\mathcal{E}$ be a nef vector bundle of rank $r$ as in § \[easyconstraints\]. In this section, we assume that the base field $K$ is of characteristic zero, and we give an upper bound for $d_{\min}$ in the cases (1), (2), and (3) as described in § \[easyconstraints\]. Let $\mathcal{O}_X(1)$, $d$, and $(a,b)$ be as in § \[easyconstraints\].
Let $\pi:\mathbb{P}(\mathcal{E})\to X$ be the projection, and let $H(\mathcal{E})$ be the tautological line bundle on $\mathbb{P}(\mathcal{E})$.
In Lemma \[KodairaOnProjectiveSpace\] below, in order to unify and shorten descriptions in $\mathbb{P}^n$ and $\mathbb{Q}^n$ ($n\geqq 3$), we denote by $c_1(X)$ the integer corresponding to $c_1(X)$ via the isomorphism ${\mathop{\rm Pic}\nolimits}X\cong \mathbb{Z}$ which sends the ample generator to $1$. However, needless to say, we must not use this abuse of notation in intersection formulas.
\[KodairaOnProjectiveSpace\] Let $X$ be a smooth Fano variety of dimension $n$ with ${\mathop{\rm Pic}\nolimits}X\cong \mathbb{Z}$, and let $\mathcal{O}_X(1)$ be the ample generator of ${\mathop{\rm Pic}\nolimits}X$. Then we have the following vanishing.
1. $\operatorname{Ext}^q(\mathcal{O}(j), \mathcal{E}(d))=0$ for all $q>0$ and $j< c_1(X)$.
2. $\operatorname{Ext}^q(\mathcal{O}(c_1(X)), \mathcal{E}(d))=0$ for all $q>0$ if $H(\mathcal{E})^{n+r-1}>0$. If $n=2$ then the condition $H(\mathcal{E})^{n+r-1}>0$ is equivalent to the one that $c_1(\mathcal{E})^2-c_2(\mathcal{E})>0$.
\(1) We have isomorphisms $$\operatorname{Ext}^q(\mathcal{O}(j),\mathcal{E}(d))
\cong H^q(X,\mathcal{E}(d-j))
\cong H^q(\mathbb{P}(\mathcal{E}), H(\mathcal{E})+\pi^*\mathcal{O}_{X}(d-j)).$$ We claim that the last cohomology group vanishes by the Kodaira vanishing theorem; indeed, since $-K_X\cong \mathcal{O}_X(c_1(X))$, we have $$H(\mathcal{E})+\pi^*\mathcal{O}_{X}(d-j)-K_{\mathbb{P}(\mathcal{E})}
\cong (r+1)H(\mathcal{E})+\pi^*\mathcal{O}_{X}(c_1(X)-j),$$ and $(r+1)H(\mathcal{E})+\pi^*\mathcal{O}_{X}(c_1(X)-j)$ is ample by the Nakai-Moishezon criterion, since $j<c_1(X)$. Therefore the claim follows.
\(2) If $j=c_1(X)$, then $H(\mathcal{E})+\pi^*\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^n}(d-j)-K_{\mathbb{P}(\mathcal{E})}$ is isomorphic to $(r+1)H(\mathcal{E})$, and this is nef and big by assumption. The result then follows from the Kawamata-Viehweg vanishing theorem. The assertion for $n=2$ follows from $H(\mathcal{E})^{r+1}=c_1(\mathcal{E})^2-c_2(\mathcal{E})$ if $n=2$.
\[ProSpaceResol\] Let $\mathcal{E}$ be a nef vector bundle of rank $r$ on $\mathbb{P}^n$. Then $d_{\min}\leqq d$. Moreover if $H(\mathcal{E})^{n+r-1}>0$ then $d_{\min}< d$. In particular if $n=2$ and $c_1(\mathcal{E})^2-c_2(\mathcal{E})>0$, then $d_{\min}< d$.
\[KodairaOnQuadric\] Suppose that $X$ is a smooth hyperquadric $\mathbb{Q}^n$ of dimension $n\geqq 3$. Then $\operatorname{Ext}^q(\mathcal{S},\mathcal{E}(d+j))=0$ for all $q>0$ and $j\geqq -\lfloor\frac{n}{2}\rfloor+1$, where $\mathcal{S}$ is a spinor bundle on $\mathbb{Q}^n$.
We have an isomorphism $\operatorname{Ext}^q(\mathcal{S},\mathcal{E}(d+j))\cong
H^q(\mathbb{Q}^n, \mathcal{S}^{\vee}\otimes\mathcal{E}(d+j))$. By Theorem \[Usefulottaviani\] (1), (2), and (3), to show $H^q(\mathbb{Q}^n,\mathcal{S}^{\vee}\otimes\mathcal{E}(d+j))=0$ for all $q>0$ and $j\geqq -\lfloor\frac{n}{2}\rfloor+1$ and a spinor bundle $\mathcal{S}$ on $\mathbb{Q}^n$, it is enough to show that $H^q(\mathbb{Q}^n,\mathcal{S}\otimes\mathcal{E}(d+j))=0$ for all $q>0$ and $j\geqq -\lfloor\frac{n}{2}\rfloor$ and a spinor bundle $\mathcal{S}$ on $\mathbb{Q}^n$. We have an isomorphism $H^q(\mathbb{Q}^n,\mathcal{S}\otimes\mathcal{E}(d+j))\cong
H^q(\mathbb{P}(\mathcal{S}), H(\mathcal{S})\otimes p^*(\mathcal{E}(d+j)))$, where $p:\mathbb{P}(\mathcal{S})\to \mathbb{Q}^n$ is the projection and $H(\mathcal{S})$ is the tautological line bundle on $\mathbb{P}(\mathcal{S})$. Let $\tilde{\pi}:\mathbb{P}(p^*\mathcal{E})\to \mathbb{P}(\mathcal{S})$ be the projection. Since $H(\mathcal{S})\otimes p^*(\mathcal{E}(d+j))\cong
p^*\mathcal{E}\otimes H(\mathcal{S})\otimes p^*\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{Q}^n}(d+j)$, we have an isomorphism $$H^q(\mathbb{P}(\mathcal{S}), H(\mathcal{S})\otimes p^*(\mathcal{E}(d+j)))
\cong
H^q(\mathbb{P}(p^*\mathcal{E}), H(p^*\mathcal{E})
+
\tilde{\pi}^*(H(\mathcal{S})
+
p^*\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{Q}^n}(d+j))).$$ We claim here that the last cohomology group vanishes by the Kodaira vanishing theorem; first observe that $H(p^*\mathcal{E})+
\tilde{\pi}^*(H(\mathcal{S})+ p^*\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{Q}^n}(d+j))-K_{\mathbb{P}(p^*\mathcal{E})}
$ is isomorphic to $$(r+1)H(p^*\mathcal{E})+
\tilde{\pi}^*(H(\mathcal{S})+ p^*\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{Q}^n}(j)-K_{\mathbb{P}(\mathcal{S})}).$$ To show the last line bundle is ample, it is enough by the Nakai-Moishezon criterion to show that $H(\mathcal{S})+ p^*\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{Q}^n}(j)-K_{\mathbb{P}(\mathcal{S})}$ is ample. To see this, recall that $\mathbb{P}(\mathcal{S})$ is a flag manifold parameterizing flags of one-dimensional and maximal dimensional linear subspaces of $\mathbb{Q}^n$; set $s=\lfloor \frac{n}{2}\rfloor$, and let $q:\mathbb{P}(\mathcal{S})\to S$ be the projection, which is a $\mathbb{P}^{s}$-bundle, to the spinor variety $S$. Recall also that $H(\mathcal{S})\cong q^*\mathcal{O}_S(1)$ for the ample generator $\mathcal{O}_S(1)$ of ${\mathop{\rm Pic}\nolimits}S$ (see, e.g., [@MR3275418 §5]). We see that $\mathbb{P}(\mathcal{S})$ is a Fano manifold of Picard number two, that $H(\mathcal{S})+ p^*\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{Q}^n}(j)-K_{\mathbb{P}(\mathcal{S})}$ is $p$-ample, and that it is $q$-ample if $j+s\geqq 0$. Therefore $H(\mathcal{S})+ p^*\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{Q}^n}(j)-K_{\mathbb{P}(\mathcal{S})}$ is ample if $j\geqq -s$, and the claim follows.
\[quadricResol3\] Let $\mathcal{E}$ be a nef vector bundle of rank $r$ on a smooth hyperquadric $\mathbb{Q}^n$ of dimension $n\geqq 3$. Then $d_{\min}\leqq d$. Moreover if $n\geqq 4$ and $H(\mathcal{E})^{n+r-1}>0$ then $d_{\min}< d$.
This follows from Lemmas \[KodairaOnProjectiveSpace\] and \[KodairaOnQuadric\].
Finally we deal with the case $X=\mathbb{Q}^2$. We have $\operatorname{Ext}^q(G,\mathcal{E}(d',d'))=0$ for $d'\gg 0$ and $q>0$ by Serre’s vanishing theorem. Note that if $(d_1,d_2)$ is a pair of integers such that $\operatorname{Ext}^q(G,\mathcal{E}(d_1,d_2))=0$ for all $q>0$, then $\mathcal{E}(d_1,d_2)$ has the standard resolution with respect to $\mathcal{O}$, $\mathcal{O}(1,0)$, $\mathcal{O}(0,1)$, and $\mathcal{O}(1,1)$, which implies that $\operatorname{Ext}^q(G,\mathcal{E}(d_1',d_2'))=0$ for all $q>0$, all $d_1'\geqq d_1$, and all $d_2'\geqq d_2$. Then we define a pair $(d_{1,\min},d_{2,\min})$ of integers by the following property: $$\begin{split}
\operatorname{Ext}^q(G,\mathcal{E}(d_1',d_2'))&=0\textrm{ for all }q>0,\textrm{ all }d_1'\geqq d_{1,\min},\textrm{ and all }d_2'\geqq d_{2,\min},\\
\operatorname{Ext}^q(G,\mathcal{E}(d_{1,\min}-1,d_{2,\min}))&\neq 0\textrm{ for some }q>0,\\
\operatorname{Ext}^q(G,\mathcal{E}(d_{1,\min},d_{2,\min}-1))&\neq 0\textrm{ for some }q>0.
\end{split}$$
\[KodairaOnQuadricSurf\] Suppose that $X=\mathbb{Q}^2$. Let $\mathcal{S}$ be a spinor bundle $\mathcal{O}(1,0)$ or $\mathcal{O}(0,1)$. Then we have the following vanishing.
1. $\operatorname{Ext}^q(\mathcal{O}(j,j), \mathcal{E}(a,b))=0$ for all $q>0$ and $j< 2$.
2. $\operatorname{Ext}^q(\mathcal{O}(2,2), \mathcal{E}(a,b))=0$ for all $q>0$, if $2ab>c_2(\mathcal{E})$.
3. $\operatorname{Ext}^q(\mathcal{S},\mathcal{E}(a+j,b+j))=0$ for all $q>0$ and $j\geqq 0$.
4. $\operatorname{Ext}^q(\mathcal{S}(1,1),\mathcal{E}(a,b))=0$ for all $q>0$, if $2ab>c_2(\mathcal{E})$.
\(1) We have isomorphisms $$\operatorname{Ext}^q(\mathcal{O}(j,j),\mathcal{E}(a,b))
\cong H^q(\mathcal{E}(a-j,b-j))
\cong H^q(\mathbb{P}(\mathcal{E}), H(\mathcal{E})+\pi^*\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{Q}^2}(a-j,b-j)).$$ We claim that the last cohomology group vanishes by the Kodaira vanishing theorem; indeed we have $$H(\mathcal{E})+\pi^*\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{Q}^2}(a-j,b-j)-K_{\mathbb{P}(\mathcal{E})}
\cong (r+1)H(\mathcal{E})+\pi^*\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{Q}^2}(2-j,2-j)$$ and $(r+1)H(\mathcal{E})+\pi^*\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{Q}^2}(2-j,2-j)$ is ample by the Nakai-Moishezon criterion since $j<2$. Therefore the claim follows.
\(2) Note that $H(\mathcal{E})^{r+1}=c_1(\mathcal{E})^2-c_2(\mathcal{E})=2ab-c_2(\mathcal{E})$. Therefore if $2ab>c_2(\mathcal{E})$ then $H(\mathcal{E})$ is nef and big. Hence $H(\mathcal{E})+\pi^*\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{Q}^2}(a-j,b-j)-K_{\mathbb{P}(\mathcal{E})}$ is nef and big if $j=2$. The result then follows from the Kawamata-Viehweg vanishing theorem.
\(3) Suppose that $\mathcal{S}\cong \mathcal{O}(1,0)$. We have isomorphisms $$\begin{split}
\operatorname{Ext}^q(\mathcal{S},\mathcal{E}(a+j,b+j))&\cong
H^q(\mathbb{Q}^2, \mathcal{E}(a+j-1,b+j))\\
&\cong
H^q(\mathbb{P}(\mathcal{E}), H(\mathcal{E})
+
\pi^*\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{Q}^2}(a+j-1,b+j)).
\end{split}$$ We show that the last cohomology group vanishes by the Kodaira vanishing theorem; we see that $H(\mathcal{E})+
\pi^*\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{Q}^2}(a+j-1,b+j)-K_{\mathbb{P}(\mathcal{E})}
$ is isomorphic to $(r+1)H(\mathcal{E})+
\pi^*\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{Q}^2}(j+1,j+2)$, and this line bundle is ample if $j\geqq 0$ by the Nakai-Moishezon criterion.
\(4) The proof is almost the same as (3); if $j=-1$, then $(r+1)H(\mathcal{E})+
\pi^*\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{Q}^2}(j+1,j+2)$ is nef and big if so is $H(\mathcal{E})$. Now the result follows from the Kawamata-Viehweg vanishing theorem.
\[quadricResol\] Let $\mathcal{E}$ be a nef vector bundle of rank $r$ on $\mathbb{Q}^2$. Then we can take $(d_{1,\min},d_{2,\min})$ such that $d_{1,\min}\leqq a$ and $d_{2,\min}\leqq b$. Moreover we can take $(d_{1,\min},d_{2,\min})$ such that $d_{1,\min}\leqq a-1$ and $d_{2,\min}\leqq b-1$, if $2ab>c_2(\mathcal{E})$.
Maximal degree subbundles of a nef vector bundle
=================================================
Let $X$ be as in § \[Preliminaries\], and let $\mathcal{E}$ be as in § \[Preliminaries\]. Assume that $\mathcal{E}$ is a nef vector bundle of rank $r$ as in § \[easyconstraints\].
\[detsub\] Suppose that there exists a non-zero morphism $\varphi:\det\mathcal{E}\to \mathcal{E}$. Then $\varphi$ makes $\det\mathcal{E}$ a subbundle of $\mathcal{E}$.
Let $s$ be a non-zero element of $H^0(\mathcal{E}\otimes (\det\mathcal{E})^{\vee})$ corresponding to $\varphi$, and suppose that the zero locus $(s)_0$ of $s$ is not empty. Take a curve $C$ such that $C\cap (s)_0\neq \emptyset$ and that $C$ is not contained in $(s)_0$, and let $\pi:\tilde{C}\to C$ be the normalization. Then $\mathcal{O}_{\tilde{C}}(\pi^*((s)_0\cap C))$ is a subbundle of $
\pi^*(\mathcal{E}\otimes (\det\mathcal{E})^{\vee})$. This implies that $\pi^*\mathcal{E}$ has a quotient bundle of negative degree, which contradicts that $\mathcal{E}$ is nef. Therefore $(s)_0$ is empty and $\varphi$ makes $\det\mathcal{E}$ a subbundle of $\mathcal{E}$.
\[dsubExist\] Suppose that $H^1(\det\mathcal{E})=0$ and that every nef vector bundle with trivial determinant is isomorphic to a direct sum of copies of $\mathcal{O}$. Then $\operatorname{Hom}(\det\mathcal{E},\mathcal{E})\neq 0$ implies that $\mathcal{E}\cong \mathcal{O}^{\oplus r-1}\oplus\det\mathcal{E}$.
If $\operatorname{Hom}(\det\mathcal{E},\mathcal{E})\neq 0$, then, by Lemma \[detsub\], there exists an exact sequence $$0\to \det\mathcal{E}\to \mathcal{E}\to \mathcal{F}\to 0$$ with $\mathcal{F}$ a vector bundle. Since $\det\mathcal{F}\cong \mathcal{O}$, the assumption implies that $\mathcal{F}\cong \mathcal{O}^{\oplus r-1}$. Since $H^1(\det\mathcal{E})=0$, this implies that $\mathcal{E}\cong \mathcal{O}^{\oplus r-1}\oplus\det\mathcal{E}$.
The assumption of Proposition \[dsubExist\] is satisfied if $X$ is either a projective space $\mathbb{P}^n$ or a hyperquadric $\mathbb{Q}^n$. See, e.g., [@oss Chap. 1 Theorem 3.2.1] and [@w3 Lemma 3.6.1]
\[quotientTorsionFree\] Let $\mathcal{F}$ be a locally free coherent sheaf, $\mathcal{G}$ a torsion-free coherent sheaf, and let $$0\to \mathcal{F}\to \mathcal{G}\to \mathcal{H}\to 0$$ be an exact sequence of coherent sheaves on $X$. If the support $Z$ of torsion subsheaf $\mathcal{T}$ of $\mathcal{H}$ has codimension $\geqq 2$ in $X$, then $\mathcal{T}=0$, i.e., $\mathcal{H}$ is torsion-free.
Set $U=X\setminus Z$, and let $i:U\to X$ be the inclusion. Let $\varphi:\mathcal{G}\to \mathcal{H}/\mathcal{T}$ be the composite of the two quotients $\mathcal{G}\to \mathcal{H}$ and $\mathcal{H}\to \mathcal{H}/\mathcal{T}$. Let $\mathcal{K}$ be the kernel of $\varphi$. We have the following exact sequence by the snake lemma. $$0\to \mathcal{F}\xrightarrow{\psi} \mathcal{K}\to \mathcal{T}\to 0$$ Since the support of $\mathcal{T}$ is outside $U$, we see that $\mathcal{F}|_U\cong \mathcal{K}|_U$. Since $\mathcal{K}$ is a subsheaf of a torsion-free sheaf $\mathcal{G}$, $\mathcal{K}$ is torsion-free. Hence the canonical morphism $\mathcal{K}\to i_*(\mathcal{K}|_U)$ is injective. On the other hand, we have isomorphisms $\mathcal{F}\cong i_*(\mathcal{F}|_U)\cong i_*(\mathcal{K}|_U)$. Therefore $\psi$ is an isomorphism, and thus $\mathcal{T}\cong 0$. Hence $\mathcal{H}$ is torsion-free.
Recall here that $\det:K(X)\to {\mathop{\rm Pic}\nolimits}X$ is defined since $X$ is smooth and projective and thus every coherent sheaf admits a finite locally free resolution. Here $K(X)$ denotes the Grothendieck group of $X$.
In the rest of this section, we assume that ${\mathop{\rm Pic}\nolimits}X\cong \mathbb{Z}$, and let $\mathcal{O}_X(1)$ denote the ample generator of ${\mathop{\rm Pic}\nolimits}X$. Let $d$ be the integer such that $\det\mathcal{E}\cong \mathcal{O}_X(d)$.
\[nefquotient\] If $\mathcal{G}$ is a quotient coherent sheaf of $\mathcal{E}$, then $\det\mathcal{G}$ is nef. Moreover if $\det\mathcal{G}\cong \mathcal{O}_X$ then the support of the torsion subsheaf of $\mathcal{G}$ has codimension $\geqq 2$ in $X$.
First suppose that $\mathcal{G}$ is torsion free, and let $Z$ be the singular locus of $\mathcal{G}$, i.e., the locus where $\mathcal{G}$ is not locally free. Then $Z$ has codimension $\geqq 2$. Set $U=X\setminus Z$, and let $i:U\to X$ be the inclusion. Observe that $\det \mathcal{G}$ is equal to the sheaf $i_*(\det(\mathcal{G}|_U))$. Let $s$ be the rank of $\mathcal{G}$. Then the surjection $\mathcal{E}\to \mathcal{G}$ induces a morphism $\wedge^{s}\mathcal{E}\to \det\mathcal{G}$ which is surjective on $U$. Suppose, to the contrary, that $\det\mathcal{G}$ is not nef. Then $\det\mathcal{G}$ is isomorphic to $\mathcal{O}(k)$ for some negative integer $k$ since ${\mathop{\rm Pic}\nolimits}X\cong \mathbb{Z}$. Let $C$ be a general smooth curve that intersect with $U$. Then the restriction $\wedge^{s}\mathcal{E}|_C\to \det\mathcal{G}|_C\cong \mathcal{O}_C(k)$ is non-zero, and the image of this morphism is a line bundle of negative degree on $C$. This contradicts that $\wedge^{s}\mathcal{E}|_C$ is nef. Therefore $\det\mathcal{G}$ is nef.
Now consider the general case. Let $\mathcal{T}$ be the torsion subsheaf of $\mathcal{G}$. Then $\det(\mathcal{G}/\mathcal{T})$ is nef by the consideration above. Since $\det\mathcal{G}\cong \det\mathcal{T}\otimes \det(\mathcal{G}/\mathcal{T})$, it is enough to show that $\det\mathcal{T}$ is nef. Suppose, for a moment, that $\mathcal{T}\cong \mathcal{O}_D(u):=\mathcal{O}_X(u)\otimes\mathcal{O}_D$ for some closed subvariety $D$ of $X$ and an integer $u$. If $D$ has codimension $\geqq 2$ in $X$, then $\det\mathcal{T}=\mathcal{O}_X$. If $D$ has codimension one, then $D$ is an ample Cartier divisor since ${\mathop{\rm Pic}\nolimits}X\cong \mathbb{Z}$. Thus $\det\mathcal{T}$ is isomorphic to an ample line bundle $\mathcal{O}_X(D)$. Therefore $\det\mathcal{T}$ is nef if $\mathcal{T}\cong \mathcal{O}_D(u)$. Now, for a general $\mathcal{T}$, recall that $\mathcal{T}$ has an “irreducible decomposition”, i.e., a filtration every graded piece of which is of the form $\mathcal{O}_D(u)$ for some integer $u$ where $D$ is a closed subvariety defined by an associated point of $\mathcal{T}$. Since the assertion holds for every graded piece, we conclude that $\det\mathcal{T}$ is nef.
Finally if $\det\mathcal{G}\cong \mathcal{O}_X$ it follows from the consideration above that the support of $\mathcal{T}$ has codimension $\geqq 2$ in $X$.
\[rmk6.6\]. If $\dim X=2$ and $\mathcal{G}$ is torsion-free, or if $\dim X=1$, then the assumption that ${\mathop{\rm Pic}\nolimits}X\cong \mathbb{Z}$ is unnecessary in Lemma \[nefquotient\].
If $\mathcal{G}$ is not locally free, then $\det\mathcal{G}\neq \wedge^s\mathcal{G}$ in general where $s=\operatorname{rank}\mathcal{G}$. For example, if $\dim X=1$ and $\mathcal{G}=\mathcal{O}^{\oplus 2}\oplus k(p)$ where $k(p)$ is the residue field at a point $p\in X$, then $\det\mathcal{G}\cong \mathcal{O}(p)$ whereas $\wedge^2\mathcal{G}\cong \mathcal{O}\oplus k(p)^{\oplus 2}$. If $X=\mathbb{P}^2$ and $\mathcal{G}\cong \mathcal{O}\oplus \mathfrak{m}$ where $\mathfrak{m}$ is the maximal ideal of a point $p\in X$, then $\det\mathcal{G}\cong \mathcal{O}$ whereas $\wedge^2\mathcal{G}\cong \mathfrak{m}$.
\[generalO(1)double\] Suppose that $H^0(X,\mathcal{O}_X(1))\neq 0$ and that $\dim \operatorname{Hom}(\mathcal{O}(d), \mathcal{E})=0$. If $\dim \operatorname{Hom}(\mathcal{O}(d-1),\mathcal{E})\geqq 2$, then $d\leqq 2$. Moreover if $d=2$ then $\dim \operatorname{Hom}(\mathcal{O}(1),\mathcal{E})= 2$ and we have an exact sequence $$0\to
\operatorname{Hom}(\mathcal{O}(1),\mathcal{E})
\otimes \mathcal{O}(1)\to \mathcal{E}\to \mathcal{G}\to 0$$ with $\mathcal{G}$ a vector bundle.
Let $\sigma$ be a non-zero element of $\operatorname{Hom}(\mathcal{O}(d-1),\mathcal{E})$, and $s$ the corresponding element of $H^0(\mathcal{E}(1-d))$. Since $\mathcal{E}$ is torsion-free, $\sigma$ is generically injective. Moreover $\sigma$ is injective since $\mathcal{O}(1)$ is torsion-free. Since $H^0(\mathcal{O}(1))\neq 0$, we have an injection $\operatorname{Hom}(\mathcal{O}(i+1),\mathcal{E})\to
\operatorname{Hom}(\mathcal{O}(i),\mathcal{E})$ for any integer $i$. Since $\operatorname{Hom}(\mathcal{O}(d), \mathcal{E})=0$, we have $\operatorname{Hom}(\mathcal{O}(i), \mathcal{E})=0$ for all $i\geqq d$. Since $\mathcal{E}$ is locally free, this implies that the zero locus $(s)_0$ of $s$ has codimension $\geqq 2$. Define a coherent sheaf $\mathcal{F}$ by the following exact sequence $$0\to \mathcal{O}(d-1)\xrightarrow{\sigma} \mathcal{E}\to \mathcal{F}\to 0.$$ Then $\mathcal{F}$ is locally free outside the zero locus $(s)_0$ of $s$. Thus the support of torsion subsheaf of $\mathcal{F}$ is contained in $(s)_0$. Hence $\mathcal{F}$ is torsion-free by Lemma \[quotientTorsionFree\].
We have an exact sequence $$0\to \operatorname{Hom}(\mathcal{O}(d-1),\mathcal{O}(d-1))\to \operatorname{Hom}(\mathcal{O}(d-1),\mathcal{E})\to \operatorname{Hom}(\mathcal{O}(d-1),\mathcal{F}).$$ In particular, we see that the image of the map $\operatorname{Hom}(\mathcal{O}(d-1),\mathcal{E})\to\operatorname{Hom}(\mathcal{O}(d-1), \mathcal{F})$ has dimension $\geqq 1$. Let $\tau$ be a non-zero element in the image. Since $\mathcal{F}$ is torsion-free, $\tau$ is generically injective. Moreover $\tau$ is injective since $\mathcal{O}(d-1)$ is torsion-free. Define a coherent sheaf $\mathcal{G}$ by the following exact sequence $$0\to \mathcal{O}(d-1)\xrightarrow{\tau} \mathcal{F}\to \mathcal{G}\to 0.$$ Let $V$ be the pull back of the one-dimensional subspace $K\tau$ generated by $\tau$ by the map $\operatorname{Hom}(\mathcal{O}(d-1),\mathcal{E})\to \operatorname{Hom}(\mathcal{O}(d-1),\mathcal{F})$. Then $V$ has dimension two. By the snake lemma, we see that there exists the following exact sequence $$0\to V\otimes \mathcal{O}(d-1)\to \mathcal{E}\to \mathcal{G}\to 0.$$ Hence $\det\mathcal{G}\cong \mathcal{O}_X(2-d)$. Since $\det\mathcal{G}$ is nef by Lemma \[nefquotient\], we conclude that $d\leqq 2$.
Suppose moreover that $d=2$. Then $\det\mathcal{G}\cong \mathcal{O}_X$. Lemma \[nefquotient\] implies that the support of the torsion subsheaf of $\mathcal{G}$ has codimension $\geqq 2$ in $X$. Then $\mathcal{G}$ is torsion-free by Lemma \[quotientTorsionFree\]. Next we show that $V=\operatorname{Hom}(\mathcal{O}(1),\mathcal{E})$. Suppose, to the contrary, that $V\subsetneq \operatorname{Hom}(\mathcal{O}(1),\mathcal{E})$. Let $\upsilon$ be an element of $\operatorname{Hom}(\mathcal{O}(1),\mathcal{E})\setminus V$. Then, since $\mathcal{G}$ and $\mathcal{O}(1)$ are torsion-free, $\upsilon$ defines an injective morphism $\mathcal{O}_X(1)\to \mathcal{G}$, which implies that $\mathcal{G}$ has a quotient sheaf $\mathcal{H}$ with $\det\mathcal{H}\cong \mathcal{O}_X(-1)$. On the other hand, since $\mathcal{H}$ is also a quotient sheaf of $\mathcal{E}$, $\det\mathcal{H}$ is nef by Lemma \[nefquotient\]. This is a contradiction. Therefore $V=\operatorname{Hom}(\mathcal{O}(1),\mathcal{E})$. Finally we show that $\mathcal{G}$ is a vector bundle. Let $Z$ be the singular locus of $\mathcal{G}$. Since $\mathcal{G}$ is torsion-free, $Z$ has codimension $\geqq 2$. For any point $x$ of $X$, take a curve $C$ which contains $x$ and is not contained in $Z$. Let $\tilde{C}\to C$ be the normalization. Then $\mathcal{G}\otimes \mathcal{O}_{\tilde{C}}$ is generically free of rank $r-2$. Thus we have an exact sequence $$0\to \operatorname{Hom}(\mathcal{O}(1),\mathcal{E})\otimes \mathcal{O}_{\tilde{C}}(1)\to \mathcal{E}\otimes\mathcal{O}_{\tilde{C}}
\to \mathcal{G}\otimes\mathcal{O}_{\tilde{C}}\to 0.$$ Since $\det \operatorname{Hom}(\mathcal{O}(1),\mathcal{E})\otimes \mathcal{O}_{\tilde{C}}(1)
\cong \det \mathcal{E}\otimes\mathcal{O}_{\tilde{C}}$, we see that $\det(\mathcal{G}\otimes\mathcal{O}_{\tilde{C}})\cong
\mathcal{O}_{\tilde{C}}$. Then $\mathcal{G}\otimes\mathcal{O}_{\tilde{C}}$ is torsion-free by Lemma \[nefquotient\] and Remark \[rmk6.6\]. Thus $\mathcal{G}\otimes\mathcal{O}_{\tilde{C}}$ is locally free, and hence $\mathcal{G}$ is locally free at $x$. Therefore $\mathcal{G}$ is a vector bundle.
\[O(1)double\] Suppose that every nef vector bundle on $X$ with trivial determinant is isomorphic to a direct sum of copies of $\mathcal{O}_X$, that $H^0(X,\mathcal{O}_X(1))\neq 0$, and that $H^1(X,\mathcal{O}(1))=0$. If $d=2$, $\dim \operatorname{Hom}(\mathcal{O}(2), \mathcal{E})=0$, and $\dim \operatorname{Hom}(\mathcal{O}(1),\mathcal{E})\geqq 2$, then $\mathcal{E}\cong \mathcal{O}(1)^{\oplus 2}\oplus \mathcal{O}^{\oplus r-2}$.
By Proposition \[generalO(1)double\], $\dim \operatorname{Hom}(\mathcal{O}(1),\mathcal{E})=2$ and we have the following exact sequence $$0\to
\operatorname{Hom}(\mathcal{O}(1),\mathcal{E})
\otimes \mathcal{O}(1)\to \mathcal{E}\to \mathcal{G}\to 0$$ with $\mathcal{G}$ a vector bundle. We see that $\mathcal{G}$ is nef with $\det\mathcal{G}\cong \mathcal{O}_X$. Therefore $\mathcal{G}\cong \mathcal{O}^{\oplus r-2}$ by assumption. Since $H^1(X,\mathcal{O}(1))=0$, we conclude that $\mathcal{E}\cong \mathcal{O}(1)^{\oplus 2}\oplus \mathcal{O}^{\oplus r-2}$.
The assumption on $(X,\mathcal{O}(1))$ of Corollary \[O(1)double\] is satisfied if $(X,\mathcal{O}(1))$ is either $(\mathbb{P}^n,\mathcal{O}(1))$ or $(\mathbb{Q}^n,\mathcal{O}(1))$.
Set $X=\mathbb{P}^2$, and set $\mathcal{F}=\mathfrak{m}_{x,X}\otimes\mathcal{O}(1)$, where $\mathfrak{m}_{x,X}$ is the ideal sheaf on $X$ of a point $x$ of $X$. Then $\mathcal{F}$ is a torsion-free sheaf, and we see that $\dim H^0(\mathcal{F})=2$ and that $\dim H^0(\mathcal{F}(-1))=0$. Let $H$ be a line passing through $x$, and let $t$ be the corresponding element of $H^0(\mathcal{F})$. Set $U=X\setminus\{x\}$. Then $H$ is the closure of the zero locus $(t|_U)_0$ of the restriction $t|_U$ of $t$ to $U$. However the restriction $t|_H\in H^0(\mathcal{F}|_H)$ of $t$ to $H$ does not vanish. The element $t|_H$ generates the torsion subsheaf of $\mathcal{F}|_H$.
The case where $X$ is a projective space
========================================
Let $X$, $G_0,\dots,G_m$, $G$, $A$, $\mathcal{E}$, $\mathcal{O}_X(1)$, $d_{\min}$, and $e_{l,j}$ be as in § \[Preliminaries\] for $0\leqq j\leqq l\leqq m$. Assume that $\mathcal{E}$ be a nef vector bundle of rank $r$ as in § \[easyconstraints\]. In this section, we assume that $X$, $G_0,\dots,G_m$, and $\mathcal{O}_X(1)$ are as in the case (1) in § \[easyconstraints\]. Let $d$ be as in § \[easyconstraints\].
\[hyperplaneIsom\] The following holds.
1. Let $H$ be a hyperplane of $\mathbb{P}^n$. Then $d_{\min}$ for $\mathcal{E}|_H$ with respect to $(\mathcal{O}_H,\dots,\mathcal{O}_H(n-1))$ is less than or equal to $d_{\min}$ for $\mathcal{E}$ with respect to $(\mathcal{O},\dots,\mathcal{O}(n))$.
2. Suppose that $H^0(\mathcal{E}(k-3))=0$ and $d_{\min}\leqq k$. Then, for any $l$-dimensional linear section $\mathbb{P}^l$ of $\mathbb{P}^n$ with $l\geqq 2$, the restriction map $H^0(\mathcal{E}(k-2))\to H^0(\mathcal{E}|_{\mathbb{P}^l}(k-2))$ is an isomorphism.
\(1) Set $G'=\oplus_{i=0}^{n-1} \mathcal{O}(i)$. For any $d'\geqq d_{\min}$, we have the following distinguished triangle $$\operatorname{RHom}(G'(1),\mathcal{E}(d'))
\to
\operatorname{RHom}(G',\mathcal{E}(d'))
\to
\operatorname{RHom}(G'|_H,\mathcal{E}|_H(d'))
\to.$$ Since $\operatorname{Ext}^q(G'(1),\mathcal{E}(d'))=0$ and $\operatorname{Ext}^q(G',\mathcal{E}(d'))=0$ for $q>0$, we obtain for $q>0$ that $\operatorname{Ext}^q(G'|_H,\mathcal{E}|_H(d'))=0$. Therefore $d_{\min}$ for $\mathcal{E}|_H$ is less than or equal to $d_{\min}$ for $\mathcal{E}$.
\(2) Suppose that $n\geqq 3$, and let $H$ be a hyperplane section of $\mathbb{P}^n$. Since $n\geqq 3$ and $d_{\min}\leqq k$, we see that $H^1(\mathcal{E}(k-3))=0$, Since $H^0(\mathcal{E}(k-3))=0$ by assumption, we obtain $H^0(\mathcal{E}(k-2))\cong H^0(\mathcal{E}|_{H}(k-2))$. Since the statement (1) holds, we now obtain the statement by induction.
\[s0linear\] Suppose that $\operatorname{Hom}(\mathcal{O}(d),\mathcal{E})=0$. If there exists a non-zero element $s$ of $H^0(\mathcal{E}(1-d))$, then the zero locus $(s)_0$ of $s$ is either empty or a (reduced) point. Moreover if $(s)_0$ is a point, then $r\geqq n\geqq 2$.
Set $Z=(s)_0$. Since $H^0(\mathcal{E}(-d))=0$, $Z$ has codimension $c\geqq 2$ in $\mathbb{P}^n$. Suppose that $Z$ is not empty.
We show that the length of the non-empty intersection $Z\cap L$ of $Z$ and a line $L$ is one unless $Z\cap L=L$. Let $L$ be a line such that $Z\cap L$ is a non-empty finite set, and let $l$ be the length of $Z\cap L$; $l$ is a positive integer. Then we have $\mathcal{O}_L(l)$ as a subbundle of $\mathcal{E}|_L(1-d)$. Thus $\mathcal{E}|_L$ has $\mathcal{O}_L(l+d-1)$ as a direct summand. On the other hand, since $\mathcal{E}$ is nef, the degree of a direct summand of $\mathcal{E}$ is at most $d$. Thus $l=1$. This implies that $Z$ in $\mathbb{P}^n$ has no secant lines that is not contained in $Z$, and hence we see that $Z$ is a linear subspace $\mathbb{P}^{n-c}$ as sets. Moreover we see that $Z$ is reduced. Indeed, let $p$ be a point of $Z$ and let $I$ be the ideal sheaf of $Z\cap \mathbb{A}^n$ in a linear affine open subset $\mathbb{A}^n$ containing $p$. Let $(x_1,\dots,x_n)$ be the affine coordinates of $\mathbb{A}^n$. We may assume that $p=(0,\dots,0)$ and that the radical $\sqrt{I}$ of $I$ is $(x_1,\dots,x_c)$. Let $l$ be the minimal integer such that $x_1^l\in I$, and let $L$ be a line in $\mathbb{P}^n$ defined as the closure of the affine line defined by $(x_2,\dots, x_n)$. Then $Z\cap L$ is a non-empty finite subscheme of length at least $l$. Thus we see, by the same argument as above, that $l=1$. Hence $x_1\in I$. By the same way, we see that $x_i\in I$ for all $1\leqq i\leqq c$. Therefore we conclude that $Z$ is reduced and thus $Z$ is a linear subscheme $\mathbb{P}^{n-c}$ of $\mathbb{P}^n$.
Let $\mathcal{I}$ be the ideal sheaf of $Z$ in $\mathbb{P}^n$. Then the conormal bundle $\mathcal{I}/\mathcal{I}^2$ is isomorphic to $\mathcal{O}_{Z}(-1)^{\oplus c}$. On the other hand, we have a surjection $\mathcal{E}^{\vee}(d-1)\to \mathcal{I}$. Suppose that $Z$ contains a line $L_0$. Then we have a surjection $$\mathcal{E}^{\vee}|_{L_0}(d-1)\to \mathcal{O}_{L_0}(-1)^{\oplus c}.$$ In particular, $\mathcal{E}^{\vee}|_{L_0}(d-1)$ has an $\mathcal{O}_{L_0}(-1)$ as a quotient. This implies that $\mathcal{E}^{\vee}|_{L_0}(d-1)$ is isomorphic to $\mathcal{O}_{L_0}(-1)\oplus \mathcal{O}_{L_0}(d-1)^{\oplus r-1}$ since $\mathcal{E}$ is nef. However this means that $\mathcal{E}^{\vee}|_{L_0}(d-1)$ cannot have $\mathcal{O}_{L_0}(-1)^{\oplus c}$ as a quotient since $d\geqq 1$ and $c\geqq 2$. This is a contradiction. Therefore $Z$ is a point.
In the rest of this section, we assume that the base field $K$ is of characteristic zero. Theorem \[d=1onProSpace\] below is a part of [@pswnef Theorem 1], and is also a consequence of [@ellia IV-2.2 Proposition]. We give a different proof of this result based on our framework: general restrictions on $e_{l,j}$’s and $d_{\min}$ obtained so far enable us to prove this theorem immediately.
\[d=1onProSpace\] Suppose that $d=1$, i.e., that $\det\mathcal{E}\cong \mathcal{O}(1)$. Then $\mathcal{E}$ is isomorphic to either $\mathcal{O}(1)\oplus \mathcal{O}^{\oplus r-1}$ or $T_{\mathbb{P}^n}(-1)\oplus \mathcal{O}^{\oplus r-n}$.
We see first that $d_{\min}\leqq 1$ by Corollary \[ProSpaceResol\]. If $r=1$, then $\mathcal{E}\cong \mathcal{O}(1)$. Suppose that $r\geqq 2$. Then $d_{\min}\geqq 0$ by Proposition \[firstConstraint\] (1) (b). Suppose that $\operatorname{Hom}(\mathcal{O}(1),\mathcal{E})\neq 0$. Then $\mathcal{E}\cong \mathcal{O}(1)\oplus \mathcal{O}^{\oplus r-1}$ by Proposition \[dsubExist\]. Suppose that $\operatorname{Hom}(\mathcal{O}(1),\mathcal{E})=0$. If $d_{\min}$ were zero, the standard resolution of $\mathcal{E}$ with respect to $(\mathcal{O},\dots,\mathcal{O}(n))$ implies that $\mathcal{E}\cong \mathcal{O}^{\oplus r}$, which contradicts that $d=1$. Therefore $d_{\min}=1$. Then the standard resolution of $\mathcal{E}(1)$ modified by Proposition \[secondconstraint\] is $$0\to \mathcal{O}\to \mathcal{O}(1)^{\oplus r+1}\to \mathcal{E}(1)\to 0,$$ since $\det\mathcal{E}(1)\cong \mathcal{O}(r+1)$. Then we see $r\geqq n$ and $\mathcal{E}\cong T_{\mathbb{P}^n}(-1)\oplus \mathcal{O}^{\oplus r-n}$, because $\mathcal{E}$ is a vector bundle.
\[oneO(d-1)\] Suppose that $\operatorname{Hom}(\mathcal{O}(d),\mathcal{E})=0$ and that $\operatorname{Hom}(\mathcal{O}(d-1),\mathcal{E})\neq 0$. Then $\mathcal{E}$ satisfies one of the following:
1. $\mathcal{E}\cong \mathcal{O}(d-1)\oplus \mathcal{O}(1)\oplus \mathcal{O}^{\oplus r-2}$.
2. $\mathcal{E}$ fits in an exact sequence $$0\to \mathcal{O}(-1)\to \mathcal{O}(d-1)\oplus \mathcal{O}^{\oplus r}\to \mathcal{E}\to 0.$$
Let $s$ be a non-zero element of $H^0(\mathcal{E}(1-d))$. Let $$0\to \mathcal{O}(d-1)\to \mathcal{E}\to \mathcal{F}\to 0$$ be an exact sequence of coherent sheaves defined by $s$.
If $(s)_0=\emptyset$, then $\mathcal{F}$ is a nef vector bundle with $\det\mathcal{F}\cong \mathcal{O}(1)$. Theorem \[d=1onProSpace\] then implies that $\mathcal{E}$ satisfies (1) or (2) of the theorem.
If $(s)_0\neq \emptyset$, then $(s)_0$ is a point $z$ by Lemma \[s0linear\]. Consider the projection from the point $z$. By eliminating the indeterminacy, we get a morphism $f:Y\to \mathbb{P}^{n-1}$ where $\varphi:Y\to \mathbb{P}^n$ is the blowing-up at the point $z$. Let $E$ be the exceptional divisor of $\varphi$. We see that $f$ is a $\mathbb{P}^{1}$-bundle. Then we get the following exact sequence $$0\to\varphi^*\mathcal{O}(d-1)\otimes\mathcal{O}(E)\to \varphi^*\mathcal{E}\to \mathcal{G}\to 0$$ for a vector bundle $\mathcal{G}$ on $Y$. We see that $\mathcal{G}|_F\cong \mathcal{O}_F^{\oplus r-1}$ for any fiber $F\cong \mathbb{P}^{1}$ of $f$. Thus there exists a vector bundle $\mathcal{H}$ on $\mathbb{P}^{n-1}$ such that $\mathcal{G}\cong f^*\mathcal{H}$. By restricting the exact sequence $$0\to\varphi^*\mathcal{O}(d-1)\otimes\mathcal{O}(E)\to \varphi^*\mathcal{E}\to f^*\mathcal{H}\to 0$$ to the exceptional divisor $E$, we see that $\mathcal{H}$ fits in an exact sequence $$0\to \mathcal{O}(-1)\to \mathcal{O}^{\oplus r}\to \mathcal{H}\to 0.$$ Since $\mathcal{H}$ is a vector bundle on $\mathbb{P}^{n-1}$, we infer that $r\geqq n$ and that $$\mathcal{H}\cong T_{\mathbb{P}^{n-1}}(-1)\oplus \mathcal{O}^{\oplus r-n}.$$ Hence $\varphi^*\mathcal{E}$ has $\varphi^*\mathcal{O}^{\oplus r-n}$ as a direct summand, and thus $\mathcal{E}$ has $\mathcal{O}^{\oplus r-n}$ as a direct summand. Therefore we have $$\mathcal{E}\cong \mathcal{O}^{\oplus r-n}\oplus \mathcal{E}_0$$ for some nef vector bundle $\mathcal{E}_0$ of rank $n$ with $\det \mathcal{E}_0\cong \mathcal{O}(d)$. We may assume that $d\geqq 2$ and that $s$ is a non-zero element of $H^0(\mathcal{E}_0(1-d))$. Then we have an exact sequence $$0\to \mathcal{O}(d-1)\to \mathcal{E}_0\to \mathcal{F}_0\to 0,$$ where $\mathcal{F}_0$ is a torsion-free coherent sheaf with $\det \mathcal{F}_0\cong \mathcal{O}(1)$.
We claim here that $\mathbb{P}(\mathcal{F}_0)$ is nonsingular, although $\mathcal{F}_0$ is not a vector bundle. Let $\pi:\mathbb{P}(\mathcal{E}_0)\to \mathbb{P}^n$ be the projection. It is clear that $\mathbb{P}(\mathcal{F}_0)\cap \pi^{-1}(\mathbb{P}^n\setminus \{z\})$ is nonsingular. We may assume that, locally around $z$, the section $s$ of $\mathcal{E}_0(1-d)$ can be written as $$s=z_1e_1+z_2e_2+\dots+z_ne_n,$$ where $(z_1,\dots,z_n)$ is a local coordinate system around $z$ with $z=(0,\dots,0)$ and $(e_1,\dots,e_n)$ is a locally free basis of $\mathcal{E}_0(1-d)$ around $z$. Regarding $(e_1;\cdots;e_n)$ as a homogeneous coordinate system on $\pi^{-1}(z)\cong \mathbb{P}^{n-1}$, we see that $ds=dz_1e_1+dz_2e_2+\dots+dz_ne_n$ on the cover of the fiber $\pi^{-1}(z)$ and that $ds$ does not vanish on the fiber $\pi^{-1}(z)$. Therefore we conclude that $\mathbb{P}(\mathcal{F}_0)$ is also nonsingular along the fiber $\pi^{-1}(z)$.
Now the Kodaira vanishing theorem implies that $d_{\min}$ for $\mathcal{F}_0$ is less than two by the similar argument as in the proof of Lemma \[KodairaOnProjectiveSpace\] (1).
If $H^0(\mathcal{F}_0(-1))\neq 0$, then the similar argument as in the proof of Proposition \[generalO(1)double\] and Corollary \[O(1)double\] implies that $\mathcal{E}_0\cong \mathcal{O}(d-1)\oplus \mathcal{O}(1)\oplus \mathcal{O}^{\oplus n-2}$. Thus we obtain the case (1) of the theorem.
Suppose that $H^0(\mathcal{F}_0(-1))=0$. We claim here that $d_{\min}$ for $\mathcal{F}_0$ is one. Indeed, if $\operatorname{rank}\mathcal{F}_0=1$, then we see that $\mathcal{F}_0\cong \mathfrak{m}_z(1)$, where $\mathfrak{m}_z$ is the ideal sheaf of $z$, and the claim follows. If $\operatorname{rank}\mathcal{F}_0\geqq 2$, then we first infer that $d_{\min}$ for $\mathcal{F}_0$ is greater than or equal to zero by the similar argument as in the proof of Proposition \[firstConstraint\], since $\mathcal{F}_0$ is a torsion-free quotient of a nef vector bundle $\mathcal{E}_0$. If $d_{\min}$ for $\mathcal{F}_0$ were zero, then the standard resolution of $\mathcal{F}_0$ shows that $\mathcal{F}_0$ would be isomorphic to $\mathcal{O}^{\oplus n-1}$, which contradicts the fact that $\det\mathcal{F}_0\cong \mathcal{O}(1)$. Therefore we conclude that the claim holds. Then the standard resolution of $\mathcal{F}_0(1)$ modified according to Proposition \[secondconstraint\] is $$0\to \mathcal{O}\to \mathcal{O}(1)^{\oplus n}\to \mathcal{F}_0(1)\to 0,$$ which implies that $\mathcal{E}$ is in the case (2) of the theorem.
The following is the main part of [@pswnef Theorem 1] of Peternell-Szurek-Wiśniewski. Based on our framework, we give a different proof of this result. See Remark \[avoidmisunderstanding1\] for the seeming difference of Theorem \[d2OnProSpace\] and [@pswnef Theorem 1].
\[d2OnProSpace\] Suppose that $d=2$, i.e., that $\det\mathcal{E}\cong \mathcal{O}(2)$. Then $\mathcal{E}$ satisfies one of the following:
1. $\mathcal{E}\cong \mathcal{O}(2)\oplus\mathcal{O}^{\oplus r-1}.$
2. $\mathcal{E}\cong \mathcal{O}(1)^{\oplus 2}\oplus\mathcal{O}^{\oplus r-2}.$
3. $\mathcal{E}$ fits in an exact sequence $$0\to\mathcal{O}(-1)\to\mathcal{O}(1)\oplus\mathcal{O}^{\oplus r}\to \mathcal{E}\to 0.$$
4. $\mathcal{E}$ fits in an exact sequence $$0\to\mathcal{O}(-1)^{\oplus 2}\to\mathcal{O}^{\oplus r+2}\to \mathcal{E}\to 0.$$
5. $\mathcal{E}$ fits in an exact sequence $$0\to\mathcal{O}(-2)\to\mathcal{O}^{\oplus r+1}\to \mathcal{E}\to 0.$$
6. $n=3$ and $\mathcal{E}$ fits in an exact sequence $$0\to\mathcal{O}(-2)\to\mathcal{O}(-1)^{\oplus 4}\to \mathcal{O}^{\oplus r+3}\to \mathcal{E}\to 0.$$
Suppose that $\operatorname{Hom}(\mathcal{O}(2),\mathcal{E})\neq 0$. Then we see that $\mathcal{E}\cong \mathcal{O}(2)\oplus\mathcal{O}^{\oplus r-1}$ by Proposition \[dsubExist\]. In the following, we assume that $\operatorname{Hom}(\mathcal{O}(2),\mathcal{E})=0$. If $\dim \operatorname{Hom}(\mathcal{O}(1),\mathcal{E})\neq 0$, then Theorem \[oneO(d-1)\] shows that $\mathcal{E}$ is either in the case (2) or in the case (3) of the theorem. We assume that $\dim \operatorname{Hom}(\mathcal{O}(1),\mathcal{E})=0$ in the following. If $d_{\min}\leqq 0$, then the standard resolution of $\mathcal{E}$ implies that $\mathcal{E}\cong \mathcal{O}^{\oplus r}$, which contradicts the assumption $d=2$. Thus $d_{\min}\geqq 1$. Then we have $n\geqq 2$. We also see $d_{\min}\leqq 2$ by Corollary \[ProSpaceResol\].
Suppose that $d_{\min}=1$. Then the standard resolution of $\mathcal{E}(1)$ modified according to Proposition \[secondconstraint\] together with $\mathcal{O}(-1)$-twist is $$0\to\mathcal{O}(-1)^{\oplus e_{1,0}-e_{0,0}}\to\mathcal{O}^{\oplus e_{0,1}}\to \mathcal{E}\to 0.$$ Since $d=2$, we have $e_{1,0}-e_{0,0}=2$, and thus $e_{0,1}=r+2$. This is the case (4) of the theorem.
In the following, we assume that $d_{\min}=2$. We shall apply to $\mathcal{E}(1)$ the Bondal spectral sequence [@MR3275418 Theorem 1] $$E_2^{p,q}={\mathop{{\mathcal T\!or}}\nolimits}_{-p}^A(\operatorname{Ext}^q(G,\mathcal{E}(1)),G)
\Rightarrow
E^{p+q}=
\begin{cases}
\mathcal{E}(1)& \textrm{if}\quad p+q= 0\\
0& \textrm{if}\quad p+q\neq 0.
\end{cases}$$ So we first claim that, under the assumption that $d_{\min}$ for $\mathcal{E}$ is two, equality $$H^q(\mathcal{E}(1-n))=
\begin{cases}
K& \textrm{if}\quad q= n-1\\
0& \textrm{if}\quad q>0\textrm{ and }q\neq n-1
\end{cases}$$ holds unless $n=3$ and $H^1(\mathcal{E}(-2))\cong K$.
We shall prove this claim by induction on $n$ unless $n=3$ and $H^1(\mathcal{E}(-2))\cong K$. Let $H$ be a hyperplane in $\mathbb{P}^n$. We have an exact sequence $$0\to \mathcal{E}(1-n)\to \mathcal{E}(2-n)\to \mathcal{E}|_H(1-(n-1))\to 0.$$ Since $d_{\min}=2$, we see that $H^q(\mathcal{E}(2-n))=0$ for all $q>0$ and that $H^q(\mathcal{E}(1-n))\neq 0$ for some $q>0$.
Suppose that $n=2$. The Riemann-Roch formula for a vector bundle $\mathcal{E}$ of rank $r$ on $\mathbb{P}^2$ is $$\chi(\mathcal{E}
)=
r+\frac{1}{2}d(d+3)
-c_2(\mathcal{E}).$$ Since $d=2$ by assumption, the above formula implies that $h^0(\mathcal{E})=\chi(\mathcal{E})=r+5-c_2(\mathcal{E})$. Since $0\leqq H(\mathcal{E})^{r+1}=c_1(\mathcal{E})^2-c_2(\mathcal{E})$, we have $c_2(\mathcal{E})\leqq 4$. Hence $h^0(\mathcal{E})
\geqq
r+1$. Since $h^0(\mathcal{E}|_H)=r+2$, $h^0(\mathcal{E}(-1))=0$, and $h^q(\mathcal{E}|_H)=0$ for all $q>0$, we see that $h^q(\mathcal{E}(-1))=0$ for all $q\geqq 2$, that $h^1(\mathcal{E}(-1))=1$, and that $h^0(\mathcal{E})=r+1$. Hence the claim holds for $n=2$.
Suppose that $n\geqq 3$ and that the claim holds for $n-1$. Since we have $H^q(\mathcal{E}(2-n))=0$ for all $q\geqq 0$, we see that $$H^q(\mathcal{E}(1-n))\cong H^{q-1}(\mathcal{E}|_H(1-(n-1))) \textrm{ for all }q\geqq 1.$$ The point here is to show that $d_{\min}$ for $\mathcal{E}|_H$ is two, unless $n=3$ and $H^1(\mathcal{E}(-2))\cong K$. Note first that $d_{\min}$ for $\mathcal{E}|_H$ is less than or equal to two by Lemma \[hyperplaneIsom\] (1) and that we have proved the theorem in case $d_{\min}\leqq 1$. Now suppose that $d_{\min}$ for $\mathcal{E}|_H$ is less than one. Then $\mathcal{E}|_H$ splits, so that $\mathcal{E}$ also splits by [@oss Chap. 1, Theorem 2.3.2]. This contradicts that $d_{\min}=2$. Suppose that $d_{\min}$ for $\mathcal{E}|_H$ is one. Then $\mathcal{E}|_H$ does not split. We have $H^{q-1}(\mathcal{E}|_H(1-(n-1)))=0$ for all $q\geqq 2$. Hence $H^{q}(\mathcal{E}(1-n))=0$ for all $q\geqq 2$. Since $H^{q}(\mathcal{E}(1-n))\neq 0$ for some $q\geqq 1$, we see that $H^1(\mathcal{E}(1-n))\neq 0$. Thus $H^0(\mathcal{E}|_H(1-(n-1)))\neq 0$. Hence $n=3$ since $\mathcal{E}|_H$ does not split. Then $\mathcal{E}|_H$ is in the case (3) of the theorem, and thus $H^0(\mathcal{E}|_H(-1))\cong K$. Hence $H^1(\mathcal{E}(-2))\cong K$. This shows that $d_{\min}$ for $\mathcal{E}|_H$ is two unless $n=3$ and $H^1(\mathcal{E}(-2))\cong K$. Now the claim holds by induction, because $H^0(\mathcal{E}|_H(1-(n-1))=0$ if $d_{\min}$ for $\mathcal{E}|_H$ is two.
We shall show that $\mathcal{E}$ is in the case (5) of the theorem unless $n=3$ and $H^1(\mathcal{E}(-2))\cong K$. First, by the claim above and the assumption that $h^0(\mathcal{E}(-1))=0$, we see that $$\operatorname{Ext}^q(G,\mathcal{E}(1))=
\begin{cases}
\operatorname{Hom}(\mathcal{O},\mathcal{E}(1))\oplus\operatorname{Hom}(\mathcal{O}(1),\mathcal{E}(1))& \textrm{if}\quad q=0\\
\operatorname{Ext}^{n-1}(G_n,\mathcal{E}(1))=K& \textrm{if}\quad q= n-1\\
0& \textrm{if}\quad q>0\textrm{ and }q\neq n-1.\\
\end{cases}$$ Hence we have $E_2^{p,q}=0$ unless $q= n-1$ or $0$. As we have shown in the proof of [@MR3275418 Proposition 1], we also infer that $$E_2^{p,n-1}=\mathcal{H}^p(\operatorname{Ext}^{n-1}(G,\mathcal{E}(1))\operatorname{\otimes^{\mathbb{L}}}_A G)
=
\begin{cases}
\mathcal{O}(-1)& \textrm{if}\quad p= -n\\
0& \textrm{if}\quad p\neq -n.
\end{cases}$$ We finally see that a right $A$-module $\operatorname{Hom}(G,\mathcal{E}(1))$ has a projective resolution of the following form $$0\to P_0^{\oplus f_{1,0}}\to P_0^{\oplus f_{0,0}}\oplus P_1^{\oplus f_{0,1}}\to \operatorname{Hom}(G,\mathcal{E}(1))\to 0,$$ where $P_0$ and $P_1$ are as in § \[Preliminaries\], $f_{0,j}=\dim \operatorname{Hom}(G_j, \mathcal{E}(1))$ ($j=0,1$), and $f_{1,0}=(n+1)f_{0,1}$. Hence we see that $$E_2^{p,0}=
\begin{cases}
\operatorname{Ker}(\mathcal{O}^{\oplus f_{1,0}}\to \mathcal{O}^{\oplus f_{0,0}}\oplus \mathcal{O}(1)^{\oplus f_{0,1}})& \textrm{if}\quad p= -1\\
\operatorname{Coker}(\mathcal{O}^{\oplus f_{1,0}}\to \mathcal{O}^{\oplus f_{0,0}}\oplus \mathcal{O}(1)^{\oplus f_{0,1}})& \textrm{if}\quad p= 0\\
0& \textrm{if}\quad p\neq -1, 0.
\end{cases}$$ Thus we infer that $$E_{\infty}^{p,q}=
\begin{cases}
E_n^{-n,n-1}=\operatorname{Ker}(\mathcal{O}(-1)\to E_2^{0,0})& \textrm{if}\quad (p,q)= (-n,n-1)\\
E_n^{0,0}=\operatorname{Coker}(\mathcal{O}(-1)\to E_2^{0,0})& \textrm{if}\quad (p,q)= (0,0)\\
E_2^{-1,0}& \textrm{if}\quad (p,q)=(-1,0)\\
0&\textrm{otherwise}.
\end{cases}$$ The Bondal spectral sequence then shows that $$E_{\infty}^{p,q}=
\begin{cases}
\mathcal{E}(1)& \textrm{if}\quad (p,q)= (0,0)\\
0&\textrm{otherwise}.
\end{cases}$$ This shows that we have exact sequences $$\begin{gathered}
0\to \mathcal{O}(-1)\to E_2^{0,0}\to \mathcal{E}(1)\to 0,\\
0\to \mathcal{O}^{\oplus f_{1,0}}\to \mathcal{O}^{\oplus f_{0,0}}\oplus \mathcal{O}(1)^{\oplus f_{0,1}}\to E_2^{0,0}\to 0.\end{gathered}$$ Therefore we get an exact sequence $$0\to \mathcal{O}(-1)\oplus \mathcal{O}^{\oplus f_{1,0}}\to \mathcal{O}^{\oplus f_{0,0}}\oplus \mathcal{O}(1)^{\oplus f_{0,1}}
\to \mathcal{E}(1)\to 0.$$ Since $\det\mathcal{E}(1)\cong \mathcal{O}(r+2)$, we have $f_{0,1}=r+1$. We claim here that the composite of the inclusion $\mathcal{O}^{\oplus f_{1,0}}\to \mathcal{O}(-1)\oplus \mathcal{O}^{\oplus f_{1,0}}$, the morphism $\mathcal{O}(-1)\oplus \mathcal{O}^{\oplus f_{1,0}}\to \mathcal{O}^{\oplus f_{0,0}}\oplus \mathcal{O}(1)^{\oplus f_{0,1}}$, and the projection $\mathcal{O}^{\oplus f_{0,0}}\oplus \mathcal{O}(1)^{\oplus f_{0,1}}\to \mathcal{O}^{\oplus f_{0,0}}$ is surjective. Assume, to the contrary, that the composite is not surjective. Then there exists a surjection $\mathcal{O}^{\oplus f_{0,0}}\oplus \mathcal{O}(1)^{\oplus f_{0,1}}
\to \mathcal{O}$ such that the composite $\mathcal{O}^{\oplus f_{1,0}}\to \mathcal{O}(-1)\oplus \mathcal{O}^{\oplus f_{1,0}}\to \mathcal{O}^{\oplus f_{0,0}}\oplus \mathcal{O}(1)^{\oplus f_{0,1}}
\to \mathcal{O}$ is zero. The morphism $\mathcal{O}(-1)\oplus \mathcal{O}^{\oplus f_{1,0}}\to \mathcal{O}^{\oplus f_{0,0}}\oplus \mathcal{O}(1)^{\oplus f_{0,1}}
\to \mathcal{O}$ then induces a morphism $\mathcal{O}(-1)\to \mathcal{O}$, whose quotient is either $\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^n}$ or $\mathcal{O}_H$ for some hyperplane $H$ in $\mathbb{P}^n$. This implies that $\mathcal{E}(1)$ have $\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^n}$ or $\mathcal{O}_H$ as a quotient, which contradicts that $\mathcal{E}$ is nef. Therefore the claim holds, and we can modify the sequence above to $$0\to \mathcal{O}(-1)\oplus \mathcal{O}^{\oplus f_{1,0}-f_{0,0}}\to \mathcal{O}(1)^{\oplus r+1}
\to \mathcal{E}(1)\to 0.$$ By looking at ranks, we infer that $f_{1,0}-f_{0,0}=0$, and we get the case (5) of the theorem.
Finally suppose that $n=3$ and that $H^1(\mathcal{E}(-2))\cong K$. Then as we have seen above, we may assume that $d_{\min}$ for $\mathcal{E}|_H$ is one. We have a distinguished triangle $$\operatorname{RHom}(G,\mathcal{E}(1))\to \operatorname{RHom}(G,\mathcal{E}(2))\to \operatorname{RHom}(\oplus_{i=-1}^{n-1}\mathcal{O}_H(i),\mathcal{E}|_H(1))\to.$$ Hence we see that $\operatorname{Ext}^{q}(G,\mathcal{E}(1))=0$ for all $q\geqq 2$. Since $\operatorname{Ext}^1(G,\mathcal{E}(2))=0$, we have $\operatorname{Ext}^1(G,\mathcal{E}(1))=\operatorname{Ext}^1(G_n,\mathcal{E}(1))\cong K$. Therefore we have $$\operatorname{Ext}^q(G,\mathcal{E}(1))=
\begin{cases}
\operatorname{Hom}(\mathcal{O},\mathcal{E}(1))\oplus\operatorname{Hom}(\mathcal{O}(1),\mathcal{E}(1))& \textrm{if}\quad q=0\\
\operatorname{Ext}^{1}(G_n,\mathcal{E}(1))\cong K& \textrm{if}\quad q= 1\\
0& \textrm{if}\quad q\geqq 2.
\end{cases}$$ Hence we have $E_2^{p,q}=0$ for all $q\geqq 2$. By the same argument as in the proof of [@MR3275418 Proposition 1], we also infer that $$E_2^{p,1}=\mathcal{H}^p(\operatorname{Ext}^1(G,\mathcal{E}(1))\operatorname{\otimes^{\mathbb{L}}}_A G)
=
\begin{cases}
\mathcal{O}(-1)& \textrm{if}\quad p= -3\\
0& \textrm{if}\quad p\neq -3.
\end{cases}$$ Finally a right $A$-module $\operatorname{Hom}(G,\mathcal{E}(1))$ has a projective resolution of the following form $$0\to P_0^{\oplus f_{1,0}}\to P_0^{\oplus f_{0,0}}\oplus P_1^{\oplus f_{0,1}}\to \operatorname{Hom}(G,\mathcal{E}(1))\to 0,$$ where $P_0$ and $P_1$ are as in § \[Preliminaries\], $f_{0,j}=\dim \operatorname{Hom}(G_j, \mathcal{E}(1))$ ($j=0,1$), and $f_{1,0}=4f_{0,1}$. Hence we see that $$E_2^{p,0}=
\begin{cases}
\operatorname{Ker}(\mathcal{O}^{\oplus f_{1,0}}\to \mathcal{O}^{\oplus f_{0,0}}\oplus \mathcal{O}(1)^{\oplus f_{0,1}})& \textrm{if}\quad p= -1\\
\operatorname{Coker}(\mathcal{O}^{\oplus f_{1,0}}\to \mathcal{O}^{\oplus f_{0,0}}\oplus \mathcal{O}(1)^{\oplus f_{0,1}})& \textrm{if}\quad p= 0\\
0& \textrm{if}\quad p\neq -1, 0.
\end{cases}$$ Thus we infer that $$E_{\infty}^{p,q}=
\begin{cases}
E_3^{-3,1}=\operatorname{Ker}(\mathcal{O}(-1)\to E_2^{-1,0})& \textrm{if}\quad (p,q)= (-3,1)\\
E_3^{-1,0}=\operatorname{Coker}(\mathcal{O}(-1)\to E_2^{-1,0})& \textrm{if}\quad (p,q)= (-1,0)\\
E_2^{0,0}& \textrm{if}\quad (p,q)=(0,0)\\
0&\textrm{otherwise}.
\end{cases}$$ The Bondal spectral sequence then shows that $$E_{\infty}^{p,q}=
\begin{cases}
\mathcal{E}(1)& \textrm{if}\quad (p,q)= (0,0)\\
0&\textrm{otherwise}.
\end{cases}$$ Therefore $\mathcal{O}(-1)\cong E_2^{-1,0}$ and we get an exact sequence $$0\to \mathcal{O}(-1)\to \mathcal{O}^{\oplus f_{1,0}}\to \mathcal{O}^{\oplus f_{0,0}}\oplus \mathcal{O}(1)^{\oplus f_{0,1}}
\to \mathcal{E}(1)\to 0.$$ Since $\det\mathcal{E}(1)\cong \mathcal{O}(r+2)$, we see that $f_{0,1}=r+3$. By looking at ranks, we also see that $f_{1,0}-f_{0,0}=4$. Since $\mathcal{E}(1)$ does not admit $\mathcal{O}$ as a quotient, the sequence above can be replaced by the following one $$0\to \mathcal{O}(-1)\to \mathcal{O}^{\oplus 4}\to \mathcal{O}(1)^{\oplus r+3}
\to \mathcal{E}(1)\to 0.$$ This is the case (6) of the theorem.
\[avoidmisunderstanding1\] Note that $\Omega_{\mathbb{P}^3}(2)$ has the following locally free resolution $$0\to \mathcal{O}(-2)\to \mathcal{O}(-1)^{\oplus 4}\to \mathcal{O}^{\oplus 6}\to \Omega_{\mathbb{P}^3}(2)\to 0.$$ Thus if $\mathcal{E}$ on $\mathbb{P}^3$ fits in the resolution $0\to \mathcal{O}\to \Omega_{\mathbb{P}^3}(2)\oplus \mathcal{O}^{\oplus r-2}\to \mathcal{E}\to 0$ given in [@pswnef Theorem 1 (2)], then $\mathcal{E}$ also fits in a resolution $$0\to \mathcal{O}(-2)
\to \mathcal{O}(-1)^{\oplus 4}\oplus \mathcal{O}\to \mathcal{O}^{\oplus r+4}\to \mathcal{E}\to 0.$$ This implies that $\mathcal{E}$ fits in the resolution in the case (6) of Theorem \[d2OnProSpace\]. Similarly, if $\mathcal{E}$ fits in the resolution given in [@pswnef Theorem 1 (3)], then it also fits in the resolution in the case (3) of Theorem \[d2OnProSpace\]. See also [@MR3275418 §4, Proposition 1 and Remark 2].
Suppose that $\mathcal{E}$ is in the case (6) of Theorem \[d2OnProSpace\]. Since $H^1(\mathcal{E}(-2))\cong K$, $\mathcal{E}$ cannot split. If $r\geqq 3$, then $h^0(\mathcal{E}^{\vee})\geqq r-3$ since $h^0(\Omega_{\mathbb{P}^3}(2))=6$. Hence $\mathcal{E}\cong \mathcal{O}^{\oplus r-3}\oplus \mathcal{E}_0$ for some vector bundle $\mathcal{E}_0$ of rank three. Note that $\mathcal{E}_0$ is also in the case (6) of Theorem \[d2OnProSpace\]. Let $\mathcal{E}_0$ be a nef vector bundle in the case (6) of Theorem \[d2OnProSpace\] and suppose that $\operatorname{rank}\mathcal{E}_0=3$. Then $c_3(\mathcal{E}_0)=0$, and we see that $\mathcal{E}_0$ fits in an exact sequence $$0\to \mathcal{O}\to \mathcal{E}_0\to \mathcal{F}\to 0,$$ where $\mathcal{F}$ is a nef vector bundle in the case (6) of Theorem \[d2OnProSpace\]. Let $Z$ be the zero locus of a general element $s$ in $H^0(\mathcal{F})$. Then $Z$ is a smooth curve of degree two, and we have an exact sequence $$0\to \mathcal{O}(-2)\to \mathcal{F}(-2)\to \mathcal{I}_Z\to 0,$$ where $\mathcal{I}_Z$ is the ideal sheaf of $Z$ in $\mathbb{P}^3$. Since $H^1(\mathcal{F}(-2))\cong K$, we have $H^1(\mathcal{I}_Z)\cong K$. Hence $Z$ cannot be connected. Therefore $Z$ is a disjoint union of two lines. Since $\operatorname{Ext}^1(\mathcal{I}_Z,\mathcal{O}(-2))\cong K$, we conclude that $\mathcal{F}
\cong \mathcal{N}(1)$, where $\mathcal{N}$ is a null correlation bundle. Since $\operatorname{Ext}^1(\mathcal{F},\mathcal{O})\cong K$, we see that $\mathcal{E}_0$ is either $\Omega_{\mathbb{P}^3}(2)$ or $\mathcal{O}\oplus \mathcal{N}(1)$.
The case where $X$ is a smooth quadric surface
==============================================
Let $X$, $G_0,\dots,G_m$, $G$, $A$, $\mathcal{E}$, $\mathcal{O}_X(1)$, $d_{\min}$, and $e_{l,j}$ be as in § \[Preliminaries\] for $0\leqq j\leqq l\leqq m$. Assume that $\mathcal{E}$ be a nef vector bundle of rank $r$ as in § \[easyconstraints\]. In this section, we assume that the base field $K$ is of characteristic zero and that $X$, $G_0,\dots,G_m$, and $\mathcal{O}_X(1)$ are as in the case (3) in § \[easyconstraints\] with $n=2$. In particular, $X$ is a smooth quadric surface $\mathbb{Q}^2$, $m=3$, and $G_0,G_1,G_2,G_3$ are respectively $\mathcal{O},\mathcal{O}(1,0),\mathcal{O}(0,1), \mathcal{O}(1,1)$. Let $(a,b)$ be as in § \[easyconstraints\].
In Theorem \[Chern1surface\] below, we classify the above $\mathcal{E}$’s with $\det\mathcal{E}\cong \mathcal{O}(1,1)$. Note that such $\mathcal{E}$’s were already classified in [@swCompo §3] and [@pswnef §2 Lemmas 1 and 2] (see also Remark \[errorstatement\]). We give a different proof of this result in our framework.
\[Chern1surface\] Suppose that $(a,b)=(1,1)$, i.e., that $\det\mathcal{E}\cong \mathcal{O}(1,1)=\mathcal{O}(1)$. Then $\mathcal{E}$ satisfies one of the following:
1. $\mathcal{E}\cong\mathcal{O}^{\oplus r-1}\oplus\mathcal{O}(1)$.
2. $\mathcal{E}\cong \mathcal{O}^{\oplus r-2}\oplus\mathcal{O}(1,0)\oplus\mathcal{O}(0,1)$.
3. $\mathcal{E}$ fits in an exact sequence $$0\to\mathcal{O}(-1)\to\mathcal{O}^{\oplus r+1}\to \mathcal{E}\to 0.$$
If $r=1$, then $\mathcal{E}\cong \mathcal{O}(1)$ and $d_{\min}=-1$. We assume that $r\geqq 2$ in the following. Then $0\leqq d_{\min}\leqq 1$ by Proposition \[firstConstraint\] (2) (e) and Corollary \[quadricResol\].
Since $\mathcal{E}$ is nef and $\det\mathcal{E}\cong\mathcal{O}(1)$, we see that $\mathcal{E}|_L\cong \mathcal{O}_L^{\oplus r-1}\oplus \mathcal{O}_L(1)$ for any line $L$ in $\mathbb{Q}^2$.
If $\operatorname{Hom}(\mathcal{O}(1),\mathcal{E})\neq 0$, then it follows from Proposition \[dsubExist\] that $\mathcal{E}\cong \mathcal{O}^{\oplus r-1}\oplus\mathcal{O}(1)$. In the following we assume that $\operatorname{Hom}(\mathcal{O}(1),\mathcal{E})= 0$.
Suppose that $\operatorname{Hom}(\mathcal{O}(0,1),\mathcal{E})\neq 0$. Let $\varphi$ be a non-zero element of $\operatorname{Hom}(\mathcal{O}(0,1), \mathcal{E})$. Since $\operatorname{Hom}(\mathcal{O}(1),\mathcal{E})= 0$, $\varphi|_L\neq 0$ for any line $L$ of type $(1,0)$ in $\mathbb{Q}^2$. Hence $\varphi|_L$ makes $\mathcal{O}(0,1)|_L$ a subbundle of $\mathcal{E}|_L$. Therefore $\mathcal{O}(0,1)$ is a subbundle of $\mathcal{E}$ via $\varphi$. Set $\mathcal{F}=\mathcal{E}/\mathcal{O}(0,1)$. Then $\mathcal{F}$ is a nef vector bundle of rank $r-1$ with $\det\mathcal{F}\cong\mathcal{O}(1,0)$, and thus $\mathcal{F}$ is isomorphic to $\mathcal{O}^{\oplus r-2}\oplus \mathcal{O}(1,0)$. Therefore $\mathcal{E}\cong \mathcal{O}^{\oplus r-2}\oplus \mathcal{O}(1,0)\oplus\mathcal{O}(0,1)$. Similarly if $\operatorname{Hom}(\mathcal{O}(1,0),\mathcal{E})\neq 0$ then $\mathcal{E}\cong \mathcal{O}^{\oplus r-2}\oplus \mathcal{O}(1,0)\oplus\mathcal{O}(0,1)$.
In the following, we assume that $\operatorname{Hom}(\mathcal{O}(0,1),\mathcal{E})= 0$ and that $\operatorname{Hom}(\mathcal{O}(1,0),\mathcal{E})= 0$. Under these assumptions, we have $d_{\min}=1$. Indeed, if $d_{\min}$ were zero, then $e_{0,3}=0$ by the assumption that $\operatorname{Hom}(\mathcal{O}(1),\mathcal{E})=0$, and similarly $e_{0,2}=0$ and $e_{0,1}=0$ by the assumptions above. The standard resolution then forces $\mathcal{E}$ to be isomorphic to $\mathcal{O}^{\oplus r}$, which contradicts the assumption that $(a,b)=(1,1)$. Therefore $d_{\min}=1$.
We shall apply to $\mathcal{E}$ the Bondal spectral sequence [@MR3275418 Theorem 1] $$E_2^{p,q}={\mathop{{\mathcal T\!or}}\nolimits}_{-p}^A(\operatorname{Ext}^q(G,\mathcal{E}),G)
\Rightarrow
E^{p+q}=
\begin{cases}
\mathcal{E}& \textrm{if}\quad p+q= 0\\
0& \textrm{if}\quad p+q\neq 0.
\end{cases}$$ First note that $\operatorname{Hom}(G,\mathcal{E})\cong \operatorname{Hom}(\mathcal{O},\mathcal{E})\cong H^0(\mathcal{E})$. The Riemann-Roch formula for a vector bundle $\mathcal{E}$ of rank $r$ on $\mathbb{Q}^2$ is $$\chi(\mathcal{E})=c_1'(\mathcal{E})c_1''(\mathcal{E})-c_2(\mathcal{E})+c_1'(\mathcal{E})+c_1''(\mathcal{E})+r,$$ where $c_1(\mathcal{E})=(c_1'(\mathcal{E}), c_1''(\mathcal{E}))$. Since $(c_1'(\mathcal{E}), c_1''(\mathcal{E}))=(1,1)$ by assumption, the above formula implies that $h^0(\mathcal{E})=\chi(\mathcal{E})=r+3-c_2(\mathcal{E})$. Note here that $0\leqq H(\mathcal{E})^{r+1}=c_1(\mathcal{E})^2-c_2(\mathcal{E})$. Hence we have $c_2(\mathcal{E})\leqq 2$, and consequently $h^0(\mathcal{E})\geqq r+1$. We have an exact sequence $$0\to \mathcal{E}(-1,0)\to \mathcal{E}\to \mathcal{E}|_L\to 0,$$ where $L$ is a line on $\mathbb{Q}^2$ of type $(1,0)$. Thus we have an exact sequence $$0\to H^0(\mathcal{E})\to H^0(\mathcal{E}|_L)\to H^1(\mathcal{E}(-1,0))\to 0$$ by our assumption. Since $h^0(\mathcal{E}|_L)=r+1$, we infer that $h^0(\mathcal{E})=r+1$ and that $h^1(\mathcal{E}(-1,0))=0$. Moreover we see that $\operatorname{RHom}(\mathcal{O}(1,0),\mathcal{E})\cong 0$, and similarly we have $\operatorname{RHom}(\mathcal{O}(0,1),\mathcal{E})\cong 0$. We have an exact sequence $$0\to \mathcal{E}(-1,-1)\to \mathcal{E}(0,-1)\to \mathcal{O}_L\oplus \mathcal{O}_L(-1)^{\oplus r-1}\to 0,$$ and we see that $\operatorname{RHom}(\mathcal{O}(1,1),\mathcal{E})\cong K[-1]$.
Summing up, we have $$\operatorname{Ext}^q(G,\mathcal{E})=
\begin{cases}
\operatorname{Hom}(\mathcal{O},\mathcal{E})& \textrm{if}\quad q=0\\
\operatorname{Ext}^{1}(G_3,\mathcal{E})\cong K& \textrm{if}\quad q= 1\\
0& \textrm{if}\quad q= 2.
\end{cases}$$ Hence we have $E_2^{p,q}=0$ for all $q\geqq 2$. Let $S_k$ $(0\leqq k\leqq 3)$ be the right $A$-module corresponding to the representation such that $\operatorname{Gr}^jS_k=0$ for any $j\neq k$, $\operatorname{Gr}^kS_k=K$, and all the arrows are zero. Then the right $A$-module $\operatorname{Ext}^1(G,\mathcal{E})$ is isomorphic to $S_3$. Note here that $$S_3\operatorname{\otimes^{\mathbb{L}}}_AG\cong \mathcal{O}(-1)[2],$$ since $\operatorname{RHom}(G,\mathcal{O}(-1)[2])\cong \operatorname{Ext}^2(G_3,\mathcal{O}(-1))\cong S_3$. Hence we infer that $$\operatorname{Ext}^1(G,\mathcal{E})\operatorname{\otimes^{\mathbb{L}}}_A G\cong \mathcal{O}(-1)[2].$$ Therefore we see that $$E_2^{p,1}=\mathcal{H}^p(\operatorname{Ext}^1(G,\mathcal{E})\operatorname{\otimes^{\mathbb{L}}}_A G)
=
\begin{cases}
\mathcal{O}(-1)& \textrm{if}\quad p= -2\\
0& \textrm{if}\quad p\neq -2.
\end{cases}$$ Finally a right $A$-module $\operatorname{Hom}(G,\mathcal{E})$ is isomorphic to a projective module $P_0^{\oplus f_{0,0}}$ where $P_0$ is as in § \[Preliminaries\] and $f_{0,0}=\dim \operatorname{Hom}(G_0, \mathcal{E}(1))$. Hence we see that $$E_2^{p,0}=
\begin{cases}
\mathcal{O}^{\oplus f_{0,0}}& \textrm{if}\quad p= 0\\
0& \textrm{if}\quad p\neq 0.
\end{cases}$$ Thus we infer that $$E_{\infty}^{p,q}=
\begin{cases}
E_3^{-2,1}=\operatorname{Ker}(\mathcal{O}(-1)\to \mathcal{O}^{\oplus f_{0,0}})& \textrm{if}\quad (p,q)= (-2,1)\\
E_3^{0,0}=\operatorname{Coker}(\mathcal{O}(-1)\to \mathcal{O}^{\oplus f_{0,0}})& \textrm{if}\quad (p,q)= (0,0)\\
0&\textrm{otherwise}.
\end{cases}$$ The Bondal spectral sequence then shows that $$E_{\infty}^{p,q}=
\begin{cases}
\mathcal{E}& \textrm{if}\quad (p,q)= (0,0)\\
0&\textrm{otherwise}.
\end{cases}$$ Therefore we get an exact sequence $$0\to \mathcal{O}(-1)\to \mathcal{O}^{\oplus f_{0,0}}
\to \mathcal{E}\to 0.$$ By looking at ranks, we see that $f_{0,0}=r+1$, and we get the case (3) of the theorem.
\[errorstatement\] In the statement of [@pswnef §2 Lemma 1] in case $(a,b)=(1,1)$, the case (3), where $d_{\min}=1$, in Theorem \[Chern1surface\] is missing, and, instead, “the restriction of a spinor bundles from $\mathbb{Q}^3$" is added. Since the restriction of a spinor bundles from $\mathbb{Q}^3$ is $\mathcal{O}(1,0)\oplus \mathcal{O}(0,1)$, where $d_{\min}=0$, this is an error. However one can understand that the case (3) in Theorem \[Chern1surface\] would be what they actually wanted to say by the terms “the restriction of a spinor bundles from $\mathbb{Q}^3$” if one read through [@swCompo §3].
Results on spinor bundles {#Spinor bundles}
=========================
In this section, we assume that the base field $K$ is of characteristic zero, and recall some results on spinor bundles. Although we do not follow his convention for “spinor bundles”, Ottaviani’s results in [@ot] is very useful in this paper. We rephrase his results under Kapranov’s convention for later use. Throughout this section, let $\mathcal{S}$ denote the (spanned) spinor bundle on an odd-dimensional smooth hyperquadric $\mathbb{Q}^{n}$, and $\mathcal{S}^+$ and $\mathcal{S}^-$ the (spanned) spinor bundles on an even-dimensional smooth hyperquadric $\mathbb{Q}^{n}$. Besides that the sequences $(G_0,\dots, G_m)$ in the cases (2) and (3) of § \[easyconstraints\] are strong and exceptional, all the results we need about spinor bundles are summarized in the following theorem.
\[Usefulottaviani\] Set $s=\lfloor \frac{n-1}{2}\rfloor$ and let $H$ be a smooth hyperplane section of $\mathbb{Q}^n$. Then we have the following.
1. $\mathcal{O}(1,0)$ and $\mathcal{O}(0,1)$ are (spanned) spinor bundles on $\mathbb{Q}^2$.
2. $\mathcal{S}^+|_{H}\cong \mathcal{S}$ and $\mathcal{S}^-|_{H}\cong \mathcal{S}$.
3. $H^0(\mathbb{Q}^n, \mathcal{S}^+)\cong H^0(H,\mathcal{S})$ and $H^0(\mathbb{Q}^n, \mathcal{S}^-)\cong H^0(H,\mathcal{S})$.
4. $\mathcal{S}|_{H}\cong \mathcal{S}^+\oplus\mathcal{S}^-$.
5. $H^0(\mathbb{Q}^n, \mathcal{S})\cong H^0(H,\mathcal{S}^+\oplus\mathcal{S}^-)$.
6. $\operatorname{rank}\mathcal{S}=2^s$, $\dim H^0(\mathcal{S})=2^{s+1}$, and $\det\mathcal{S}=\mathcal{O}(2^{s-1})$.
7. $\operatorname{rank}\mathcal{S}^{+}=2^s=\operatorname{rank}\mathcal{S}^{-}$ and $\dim H^0(\mathcal{S}^{+})=2^{s+1}=\dim H^0(\mathcal{S}^{-})$.
8. $\det\mathcal{S}^{+}=\mathcal{O}(2^{s-1})=\det\mathcal{S}^{-}$ if $s\geqq 1$.
9. $\mathcal{S}$, $\mathcal{S}^+$, and $\mathcal{S}^-$ are all $\mu$-stable bundles (with respect to any ample line bundle).
10. $\mathcal{S}^{\vee}\cong \mathcal{S}(-1)$.
11. $(\mathcal{S}^+)^{\vee}\cong \mathcal{S}^+(-1)$ and $(\mathcal{S}^-)^{\vee}\cong \mathcal{S}^-(-1)$ and if $s$ is odd.
12. $(\mathcal{S}^+)^{\vee}\cong \mathcal{S}^-(-1)$ and $(\mathcal{S}^-)^{\vee}\cong \mathcal{S}^+(-1)$ and if $s$ is even.
Note that our spinor bundles are the duals of those of Ottaviani’s. The statement of (0) is, e.g., in [@ot Example 1.5], and already used in this paper. (1) and (3) follow from [@ot Theorem 1.4]. (2) and (4) follow from (1), (3), and [@ot Theorem 2.3] (or Bott’s vanishing theorem). (5) and (6) follow from (0), (1), (2), (3), and (4). (7) follows from (0), (1), and (3). A theorem of Ramanan [@MR0190947] and Umemura [@MR0473243 Theorem (2.4)] shows (8). Finally (9), (10), and (11) follow from [@ot Theorem 2.8], since $n=2(s+1)$ if $n$ is even.
\[S(1)toS\] We have the following isomorphisms.
1. If $n$ is odd, then $\operatorname{RHom}(\mathcal{S}(1),\mathcal{S})\cong K[-1]$.
2. If $n$ is even, then $$\begin{split}
\operatorname{RHom}(\mathcal{S}^+(1),\mathcal{S}^+)\cong 0,\qquad &\operatorname{RHom}(\mathcal{S}^-(1),\mathcal{S}^-)\cong 0,\\
\operatorname{RHom}(\mathcal{S}^+(1),\mathcal{S}^-)\cong K[-1],\qquad &\operatorname{RHom}(\mathcal{S}^-(1),\mathcal{S}^+)\cong K[-1].
\end{split}$$ In particular, the following isomorphisms hold. $$\operatorname{RHom}((\mathcal{S}^+\oplus\mathcal{S}^-)(1),\mathcal{S}^+)\cong K[-1],\textrm{\quad }
\operatorname{RHom}((\mathcal{S}^+\oplus\mathcal{S}^-)(1),\mathcal{S}^-)\cong K[-1]$$
\(1) Suppose that $n$ is odd. Then $\mathcal{S}|_{H}\cong \mathcal{S}^+\oplus \mathcal{S}^-$ for a smooth hyperplane section $H$ of $\mathbb{Q}^n$ by Theorem \[Usefulottaviani\]. We have the following distinguished triangle $$\operatorname{RHom}(\mathcal{S}(1),\mathcal{S})\to
\operatorname{RHom}(\mathcal{S},\mathcal{S})\to
\operatorname{RHom}(\mathcal{S}^+\oplus \mathcal{S}^-, \mathcal{S}^+\oplus \mathcal{S}^-)
\to.$$ Since $\operatorname{RHom}(\mathcal{S},\mathcal{S})\cong K$ and $\operatorname{RHom}(\mathcal{S}^+\oplus \mathcal{S}^-, \mathcal{S}^+\oplus \mathcal{S}^-)\cong K\oplus K$, we get a distinguished triangle $$\operatorname{RHom}(\mathcal{S}(1),\mathcal{S})\to
K\to
K\oplus K
\to.$$ Since $\mathcal{S}$ is $\mu$-stable by Theorem \[Usefulottaviani\], we have $\operatorname{Hom}(\mathcal{S}(1),\mathcal{S})=0$. Therefore we conclude that $\operatorname{RHom}(\mathcal{S}(1),\mathcal{S})\cong K[-1]$.
\(2) Suppose that $n$ is even. Then $\mathcal{S}^+|_{H}\cong \mathcal{S}$ and $\mathcal{S}^-|_{H}\cong \mathcal{S}$ for a smooth hyperplane section $H$ of $\mathbb{Q}^n$ by Theorem \[Usefulottaviani\]. We have the following distinguished triangle $$\operatorname{RHom}(\mathcal{S}^+(1),\mathcal{S}^+)\to
\operatorname{RHom}(\mathcal{S}^+,\mathcal{S}^+)\to
\operatorname{RHom}(\mathcal{S}, \mathcal{S})
\to.$$ Since $K\cong \operatorname{RHom}(\mathcal{S}^+,\mathcal{S}^+)\to \operatorname{RHom}(\mathcal{S}, \mathcal{S})\cong K$ is isomorphic, we see that $$\operatorname{RHom}(\mathcal{S}^+(1),\mathcal{S}^+)\cong 0.$$ By the similar argument, we get $\operatorname{RHom}(\mathcal{S}^-(1),\mathcal{S}^-)\cong 0$. We have the following distinguished triangle $$\operatorname{RHom}(\mathcal{S}^+(1),\mathcal{S}^-)\to
\operatorname{RHom}(\mathcal{S}^+,\mathcal{S}^-)\to
\operatorname{RHom}(\mathcal{S}, \mathcal{S})
\to.$$ Since $\operatorname{RHom}(\mathcal{S}^+,\mathcal{S}^-)\cong 0$, we see that $\operatorname{RHom}(\mathcal{S}^+(1),\mathcal{S}^-)\cong K[-1]$. By the similar argument, we get $\operatorname{RHom}(\mathcal{S}^-(1),\mathcal{S}^+)\cong K[-1]$ since $\operatorname{RHom}(\mathcal{S}^-,\mathcal{S}^+)\cong 0$.
The case where $X$ is a smooth hyperquadric
===========================================
Let $X$, $G_0,\dots,G_m$, $\mathcal{E}$, $\mathcal{O}_X(1)$, $d_{\min}$, $e_{l,j}$, and $\mathcal{P}_l
$ be as in § \[Preliminaries\] for $0\leqq j\leqq l\leqq m$. Assume that $\mathcal{E}$ be a nef vector bundle of rank $r$ as in § \[easyconstraints\]. In this section, we assume that the base field $K$ is of characteristic zero, and that $X$, $G_0,\dots,G_m$, and $\mathcal{O}_X(1)$ are as in the cases (2) and (3) in § \[easyconstraints\] with $n\geqq 3$. In particular, $X$ is a smooth hyperquadric $\mathbb{Q}^n$ of dimension $n\geqq 3$. Let $d$ be as in § \[easyconstraints\].
\[withoutO(1)\] Suppose that $d=1$ and that $\operatorname{Hom}(\mathcal{O}(1),\mathcal{E})=0$. Let $\mathbb{Q}^2$ be a linear section of dimension two of $\mathbb{Q}^n$. Then $\operatorname{Hom}(\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{Q}^2},\mathcal{E}|_{\mathbb{Q}^2})\cong \operatorname{Hom}(\mathcal{O},\mathcal{E})$.
We have a distinguished triangle $$\operatorname{RHom}(\mathcal{O}(k),\mathcal{E}(1))
\to
\operatorname{RHom}(\mathcal{O}(k-1),\mathcal{E}(1))
\to
\operatorname{RHom}(\mathcal{O}_H(k-1),\mathcal{E}|_H(1))
\to$$ for a hyperplane section $H$ of $\mathbb{Q}^n$ and a integer $k$. Since $\operatorname{Hom}(\mathcal{O}(2),\mathcal{E}(1))=0$ by assumption and $d_{\min}\leqq 1$ by Corollary \[quadricResol3\], we have $\operatorname{RHom}(\mathcal{O}(k),\mathcal{E}(1))=0$ for $2\leqq k\leqq n-1$. Therefore $\operatorname{RHom}(\mathcal{O}(k-1),\mathcal{E}(1))
\cong
\operatorname{RHom}(\mathcal{O}_H(k-1),\mathcal{E}|_H(1))$ for $1\leqq k-1\leqq n-2$. Hence we see that $\operatorname{Hom}(\mathcal{O}(1),\mathcal{E}(1))
\cong
\operatorname{Hom}(\mathcal{O}_H(1),\mathcal{E}|_H(1))$ and that if $n\geqq 4$ then $\operatorname{Hom}(\mathcal{O}_H(2),\mathcal{E}|_H(1))$ is zero. Now we obtain the desired formulas by induction.
\[dmin0spinor\] Suppose that $d=1$ and that $\operatorname{Hom}(\mathcal{O}(1),\mathcal{E})=0$. If $\operatorname{Hom}(\mathcal{S},\mathcal{E})\neq 0$ for a spinor bundle $\mathcal{S}$, then $n=3$ or $4$, and $\mathcal{E}\cong \mathcal{S}\oplus \mathcal{O}^{\oplus r-2}$.
Let $\varphi:\mathcal{S}\to\mathcal{E}$ be a non-zero element of $\operatorname{Hom}(\mathcal{S},\mathcal{E})$.
Suppose that $\varphi|_{H}=0$ for some smooth hyperplane section $H$ of $\mathbb{Q}^n$. Then we have $\operatorname{Hom}(\mathcal{S},\mathcal{E}(-1))\neq 0$; let $\psi$ be a non-zero element of $\operatorname{Hom}(\mathcal{S},\mathcal{E}(-1))$. We have $\psi|_{L}\neq 0$ for a general $2$-dimensional linear section $L$ of $\mathbb{Q}^n$. Note here that $\mathcal{S}|_L\cong (\mathcal{O}(1,0)\oplus \mathcal{O}(0,1))^{\oplus s}$, where $s=\lfloor \frac{n-1}{2}\rfloor$, by Theorem \[Usefulottaviani\]. Hence $H^0((\mathcal{S}|_L)^{\vee}\otimes \mathcal{E}|_L(-1))=0$ by Theorem \[Chern1surface\]. This contradicts the fact that $\psi|_L\neq 0$. Hence $\varphi|_{H}\neq 0$ for any smooth hyperplane section $H$ of $\mathbb{Q}^n$. Since the restriction of a spinor bundle to a smooth hyperplane section is again a spinor bundle or a direct sum of spinor bundles by Theorem \[Usefulottaviani\], the argument above implies, by induction, that $\varphi|_{\mathbb{Q}^2}\neq 0$ for any $2$-dimensional smooth linear section $\mathbb{Q}^2$ of $\mathbb{Q}^n$.
Denote by $\mathcal{Q}$ the image ${\mathop{\rm Im}\nolimits}(\varphi)$ of $\varphi$ and by $\mathcal{F}$ the cokernel $\operatorname{Coker}(\varphi)$ of $\varphi$. Let $D$ be the singular locus of $\mathcal{F}$, i.e., let its complement $X\setminus D$ be the set of points at which $\mathcal{F}$ is locally free. Let $E$ be the singular locus of $\mathcal{Q}$. Then $E$ is contained in $D$. Since $\mathcal{Q}$ is torsion-free, $E$ has codimension $\geqq 2$. Note that for each point $x$ in $\mathbb{Q}^n$ we can take a smooth $2$-dimensional linear section $L$ of $\mathbb{Q}^n$ such that $L$ contains $x$, that $L$ is not contained in $D$, and that $L\cap E$ has codimension $\geqq 2$ in $L$. We have a surjection $\mathcal{Q}|_L\to {\mathop{\rm Im}\nolimits}(\varphi|_L)$. On the other hand, $\mathcal{Q}|_{L\setminus D}\to \mathcal{E}|_{L\setminus D}$ is injective. Since $\mathcal{Q}|_{L\setminus E}$ is torsion free, we see that $\mathcal{Q}|_{L\setminus E}\to \mathcal{E}|_{L\setminus E}$ is injective. Hence $(\mathcal{Q}|_L)|_{L\setminus E}\to {\mathop{\rm Im}\nolimits}(\varphi|_L)|_{L\setminus E}$ is injective, and therefore $(\mathcal{Q}|_L)|_{L\setminus E}\to {\mathop{\rm Im}\nolimits}(\varphi|_L)|_{L\setminus E}$ is an isomorphism.
By Theorem \[Usefulottaviani\], we see that $\det\mathcal{S}\cong \mathcal{O}(2^{s-1})$, that $\operatorname{rank}\mathcal{S}=2^s$, and that $\mathcal{S}$ is $\mu$-stable with respect to $\mathcal{O}(1)$. We have $
1=\deg\mathcal{S}/\operatorname{rank}\mathcal{S}
\leqq
\deg\mathcal{Q}/\operatorname{rank}\mathcal{Q}$, since the degree $\deg \mathcal{S}$ of $\mathcal{S}$ with respect to $\mathcal{O}(1)$ is $(\det\mathcal{S}).\mathcal{O}(1)^{n-1}=2^s$.
The existence of $\varphi|_{L}\neq 0$ implies that $\mathcal{E}|_{L}$ is isomorphic to either $\mathcal{O}(1)\oplus \mathcal{O}^{\oplus r-1}$ or $\mathcal{O}(1,0)\oplus \mathcal{O}(0,1)\oplus \mathcal{O}^{\oplus r-2}$ by Theorem \[Chern1surface\].
Suppose that $\mathcal{E}|_{L}$ is isomorphic $\mathcal{O}(1)\oplus \mathcal{O}^{\oplus r-1}$. Since $\mathcal{S}|_{L}\cong (\mathcal{O}(1,0)\oplus \mathcal{O}(0,1))^{\oplus s}$, ${\mathop{\rm Im}\nolimits}(\varphi|_{L})$ is a subsheaf of a subsheaf $\mathcal{O}_L(1)$ of $\mathcal{E}|_L$. Since ${\mathop{\rm Im}\nolimits}(\varphi|_L)|_{L\setminus E}$ is isomorphic to $\mathcal{Q}|_{L\setminus E}$, we see that $\operatorname{rank}\mathcal{Q}=1$. Let $\mathcal{Q}^{\vee\vee}$ be the reflexive hull of $\mathcal{Q}$. Then $\mathcal{Q}^{\vee\vee}$ is a line bundle and it is a subsheaf of $\mathcal{E}$. Since $
1\leqq \deg\mathcal{Q}=\deg\mathcal{Q}^{\vee\vee}
$, this implies that $\mathcal{E}$ contains $\mathcal{O}(1)$ as a subsheaf. This contradicts the assumption that $\operatorname{Hom}(\mathcal{O}(1),\mathcal{E})=0$. Therefore this case does not occur.
Suppose that $\mathcal{E}|_{L}
\cong
\mathcal{O}(1,0)\oplus \mathcal{O}(0,1)\oplus \mathcal{O}^{\oplus r-2}$. Since $\mathcal{S}|_{L}\cong (\mathcal{O}(1,0)\oplus \mathcal{O}(0,1))^{\oplus s}$, ${\mathop{\rm Im}\nolimits}(\varphi|_{L})$ is either one of $\mathcal{O}(1,0)$, $\mathcal{O}(0,1)$, or $\mathcal{O}(1,0)\oplus \mathcal{O}(0,1)$. Since $\det {\mathop{\rm Im}\nolimits}(\varphi|_L)|_{L\setminus E}$ is isomorphic to $\det\mathcal{Q}|_{L\setminus E}$, we see that a morphism $(\det\mathcal{Q})|_{L}\to \det {\mathop{\rm Im}\nolimits}(\varphi|_L)$ of line bundles is surjective in codimension two. Therefore $(\det\mathcal{Q})|_{L}\to \det {\mathop{\rm Im}\nolimits}(\varphi|_L)$ is an isomorphism. Since $\det {\mathop{\rm Im}\nolimits}(\varphi|_L)$ is thus the restriction of the line bundle $\det\mathcal{Q}$ on $\mathbb{Q}^n$, we conclude that ${\mathop{\rm Im}\nolimits}(\varphi|_{L})\cong \mathcal{O}(1,0)\oplus \mathcal{O}(0,1)$. Thus $\mathcal{Q}$ has rank two and $\det\mathcal{Q}\cong\mathcal{O}(1)$. Hence $
\deg\mathcal{Q}/\operatorname{rank}\mathcal{Q}=1
$. Therefore we have $
\deg\mathcal{S}/\operatorname{rank}\mathcal{S}= \deg\mathcal{Q}/\operatorname{rank}\mathcal{Q}
$, which implies that $\varphi$ is an isomorphism onto its image $\mathcal{Q}$. Thus $s=1$, i.e., $n=3$ or $4$. Since $\mathcal{Q}$ is now a vector bundle, so is $\mathcal{Q}|_{L}$. Since two vector bundles $\mathcal{Q}|_L$ and ${\mathop{\rm Im}\nolimits}(\varphi|_L)$ are isomorphic in codimension one, we see that $\mathcal{Q}|_L$ and ${\mathop{\rm Im}\nolimits}(\varphi|_L)$ are isomorphic. Since ${\mathop{\rm Im}\nolimits}(\varphi|_L)$ is a subbundle of $\mathcal{E}|_L$, we conclude that $\mathcal{S}$ is a subbundle of $\mathcal{E}$. Thus $\mathcal{F}$ is a nef vector bundle with $\det\mathcal{F}\cong 0$. Hence $\mathcal{F}\cong \mathcal{O}^{\oplus r-2}$ and we obtain $\mathcal{E}\cong \mathcal{S}\oplus \mathcal{O}^{\oplus r-2}$.
Based on our framework, we give a different proof of the following theorem of Peternell-Szurek-Wiśniewski [@pswnef Theorem 2].
\[d=1OnHyperquadric\] Suppose that $d=1$, i.e., that $\det\mathcal{E}\cong \mathcal{O}(1)$. Then $\mathcal{E}$ satisfies one of the following:
1. $\mathcal{E}\cong \mathcal{O}(1)\oplus \mathcal{O}^{\oplus r-1}$.
2. $\mathcal{E}\cong \mathcal{S}\oplus \mathcal{O}^{\oplus r-2}$, where $\mathcal{S}$ is a spinor bundle and $n=3$ or $4$.
3. $\mathcal{E}$ fits in an exact sequence $$0\to \mathcal{O}(-1)\to \mathcal{O}^{\oplus r+1}\to \mathcal{E}\to 0.$$
If $d_{\min}<0$, then $r=1$ by Proposition \[firstConstraint\] (2) (d). If $r=1$, then $\mathcal{E}\cong \mathcal{O}(1)$ and $d_{\min}=-1$. In the following, we assume that $d_{\min}\geqq 0$ and that $r\geqq 2$. We know that $d_{\min}\leqq 1$ by Corollary \[quadricResol3\].
If $\operatorname{Hom}(\mathcal{O}(1),\mathcal{E})\neq 0$, then $\mathcal{E}\cong \mathcal{O}(1)\oplus \mathcal{O}^{\oplus r-1}$ by Proposition \[dsubExist\]. In the following, we assume that $\operatorname{Hom}(\mathcal{O}(1),\mathcal{E})= 0$.
If $\operatorname{Hom}(\mathcal{S},\mathcal{E})\neq 0$, then $n=3$ or $4$, and $\mathcal{E}\cong \mathcal{S}\oplus \mathcal{O}^{\oplus r-2}$ by Proposition \[dmin0spinor\]. In the following, we assume that $\operatorname{Hom}(\mathcal{S},\mathcal{E})= 0$.
Under the assumptions that $d_{\min}\geqq 0$, that $\operatorname{Hom}(\mathcal{O}(1),\mathcal{E})= 0$, and that $\operatorname{Hom}(\mathcal{S},\mathcal{E})= 0$, we have $d_{\min}=1$. Indeed, if $d_{\min}$ were zero, then $\mathcal{E}$ would be isomorphic to $\mathcal{O}^{\oplus r}$ by the standard resolution, which contradicts that $d=1$.
In the following, we assume $d_{\min}=1$. Since $\operatorname{Hom}(\mathcal{O}(2),\mathcal{E}(1))= 0$, we see that $e_{0,3}=0$ if $n$ is odd, and that $e_{0,4}=0$ if $n$ is even. Set $e=\dim H^0(\mathcal{E})$. Then $e_{0,2}=e$ if $n$ is odd, and $e_{0,3}=e$ if $n$ is even. By Lemma \[withoutO(1)\], we have $e=\dim H^0(\mathcal{E}|_{\mathbb{Q}^2})$ for any $2$-dimensional smooth linear section $\mathbb{Q}^2$ of $\mathbb{Q}^n$. Moreover we have $\dim H^0(\mathcal{E}|_{\mathbb{Q}^2})\geqq r+1$ by Theorem \[Chern1surface\]. Therefore we see that $$e\geqq r+1.$$
Note that $\mathcal{E}$ is globally generated since $\mathcal{E}|_{\mathbb{Q}^2}$ is globally generated by Theorem \[Chern1surface\] and $H^0(\mathcal{E})\cong H^0(\mathcal{E}|_{\mathbb{Q}^2})$ by Lemma \[withoutO(1)\] for any $\mathbb{Q}^2$. Hence we obtain the desired exact sequence $$0\to\mathcal{O}(-1)\to \mathcal{O}^{\oplus r+1}\to \mathcal{E}\to 0$$ if $e=r+1$.
In the following, we shall show that $e=r+1$. Set $s=\lfloor \frac{n-1}{2}\rfloor$. We divide the case according to whether $n$ is odd or not.
Suppose that $n$ is odd. Then $n=2s+1$. The standard resolution of $\mathcal{E}(1)$ modified according to Proposition \[secondconstraint\] is $$0
\to \mathcal{O}^{\oplus e_{2,0}}
\to \mathcal{S}^{\oplus e_{1,1}}\oplus\mathcal{O}^{\oplus (e_{1,0}-e_{0,0})}
\to \mathcal{O}(1)^{\oplus e}\oplus\mathcal{S}^{\oplus e_{0,1}}
\to \mathcal{E}(1)\to 0.$$ Since $\operatorname{Hom}(\mathcal{S},\mathcal{O}(1))\cong H^0(\mathcal{S})$ and $\dim H^0(\mathcal{S})=2^{s+1}$ by Theorem \[Usefulottaviani\], we see $e_{1,1}=2^{s+1}e$ and $e_{2,0}=2^{2s+2}e=2^{n+1}e$. Since $\det\mathcal{S}\cong \mathcal{O}(2^{s-1})$ by Theorem \[Usefulottaviani\], by looking at $\det(\mathcal{E}(1))$, we see that $$1+r=e+2^{s-1}(e_{0,1}-e_{1,1})=2^{s-1}e_{0,1}+(1-2^{n-1})e.$$ Hence $$e_{0,1}=2^{1-s}\{1+r+(2^{n-1}-1)e\}.$$ Since $\operatorname{rank}\mathcal{S}=2^s$ by Theorem \[Usefulottaviani\], by looking at $\operatorname{rank}\mathcal{E}(1)$, we see that $$\begin{split}
r&=e+2\{1+r+(2^{n-1}-1)e\}-2^ne
-e_{1,0}
+e_{0,0}+2^{n+1}e\\
&=
2r+2+(2^{n+1}-1)e-e_{1,0}+e_{0,0}.
\end{split}$$ Hence $e_{1,0}-e_{0,0}=r+2+(2^{n+1}-1)e$. Summing up, we have a locally free resolution $$0
\to
\mathcal{P}_2
\to
\mathcal{P}^{0}_1
\to
\mathcal{P}^{0}_0
\to \mathcal{E}(1)\to 0,$$ where $$\begin{split}
\mathcal{P}_2&=\mathcal{O}^{\oplus 2^{n+1}e},\\
\mathcal{P}^{0}_1&=\mathcal{O}^{\oplus r+2+(2^{n+1}-1)e}\oplus\mathcal{S}^{\oplus 2^{s+1}e},\\
\mathcal{P}^{0}_0&=\mathcal{S}^{\oplus 2^{1-s}\{1+r+(2^{n-1}-1)e\}}\oplus\mathcal{O}(1)^{\oplus e}.
\end{split}$$ We split the above long exact sequence into the following two short exact sequences $$0
\to \mathcal{P}_2
\to \mathcal{P}^{0}_1
\to \mathcal{G}
\to 0,\quad
0
\to \mathcal{G}
\to \mathcal{P}^{0}_0
\to \mathcal{E}(1)\to 0.$$ Note that $\operatorname{RHom}(\mathcal{S}(1),\mathcal{O}(1))\cong 0$. It follows from Theorem \[Usefulottaviani\] that $$\operatorname{RHom}(\mathcal{S}(1),\mathcal{O})\cong \operatorname{RHom}(\mathcal{O}(1),\mathcal{S}^{\vee})
\cong \operatorname{RHom}(\mathcal{O}(2),\mathcal{S}^{\vee}(1))\cong \operatorname{RHom}(\mathcal{O}(2),\mathcal{S})\cong 0.$$ Hence $\operatorname{RHom}(\mathcal{S}(1),\mathcal{P}_2)\cong 0$, and thus $$\operatorname{RHom}(\mathcal{S}(1),\mathcal{P}^0_1)\cong \operatorname{RHom}(\mathcal{S}(1),\mathcal{G}).$$ Since $\operatorname{RHom}(\mathcal{S}(1),\mathcal{S})\cong K[-1]$ by Lemma \[S(1)toS\], we see that $$\begin{split}
\operatorname{RHom}(\mathcal{S}(1),\mathcal{P}^{0}_0)
&
\cong K[-1]^{\oplus 2^{1-s}\{1+r+(2^{n-1}-1)e\}},
\\
\operatorname{RHom}(\mathcal{S}(1),\mathcal{P}^{0}_1)
&
\cong K[-1]^{\oplus 2^{s+1}e}.
\end{split}$$ Therefore we obtain a distinguished triangle $$K[-1]^{\oplus 2^{s+1}e}
\to
K[-1]^{\oplus 2^{1-s}\{1+r+(2^{n-1}-1)e\}}
\to
\operatorname{RHom}(\mathcal{S}(1),\mathcal{E}(1))
\to.$$ Since we assume now that $\operatorname{Hom}(\mathcal{S},\mathcal{E})=0$, we get an exact sequence $$0
\to
K^{\oplus 2^{s+1}e}
\to
K^{\oplus 2^{1-s}\{1+r+(2^{n-1}-1)e\}}
\to
\operatorname{Ext}^1(\mathcal{S}(1),\mathcal{E}(1))
\to
0.$$ In particular we have $2^{s+1}e\leqq 2^{1-s}\{1+r+(2^{n-1}-1)e\}$, i.e., $e\leqq r+1$. Hence $$e=r+1.$$
Suppose that $n$ is even. Then $n=2s+2$. The standard resolution of $\mathcal{E}(1)$ modified according to Proposition \[secondconstraint\] is $$0
\to \mathcal{P}_2
\to \mathcal{P}^{0}_1
\to \mathcal{P}^{0}_0
\to \mathcal{E}(1)
\to 0,$$ where $$\begin{split}
\mathcal{P}_2&=\mathcal{O}^{\oplus e_{2,0}},\\
\mathcal{P}^{0}_1&=\mathcal{O}^{\oplus e_{1,0}-e_{0,0}}\oplus (\mathcal{S}^+)^{\oplus e_{1,1}}\oplus(\mathcal{S}^-)^{\oplus e_{1,2}},\\
\mathcal{P}^{0}_0&=(\mathcal{S}^+)^{\oplus e_{0,1}}\oplus(\mathcal{S}^-)^{\oplus e_{0,2}}\oplus \mathcal{O}(1)^{\oplus e}.\\
\end{split}$$ By Theorem \[Usefulottaviani\], we see that $\operatorname{Hom}(\mathcal{S^+},\mathcal{O}(1))\cong H^0(\mathcal{S^-})$ and $\operatorname{Hom}(\mathcal{S^-},\mathcal{O}(1))\cong H^0(\mathcal{S^+})$ if $s$ is even, and that $\operatorname{Hom}(\mathcal{S^+},\mathcal{O}(1))\cong H^0(\mathcal{S^+})$ and $\operatorname{Hom}(\mathcal{S^-},\mathcal{O}(1))\cong H^0(\mathcal{S^-})$ if $s$ is odd. In the following, we denote $\mathcal{S}^+$ and $\mathcal{S}^-$ simply by $\mathcal{S}$ if no confusion occurs. Since $\dim H^0(\mathcal{S})=2^{s+1}$ by Theorem \[Usefulottaviani\], we see that $e_{1,1}=2^{s+1}e$, that $e_{1,2}=2^{s+1}e$, and that $e_{2,0}=2^{2s+3}e=2^{n+1}e$. Since $\det\mathcal{S}\cong \mathcal{O}(2^{s-1})$ by Theorem \[Usefulottaviani\], by looking at $\det(\mathcal{E}(1))$, we see that $$1+r=e+2^{s-1}(e_{0,1}+e_{0,2}-e_{1,1}-e_{1,2})=2^{s-1}(e_{0,1}+e_{0,2})+(1-2^{n-1})e.$$ Hence $$e_{0,1}+e_{0,2}=2^{1-s}\{1+r+(2^{n-1}-1)e\}.$$ Since $\operatorname{rank}\mathcal{S}=2^s$ by Theorem \[Usefulottaviani\], by looking at $\operatorname{rank}\mathcal{E}(1)$, we see that $$\begin{split}
r&=e+2\{1+r+(2^{n-1}-1)e\}-2^{n}e
-e_{1,0}
+e_{0,0}+2^{n+1}e\\
&=
2r+2+(2^{n+1}-1)e-e_{1,0}+e_{0,0}.
\end{split}$$ Hence $e_{1,0}-e_{0,0}=r+2+(2^{n+1}-1)e$. Summing up, we have a locally free resolution $$0
\to
\mathcal{P}_2
\to
\mathcal{P}^{0}_1
\to
\mathcal{P}^{0}_0
\to \mathcal{E}(1)\to 0,$$ where $$\begin{split}
\mathcal{P}_2&=\mathcal{O}^{\oplus 2^{n+1}e},\\
\mathcal{P}^{0}_1&=\mathcal{O}^{\oplus r+2+(2^{n+1}-1)e}\oplus(\mathcal{S}^+)^{\oplus 2^{s+1}e}\oplus(\mathcal{S}^-)^{\oplus 2^{s+1}e},\\
\mathcal{P}^{0}_0&=(\mathcal{S}^+)^{\oplus e_{0,1}}\oplus(\mathcal{S}^-)^{\oplus e_{0,2}}\oplus \mathcal{O}(1)^{\oplus e},
\textrm{ \quad }e_{0,1}+e_{0,2}=2^{1-s}\{1+r+(2^{n-1}-1)e\}.
\end{split}$$ We split the above long exact sequence into the following two short exact sequences $$0
\to \mathcal{P}_2
\to \mathcal{P}^{0}_1
\to \mathcal{G}
\to 0, \quad
0
\to \mathcal{G}
\to \mathcal{P}^{0}_0
\to \mathcal{E}(1)\to 0.$$ Note that $\operatorname{RHom}(\mathcal{S}(1),\mathcal{O}(1))\cong 0$ and that $\operatorname{RHom}(\mathcal{S}(1),\mathcal{O})\cong 0$ as in the odd-dimensional case. Hence $\operatorname{RHom}(\mathcal{S}(1),\mathcal{P}_2)\cong 0$, and thus $\operatorname{RHom}(\mathcal{S}(1),\mathcal{P}^0_1)\cong \operatorname{RHom}(\mathcal{S}(1),\mathcal{G})$. Since both $\operatorname{RHom}((\mathcal{S}^+\oplus \mathcal{S}^-)(1),\mathcal{S}^+)$ and $\operatorname{RHom}((\mathcal{S}^+\oplus \mathcal{S}^-)(1),\mathcal{S}^-)$ are isomorphic to $K[-1]$ by Lemma \[S(1)toS\], we see that $$\begin{split}
\operatorname{RHom}((\mathcal{S}^+\oplus \mathcal{S}^-)(1),\mathcal{P}^{0}_0)
&
\cong K[-1]^{\oplus 2^{1-s}\{1+r+(2^{n-1}-1)e\}},
\\
\operatorname{RHom}((\mathcal{S}^+\oplus \mathcal{S}^-)(1),\mathcal{P}^{0}_1)
&
\cong K[-1]^{\oplus 2^{s+2}e}.
\end{split}$$ Therefore we obtain a distinguished triangle $$K[-1]^{\oplus 2^{s+2}e}
\to
K[-1]^{\oplus 2^{1-s}\{1+r+(2^{n-1}-1)e\}}
\to
\operatorname{RHom}((\mathcal{S}^+\oplus \mathcal{S}^-)(1),\mathcal{E}(1))
\to.$$ Since we assume now that $\operatorname{Hom}(\mathcal{S}^+\oplus \mathcal{S}^-,\mathcal{E})=0$, we get an exact sequence $$0
\to
K^{\oplus 2^{s+2}e}
\to
K^{\oplus 2^{1-s}\{1+r+(2^{n-1}-1)e\}}
\to
\operatorname{Ext}^1((\mathcal{S}^+\oplus \mathcal{S}^-)(1),\mathcal{E}(1))
\to
0.$$ In particular we have $2^{s+2}e\leqq 2^{1-s}\{1+r+(2^{n-1}-1)e\}$, i.e., $e\leqq r+1$. Hence $$e=r+1.$$
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
\#1! \#2! \#3! \#4;
\#1, \#2, \#3, \#4.
=10000
\#1
-1.2cm 8.5in 6.5in 0.0cm
[Comparison of Spectral Index Determinations]{}
ABSTRACT
1.0cm
Introduction
============
In this paper I compare several different methods for determining the spectral index $n$ of the power spectrum of primordial density perturbations. All of the determinations that use [*COBE*]{} data are statistically compatible with the $n \approx 1$ predicted by the inflationary scenario. Because the largest scales appear as large angular scale features on the finite solid angle of sky that is available for viewing, the statistical uncertainties in the determination of $n$ cannot be conquered by the usual expedient of getting more data. A careful consideration of the statistical methods used to analyze the large-angular scale [*COBE*]{} data is needed.
Biased Statistics
=================
As an example of the pitfalls of statistical analysis, consider the maximum likelihood method applied to determining the standard deviation of a Gaussian from a set of $N$ independent samples drawn from the distribution. The likelihood function is L(,) = ()\^[-N]{} \_[i=1]{}\^N which is maximized at $\mu = N^{-1} \sum_i x_i$ and $\sigma^2 = N^{-1} \sum_i (x_i-\mu)^2$. While the sample mean is an unbiased estimate of the population mean, the variance estimate is biased by a factor of $(N-1)/N$, illustrating the fact that maximum likelihood estimators are only [*asymptotically*]{} unbiased. Even with an unbiased estimate of $\sigma$, the logarithm of an unbiased estimate of $\sigma$ is not an unbiased estimate of the logarithm of $\sigma$ because noise rectification by the second derivative of the logarithm leads to a bias of $-1/4N$. Since the value of $N$ when estimating the power in the $\ell$’th multipole is $N \approx (2\ell+1)\Omega_{obs}/4\pi$, and since $\Omega_{obs}$ is $< 8\pi/3$ due to galactic contamination, these biases will be most signifcant for the low $\ell$’s measured by [*COBE*]{}. Thus any method for determining $n$ using [*COBE*]{} data should be tested using simulated data to calibrate these biases.
One non-recommended technique for determining $n$ is to treat the integrated likelihood $f(n) = \int L(Q,n) dQ$ as a probability density for $n$. The usual justification for this is the Bayesian rule that the probability density for $Q$ and $n$ after the experiment, $p_a(Q,n)$, is given by p\_a(Q,n) p\_p(Q,n) L(Q,n) \[bad\] where $p_p$ is the prior density. In this case it is true that p\_a(n) = p\_a(Q,n) dQ p\_p(Q,n) L(Q,n) dQ. Assuming a “uniform” prior to represent prior ignorance then gives the form in Equation \[bad\]. But a uniform prior in $Q^2$ is not the same as a uniform prior in $\ln Q$, and they give different values of $n$. Different ways of expressing our prior ignorance should not affect the answer. A more dramatic example is shown in Figure \[Q2vn5390\] and Figure \[s8vn5390\], each showing the likelihood contours for the Hauser-Peebles cross power spectrum of the $53 \times 90$ 2 year maps. In one case they are plotted versus $Q^2 = T_2^2$, while in the other case they are plotted versus the relative mass fluctuations in 8$h^{-1}$ Mpc spheres, $\sigma_8 \propto T_{\approx \late}$. The Jacobian of the transformation between $(Q^2,n)$ and $(T_{\late},n)$ depends on $n$, so a uniform prior in $(Q^2,n)$ becomes an $n$-dependent prior in $(T_{\late},n)$. Hence the $\int L(Q,n) dQ^2$ peaks at a much lower $n$ than the $\int L(Q[\sigma_8,n],n) d\sigma_8$.
There is a better way, which is to use the maximum of $L(Q,n)$ for a fixed $n$ to generate the marginal likelihood over $n$. This approach to “uninteresting” parameters is recommended by Avni (1976). The maximum value does not require a Jacobian when transforming to different amplitude variables, so prior ignorance of $Q^2$ gives the same answer as prior ignorance of $T_{\late}$.
The process of determining an amplitude parameter (usually ) and the spectral index $n$ from the [*COBE*]{} maps is an extreme example of data [*reduction*]{}. In this process one takes the $360 \times 10^6$ DMR data samples per year and produces maps with $6 \times 6144$ values, and from these maps one calculates a smaller number of statistics. In the final step, and $n$ are estimated using the values of the statistics, leaving only 2 values derived from nearly $10^9$ input values. This description is general enough to describe both the Górski (1994) method using linear statistics and the methods involving quadratic statistics: the correlation function used by Bennett (1994) and the Hauser-Peebles power spectrum used by Wright (1994). The final result of any of these analysis methods is the values $Q_{obs}$ and $n_{obs}$ determined from the real data, as well as an estimate $\hat{\sigma_1}$ for the noise standard deviation in one observation.
Monte Carlo Simulations
=======================
In order to test these methods for biases, it is necessary to simulate both the [*cosmic variance*]{}, which gives a random map with random spherical harmonic amplitudes chosen from a Gaussian distribution with a variance determined from the chosen $Q_{in}$ and $n_{in}$, and the [*experimental variance*]{}, which gives the 360 million noise values needed per year. While programs to simulate the DMR time-ordered data do exist, none of the groups mentioned above have worked at this level of detail. Instead, they have used simulations that start with the maps.
The effect of noise on the map production process can be simulated using T = \_1 A\^[-0.5]{} U where $\sigma_1$ is the noise in one observation, $U$ is an uncorrelated vector of unit variance zero mean Gaussian random variables, and $A$ is the matrix with diagonal elements $A_{ii}$ equal to the number of times the $i^{th}$ pixel was observed, and off-diagonal elements $-A_{ij}$ equal to the number of times the $i^{th}$ pixel was referenced to the $j^{th}$ pixel. Even though $A$ is singular, Wright (1994) give a rapidly convergent series technique for generating noise maps. Thus each noise map depends on 6144 independent Gaussian unit variance random variables and the parameter $\sigma_1$.
The signal map that is added to the noise maps to give the “observed” maps is generated using independent Gaussian random amplitudes. Bond & Efstathiou (1987) show that the expected variance of the coefficients $a_{\ell m}$ in a spherical harmonic expansion of the CMBR temperature given a power law power spectrum $P(k) \propto k^n$ is $<a_{\ell m}^2> \; \propto
\Gamma[\ell+(n-1)/2] / \Gamma[\ell+(5-n)/2]$ for $\ell < 40$, with the constant of proportionality chosen so that $5<a_{2m}^2>/4\pi = Q^2$. The simulations done by Wright (1994) included $\ell$’s up to 39, so the signal map depends on 1600 Gaussian independent unit variance random variables and the two parameters $Q$ and $n$, which I shall call $Q_{in}$ and $n_{in}$ below to distinguish them from the fitted values.
The resulting Monte Carlo map depends on a set of random variables $\{Z\}$ (1600 + 6144 elements for a one map analysis, or 1600 + 12288 for a cross-analysis needing two maps) with a known distribution, and the three parameters $Q_{in}$, $n_{in}$ and $\sigma_1$. $\sigma_1$ can be determined with great precision using the time-ordered data. Hence one needs to run many Monte Carlo simulations with different values of $Q_{in}$ and $n_{in}$ and compare the fitted values $Q_{out}$ and $n_{out}$ to the fitted values for the real data, $Q_{obs}$ and $n_{obs}$. For any given realization of $\{Z\}$, the fitted values $Q_{out}$ and $n_{out}$ are a continuous function of the input parameters $Q_{in}$ and $n_{in}$, and one can choose values $Q_{in} = Q_{match}$ and $n_{in} = n_{match}$ such that $Q_{out} = Q_{obs}$ and $n_{out} = n_{obs}$. By choosing many different realizations of $\{Z\}$, one creates many different $Q_{match}$,$n_{match}$ pairs. The density of the points in the $Q_{match}$,$n_{match}$ plane defines a probability density function for the true parameters $Q_{true}$,$n_{true}$ that does not depend on any prior knowledge but does depend on the experimental result in a reasonable way. The random element in the process comes from $\{Z\}$, whose properties are known. Figure \[match\] shows this cloud of points for the 2 year $53 \times 90$ cross-power spectrum. The bias ($\Delta n = 0.1$) in the Gaussian approximation maximum likelihood method applied to the quadratic power spectrum statistics is only $0.25\sigma$, so the shift between the points and the contours is hard to see.
The method using linear statistics (Górksi 1994) has the advantage that the Gaussian expression for the likelihood is exact. A further advantage of this method is that any non-singular linear transformation of the basis functions will give the same answer, since the covariance matrix will change to cancel the change in the values of the statistics. While this means that the original motivation for generating a set of basis functions orthonormal in the cut sky is lost, one still has the advantage that basis functions orthogonal to any number of low order multipoles are easy to find. Górski (1994) find (for $3 \leq \ell \leq 30$) that the maximum of $L(Q,n)$ occurs at $n = 1.02$ for the combined 2 year 53 GHz plus 90 GHz map, and Monte Carlo simulations show that the bias in this application of the maximum likelihood method is small.
Note that the $3 \leq \ell \leq 30$ cross power spectrum fits in Wright (1994) still include the off-diagonal effect of the quadrupole on higher $\ell$’s, while those in Górski (1994) are completely independent of the quadrupole. The modified Hauser-Peebles method in Wright (1994) uses basis function defined using G\_[m]{} = F\_[m]{} - [[F\_[00]{}<F\_[00]{}F\_[m]{}>]{}]{} - \_[m\^=-1]{}\^1 [[F\_[1m\^]{}<F\_[1m\^]{}F\_[m]{}>]{} ]{}. \[MD\] where the $F_{\ell m}$ are real spherical harmonics and the inner product $<fg>$ is defined over the cut sphere. These functions $G_{\ell m}$ are orthogonal to monopole and dipole terms on the cut sphere. Call this the MD method since the basis functions are orthogonal to the monopole and dipole. Let the MDQ method use basis functions orthogonal to the monopole, dipole and quadrupole: G\^\_[m]{} = F\_[m]{} - [[F\_[00]{}<F\_[00]{}F\_[m]{}>]{}]{} - \_[m\^=-1]{}\^1 [[F\_[1m\^]{}<F\_[1m\^]{}F\_[m]{}>]{} ]{} - \_[m\^=-2]{}\^2 [[F\_[2m\^]{}<F\_[2m\^]{}F\_[m]{}>]{} ]{}. \[MDQ\] Changing from the MD method to the MDQ method causes the mean power in $T_4^2$ for $n = 1$ Monte Carlo skies to go down by 31% while $T_4^2$ for the real sky goes up by 16%. This leads to a higher $\ell = 4$ point and a lower value of $n$ ($n = 1.02$ instead of 1.22 for the $53 \times 90$ cross-power spectrum). Figure \[t4\] shows the hexadecapole power in $\mu$K$^2$ measured two different ways: on the $x$ axis the MD method; and on the $y$ axis $T_4^2$ measured using the MDQ method. The real sky is shown as the open circle, while the dots are $n = 1$, $\Amp = 17\;\mu$K Monte Carlo simulations. One sees that the real sky is moderately far out on the upper edge of the cloud of simulations, and this produces the $0.5 \sigma$ shift in $n$ when changing basis functions. One also sees that the distribution of $T_4^2$ is quite skewed, which explains the bias in the method that maximizes the Gaussian approximation to the likelihood.
Figure \[nvn\] shows the maximum likelihood values of $n$ from fits to $3 \leq \ell \leq 30$ for 1800 Monte Carlo runs with $n_{in} = 1$ and $Q_{in} = 17\;\mu$K. The $x$-axis shows $n$ computed using the MD method, while the $y$-axis shows the results of the MDQ method. The real sky is shown as the open circle, and the mean of the 1800 Monte Carlo spectra is shown as the closed circle. This figure shows that the two methods are generally consistent, with the real sky moderately far out in the scatter. (The linear features for $n = 1.00$, 1.25 and 1.50 are caused by the interpolation among input values spaced by $\Delta n_{in} = 0.25$ during the maximum likelihood fits.) The overall performance of the MD method is better, with a bias that is 20% smaller and a standard deviation that is 8% smaller than those given by the MDQ method. Of course fits that include the quadrupole ($2 \leq \ell \leq 30$) do even better, since they use more information. So the final result of the power spectral analysis is ambiguous: $n \approx 1.4$ if the quadrupole is included in the fit, $n \approx 1.25$ excluding the quadrupole using the MD method, or $n \approx 1.0$ when rigorously excluding the quadrupole using the MDQ method. The existence of all these options raises the specter of “optional stopping”, a time-honored method of introducing systematic errors into measurements. But fortunately this whole range of values is within the statistical uncertainty.
Even in very simple cases this level of disagreement between different estimation techniques is common. For example, the RMS difference between the median and the mean of a set of Gaussian random numbers is $3/4$ of the standard deviation of the mean.
Degree-Scale
============
The experiments at $\approx 1^\circ$ scale offer the possibility of a better determination of the primordial power spectrum index $n$, but the model-dependent effects of the wing of the Doppler peak at $\ell \approx 200$ must be allowed for. Even in the large angle region $\ell < 30$ small model-dependent corrections must be made. A Cold Dark Matter (CDM) model with a primordial spectral index $n_{pri} = 0.96$ has an apparent index $n_{app}$ = 1.1 due to the “toe” of the Doppler peak that extends into the $\ell < 70$ region. Wright (1994) have made this comparison with degree scale experiments, and the resulting value for $n_{pri}$ is given in Table \[ntable\].
Large Scale Structure
=====================
A comparison of the extremely large scale structure seen by [*COBE*]{} to the large scale structure seen in studies of the clustering of galaxies also leads to an estimate of $n_{pri}$. The uncertainty in this method is decreased because of the large range of scales covered, but also increased due uncertainties in the models of large scale structure formation. However, this comparison strongly favors $n = 1$. Prior to the [*COBE*]{} announcement of anisotropy, Peacock (1991) gave a implicit prediction that for $n = 1$ the amplitude of $\Delta T$ should be $\Amp = 18.8 \; \mu$K. Peacock & Dodds (1994) have extended this analysis of large scale structure and I get a result $n_{pri} = 0.99 \pm 0.16$ from their paper after correcting for their incorrect $\Amp = 15 \; \mu$K and increasing the uncertainty to allow for the uncertainty in the IRAS bias, $b_I$. In Figure \[fig6\] I have “extended” Figure 6 from Peacock & Dodds to include the [*COBE*]{} datum, and show extrapolations with $n = 0.5,\;1,\;\&\;1.5$ through the [*COBE*]{} point. This result assumes that $\Omega = 1$, but Peacock & Dodds have also found that $\Omega^{0.6}/b_I = 1.0 \pm 0.2$.
Summary
=======
In conclusion, both the [*COBE*]{} $\Delta T$ data alone and the ratio of the [*COBE*]{} $\Delta T$ data to $1^\circ$ scale $\Delta T$ are consistent with the $n \approx 1$ prediction of the inflationary scenario. Furthermore, the implied level of gravitational potential perturbations is sufficient to produce the observed large scale (100 Mpc) structure if both the $n = 1$ and $\Omega = 1$ predictions of inflation are correct, and the Universe is dominated by Dark Matter.
Method COBE dataset Q? Result Reference
----------------------- --------------------- ---- ----------------------------------- --------------------------
Correlation function 1 year 53$\times$90 N $n_{app} = 1.15^{+0.45}_{-0.65}$ Smoot [*etal*]{} (’92)
COBE:$\sigma_8$ 1 year 53+90 N $n_{pri} = 1 \pm 0.23 $ Wright [*etal*]{} (’92)
Genus smoothing 1 year 53 Y $n_{app} = 1.7^{+1.3}_{-1.1}$ Smoot [*etal*]{} (’94)
RMS smoothing 1 year 53 Y $n_{app} = 1.7^{+0.3}_{-0.6}$ Smoot [*etal*]{} (’94)
Correlation function 2 year 53$\times$90 Y $n_{app} = 1.3^{+0.49}_{-0.55}$ Bennett [*etal*]{} (’94)
Correlation function 2 year 53$\times$90 N $n_{app} = 1.1^{+0.60}_{-0.55}$ Bennett [*etal*]{} (’94)
COBE:$1^\circ$ scale 2 year NG N $n_{pri} = 1.15\pm 0.2$ Wright [*etal*]{} (’94)
Cross power spectrum 2 year 53 & 90 N $n_{app} = 1.25^{+0.40}_{-0.45} $ Wright [*etal*]{} (’94)
Cross power spectrum 2 year 53 & 90 Y $n_{app} = 1.39^{+0.34}_{-0.39} $
Orthonormal functions 2 year 53+90 N $n_{app} = 1.02 \pm 0.4 $ Górski [*etal*]{} (’94)
COBE:$\sigma_{100}$ 1 year 53 Y $n_{pri} = 1.0 \pm 0.16 $ Peacock & Dodds
: Spectral index determinations[]{data-label="ntable"}
References
==========
Avni, Y. 1976! ApJ! 210! 642-646;
Bennett, C. L., Kogut, A., Hinshaw, G., Banday, A. J., Wright, E. L., Gorski, K. M., Wilkinson, D. T., Weiss, R., Smoot, G. F., Meyer, S. S., Mather, J. C., Lubin, P., Lowenstein, K., Lineweaver, C., Keegstra, P., Kaita, E., Jackson, P. D. & Cheng, E. S. 1994! ApJ! TBD! TBD;
Bond, J. R. & Efstathiou, G. 1987! M.N.R.A.S! 226! 655-687;
Górski, K. M. 1994, submitted to the ApJL.
Górski, K. M., Hinshaw, G., Banday, A. J., Bennett, C. L., Wright, E. L., Kogut, A., Smoot, G. F. & Lubin, P. 1994, submitted to the ApJL.
Hauser, M. G. & Peebles, P. J. E. 1973! ApJ! 185! 757-785;
Peacock, J. A. 1991! MNRAS! 253! 1p-5p;
Peacock, J. A. & Dodds, S. J. 1994! MNRAS! 267! 1020-1034;
Smoot, G. F. etal. 1992! ApJL! 396! L1;
Smoot, G. 1994, submitted to the ApJ
Wright, E. L., Smoot, G. F., Bennett, C. L. & Lubin, P. M. 1994! ApJ! TBD! TBD;
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Both the Jahn-Teller distortion of Cu$^{2+}$O$_6$ octahedra and magnetic ordering are absent in hexagonal Ba$_3$CuSb$_2$O$_9$ suggesting a Cu 3$d$ spin-orbital liquid state. Here, by means of resonant x-ray scattering and absorption experiment, we show that oxygen 2$p$ holes play crucial role in stabilizing this spin-orbital liquid state. These oxygen holes appear due to the “reaction” Sb$^{5+}$$\rightarrow$Sb$^{3+}$ $+$ two oxygen holes, with these holes being able to attach to Cu ions. The hexagonal phase with oxygen 2$p$ holes exhibits also a novel charge-orbital dynamics which is absent in the orthorhombic phase of Ba$_3$CuSb$_2$O$_9$ with Jahn-Teller distortion and Cu 3$d$ orbital order. The present work opens up a new avenue towards spin-charge-orbital entangled liquid state in transition-metal oxides with small or negative charge transfer energy.'
author:
- Kou Takubo
- Takashi Mizokawa
- Huiyuan Man
- Kohei Yamamoto
- Yujun Zhang
- Yasuyuki Hirata
- Hiroki Wadati
- Akira Yasui
- 'Daniel I. Khomskii'
- Satoru Nakatsuji
title: 'Spin-orbital liquid in Ba$_3$CuSb$_2$O$_9$ stabilized by oxygen holes'
---
Mott insulators with $S$=1/2 or $J$=1/2 are expected to show a variety of quantum spin liquid states when magnetic orders are suppressed due to geometrical frustration and/or quantum fluctuation [@Kitaev2006; @Lee2008; @Balents2010]. Among them, RuCl$_3$ with Ru$^{3+}$($J$=1/2) hexagonal lattice exhibits a Kitaev spin liquid state under magnetic field due to Majorana quantization [@Do2017; @Kasahara2018; @Baskaran2007; @Jackeli2009; @Knolle2014; @Nasu2015]. The Kitaev state can be realized by the strong spin-orbit interaction of 4$d$ or 5$d$ transition-metal ions on the hexagonal lattice [@Jackeli2009]. Another quantum spin liquid state on a hexagonal lattice is realized in Ba$_3$CuSb$_2$O$_9$ with Cu$^{2+}$($S$=1/2) [@Zhou2011; @Nakatsuji2012]. The spin liquid phase in Ba$_3$CuSb$_2$O$_9$ can be associated with fluctuation in the orbital sector [@Feiner1997; @Li1998; @Vernay2004; @Nasu2008] in contrast to the Kitaev state where the orbital degeneracy is lifted due to the strong spin-orbit interaction.
Ligand holes, e.g. oxygen holes often present in oxides with, typically, high valence (or high oxidation state) of a metal (such as nominally Fe$^{4+}$ in CaFeO$_3$ [@CaFeO3], Cu$^{3+}$ in NaCuO$_2$ [@Mizokawa1991] or Bi$^{4+}$ in BaBiO$_3$ [@BaBiO3_1; @BaBiO3_2]) lead to a lot of nontrivial effect, which largely determine the properties of corresponding solids [@Khomskii; @Green]. Among them, novel types of magnetic ordering, like up-up-down-down structure of $R$NiO$_3$ ($R$ - rare earths ions [@Mizokawa2000]; spontaneous charge, or rather valence bond disproportionation in CaFeO$_3$ [@CaFeO3] and BaBiO$_3$ [@BaBiO3_1; @BaBiO3_2], and, last but not least, their apparently fundamental role in High-T$_{\mathrm c}$ superconductivity in cuprates (presumably connected with the formation of Zhang-Rice singlets [@ZhangRice]). Here we uncover yet another nontrivial effect due to the presence or oxygen holes: the suppression of [[[cooperative]{}]{}]{} Jahn-Teller (JT) distortion and magnetic ordering, typical for the strong JT ion Cu$^{2+}$, with the resulting formation of spin-orbital liquid state in a very interesting material Ba$_3$CuSb$_2$O$_9$ [@Nakatsuji2012]. We also show that, besides the suppression of the JT and magnetic ordering, oxygen holes lead to a very specific dynamic effects.
The octahedrally coordinated Cu$^{2+}$ with $3d^9$ electronic configuration is known as one of the classical JT active ions. Usually, divalent CuO$_6$ octahedron in concentrated systems always leads to a cooperative orbital ordering with the concomitant lattice distortion (cooperative JT effect, see e.g. Ref. [@KugelKhomskii]). When the CuO$_6$ octahedron is elongated along the $z$-axis, the Cu 3$d$ orbital with $x^2-y^2$ symmetry is destabilized and accommodates the Cu 3$d$ hole. Ba$_3$CuSb$_2$O$_9$ harbors orthorhombic phase [@Zhou2011] and hexagonal phase [@Nakatsuji2012; @Katayama2015]. A very unusual and unexpected effect – the absence of JT distortion in a classical strong JT ion Cu$^{2+}$ in octahedral coordination was discovered in the hexagonal Ba$_3$CuSb$_2$O$_9$ by Nakatsuji *et al* [@Nakatsuji2012]. There are very convincing experimental indications of a dynamic character of the behaviour of Cu in this system [@Ishiguro2013; @Han2015]. However, the real microscopic origin of this behaviour was not elucidated in these detailed studies. Just the usual dynamic JT effect can hardly explain this behaviour: it is usually realized in well-isolated JT centers, but never in concentrated systems. An extra puzzle is that the same material seems to exist in two different modifications. The orthorhombic phase behaves quite normally: it shows a cooperative JT distortion, no special dynamic effects, etc. On the other hand, the hexagonal phase has all these strange features discussed above. What is the microscopic reason for this very different behaviour, remains a puzzle. Here, we present new experimental data which shed light on these questions and which give us the possibility to solve all these puzzles. Notably, our spectroscopic investigations show that, whereas the orthorhombic phase contains the usual Cu$^{2+}$ with all the conventional features thereof, in the hexagonal phase we see definite signatures of the presence of substantial oxygen hole character. Fluctuations, inevitably appearing due to motion of these oxygen holes hopping from site to site, suppress conventional long-range JT ordering and magnetic ordering and cause the dynamics seen in ESR and NMR [@Ishiguro2013; @Han2015].
![ Schematic structure and photographs of Ba$_3$CuSb$_2$O$_9$. (a,b) Crystal structure. Sb ions and octahedra are shown by blue, and Cu - by yellow. The space groups of hexagonal and orthorhombic phases at low temperature are $P6_3/mmc$ and $Cmcm$, respectively [@Nakatsuji2012; @Katayama2015]. The occupancy of Cu and Sb in the two metal sites of the Cu-Sb face-sharing dumbbells is 50 %. The Cu octahedra in the dumbbells form honeycomb lattices in the $ab$-plane as shown in (b), which are isolated and connected by O-O bonds. (c,d) Sample photographs of hexagonal and orthorhombic samples. The thicknesses of both samples are below 5 $\mu$m. The dashed circles ($\phi\sim$ 50 $\mu$m) correspond to the selected regions for the optical absorption microscopy of Fig. 2(a). ](fig1rev.pdf){width="1\linewidth"}
The basic crystal structure of Ba$_3$CuSb$_2$O$_9$ is shown in Figs. 1(a) and 1(b) (hexagonal phase has symmetry $P6_3/mmc$). Sb ions (blue balls/octahedra) occupy isolated octahedra and (in an ordered way) half of octahedra forming face-sharing dimers [@Nakatsuji2012; @Katayama2015]. Cu ions (yellow) occupy other half of dimer octahedra, so that they form in effect the honeycomb lattice in the $ab$-plane as shown in Fig. 1(b). The structure of orthorhombic modification (symmetry $Cmcm$) is basically similar, but CuO$_6$ octahedra are strongly distorted due to Jahn-Teller effect typical for Cu$^{2+}$.
Single crystals of Ba$_3$CuSb$_2$O$_9$ were grown under oxygen atmosphere from the BaCl$_2$-based flux [@Katayama2015]. Two types of single crystals were obtained, depending on the growth condition. A small addition (9 mol %) of Ba(OH)$_2$ to the BaCl$_2$ flux was found to stabilize single-phase crystals of the hexagonal samples, whereas the pure BaCl$_2$ flux leads to the growth of orthorhombic samples. The composition analysis by ICP-AES indicates that hexagonal samples are a single phase, and stoichiometric in terms of the Cu to Sb elemental ratio [@Katayama2015]. On the other hand, the orthorhombic crystals are rather offstoichiometric and seemed to contain a part of the inhomogeneous domain of the hexagonal phase, as discussed in the optical microscopy measurement. XAS and time-resolved soft x-ray scattering at the Cu $L$ (2$p\rightarrow$ 3$d$) and O $K$ (1$s\rightarrow$ 2$p$) absorption edges were conducted at BL07LSU in SPring-8 [@Takubo2017]. Further technical details about the optical and x-ray spectroscopies are described in the Supplementary Material [@supp].
An obvious difference between the hexagonal and orthorhombic phases is the ’color’ of the crystals. The crystal with dark color \[Fig. 1(c)\] is dominated by the hexagonal phase while the yellowish color crystal \[Fig. 1(d)\] mainly contains the orthorhombic phase. Figure 2(a) shows the optical absorption spectra for the hexagonal and orthorhombic crystals. The orthorhombic crystals exhibit inhomogeneity. The spectrum taken at position \#1\[see Fig. 1(d)\] represents the orthorhombic phase with optical gap $h\nu$ $\sim$ 2.0 eV which corresponds to the oxygen 2$p$ to Cu 3$d$ charge transfer excitation as expected in Cu$^{2+}$ oxides. On the other hand, the spectrum at position \#2 exhibits an intriguing absorption centered around 1.3 eV ($\sim$ 950 nm) below the charge transfer excitation $\sim$ 2.0-3.0 eV. The appearance of the absorption peak in the charge transfer gap suggests that some holes are introduced in the Cu$^{2+}$ Mott insulating state, similar to the high-$T_c$ cuprates. Surprisingly, in the absorption spectrum for the hexagonal phase, the in-gap absorption peak around 1.3 eV gains substantial spectral weight which causes the dark color. This indicates that a considerable number of holes are doped in the hexagonal phase although it is highly insulating.
{width="1\linewidth"}
In order to further clarify this electronic structure difference between the hexagonal and orthorhombic phases, x-ray absorption spectroscopy have been investigated for both phases. Figure 2(b) shows the Cu 2$p$ x-ray absorption spectra (XAS) in the total fluorescence yield mode. The Cu 2$p$ main peak at 930.2 eV is accompanied by the charge transfer satellite at about 933 eV. The intensity of the satellite is enhanced in the hexagonal phase compared to the orthorhombic phase. The main and satellite peaks are assigned to the transitions of $2p^63d^9$ $\rightarrow$ $2p^53d^{10}$ and of $2p^63d^{9}L$ $\rightarrow$ $2p^53d^{10}L$ [@Mizokawa1991]. Here $L$ represents a hole on the oxygen 2$p$ orbitals. The Cu 2$p$ XAS indicates that the ground state of the hexagonal phase include more $3d^{9}L$ than the orthorhombic phase. Figure 2[*C*]{} shows the Cu 2$p$ XAS taken in the total electron yield mode. The XAS spectra in the total electron yield mode are more surface sensitive than those in the total fluorescence yield mode. The XAS results obtained in the two modes are very consistent indicating that the contribution of $3d^9L$ is not due to the surface effect. In the hexagonal phase, the intensity of the satellite is comparable to that of the main peak indicting that the oxygen hole concentration is about 1/6 \[see Fig. S3(a) in Supplementary Material\][@supp].
Figure 2(d) shows the oxygen 1$s$ XAS spectra of the hexagonal and orthorhombic regions. The structure at 530 eV can be assigned to the transition from 1$s$ to 2$p$ of the oxygen which is hybridized into the upper Hubbard band (corresponding to $3d^{9}$ $\rightarrow$ $3d^{10}$). The peak at 528.2 eV is observed only in the hexagonal region and can be assigned to the Zhang-Rice singlet band seen in the hole-doped high-$T_c$ cuprates: the transition from oxygen 1$s$ to unoccupied oxygen 2$p$ (corresponding to $3d^{9}L$ $\rightarrow$ $3d^{9}$) [@Chen1990]. The band around 1.3 eV seen in the optical absorption of Fig. 2(a) corresponds to the excitation from these $3d^{9}L$ state. The intensity of oxygen hole band (Zhang-Rice singlet band) in the O 1$s$ XAS spectra is comparable to that of the upper Hubbard band after removing the Sb-O contribution which is roughly indicated by the blue line in Fig. 2(d). The comparison with the calculation suggests that the hole concentration per Cu site (or Sb2) site is around 1/6.
To get an extra information on the behaviour of our system, we carried out the time-resolved resonant x-ray scattering at 930.2 eV (on the Cu 2$p$ to 3$d$ resonance) after the pump pulse at 3.1 eV (Fig. 3). A coherent oscillation with period of $\sim$ 165 ps is clearly observed in the hexagonal phase, while no oscillation is seen in the orthorhombic phase. In addition, the x-ray scattering signals probed at 923.0 eV below the absorption edge do not show appreciable change after the pump pulse. The Fourier transform of the time-resolved data is plotted in Fig. 3(b) indicating that the coherent oscillation corresponds to $\sim$ 6 GHz which is rather slow compared to various optical phonons in the system which are usually coupled to charge or orbital orderings. Such a slow dynamics in the hexagonal phase is consistent with the previous reports [@Ishiguro2013; @Han2015].
{width="1\linewidth"}
The presence of the oxygen 2$p$ hole in the hexagonal phase indicates that the Cu 3$d$ spin and orbital are disturbed by hopping of the oxygen 2$p$ holes. Since the hexagonal system with oxygen holes remains highly insulating, the oxygen hole should be confined within several Cu sites and disturbs the Cu 3$d$ spin and orbital of those Cu sites. One of the possible units of confinement is the hexagonal cluster shown in Fig. 3(c) where the six CuO$_6$ octahedra are connected through the Cu-O-O-Cu pathways. In this cluster, the oxygen hole and Cu 3$d$ spins/orbitals form a quantum object keeping the hexagonal symmetry. As for the coherent oscillation seen in the time-resolved x-ray scattering in hexagonal samples, their source could be motion of oxygen holes in such clusters. The coherent oscillation with period of $\sim$165 ps is absent in the orthorhombic sample as shown in Fig. 3(b). Since the pump pulse with 3.1 eV corresponds to the charge transfer excitation from the O 2$p$ to Cu 3$d$ orbitals, the coherent oscillation is related to the charge dynamics in the Cu-O-O-Cu network. The most significant difference between the hexagonal and orthorhombic samples is the presence of oxygen hole in the hexagonal sample. Therefore, it is natural to assign the slow dynamics of $\sim$165 ps is derived from the oxygen hole in the Cu-O-O-Cu network.
There are several possible origins of the oxygen holes in Ba$_3$CuSb$_2$O$_9$. The most plausible possibility is the high valence Sb in the Cu-Sb dimers. The formal valence is Cu$^{2+}$ and Sb$^{5+}$. However, the valence state 5+ is rather high for Sb. For such high oxidation states the real electronic configuration tends to contain ligand holes. For example, in BaBiO$_3$ with Bi$^{5+}$/Bi$^{3+}$ mixed valence, it is established that the formally Bi$^{5+}$ site has the actual electronic configuration close to Bi$^{3+}L^2$ [@Foyevtsova2015]. The same trend is expected for Sb which is located above Bi in the periodic table. Indeed, the actual valence of Sb is rather close to 3+ as indicated by the HAXPES result presented in Supplementary Material [@supp]. Therefore, the Sb 5$s$ orbitals ’grab’ some electrons from the oxygen 2$p$ orbitals and create oxygen 2$p$ holes. If the oxygen 2$p$ holes are bounded to the Sb site, the electronic configuration in the Cu-Sb dimer is essentially the same as Cu$^{2+}$-Sb$^{5+}$, i.e. we would have cluster Cu$^{2+}$\[Sb$^{3+}L^2$\] with ligand holes forming something like Zhang-Rice state with Sb. However, this ligand hole can be also attached to Cu, making the state \[Cu$^{2+}L$\]\[Sb$^{3+}L$\] or even \[Cu$^{2+}L$\]$_2$Sb$^{3+}$. In the simple schematic picture oxygen holes may be thus treated as moving in a double-well potential, one well centered on Cu and another, deeper well - on Sb, with the barrier in between. The average Sb-O bond length is about 2.004 [Å]{} for the Sb2 site while it is about 1.99 [Å]{} for the Sb1 site [@Katayama2015]. Consequently, the bond valence sum [@Palenik] for the Sb1 and Sb2 sites are estimated to be 4.81 and 4.35, respectively. Therefore, the Sb2 site accommodates the extra electron to create the oxygen hole.
Fluctuation of ligand holes attached either to Sb or to Cu could be the reason of suppression of the long-range Jahn-Teller ordering of Cu in hexagonal phase. This is the main physics we deduce from our new experimental data, which, in our opinion, can explain the main features of the unexpected behavior of Ba$_3$CuSb$_2$O$_9$. But even regardless of the origin of the oxygen hole, the present results rigorously prove that the oxygen hole and the Cu spins form the unique quantum object with spin-charge-orbital fluctuations of the specific time scale in the hexagonal phase. The Cu deficiency or the partial substitution of Cu by Sb was reported for the orthorhombic phase [@Katayama2015]. If one Cu$^{2+}$ is replaced by Sb$^{5+}$, three ligand holes can be eliminated. Therefore, the ligand holes are removed from the system due to the off-stoichiometry, and the Jahn-Teller distortion is recovered in the orthorhombic phase. This picture is indeed consistent with the O 1$s$ XAS spectra in Fig. 2.
It is known that oxygen holes play significant roles in high valence transition-metal oxides such as Cu$^{3+}$, Ni$^{3+}$, and Fe$^{4+}$ oxides. High valence transition-metal oxides with 90 degrees $M$-O-$M$ bonds are insulating since the oxygen 2$p$ hole mixed with the $M$ 3$d$ $e_g$ hole in a $M$O$_4$ or $M$O$_6$ cluster cannot hop to neighboring clusters and is confined in the single-site cluster [@Mizokawa1991]. On the other hand, high valence transition-metal oxides with almost 180 degrees $M$-O-$M$ bonds are metallic and their oxygen 2$p$ holes are highly itinerant. With decreasing the $M$-O-$M$ bond angle in $R$NiO$_3$ ($R$ = rare earth metal) or $A$FeO$_3$ ($A$ = alkaline earth metal) by reducing radius of the $R$ or $A$ ions, oxygen holes and transition-metal spins are ordered and form spin-charge ordered insulating states [@Mizokawa2000; @Bisogni2016]. Compared to these other oxygen hole states, the oxygen hole state in Ba$_3$CuSb$_2$O$_9$ is very unique in that due to a specific crystal structure with rather isolated CuO$_6$ octahedra, the ligand holes have weaker tendency to become itinerant (even with large concentration of ligand holes the hexagonal samples of Ba$_3$CuSb$_2$O$_9$ remain highly insulating). This can also lead to a significant difference of XAS spectra in this system as compared e.g. with the high-$T_c$ cuprates, see the discussion in the Supplementary Material [@supp].
In conclusion, x-ray and optical absorption experiments on Ba$_3$CuSb$_2$O$_9$ reveal that the hexagonal phase with spin and orbital liquid is characterized by emergence of oxygen 2$p$ holes in the highly insulating state. Their appearance originates due to tendency of Sb$^{5+}$ to change electronic state by creating oxygen holes. Oxygen holes may fluctuate between Sb and Cu ions, or may be confined in the relatively large hexagonal cluster with six Cu sites, and the CuO$_6$ JT distortion and long-range magnetic ordering are suppressed due to hopping of oxygen holes between Cu and Sb and between CuO$_6$ octahedra. This can be a rather general situation in many materials containing different metal ions with relatively high valence, in which ligand (e.g. oxygen) holes can play crucial role in determining their properties. And the method we used - x-ray spectroscopy - can be one of the best methods to unravel interesting physics connected with these phenomena. Our results demonstrate strong interplay between electronic structure with the presence of oxygen holes in systems with unusual valencies, and the Jahn-Teller effect - the effect which often plays crucial role in concentrated solids including high-$T_\mathrm{c}$ superconducting cuprates, but also in molecular systems and in inorganic chemistry. The coherent oscillations of 6 GHz, clearly observed in pump-probe resonant x-ray scattering, indicate that the spin and orbital fluctuations in the hexagonal phase have relatively slow dynamics, and suggests that the spin-charge-orbital fluctuation can be controlled by optical excitation. The present results also pave a new avenue towards optical control of the spin-charge-orbital states in transition-metal compounds with rich physical properties.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
We are grateful for fruitful discussions with and support from S. Koshihara and T. Ishikawa. XAS and Tr-RSXS measurements were performed under the approval of Synchrotron Radiation Research Organization, the University of Tokyo (No. 2015A7401, 2018B7577). HAXPES measurements were performed under the approval of SPring-8 (Proposals No. Proposal No. 2018B1449). The work of D.Kh. is funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation) - Project number 277146847 - CRC 1238.
A. Kitaev, [*Anyons in an exactly solved model and beyond,*]{} Ann. Phys. [**321**]{}, 2-111 (2006).
P. A. Lee, Physics. [*An end to the drought of quantum spin liquids,*]{} Science [**321**]{}, 1306-1307 (2008).
L. Balents, [*Spin liquids in frustrated magnets,*]{} Nature [**464**]{}, 199-208 (2010).
S.-H. Do, S.-Y. Park, J. Yoshitake, J. Nasu, Y. Motome, Y. S. Kwon, D. T. Adroja, D. J. Voneshen, K. Kim, T.-H. Jang, J.-H. Park, K.-Y. Choi, and S. Ji, [*Majorana fermions in the Kitaev quantum spin system $\alpha$-RuCl$_3$,*]{} Nature Physics [**13**]{}, 1079-1084 (2017).
Y. Kasahara, T. Ohnishi, Y. Mizukami, O. Tanaka, Sixiao Ma, K. Sugii, N. Kurita, H. Tanaka, J. Nasu, Y. Motome, T. Shibauchi, and Y. Matsuda, [*Majorana quantization and half-integer thermal quantum Hall effect in a Kitaev spin liquid,*]{} Nature [**559**]{}, 227-231 (2018).
G. Baskaran, S. Mandal, and R. Shankar, [*Exact results for spin dynamics and fractionalization in the Kitaev model,*]{} Phys. Rev. Lett. [**98**]{}, 247201 (2007).
G. Jackeli, and G. Khaliullin, [*Mott Insulators in the Strong Spin-Orbit Coupling Limit: From Heisenberg to a Quantum Compass and Kitaev Models,*]{} Phys. Rev. Lett. [**102**]{}, 017205 (2009).
J. Knolle, D. L. Kovrizhin, J. T. Chalker, and R. Moessner, [*Dynamics of a two-dimensional quantum spin liquid: signatures of emergent Majorana fermions and fluxes,*]{} Phys. Rev. Lett. [**112**]{}, 207203 (2014).
J. Nasu, M. Udagawa, and Y. Motome, [*Thermal fractionalization of quantum spins in a Kitaev model: temperature-linear specific heat and coherent transport of Majorana fermions,*]{} Phys. Rev. B [**92**]{}, 115122 (2015).
H. D. Zhou, E. S. Choi, G. Li, L. Balicas, C. R. Wiebe, Y. Qiu, J. R. D. Copley, and J. S. Gardner, [*Spin liquid state in the S = 1/2 triangular lattice Ba$_3$CuSb$_2$O$_9$,*]{} Phys. Rev. Lett. [**106**]{}, 147204 (2011).
S. Nakatsuji, K. Kuga, K. Kimura, R. Satake, N. Katayama, E. Nishibori, H. Sawa, R. Ishii, M. Hagiwara, F. Bridges, T. U. Ito, W. Higemoto, Y. Karaki, M. Halim, A. A. Nugroho, J. A. Rodriguez-Rivera, M. A. Green, and C. Broholm, [*Spin-Orbital Short-Range Order on a Honeycomb-Based Lattice,*]{} Science [**336**]{}, 559-563 (2012).
L. F. Feiner, A. M. Oles, and J. Zaanen, [*Quantum melting of magnetic order due to orbital fluctuations,*]{} Phys. Rev. Lett. [**78**]{}, 2799 (1997).
Y. Li, Q. Ma, M. D. N. Shi, and F. C. Zhang, [*SU(4) theory for spin systems with orbital degeneracy,*]{} Phys. Rev. Lett. [**81**]{}, 3527 (1998).
F. Vernay, K. Penc, P. Fazekas, and F. Mila, [*Orbital degeneracy as a source of frustration in LiNiO$_2$,*]{} Phys. Rev. B [**70**]{}, 014428 (2004).
J. Nasu, A. Nagano, M. Naka, and S. Ishihara, [*Doubly degenerate orbital system in honeycomb lattice: Implication of orbital state in layered iron oxide,*]{} Phys. Rev. B [**78**]{}, 024416 (2008).
M. Takano, S. Nasu, T. Abe, K. Yamamoto, S. Endo, Y. Takeda, and J. B. Goodenough, [*Pressure-inuced high-spin to low-spin transition in CaFeO$_3$,*]{} Phys. Rev. Lett. [**67**]{}, 3267 (1991).
T. Mizokawa, H. Namatame, A. Fujimori, K. Akeyama, H. Kondoh, H. Kuroda, and N. Kosugi, [*Origin of the band gap in the negative charge-transfer-energy compound NaCuO$_2$,*]{} Phys. Rev. Lett. [**67**]{}, 1638 (1991).
T. M. Rice, and L. Sneddon, [*Real-Space and $\vec{k}$-Space Electron Pairing in BaPb$_{1-x}$Bi$_x$O$_3$,*]{} Phys. Rev. Lett. [**47**]{}, 689 (1981).
C. M. Varma, [*Missing valence states, diamagnetic insulators, and superconductors,*]{} Phys. Rev. Lett. [**61**]{}, 2713 (1988).
D. I. Khomskii, [*Transition metal compounds.*]{} (Cambridge Univ.Press, 2014).
G. A. Sawatzky, and R. Green, “The Explicit Role of Anion States in High-Valence Metal Oxides.” in [*Quantum Materials: Experiments and Theory Modeling and Simulation Vol. 6*]{}, E. Pavarini, E. Koch, J. van den Brink, and G. A. Sawatzky, Eds., (Verlag des Forschungszentrum, Julich, 2016) pp. 1–36.
T. Mizokawa, D. I. Khomskii, and G. A. Sawatzky, [*Spin and charge ordering in self-doped Mott insulators,*]{} Phys. Rev. B [**61**]{}, 11263 (2000).
F. C. Zhang and T. M. Rice, [*Effective Hamiltonian for the superconducting Cu oxides,*]{} Phys. Rev. B [**37**]{}, 3759(R) (1988).
K. I. Kugel’ and D. I. Khomskii, [*The Jahn-Teller effect and magnetism: transition metal compounds,*]{} Sov. Phys. Usp. [**25**]{}, 231-256 (1982).
N. Katayama, K. Kimura, Y. Han, J. Nasu, N. Drichko, Y. Nakanishi, M. Halim, Y. Ishiguro, R. Satake, E. Nishibori, M. Yoshizawa, T. Nakano, Y. Nozue, Y. Wakabayashi, S. Ishihara, M. Hagiwara, H. Sawa, and S. Nakatsuji, [*Absence of Jahn-Teller transition in the hexagonal Ba$_3$CuSb$_2$O$_9$ single crystal,*]{} Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. [**112**]{}, 9305-9309 (2015).
Y. Ishiguro, K. Kimura, S. Nakatsuji, S. Tsutsui, A. Q. R. Baron, T. Kimura, and Y. Wakabayashi, [*Dynamical spin-orbital correlation in the frustrated magnet Ba$_3$CuSb$_2$O$_9$,*]{} Nature Comm. [**4**]{}, 2022 (2013).
Y. Han, M. Hagiwara, T. Nakano, Y. Nozue, K. Kimura, M. Halim, and S. Nakatsuji, [*Observation of the orbital quantum dynamics in the spin-1/2 hexagonal antiferromagnet Ba$_3$CuSb$_2$O$_9$,*]{} Phys. Rev. B [**92**]{}, 180410(R) (2015).
K. Takubo, K. Yamamoto, Y. Hirata, Y. Yokoyama, Y. Kubota, S. Yamamoto, S. Yamamoto, I. Matsuda, S. Shin, T. Seki, K. Takanashi, H. Wadati, [*Capturing ultrafast magnetic dynamics by time-resolved soft x-ray magnetic circular dichroism,*]{} Appl. Phys. Lett. [**110**]{}, 162401 (2017).
See Supplemental Material at http://link.aps.org/supplemental/ for additional experimental methods, data, and calculations.
C. T. Chen, F. Sette, Y. Ma, M. S. Hybertsen, E. B. Stechel, W. M. C. Foulkes, M. Schulter, S-W. Cheong, A. S. Cooper, L. W. Rupp, Jr., B. Batlogg, Y. L. Soo, Z. H. Ming, A. Krol, and Y. H. Kao, [*Electronic states in La$_{2-x}$Sr$_x$CuO$_{4+\delta}$. probed by soft-x-ray absorption,*]{} Phys. Rev. Lett. [**66**]{}, 104 (1991).
K. Foyevtsova, A. Khazraie, I. Elfimov, and G. A. Sawatzky, [*Hybridization effects and bond disproportionation in the bismuth perovskites,*]{} Phys. Rev. B [**91**]{}, 121114 (2015).
V. Bisogni, S. Catalano, R. J. Green, M. Gibert, R. Scherwitzl, Y. Huang, V. N. Strocov, P. Zubko, S. Balandeh, J.-M. Triscone, G. Sawatzky, T. Schmitt, [*Ground-state oxygen holes and the metal-insulator transition in the negative charge-transfer rare-earth nickelates,*]{} Nature Commun. [**7**]{}, 13017 (2016).
R.C. Palenik, K. A. Abboud and G. J. Palenik, Inorg. Chim. Acta [**358**]{}, 1034 (2005).
NIST X-ray Photoelectron Spectroscopy Database, Version 4.1 (National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, 2012); http://srdata.nist.gov/xps/; DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18434/T4T88K.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'This paper proposes a representational model for image pair such as consecutive video frames that are related by local pixel displacements, in the hope that the model may shed light on motion perception in primary visual cortex (V1). The model couples the following two components. (1) The vector representations of local contents of images. (2) The matrix representations of local pixel displacements caused by the relative motions between the agent and the objects in the 3D scene. When the image frame undergoes changes due to local pixel displacements, the vectors are multiplied by the matrices that represent the local displacements. Our experiments show that our model can learn to infer local motions. Moreover, the model can learn Gabor-like filter pairs of quadrature phases.'
author:
- |
Ruiqi Gao\
UCLA\
`[email protected]`\
Jianwen Xie\
Hikvision Research Institute\
`[email protected]`\
Siyuan Huang\
UCLA\
`[email protected]`\
Yufan Ren\
Zhejiang University\
`[email protected]`\
Song-Chun Zhu\
UCLA\
`[email protected]`\
Ying Nian Wu\
UCLA\
`[email protected]`\
bibliography:
- 'v1.bib'
title: 'Learning vector representation of local content and matrix representation of local motion, with implications for V1'
---
Introduction {#sect:1}
============
Our understanding of the primary visual cortex or V1 [@hubel1959receptive] is still very limited [@olshausen2005close]. In particular, the mathematical and representational models for V1 are still in short supply. Two prominent examples of such models are sparse coding [@olshausen1997sparse] and independent component analysis (ICA) [@bell1997independent]. Although such models do not provide detailed explanations of V1 at the level of neuronal dynamics, they help us understand the computational problems being solved by V1.
[R]{}[0.22]{} {height="\linewidth"}
In this article, we propose a model of this sort. It is a representational model of natural image pair that are related by local pixel displacements. The image pair can be consecutive frames of a video sequence, where the local pixel displacements are caused by the relative motions between the agent and the objects in the 3D environment. Perceiving such local motions can be crucial for inferring ego-motion, object motions, and 3D depth information.
As is the case with existing models, we expect our model to explain only limited aspects of V1, some of which are: (1) The receptive fields of V1 simple cells resemble Gabor filters [@daugman1985uncertainty]. (2) Adjacent simple cells have quadrature phase relationship [@pollen1981phase]. (3) The V1 cells are capable of perceiving local motions. While existing models can all explain (1), our model can also account for (2) and (3) naturally. Compared to models such as sparse coding and ICA, our model serves a more direct purpose of perceiving local motions.
Our model consists of the following two components. See Figure \[fig:diag\] for an illustration, where the image is illustrated by the big rectangle. A pixel is illustrated by a dot. The local image content is illustrated by a small square around it. The displacement of the pixel is illustrated by a short arrow, which is within the small square. The vector representation of the local image content is represented by a long vector, which rotates as the image undergoes deformation due to the pixel displacements. Section \[sect:3\] explains the notation.
\(1) Vector representation of local image content. The local content around each pixel is represented by a high dimensional vector. Each unit in the vector is obtained by a linear filter. These local filters or wavelets are assumed to form a normalized tight frame, i.e., the image can be reconstructed from the vectors using the linear filters as the basis functions.
\(2) Matrix representation of local displacement. The change of the image from the current time frame to the next time frame is caused by the displacements of the pixels. Each possible displacement is represented by a matrix that acts on the vector. When the image changes according to the displacements, the vector at each pixel is multiplied by the matrix that represents the local displacement, in other words, the vector at each pixel is rotated by the matrix representation of the displacement of this pixel.
One motivation of our work comes from Fourier analysis. An image patch $\I$ can be expressed by the Fourier decomposition $\I = \sum_k c_k e^{i\langle \omega_k, x\rangle}$. Assuming the image patch undergoes a smooth motion so that all the pixels are shifted by a constant displacement $dx$, the shifted image patch $\J(x) = \I(x - dx) = \sum_k c_k e^{-i\langle \omega_k, dx\rangle} e^{i\langle \omega_k, x\rangle}$. The change from the complex number $c_k$ to $c_k e^{-i\langle \omega_k, dx\rangle}$ corresponds to rotating a 2D vector by a $2 \times 2$ matrix. However, we emphasize that our model does not assume Fourier basis or its localized version such as Gabor filters. The model figures it out with generic vector and matrix representations.
We train this representational model on image pairs where in each pair, the second image is a deformed version of the first image, and the deformation is known. We learn the encoding matrices for vector representation and the matrices that represent the pixel displacements from the training data.
Our experiments show that our method can learn V1-like units that can be well approximated by Gabor filters with quadrature phase relationship. After learning the encoding matrices for vector representation and the matrix representations of the displacements, we can infer the displacement field using the learned model. Compared to current optical flow estimation methods [@DFIB15; @IMKDB17], which use complex deep neural networks to predict the optical flow, our model is much simpler and is based on explicit vector and matrix representations. We also demonstrate comparable results to these methods, in terms of the inference of displacement field.
In terms of biological interpretation, the vectors can be interpreted as activities of groups of neurons, and the matrices can be interpreted as synaptic connections. See subsections \[sect:b\] and \[sect:s\] for details.
Contributions and related work
==============================
This paper proposes a simple representational model that couples the vector representations of local image contents and matrix representations of local pixel displacements. The model is new and different from existing models for V1. It explains some aspects of V1 simple cells such as Gabor-like receptive fields and quadrature phase relationship. It adds to our understanding of V1 motion perception in terms of a representational and relational model. The following are two themes of related work.
\(1) V1 models. Most well known models for V1 are concerned with statistical properties of natural images or video sequences. Examples include sparse coding model [@olshausen1997sparse; @lewicki1999probabilistic; @olshausen2003learning], independent component analysis (ICA) [@hyvarinen2004independent; @bell1997independent; @van1998independent], slowness criterion [@hyvarinen2003bubbles; @wiskott2002slow], and prediction [@singer2018sensory]. While these models are very compelling, they do not serve a direct purpose of perceptual inference. Our model is learned for the direct purpose of perceiving local motions caused by relative motion between the agent and the surrounding 3D environment.
We want to emphasize that our model is complementary to the existing models for V1. Similar to existing models, our work assumes a linear generative model for image frames, but our model adds a relational component with matrix representation that relates the consecutive image frames. Our model is also complementary to slowness criterion in that when the vectors are rotated by matrices, the norms of the vectors may remain constant.
\(2) Matrix representation. In representation learning, it is a common practice to encode the signals or states as vectors. However, it is a much less explored theme to represent the motions, actions or relations by matrices that act on the vectors. An early work in this theme is [@paccanaro2001learning], which learns matrices to represent relations. More recently, [@jayaraman2015learning] learns matrix representation for ego-motion. [@gao2018learning] learns vector representation for self-position and matrix representation for self-motion in a representational model for grid cells. Our work constitutes a new development along this theme.
The matrix representation of local displacements in our work is partially inspired by the group representation theory, where the group elements are represented by matrices acting on the vectors [@fulton2013representation]. In our work, local displacements belong to 2D Euclidean group. Our modeling of local motion dx is similar to the treatment of Lie group via Lie algebra by analyzing infinitesimal changes. The objects in the image may undergo more complex motions which form more complex Lie groups (e.g., rotations and translations). We can again represent the objects (e.g., their poses) in the scene by vectors, and represent the motions of the objects by matrices. The representation theory underlies much of modern mathematics and holds the key to the quantum theory [@zee2016group]. Perhaps it also underlies the visual and motor cortex, where the neuron activities encode vectors, and the synaptic connections encode the matrices that rotate them, with the matrices representing motions, actions, and relations.
Representational model {#sect:3}
======================
Vector representation
---------------------
Let $\{\I(x), x \in D\}$ be an image observed at a certain instant, where $x = (x_1, x_2) \in D$ is the 2D coordinates of pixel. $D$ is the image domain (e.g., $128 \times 128$). We represent the image $\I$ by vectors $\{v(x), x \in D_{-}\}$, where each $v(x)$ is a vector defined at pixel $x$, and $D_{-}$ may consist of a sub-sampled set of pixels in $D$ (e.g., sub-sampled every 8 pixels). ${V} = \{v(x), x \in D_{-}\}$ forms a vector representation of the whole image.
We assume the vector encoding is linear and convolutional. Specifically, let $\I[x]$ be a squared patch (e.g., $16 \times 16$) of $\I$ centered at $x$. We can make $\I[x]$ into a vector (e.g., 256 dimensional). Let $$\begin{aligned}
v(x) = W \I[x], \; x \in D_{-}, \end{aligned}$$ be the linear encoder, where $W$ is the encoding matrix that encodes $\I[x]$ into a vector $v(x)$, and $W$ is the same for all $x$, i.e., convolutional. The rows of $W$ are the linear filters and can be displayed as local image patches of the same size as the image patch $\I[x]$. We can write ${V} = {\bf W} {\bf I}$, if we treat ${\bf I}$ as a vector, and the rows of ${\bf W}$ are the shifted or translated versions of $W$.
Normalized tight frame and isometry
-----------------------------------
We assume that ${\bf W}$ is an auto-encoding normalized tight frame, i.e., $$\begin{aligned}
\I = {\bf W}^{\top} {V},\end{aligned}$$ Thus, the linear filters for bottom-up encoding also serve as basis functions for top-down decoding. Both the encoder and decoder can be implemented by convolutional linear neural networks.
The normalized tight frame assumption can be justified by the fact that for two images ${\bf I}$ and ${\bf J}$, we have $
\langle {\bf W} {\bf I}, {\bf W} {\bf J} \rangle = {\bf I}^\top {\bf W}^{\top} {\bf W} {\bf J} = \langle {\bf I}, {\bf J}\rangle,
$ that is, the vector representation preserves the inner product. As a result, $\|{\bf W}\I\| = \|\I\|$, $\|{\bf W} \J\| = \|\J\|$, thus the vector representation also preserves the angle and has the isometry property.
When the image $\I$ changes from $\I_t$ to $\I_{t+1}$, its vector representation $V$ changes from $V_t$ to $V_{t+1}$, and the angle between $\I_t$ and $\I_{t+1}$ is the same as the angle between $V_t$ and $V_{t+1}$.
Sub-vectors
-----------
The vector $v(x)$ can be high-dimensional. We further divide $v(x)$ into $K$ sub-vectors, $v(x) = (v^{(k)}(x), k = 1, ..., K)$. Each sub-vector is obtained by an encoding sub-matrix $W^{(k)}$, i.e., $
v^{(k)}(x) = W^{(k)} \I[x], \; k = 1, ..., K,
$ where $W^{(k)}$ consists of the rows of $W$ that correspond to $v^{(k)}$. According to the normalized tight frame assumption, we have $
\I = \sum_{x \in D_{-}} \sum_{k=1}^{K} W^{(k)\top} v^{(k)}(x).
$ In practice, we find that this assumption is necessary for the emergence of V1-like receptive field.
Matrix representation
---------------------
Let $\I_t$ be the image at time frame $t$. Suppose the pixels of $\I_t$ undergo local displacements, where the displacement at pixel $x$ is $\delta(x)$. We assume that $\delta(x)$ is within a squared range $\Delta$ (e.g., $[-6, 6] \times [-6, 6]$ pixels) that is inside the range of $\I_t[x]$ (e.g., $16 \times 16$ pixels). Let $\I_{t+1}$ be the resulting image. Let $v_t(x)$ be the vector representation of $\I_t[x]$, and let $v_{t+1}(x)$ be the vector representation of $\I_{t+1}[x]$. Then $v_{t}(x) = (v_{t}^{(k)}(x), k = 1, ..., K)$, and $v_{t+1}(x) = (v_{t+1}^{(k)}(x), k = 1, ..., K)$.
The transition from $\I_t$ to $\I_{t+1}$ is illustrated by the following diagram: $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{array}[c]{ccc}
{v}^{(k)}_t(x) & \stackrel{ M^{(k)}(\delta(x)) \times }{\xrightarrow{\hspace*{1cm}}}& {v}_{t +1}^{(k)}(x) \\
& & \\
W^{(k)} \uparrow& \uparrow &\uparrow W^{(k)}\\
\I_t &\stackrel{ \delta(x) }{\xrightarrow{\hspace*{1cm}}} & \I_{t+1}
\end{array} \label{eq:diagram}\end{aligned}$$ Specifically, we assume that $$\begin{aligned}
{v}_{t+1}^{(k)}(x) = M^{(k)}(\delta(x)) {v}_{t}^{(k)}(x), \; \forall x \in D_{-}, k = 1, ..., K.
\label{eqn: motion}\end{aligned}$$ That is, when $\I$ changes from $\I_t$ to $\I_{t+1}$, ${v}^{(k)}(x)$ undergoes a linear transformation, driven by a matrix $M^{(k)}(\delta(x))$, which depends on the local displacement $\delta(x)$. In terms of the whole vector $v(x) = (v^{(k)}(x), k = 1, ..., K)$, we have $v_{t+1}(x) = M(\delta(x)) v_t(x)$, where $M(\delta(x)) = {\rm diag}(M^{(k)}(\delta(x)), k = 1, ..., K)$ is the matrix representation of the local displacement $\delta(x)$.
Disentangled rotations
----------------------
The linear transformations of the sub-vectors $v^{(k)}(x)$ can be considered as rotations. Here we use the word “rotation” in the loose sense without strictly enforcing $M^{(k)}(\delta)$ to be orthogonal. $v(x)$ is like a multi-arm clock, with each arm $v^{(k)}(x)$ rotated by $M^{(k)}(\delta(x))$. The rotations of $v^{(k)}(x)$ for different $k$ and $x$ are disentangled. Here disentanglement means that the rotation of a sub-vector does not depend on other sub-vectors.
The disentanglement between different positions $x$ is the key feature of our model. Recall the change of image $\I$ is caused by the displacement of pixels, yet the rotations of sub-vectors ${v}^{(k)}(x)$ at different pixels $x$ are disentangled. This enables the agent to sense the displacement of a pixel only by sensing the rotations of the sub-vectors at this pixel without having to establish the correspondences between the pixels of consecutive frames.
Parametrization {#sect:p}
---------------
We can discretize the displacement $\delta(x)$ into a finite set of possible values $\{\delta\}$, and we learn a separate $M^{(k)}(\delta)$ for each $\delta$. We can also learn a parametric version of $M^{(k)}(\delta)$ as the second order Taylor expansion of a matrix-valued function of $\delta= (\delta_1, \delta_2)$, $
M^{(k)}(\delta) = I + B_1^{(k)} \delta_1 + B_2^{(k)} \delta_2 + B_{11}^{(k)} \delta_1^2 + B_{22}^{(k)} \delta_2^2 + B_{12}^{(k)} \delta_1 \delta_2, \label{eq:taylor}
$ where $I$ is the identity matrix, and $B^{(k)} = (B_1^{(k)}, B_2^{(k)}, B_{11}^{(k)}, B_{22}^{(k)}, B_{12}^{(k)})$ are matrices of coefficients of the same dimensionality as $M^{(k)}(\delta)$.
Local mixing
------------
If $\delta(x)$ is large, $v_{t+1}^{(k)}(x)$ may contain information from adjacent image patches of $\I_{t}$ in addition to $\I_t[x]$. We can generalize the motion model in Equation (\[eqn: motion\]) to allow local mixing of encoded vectors. Let $\mathcal{S}$ be a local support centered at $0$. We assume that $$\begin{aligned}
{v}_{t+1}^{(k)}(x) = \sum_{\text{d} x \in \mathcal{S}} M^{(k)}(\delta(x), \text{d} x) {v}_{t}^{(k)}(x + \text{d} x)
\label{eqn: local_mixing}\end{aligned}$$ In the learning algorithm, we discretize $\text{d} x$ and learn a separate $M^{(k)}(\delta, \text{d} x)$ for each $\text{d} x$.
Learning and inference
======================
The input data consist of the triplets $(\I_t, (\delta(x), x \in D_{-}), \I_{t+1})$, where $(\delta(x))$ is the given displacement field. The learned model consists of matrices $(W^{(k)}, M^{(k)}(\delta), k = 1, ..., K, \delta \in \Delta)$, where $\Delta$ is the range of $\delta$. In the case of parametric $M^{(k)}$, we learn the $B$ matrices in the second order Taylor expansion in subsection \[sect:p\].
Loss functions for learning
---------------------------
We use the following loss functions:
\(1) Rotation loss $$\begin{aligned}
L_{1, x, k} &=& \left\| W^{(k)}\I_{t+1}[x] - M^{(k)}(\delta(x)) W^{(k)} \I_{t}[x] \right\|^2.
\label{eqn: vector_loss}\end{aligned}$$ For local mixing generalization, $L_{1, x, k} = \left\| W^{(k)}\I_{t+1}[x] - \sum_{\text{d} x \in \mathcal{S}} M^{(k)}(\delta(x), \text{d} x) W^{(k)} \I_t (x + \text{d} x) \right\|^2$.
\(2) Reconstruction loss $$\begin{aligned}
L_{2} &=& \left\| \I_{t} - \sum_{x \in D_{-}} W^\top W\I_t[x] \right\|^2 + \left\| \I_{t+1} - \sum_{x \in D_{-}} W^\top W\I_{t+1}[x] \right\|^2.
\label{eqn: tight_frame_loss}
\end{aligned}$$
In the learning algorithm, we learn the model by a weighted sum of the expectations of $\sum_{k=1}^{K} \sum_{x \in D_{-}} L_{1, x, k}$ and $L_2$, where the expectations are taken over the training pairs of images and the corresponding displacement fields.
Inference of motion
-------------------
After learning $(W^{(k)}, M^{(k)}(\delta), \forall k, \forall \delta)$, for a testing pair $(\I_t, \I_{t+1})$, we can infer the pixel displacement field $(\delta(x), x \in D_{-})$ by minimizing the rotation loss: $\delta(x) = \arg\max_{\delta \in \Delta} L_{1, x}(\delta)$, where $$\begin{aligned}
L_{1, x}(\delta) = \sum_{k=1}^{K} \left\| W^{(k)}\I_{t+1}[x] - M^{(k)}(\delta) W^{(k)} \I_{t}[x] \right\|^2 = \|W \I_{t+1}[x] - M(\delta) W \I_{t}[x]\|^2. \label{eq:infer}\end{aligned}$$ This algorithm is efficient because it can be parallelized for all $x \in D_{-}$ and for all $\delta \in \Delta$.
If we learn a parametric model for $M^{(k)}(\delta)$, we can infer the displacement field $(\delta(x), \forall x)$ by minimizing $\sum_x L_{1, x}(\delta(x))$ using gradient descent with an initialization of $(\delta(x))$ from random small values. To encourage the smoothness of the displacement field, we can add the penalty term $\|\triangledown \delta(x)\|^2$.
Biological interpretations of cells and synaptic connections {#sect:b}
------------------------------------------------------------
The learned $(W^{(k)}, M^{(k)}(\delta)), \forall k, \delta)$ can be interpreted as synaptic connections. For each $k$, $W^{(k)}$ corresponds to one set of connection weights. Suppose $\delta \in \Delta$ is discretized, then for each $\delta$, $M^{(k)}(\delta)$ corresponds to one set of connection weights, and $(M^{(k)}(\delta), \delta \in \Delta)$ corresponds to multiple sets of connection weights. After computing $v_{t, x}^{(k)} = W^{(k)} \I_{t}[x]$, $M^{(k)}(\delta) v_{t, x}^{(k)}$ is computed simultaneously for every $\delta \in \Delta$. Then $\delta(x)$ is inferred by max pooling according to Equation (\[eq:infer\]).
$v_{t, x}^{(k)}$ can be interpreted as activities of simple cells, and $\|v_{t, x}^{(k)}\|^2$ can be interpreted as activity of a complex cell. If we enforce norm stability so that $\|v_{t, x}^{(k)}\| \approx \|v_{t+1, x}^{(k)}\|$, then the complex cell response is invariant to the local motion and is related to the slowness property [@hyvarinen2003bubbles; @wiskott2002slow], which is a by-product of our model if $M^{(k)}(\delta)$ is a rotation matrix, which is covariant with the local motion.
Spatiotemporal filters and recurrent implementation {#sect:s}
---------------------------------------------------
If we enforce norm stability or the orthogonality of $M^{(k)}(\delta)$, then minimizing $\|v_{t+1, x} - M(\delta) v_{t, x}\|^2$ over $\delta \in \Delta$ is equivalent to maximizing $\langle v_{t+1, x}, M(\delta) v_{t, x}\rangle$, which in turn is equivalent to maximizing $\|v_{t+1, x} + M(\delta) v_{t, x}\|^2$ so that $v_{t+1, x}$ and $M(\delta) v_{t, x}$ are aligned. This alignment criterion can be conveniently generalized to multiple consecutive frames, so that we can estimate the velocity at $x$ by maximizing the $m$-step alignment score $\|u\|^2$, where $$\begin{aligned}
u = \sum_{i = 0}^{m} M(\delta)^{m-i} v_{t+i, x} = \sum_{i=0}^{m} M(\delta)^{m-i} W \I_{t+i}[x]\end{aligned}$$ consists of responses of spatiotemporal filters, and $\|u\|^2$ corresponds to the energy of motion $\delta$ in the motion energy model [@adelson1985spatiotemporal] for direction selective cells. Thus our model is connected with the motion energy model. Moreover, our model enables a recurrent network for computing $u$ by $u_{i} = v_{t+i, x} + M(\delta) u_{i-1}$ for $i = 0, ..., m$, with $u_{-1} = 0$, and $u = u_m$. This recurrent implementation is much more efficient and biologically plausible than the plain implementation of spatiotemporal filtering which requires memorizing all the $\I_{t+i}$ for $i = 0, ..., m$. See [@pachitariu2017visual] for a discussion of biological plausibility of recurrent implementation of spatiotemporal filtering in general.
Experiments
===========
First, in section \[sect: dataset\] we introduce the datasets used to learn the models. Then in section \[sect: unit\] we show the learned Gabor-like units, and make connection with the spatial profile of simple cells in cat and Macaque monkey in terms of neuroscience metrics, indicating the biological plausibility of the learned units. Then in sections \[sect: infer\] and \[sect: unsupervised\] we show the learned representations can be applied to infer displacement field reasonably well, and the representations can be trained either in a supervised or unsupervised manner. Please refer to supplementary \[sect: details\] for the implementation details. In supplementary \[supp: frame\_animation\] and \[supp: interpolation\] we illustrate that the learned representations are capable of two extra tasks, frame animation and frame interpolation.
Synthetic and public datasets {#sect: dataset}
-----------------------------
[**V1Deform.**]{} Usually it is difficult to get ground truth motions from natural video frames. Thus we consider learning from image pairs with synthetic motions. First we consider random smooth deformations for natural images. Specifically, We can obtain the training data by collecting static images for $(\I_t)$ and simulate the displacement field $(\delta(x))$. The simulated displacement field is then used to transform $\I_t$ to obtain $\I_{t+1}$. We retrieve natural images as $\I_t$ from MIT places365 dataset [@zhou2016places]. The images are scaled to 128 $\times$ 128. We sub-sample the pixels of images into a $m \times m$ grid ($m = 4$ in the experiments), and randomly generate displacements on the grid points, which serve as the control points for deformation. Then $\delta(x)$ for $x \in D$ can be obtained by spline interpolation of the displacements on the control points. We get $\I_{t+1}$ by warping $\I_t$ using $\delta(x)$ [@jaderberg2015spatial]. When generating a displacement $\delta = (\delta_1, \delta_2)$, both $\delta_1$ and $\delta_2$ are randomly sampled from a range of $[-6, +6]$. We generate $20,000$ pairs for training and $3,000$ pairs for testing. We name this dataset V1Deform.
[**V1FlyingObjects.**]{} Next we consider separating the displacement field into motions of the background and foreground, to jointly simulate the self-motion of the agent and the motion of the objects in the natural 3D scenes. To this end, we create a synthetic dataset, by applying affine transformations to background images collected from MIT places365 [@zhou2016places] and foreground objects from a public 2D object dataset COIL-100 [@nene1996columbia]. The background images are scaled to $128 \times 128$, and the foreground images are randomly rescaled. To generate motion, we randomly sample affine parameters of translation, rotation, and scaling for both the foreground and background images. The motion of the foreground objects are relative to the background images, which can be explained as the relative motion between the moving object and agent. We tune the distribution of the affine parameters to keep the range of the displacement fields within $[-6, +6]$, which is consistent with the V1Deform dataset. Together with the mask of the foreground object and the sampled transformation parameters, we render the image pair $(\I_t, \I_{t+1})$ and its displacement field $(\delta(x))$ for each pair of background image and foreground image.
Specifically, we obtain the estimated masks from [@tev] for the 2D foreground objects and remove some textureless objects, resulting in 96 objects with $72$ views per object available. We generate $14,411$ synthetic image pairs with their corresponding displacement fields and further split $12,411$ pairs for training and $2,000$ pairs for testing. We name this dataset V1FlyingObjects. Compared with previous optical flow dataset like Flying Chairs [@DFIB15] and scene flow dataset like FlyingThings3D [@mayer2016large], the proposed V1FlyingObjects dataset has various foreground objects with more realistic texture and smoother displacement fields, which simulates more realistic environments. We shall release this dataset.
[**MPI-Sintel.**]{} MPI-Sintel [@Butler:ECCV:2012; @Wulff:ECCVws:2012] is a public dataset designed for the evaluation of optical flow derived from rendered aritificial scenes, with special attention to realistic image properties. Since MPI-Sintel is relatively small which contains around a thousand image pairs, we use it only for testing the learned models in the inference of displacement field, as described in details in sections \[sect: infer\]. We use the final version of MPI-Sintel and resize each frame into size $128 \times 128$. We select frame pairs whose motions are within the range of $[-6, +6]$, resulting in $384$ frame pairs in total.
[**MUG Facial Expression.**]{} MUG Facial Expression dataset [@aifanti2010mug] records natural facial expression videos of $86$ subjects sitting in front of one camera. This dataset has no ground truth of displacement field, which we use for unsupervised learning as stated in details in section \[sect: unsupervised\]. $200$ videos with $30$ frames are randomly selected for training, and anther $100$ videos are sampled for testing. The frame images are resized to $64 \times 64$.
Learned Gabor-like units with quadrature phase relationship {#sect: unit}
-----------------------------------------------------------
In this section we show and analyze the learned units. Figure \[fig: filters\](a) displays the learned units, i.e., rows of $W^{(k)}$, on V1Deform. The units are learned with non-parametric $M(\delta)$, i.e., we learn a separate $M(\delta)$ for each displacement. $\delta(x)$ is discretized with an interval of $0.5$. Similar patterns can be obtained by using parametric version of $M(\delta)$. Please refer to the supplementary \[supp: animation\] and \[supp: filters\] for more results, including animation of filters, filters learned with local mixing motion model (eqn. (\[eqn: local\_mixing\])), with different block sizes, and learned on V1FlyingObjects. V1-like patterns emerge from the learned units. Moreover, within each sub-vector, the orientations and frequencies of learned units are similar, while the phases are different.
To further analyze the spatial profile of the learned units, we fit every unit by a two dimensional Gabor function [@jones1987evaluation]: $h(x', y') = A \exp(-(x'/\sqrt{2}\sigma_{x'})^2-(y'/\sqrt{2}\sigma_{y'}))\cos(2\pi fx' + \phi)$, where $(x', y')$ is obtained by translating and rotating the original coordinate system $(x_0, y_0)$: $x' = (x - x_0)\cos\theta+(y-y_0)\sin\theta, y' = -(x - x_0)\sin\theta+(y-y_0)\cos\theta$. The fitted Gabor patterns are shown in figure \[fig: filters\](b), with the average fitting $r^2$ equal to 0.96 ($\text{std} = 0.04$). The average spatial-frequency bandwidth is 1.13 octaves, with range of $0.12$ to $4.67$. Figure \[fig: filters\](c) shows the distribution of the spatial-frequency bandwidth, where the majority falls within range of $0.5$ to $2.5$. The characteristics are reasonably similar to those of simple-cell receptive fields in the cat [@issa2000spatial] (weighted mean $1.32$ octaves, range of $0.5$ to $2.5$) and the macaque monkey [@foster1985spatial] (median $1.4$ octaves, range of $0.4$ to $2.6$). To analyze the distribution of the spatial phase $\phi$, we follow the method in [@ringach2002spatial] to transform the parameter $\phi$ into an effective range of $0$ to $\pi/2$, and plot the histogram of the transformed $\phi$ in figure \[fig: filters\](c). The strong bimodal with phases clustering near $0$ and $\pi/2$ is consistent withsupplementary those of the macaque monkey [@ringach2002spatial].
![Learned results on V1Deform. (a) Learned units. Each block shows two learned units within the same sub-vector. (b) Fitted Gabor patterns. (c) Distributions of spatial-frequency bandwidth (in octaves) and spatial phase $\phi$. []{data-label="fig: filters"}](./FIG/filters_noLasso.png "fig:"){width="0.8\linewidth"}\
(a) Learned units
![Learned results on V1Deform. (a) Learned units. Each block shows two learned units within the same sub-vector. (b) Fitted Gabor patterns. (c) Distributions of spatial-frequency bandwidth (in octaves) and spatial phase $\phi$. []{data-label="fig: filters"}](./FIG/fitted_gabor_noLasso.png "fig:"){width="0.8\linewidth"}\
(b) Fitted Gabor patterns
![Learned results on V1Deform. (a) Learned units. Each block shows two learned units within the same sub-vector. (b) Fitted Gabor patterns. (c) Distributions of spatial-frequency bandwidth (in octaves) and spatial phase $\phi$. []{data-label="fig: filters"}](./FIG/scale_noLasso.png "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}\
![Learned results on V1Deform. (a) Learned units. Each block shows two learned units within the same sub-vector. (b) Fitted Gabor patterns. (c) Distributions of spatial-frequency bandwidth (in octaves) and spatial phase $\phi$. []{data-label="fig: filters"}](./FIG/phase_noLasso.png "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}\
(c) Frequency and phase
In the above experiment, we fix the size of the convolutional filters ($16 \times 16$ pixels). A more reasonable model is to have different sizes of convolutional filters, with small size filters capturing high frequency content and big size filters capturing low frequency content. For fixed size filters, they should only account for the image content within a frequency band. To this end, we smooth every image by two Gaussian smoothing kenels (kernel size $8$, $\sigma = 1, 4$), and take the difference between the two smoothed images as the input image of the model. The effect of the two smoothing kernels is similar to a bandpass filter, so that the input images are constrained within a certain range of frequencies. The learned filters on V1Deform are shown in \[fig: filters2\](a). Again for every unit, we fit it by a two dimensional Gabor function, resulting in an average fitting $r^2 = 0.83$ ($\text{std}=0.12$). Following the analysis of [@ringach2002spatial; @rehn2007network], a scatter plot of $n_x = \sigma_xf$ versus $n_y = \sigma_yf$ is constructed in Figure \[fig: filters2\](b) based on the fitted parameters, where $n_x$ and $n_y$ represent the width and length of the Gabor envelopes measured in periods of the cosine waves. Compared to Sparsenet [@olshausen1996emergence; @olshausen1997sparse], the learned units by our model have more similar structure to the receptive fields of macaque monkey.
We also show profile of the learned units within each sub-vector in Figure \[fig: filters2\](c). Within each sub-vector, the frequency $f$ and orientation $\theta$ of the paired units tends to be the same. More importantly, most of the paired units differ in phase $\phi$ by approximately $\pi/2$, consistent with the quadratic phase relationship between adjacent simple cells [@pollen1981phase; @emerson1997quadrature].
![Learned results on band-pass image pairs from V1Deform. (a) Learned units. Each block shows two learned units within the same sub-vector. (b) Distribution of the Gabor envelope shapes in the width and length plane. (c) Difference of frequency $f$, orientation $\theta$ and phase $\phi$ of paired units within each sub-vector.[]{data-label="fig: filters2"}](./FIG/filters2 "fig:"){width="0.8\linewidth"}\
(a) Learned units
![Learned results on band-pass image pairs from V1Deform. (a) Learned units. Each block shows two learned units within the same sub-vector. (b) Distribution of the Gabor envelope shapes in the width and length plane. (c) Difference of frequency $f$, orientation $\theta$ and phase $\phi$ of paired units within each sub-vector.[]{data-label="fig: filters2"}](./FIG/comparison.png "fig:"){width=".45\textwidth"} ![Learned results on band-pass image pairs from V1Deform. (a) Learned units. Each block shows two learned units within the same sub-vector. (b) Distribution of the Gabor envelope shapes in the width and length plane. (c) Difference of frequency $f$, orientation $\theta$ and phase $\phi$ of paired units within each sub-vector.[]{data-label="fig: filters2"}](./FIG/comparison_sparsenet.png "fig:"){width=".45\textwidth"}\
(b) Gabor envelope shapes of the learned units
\
![Learned results on band-pass image pairs from V1Deform. (a) Learned units. Each block shows two learned units within the same sub-vector. (b) Distribution of the Gabor envelope shapes in the width and length plane. (c) Difference of frequency $f$, orientation $\theta$ and phase $\phi$ of paired units within each sub-vector.[]{data-label="fig: filters2"}](./FIG/freq_diff.png "fig:"){width=".28\textwidth"} ![Learned results on band-pass image pairs from V1Deform. (a) Learned units. Each block shows two learned units within the same sub-vector. (b) Distribution of the Gabor envelope shapes in the width and length plane. (c) Difference of frequency $f$, orientation $\theta$ and phase $\phi$ of paired units within each sub-vector.[]{data-label="fig: filters2"}](./FIG/orien_diff.png "fig:"){width=".28\textwidth"} ![Learned results on band-pass image pairs from V1Deform. (a) Learned units. Each block shows two learned units within the same sub-vector. (b) Distribution of the Gabor envelope shapes in the width and length plane. (c) Difference of frequency $f$, orientation $\theta$ and phase $\phi$ of paired units within each sub-vector.[]{data-label="fig: filters2"}](./FIG/phase_diff.png "fig:"){width=".28\textwidth"}\
(c) Profile of paired units within each sub-vector
Inference of displacement field {#sect: infer}
-------------------------------
We then test the learned representations in terms of inferring the displacement field $(\delta(x))$ between pairs of frames $(\I_t, \I_{t+1})$. To get valid image patches for the inference, we leave out those displacements at image border ($8$ pixels at each side).
We infer the displacement field $(\delta(x))$ using the learned vector and matrix representation. On top of that, we also train a CNN model with ResNet blocks [@he2016identity] to refine the inferred displacement field. In training this CNN, the input is the inferred displacement field, and the output is the ground truth displacement field, with least squares regression loss. The detailed model structure is in supplementary \[sect: cnn model\]. For V1Deform, we train the representational model without refinement and test on the testing set of V1Deform. For V1FlyingObjects, we train both the representational model and the refinement CNN on the training set, and test on the testing set of V1FlyingObjects and MPI-Sintel datasets. The refinement CNN is to approximate the processing in visual areas V2-V6 that integrates and refines the motion perception in V1 [@gazzaniga2002cognitive; @lyon2002evidence; @moran1985selective; @born2005structure; @allman1975dorsomedial].
Figure \[fig: infer\_non\_para1\] displays several examples of the inferred displacement field, learned with non-parametric $M(\delta)$, using the local mixing motion model (eqn. (\[eqn: local\_mixing\])), where the local support $\mathcal{S}$ is in a range of $[-4, +4]$, and $\text{d}x$ is taken with a sub-sampling rate of $2$. We also show the inferred results from pre-trained FlowNet 2.0 [@IMKDB17] model as a comparison. In Table \[table: infer\], we report the average endpoint error (EPE) of the inferred results. We compare with some baseline methods, such as the FlowNet and its variants [@DFIB15; @IMKDB17], by obtaining the pre-trained models and testing on the corresponding datasets. Note that those methods train deep and complicated neural networks with large scale datasets to predict optical flows in supervised manners, while our model can be treated as a simple one-layer auto-encoder network, accompanied by weight matrices representing motions. We achieve competitive results to these methods.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$\I_t$ $\I_{t+1}$ Gt FN2 Ours
![Examples of inference of displacement field on V1Deform, V1FlyingObjects and MPI-Sintel. For each block, from left to right are $\I_t$, $\I_{t+1}$, ground truth displacement field and inferred displacement field by pre-trained FlowNet 2.0 model and our learned model respectively. $^\dagger$ indicates that the results are refined by the refinement CNN. The displacement fields are color coded. See supplementary \[sect: color map\] for the color code [@liu2010sift].[]{data-label="fig: infer_non_para1"}](./FIG/inference_new_crop/infer_77/img_1.png "fig:"){width=".2\linewidth"} ![Examples of inference of displacement field on V1Deform, V1FlyingObjects and MPI-Sintel. For each block, from left to right are $\I_t$, $\I_{t+1}$, ground truth displacement field and inferred displacement field by pre-trained FlowNet 2.0 model and our learned model respectively. $^\dagger$ indicates that the results are refined by the refinement CNN. The displacement fields are color coded. See supplementary \[sect: color map\] for the color code [@liu2010sift].[]{data-label="fig: infer_non_para1"}](./FIG/inference_new_crop/infer_77/img_2.png "fig:"){width=".2\linewidth"} ![Examples of inference of displacement field on V1Deform, V1FlyingObjects and MPI-Sintel. For each block, from left to right are $\I_t$, $\I_{t+1}$, ground truth displacement field and inferred displacement field by pre-trained FlowNet 2.0 model and our learned model respectively. $^\dagger$ indicates that the results are refined by the refinement CNN. The displacement fields are color coded. See supplementary \[sect: color map\] for the color code [@liu2010sift].[]{data-label="fig: infer_non_para1"}](./FIG/inference_new_crop/infer_77/flow_gt.png "fig:"){width=".2\linewidth"} ![Examples of inference of displacement field on V1Deform, V1FlyingObjects and MPI-Sintel. For each block, from left to right are $\I_t$, $\I_{t+1}$, ground truth displacement field and inferred displacement field by pre-trained FlowNet 2.0 model and our learned model respectively. $^\dagger$ indicates that the results are refined by the refinement CNN. The displacement fields are color coded. See supplementary \[sect: color map\] for the color code [@liu2010sift].[]{data-label="fig: infer_non_para1"}](./FIG/inference_new_crop/FN2/78_flow.png "fig:"){width=".2\linewidth"} ![Examples of inference of displacement field on V1Deform, V1FlyingObjects and MPI-Sintel. For each block, from left to right are $\I_t$, $\I_{t+1}$, ground truth displacement field and inferred displacement field by pre-trained FlowNet 2.0 model and our learned model respectively. $^\dagger$ indicates that the results are refined by the refinement CNN. The displacement fields are color coded. See supplementary \[sect: color map\] for the color code [@liu2010sift].[]{data-label="fig: infer_non_para1"}](./FIG/inference_new_crop/infer_77/flow_predict.png "fig:"){width=".2\linewidth"}
![Examples of inference of displacement field on V1Deform, V1FlyingObjects and MPI-Sintel. For each block, from left to right are $\I_t$, $\I_{t+1}$, ground truth displacement field and inferred displacement field by pre-trained FlowNet 2.0 model and our learned model respectively. $^\dagger$ indicates that the results are refined by the refinement CNN. The displacement fields are color coded. See supplementary \[sect: color map\] for the color code [@liu2010sift].[]{data-label="fig: infer_non_para1"}](./FIG/inference_new_crop/infer_62/img_1.png "fig:"){width=".2\linewidth"} ![Examples of inference of displacement field on V1Deform, V1FlyingObjects and MPI-Sintel. For each block, from left to right are $\I_t$, $\I_{t+1}$, ground truth displacement field and inferred displacement field by pre-trained FlowNet 2.0 model and our learned model respectively. $^\dagger$ indicates that the results are refined by the refinement CNN. The displacement fields are color coded. See supplementary \[sect: color map\] for the color code [@liu2010sift].[]{data-label="fig: infer_non_para1"}](./FIG/inference_new_crop/infer_62/img_2.png "fig:"){width=".2\linewidth"} ![Examples of inference of displacement field on V1Deform, V1FlyingObjects and MPI-Sintel. For each block, from left to right are $\I_t$, $\I_{t+1}$, ground truth displacement field and inferred displacement field by pre-trained FlowNet 2.0 model and our learned model respectively. $^\dagger$ indicates that the results are refined by the refinement CNN. The displacement fields are color coded. See supplementary \[sect: color map\] for the color code [@liu2010sift].[]{data-label="fig: infer_non_para1"}](./FIG/inference_new_crop/infer_62/flow_gt.png "fig:"){width=".2\linewidth"} ![Examples of inference of displacement field on V1Deform, V1FlyingObjects and MPI-Sintel. For each block, from left to right are $\I_t$, $\I_{t+1}$, ground truth displacement field and inferred displacement field by pre-trained FlowNet 2.0 model and our learned model respectively. $^\dagger$ indicates that the results are refined by the refinement CNN. The displacement fields are color coded. See supplementary \[sect: color map\] for the color code [@liu2010sift].[]{data-label="fig: infer_non_para1"}](./FIG/inference_new_crop/FN2/63_flow.png "fig:"){width=".2\linewidth"} ![Examples of inference of displacement field on V1Deform, V1FlyingObjects and MPI-Sintel. For each block, from left to right are $\I_t$, $\I_{t+1}$, ground truth displacement field and inferred displacement field by pre-trained FlowNet 2.0 model and our learned model respectively. $^\dagger$ indicates that the results are refined by the refinement CNN. The displacement fields are color coded. See supplementary \[sect: color map\] for the color code [@liu2010sift].[]{data-label="fig: infer_non_para1"}](./FIG/inference_new_crop/infer_62/flow_predict.png "fig:"){width=".2\linewidth"}
$\I_t$ $\I_{t+1}$ Gt FN2 Ours$^\dagger$
![Examples of inference of displacement field on V1Deform, V1FlyingObjects and MPI-Sintel. For each block, from left to right are $\I_t$, $\I_{t+1}$, ground truth displacement field and inferred displacement field by pre-trained FlowNet 2.0 model and our learned model respectively. $^\dagger$ indicates that the results are refined by the refinement CNN. The displacement fields are color coded. See supplementary \[sect: color map\] for the color code [@liu2010sift].[]{data-label="fig: infer_non_para1"}](./FIG/inference_v1flow/test1/img1/26.png "fig:"){width=".2\linewidth"} ![Examples of inference of displacement field on V1Deform, V1FlyingObjects and MPI-Sintel. For each block, from left to right are $\I_t$, $\I_{t+1}$, ground truth displacement field and inferred displacement field by pre-trained FlowNet 2.0 model and our learned model respectively. $^\dagger$ indicates that the results are refined by the refinement CNN. The displacement fields are color coded. See supplementary \[sect: color map\] for the color code [@liu2010sift].[]{data-label="fig: infer_non_para1"}](./FIG/inference_v1flow/test1/img2/26.png "fig:"){width=".2\linewidth"} ![Examples of inference of displacement field on V1Deform, V1FlyingObjects and MPI-Sintel. For each block, from left to right are $\I_t$, $\I_{t+1}$, ground truth displacement field and inferred displacement field by pre-trained FlowNet 2.0 model and our learned model respectively. $^\dagger$ indicates that the results are refined by the refinement CNN. The displacement fields are color coded. See supplementary \[sect: color map\] for the color code [@liu2010sift].[]{data-label="fig: infer_non_para1"}](./FIG/inference_v1flow/test1/gt/26.png "fig:"){width=".2\linewidth"} ![Examples of inference of displacement field on V1Deform, V1FlyingObjects and MPI-Sintel. For each block, from left to right are $\I_t$, $\I_{t+1}$, ground truth displacement field and inferred displacement field by pre-trained FlowNet 2.0 model and our learned model respectively. $^\dagger$ indicates that the results are refined by the refinement CNN. The displacement fields are color coded. See supplementary \[sect: color map\] for the color code [@liu2010sift].[]{data-label="fig: infer_non_para1"}](./FIG/inference_v1flow/test1/2/flow-26.png "fig:"){width=".2\linewidth"} ![Examples of inference of displacement field on V1Deform, V1FlyingObjects and MPI-Sintel. For each block, from left to right are $\I_t$, $\I_{t+1}$, ground truth displacement field and inferred displacement field by pre-trained FlowNet 2.0 model and our learned model respectively. $^\dagger$ indicates that the results are refined by the refinement CNN. The displacement fields are color coded. See supplementary \[sect: color map\] for the color code [@liu2010sift].[]{data-label="fig: infer_non_para1"}](./FIG/inference_v1flow/test1/res/26.png "fig:"){width=".2\linewidth"}
![Examples of inference of displacement field on V1Deform, V1FlyingObjects and MPI-Sintel. For each block, from left to right are $\I_t$, $\I_{t+1}$, ground truth displacement field and inferred displacement field by pre-trained FlowNet 2.0 model and our learned model respectively. $^\dagger$ indicates that the results are refined by the refinement CNN. The displacement fields are color coded. See supplementary \[sect: color map\] for the color code [@liu2010sift].[]{data-label="fig: infer_non_para1"}](./FIG/inference_v1flow/test1/img1/4.png "fig:"){width=".2\linewidth"} ![Examples of inference of displacement field on V1Deform, V1FlyingObjects and MPI-Sintel. For each block, from left to right are $\I_t$, $\I_{t+1}$, ground truth displacement field and inferred displacement field by pre-trained FlowNet 2.0 model and our learned model respectively. $^\dagger$ indicates that the results are refined by the refinement CNN. The displacement fields are color coded. See supplementary \[sect: color map\] for the color code [@liu2010sift].[]{data-label="fig: infer_non_para1"}](./FIG/inference_v1flow/test1/img2/4.png "fig:"){width=".2\linewidth"} ![Examples of inference of displacement field on V1Deform, V1FlyingObjects and MPI-Sintel. For each block, from left to right are $\I_t$, $\I_{t+1}$, ground truth displacement field and inferred displacement field by pre-trained FlowNet 2.0 model and our learned model respectively. $^\dagger$ indicates that the results are refined by the refinement CNN. The displacement fields are color coded. See supplementary \[sect: color map\] for the color code [@liu2010sift].[]{data-label="fig: infer_non_para1"}](./FIG/inference_v1flow/test1/gt/4.png "fig:"){width=".2\linewidth"} ![Examples of inference of displacement field on V1Deform, V1FlyingObjects and MPI-Sintel. For each block, from left to right are $\I_t$, $\I_{t+1}$, ground truth displacement field and inferred displacement field by pre-trained FlowNet 2.0 model and our learned model respectively. $^\dagger$ indicates that the results are refined by the refinement CNN. The displacement fields are color coded. See supplementary \[sect: color map\] for the color code [@liu2010sift].[]{data-label="fig: infer_non_para1"}](./FIG/inference_v1flow/test1/2/flow-04.png "fig:"){width=".2\linewidth"} ![Examples of inference of displacement field on V1Deform, V1FlyingObjects and MPI-Sintel. For each block, from left to right are $\I_t$, $\I_{t+1}$, ground truth displacement field and inferred displacement field by pre-trained FlowNet 2.0 model and our learned model respectively. $^\dagger$ indicates that the results are refined by the refinement CNN. The displacement fields are color coded. See supplementary \[sect: color map\] for the color code [@liu2010sift].[]{data-label="fig: infer_non_para1"}](./FIG/inference_v1flow/test1/res/4.png "fig:"){width=".2\linewidth"}
![Examples of inference of displacement field on V1Deform, V1FlyingObjects and MPI-Sintel. For each block, from left to right are $\I_t$, $\I_{t+1}$, ground truth displacement field and inferred displacement field by pre-trained FlowNet 2.0 model and our learned model respectively. $^\dagger$ indicates that the results are refined by the refinement CNN. The displacement fields are color coded. See supplementary \[sect: color map\] for the color code [@liu2010sift].[]{data-label="fig: infer_non_para1"}](./FIG/inference_v1flow/sintel_result/img1/143.png "fig:"){width=".2\linewidth"} ![Examples of inference of displacement field on V1Deform, V1FlyingObjects and MPI-Sintel. For each block, from left to right are $\I_t$, $\I_{t+1}$, ground truth displacement field and inferred displacement field by pre-trained FlowNet 2.0 model and our learned model respectively. $^\dagger$ indicates that the results are refined by the refinement CNN. The displacement fields are color coded. See supplementary \[sect: color map\] for the color code [@liu2010sift].[]{data-label="fig: infer_non_para1"}](./FIG/inference_v1flow/sintel_result/img2/143.png "fig:"){width=".2\linewidth"} ![Examples of inference of displacement field on V1Deform, V1FlyingObjects and MPI-Sintel. For each block, from left to right are $\I_t$, $\I_{t+1}$, ground truth displacement field and inferred displacement field by pre-trained FlowNet 2.0 model and our learned model respectively. $^\dagger$ indicates that the results are refined by the refinement CNN. The displacement fields are color coded. See supplementary \[sect: color map\] for the color code [@liu2010sift].[]{data-label="fig: infer_non_para1"}](./FIG/inference_v1flow/sintel_result/gt/143.png "fig:"){width=".2\linewidth"} ![Examples of inference of displacement field on V1Deform, V1FlyingObjects and MPI-Sintel. For each block, from left to right are $\I_t$, $\I_{t+1}$, ground truth displacement field and inferred displacement field by pre-trained FlowNet 2.0 model and our learned model respectively. $^\dagger$ indicates that the results are refined by the refinement CNN. The displacement fields are color coded. See supplementary \[sect: color map\] for the color code [@liu2010sift].[]{data-label="fig: infer_non_para1"}](./FIG/inference_v1flow/sintel_result/2/flow-143.png "fig:"){width=".2\linewidth"} ![Examples of inference of displacement field on V1Deform, V1FlyingObjects and MPI-Sintel. For each block, from left to right are $\I_t$, $\I_{t+1}$, ground truth displacement field and inferred displacement field by pre-trained FlowNet 2.0 model and our learned model respectively. $^\dagger$ indicates that the results are refined by the refinement CNN. The displacement fields are color coded. See supplementary \[sect: color map\] for the color code [@liu2010sift].[]{data-label="fig: infer_non_para1"}](./FIG/inference_v1flow/sintel_result/res/143.png "fig:"){width=".2\linewidth"}
![Examples of inference of displacement field on V1Deform, V1FlyingObjects and MPI-Sintel. For each block, from left to right are $\I_t$, $\I_{t+1}$, ground truth displacement field and inferred displacement field by pre-trained FlowNet 2.0 model and our learned model respectively. $^\dagger$ indicates that the results are refined by the refinement CNN. The displacement fields are color coded. See supplementary \[sect: color map\] for the color code [@liu2010sift].[]{data-label="fig: infer_non_para1"}](./FIG/inference_v1flow/sintel_result/img1/17.png "fig:"){width=".2\linewidth"} ![Examples of inference of displacement field on V1Deform, V1FlyingObjects and MPI-Sintel. For each block, from left to right are $\I_t$, $\I_{t+1}$, ground truth displacement field and inferred displacement field by pre-trained FlowNet 2.0 model and our learned model respectively. $^\dagger$ indicates that the results are refined by the refinement CNN. The displacement fields are color coded. See supplementary \[sect: color map\] for the color code [@liu2010sift].[]{data-label="fig: infer_non_para1"}](./FIG/inference_v1flow/sintel_result/img2/17.png "fig:"){width=".2\linewidth"} ![Examples of inference of displacement field on V1Deform, V1FlyingObjects and MPI-Sintel. For each block, from left to right are $\I_t$, $\I_{t+1}$, ground truth displacement field and inferred displacement field by pre-trained FlowNet 2.0 model and our learned model respectively. $^\dagger$ indicates that the results are refined by the refinement CNN. The displacement fields are color coded. See supplementary \[sect: color map\] for the color code [@liu2010sift].[]{data-label="fig: infer_non_para1"}](./FIG/inference_v1flow/sintel_result/gt/17.png "fig:"){width=".2\linewidth"} ![Examples of inference of displacement field on V1Deform, V1FlyingObjects and MPI-Sintel. For each block, from left to right are $\I_t$, $\I_{t+1}$, ground truth displacement field and inferred displacement field by pre-trained FlowNet 2.0 model and our learned model respectively. $^\dagger$ indicates that the results are refined by the refinement CNN. The displacement fields are color coded. See supplementary \[sect: color map\] for the color code [@liu2010sift].[]{data-label="fig: infer_non_para1"}](./FIG/inference_v1flow/sintel_result/2/flow-17.png "fig:"){width=".2\linewidth"} ![Examples of inference of displacement field on V1Deform, V1FlyingObjects and MPI-Sintel. For each block, from left to right are $\I_t$, $\I_{t+1}$, ground truth displacement field and inferred displacement field by pre-trained FlowNet 2.0 model and our learned model respectively. $^\dagger$ indicates that the results are refined by the refinement CNN. The displacement fields are color coded. See supplementary \[sect: color map\] for the color code [@liu2010sift].[]{data-label="fig: infer_non_para1"}](./FIG/inference_v1flow/sintel_result/infer/17.png "fig:"){width=".2\linewidth"}
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$\I_t$ $\I_{t+1}$ Gt FN2 Ours
![Examples of inference of displacement field on V1Deform, V1FlyingObjects and MPI-Sintel. For each block, from left to right are $\I_t$, $\I_{t+1}$, ground truth displacement field and inferred displacement field by pre-trained FlowNet 2.0 model and our learned model respectively. $^\dagger$ indicates that the results are refined by the refinement CNN. The displacement fields are color coded. See supplementary \[sect: color map\] for the color code [@liu2010sift].[]{data-label="fig: infer_non_para1"}](./FIG/inference_new_crop/infer_84/img_1.png "fig:"){width=".2\linewidth"} ![Examples of inference of displacement field on V1Deform, V1FlyingObjects and MPI-Sintel. For each block, from left to right are $\I_t$, $\I_{t+1}$, ground truth displacement field and inferred displacement field by pre-trained FlowNet 2.0 model and our learned model respectively. $^\dagger$ indicates that the results are refined by the refinement CNN. The displacement fields are color coded. See supplementary \[sect: color map\] for the color code [@liu2010sift].[]{data-label="fig: infer_non_para1"}](./FIG/inference_new_crop/infer_84/img_2.png "fig:"){width=".2\linewidth"} ![Examples of inference of displacement field on V1Deform, V1FlyingObjects and MPI-Sintel. For each block, from left to right are $\I_t$, $\I_{t+1}$, ground truth displacement field and inferred displacement field by pre-trained FlowNet 2.0 model and our learned model respectively. $^\dagger$ indicates that the results are refined by the refinement CNN. The displacement fields are color coded. See supplementary \[sect: color map\] for the color code [@liu2010sift].[]{data-label="fig: infer_non_para1"}](./FIG/inference_new_crop/infer_84/flow_gt.png "fig:"){width=".2\linewidth"} ![Examples of inference of displacement field on V1Deform, V1FlyingObjects and MPI-Sintel. For each block, from left to right are $\I_t$, $\I_{t+1}$, ground truth displacement field and inferred displacement field by pre-trained FlowNet 2.0 model and our learned model respectively. $^\dagger$ indicates that the results are refined by the refinement CNN. The displacement fields are color coded. See supplementary \[sect: color map\] for the color code [@liu2010sift].[]{data-label="fig: infer_non_para1"}](./FIG/inference_new_crop/FN2/85_flow.png "fig:"){width=".2\linewidth"} ![Examples of inference of displacement field on V1Deform, V1FlyingObjects and MPI-Sintel. For each block, from left to right are $\I_t$, $\I_{t+1}$, ground truth displacement field and inferred displacement field by pre-trained FlowNet 2.0 model and our learned model respectively. $^\dagger$ indicates that the results are refined by the refinement CNN. The displacement fields are color coded. See supplementary \[sect: color map\] for the color code [@liu2010sift].[]{data-label="fig: infer_non_para1"}](./FIG/inference_new_crop/infer_84/flow_predict.png "fig:"){width=".2\linewidth"}
![Examples of inference of displacement field on V1Deform, V1FlyingObjects and MPI-Sintel. For each block, from left to right are $\I_t$, $\I_{t+1}$, ground truth displacement field and inferred displacement field by pre-trained FlowNet 2.0 model and our learned model respectively. $^\dagger$ indicates that the results are refined by the refinement CNN. The displacement fields are color coded. See supplementary \[sect: color map\] for the color code [@liu2010sift].[]{data-label="fig: infer_non_para1"}](./FIG/inference_new_crop/infer_72/img_1.png "fig:"){width=".2\linewidth"} ![Examples of inference of displacement field on V1Deform, V1FlyingObjects and MPI-Sintel. For each block, from left to right are $\I_t$, $\I_{t+1}$, ground truth displacement field and inferred displacement field by pre-trained FlowNet 2.0 model and our learned model respectively. $^\dagger$ indicates that the results are refined by the refinement CNN. The displacement fields are color coded. See supplementary \[sect: color map\] for the color code [@liu2010sift].[]{data-label="fig: infer_non_para1"}](./FIG/inference_new_crop/infer_72/img_2.png "fig:"){width=".2\linewidth"} ![Examples of inference of displacement field on V1Deform, V1FlyingObjects and MPI-Sintel. For each block, from left to right are $\I_t$, $\I_{t+1}$, ground truth displacement field and inferred displacement field by pre-trained FlowNet 2.0 model and our learned model respectively. $^\dagger$ indicates that the results are refined by the refinement CNN. The displacement fields are color coded. See supplementary \[sect: color map\] for the color code [@liu2010sift].[]{data-label="fig: infer_non_para1"}](./FIG/inference_new_crop/infer_72/flow_gt.png "fig:"){width=".2\linewidth"} ![Examples of inference of displacement field on V1Deform, V1FlyingObjects and MPI-Sintel. For each block, from left to right are $\I_t$, $\I_{t+1}$, ground truth displacement field and inferred displacement field by pre-trained FlowNet 2.0 model and our learned model respectively. $^\dagger$ indicates that the results are refined by the refinement CNN. The displacement fields are color coded. See supplementary \[sect: color map\] for the color code [@liu2010sift].[]{data-label="fig: infer_non_para1"}](./FIG/inference_new_crop/FN2/73_flow.png "fig:"){width=".2\linewidth"} ![Examples of inference of displacement field on V1Deform, V1FlyingObjects and MPI-Sintel. For each block, from left to right are $\I_t$, $\I_{t+1}$, ground truth displacement field and inferred displacement field by pre-trained FlowNet 2.0 model and our learned model respectively. $^\dagger$ indicates that the results are refined by the refinement CNN. The displacement fields are color coded. See supplementary \[sect: color map\] for the color code [@liu2010sift].[]{data-label="fig: infer_non_para1"}](./FIG/inference_new_crop/infer_72/flow_predict.png "fig:"){width=".2\linewidth"}
$\I_t$ $\I_{t+1}$ Gt FN2 Ours$^\dagger$
![Examples of inference of displacement field on V1Deform, V1FlyingObjects and MPI-Sintel. For each block, from left to right are $\I_t$, $\I_{t+1}$, ground truth displacement field and inferred displacement field by pre-trained FlowNet 2.0 model and our learned model respectively. $^\dagger$ indicates that the results are refined by the refinement CNN. The displacement fields are color coded. See supplementary \[sect: color map\] for the color code [@liu2010sift].[]{data-label="fig: infer_non_para1"}](./FIG/inference_v1flow/test1/img1/2.png "fig:"){width=".2\linewidth"} ![Examples of inference of displacement field on V1Deform, V1FlyingObjects and MPI-Sintel. For each block, from left to right are $\I_t$, $\I_{t+1}$, ground truth displacement field and inferred displacement field by pre-trained FlowNet 2.0 model and our learned model respectively. $^\dagger$ indicates that the results are refined by the refinement CNN. The displacement fields are color coded. See supplementary \[sect: color map\] for the color code [@liu2010sift].[]{data-label="fig: infer_non_para1"}](./FIG/inference_v1flow/test1/img2/2.png "fig:"){width=".2\linewidth"} ![Examples of inference of displacement field on V1Deform, V1FlyingObjects and MPI-Sintel. For each block, from left to right are $\I_t$, $\I_{t+1}$, ground truth displacement field and inferred displacement field by pre-trained FlowNet 2.0 model and our learned model respectively. $^\dagger$ indicates that the results are refined by the refinement CNN. The displacement fields are color coded. See supplementary \[sect: color map\] for the color code [@liu2010sift].[]{data-label="fig: infer_non_para1"}](./FIG/inference_v1flow/test1/gt/2.png "fig:"){width=".2\linewidth"} ![Examples of inference of displacement field on V1Deform, V1FlyingObjects and MPI-Sintel. For each block, from left to right are $\I_t$, $\I_{t+1}$, ground truth displacement field and inferred displacement field by pre-trained FlowNet 2.0 model and our learned model respectively. $^\dagger$ indicates that the results are refined by the refinement CNN. The displacement fields are color coded. See supplementary \[sect: color map\] for the color code [@liu2010sift].[]{data-label="fig: infer_non_para1"}](./FIG/inference_v1flow/test1/2/flow-02.png "fig:"){width=".2\linewidth"} ![Examples of inference of displacement field on V1Deform, V1FlyingObjects and MPI-Sintel. For each block, from left to right are $\I_t$, $\I_{t+1}$, ground truth displacement field and inferred displacement field by pre-trained FlowNet 2.0 model and our learned model respectively. $^\dagger$ indicates that the results are refined by the refinement CNN. The displacement fields are color coded. See supplementary \[sect: color map\] for the color code [@liu2010sift].[]{data-label="fig: infer_non_para1"}](./FIG/inference_v1flow/test1/res/2.png "fig:"){width=".2\linewidth"}
![Examples of inference of displacement field on V1Deform, V1FlyingObjects and MPI-Sintel. For each block, from left to right are $\I_t$, $\I_{t+1}$, ground truth displacement field and inferred displacement field by pre-trained FlowNet 2.0 model and our learned model respectively. $^\dagger$ indicates that the results are refined by the refinement CNN. The displacement fields are color coded. See supplementary \[sect: color map\] for the color code [@liu2010sift].[]{data-label="fig: infer_non_para1"}](./FIG/inference_v1flow/test1/img1/13.png "fig:"){width=".2\linewidth"} ![Examples of inference of displacement field on V1Deform, V1FlyingObjects and MPI-Sintel. For each block, from left to right are $\I_t$, $\I_{t+1}$, ground truth displacement field and inferred displacement field by pre-trained FlowNet 2.0 model and our learned model respectively. $^\dagger$ indicates that the results are refined by the refinement CNN. The displacement fields are color coded. See supplementary \[sect: color map\] for the color code [@liu2010sift].[]{data-label="fig: infer_non_para1"}](./FIG/inference_v1flow/test1/img2/13.png "fig:"){width=".2\linewidth"} ![Examples of inference of displacement field on V1Deform, V1FlyingObjects and MPI-Sintel. For each block, from left to right are $\I_t$, $\I_{t+1}$, ground truth displacement field and inferred displacement field by pre-trained FlowNet 2.0 model and our learned model respectively. $^\dagger$ indicates that the results are refined by the refinement CNN. The displacement fields are color coded. See supplementary \[sect: color map\] for the color code [@liu2010sift].[]{data-label="fig: infer_non_para1"}](./FIG/inference_v1flow/test1/gt/13.png "fig:"){width=".2\linewidth"} ![Examples of inference of displacement field on V1Deform, V1FlyingObjects and MPI-Sintel. For each block, from left to right are $\I_t$, $\I_{t+1}$, ground truth displacement field and inferred displacement field by pre-trained FlowNet 2.0 model and our learned model respectively. $^\dagger$ indicates that the results are refined by the refinement CNN. The displacement fields are color coded. See supplementary \[sect: color map\] for the color code [@liu2010sift].[]{data-label="fig: infer_non_para1"}](./FIG/inference_v1flow/test1/2/flow-13.png "fig:"){width=".2\linewidth"} ![Examples of inference of displacement field on V1Deform, V1FlyingObjects and MPI-Sintel. For each block, from left to right are $\I_t$, $\I_{t+1}$, ground truth displacement field and inferred displacement field by pre-trained FlowNet 2.0 model and our learned model respectively. $^\dagger$ indicates that the results are refined by the refinement CNN. The displacement fields are color coded. See supplementary \[sect: color map\] for the color code [@liu2010sift].[]{data-label="fig: infer_non_para1"}](./FIG/inference_v1flow/test1/res/13.png "fig:"){width=".2\linewidth"}
![Examples of inference of displacement field on V1Deform, V1FlyingObjects and MPI-Sintel. For each block, from left to right are $\I_t$, $\I_{t+1}$, ground truth displacement field and inferred displacement field by pre-trained FlowNet 2.0 model and our learned model respectively. $^\dagger$ indicates that the results are refined by the refinement CNN. The displacement fields are color coded. See supplementary \[sect: color map\] for the color code [@liu2010sift].[]{data-label="fig: infer_non_para1"}](./FIG/inference_v1flow/sintel_result/img1/272.png "fig:"){width=".2\linewidth"} ![Examples of inference of displacement field on V1Deform, V1FlyingObjects and MPI-Sintel. For each block, from left to right are $\I_t$, $\I_{t+1}$, ground truth displacement field and inferred displacement field by pre-trained FlowNet 2.0 model and our learned model respectively. $^\dagger$ indicates that the results are refined by the refinement CNN. The displacement fields are color coded. See supplementary \[sect: color map\] for the color code [@liu2010sift].[]{data-label="fig: infer_non_para1"}](./FIG/inference_v1flow/sintel_result/img2/272.png "fig:"){width=".2\linewidth"} ![Examples of inference of displacement field on V1Deform, V1FlyingObjects and MPI-Sintel. For each block, from left to right are $\I_t$, $\I_{t+1}$, ground truth displacement field and inferred displacement field by pre-trained FlowNet 2.0 model and our learned model respectively. $^\dagger$ indicates that the results are refined by the refinement CNN. The displacement fields are color coded. See supplementary \[sect: color map\] for the color code [@liu2010sift].[]{data-label="fig: infer_non_para1"}](./FIG/inference_v1flow/sintel_result/gt/272.png "fig:"){width=".2\linewidth"} ![Examples of inference of displacement field on V1Deform, V1FlyingObjects and MPI-Sintel. For each block, from left to right are $\I_t$, $\I_{t+1}$, ground truth displacement field and inferred displacement field by pre-trained FlowNet 2.0 model and our learned model respectively. $^\dagger$ indicates that the results are refined by the refinement CNN. The displacement fields are color coded. See supplementary \[sect: color map\] for the color code [@liu2010sift].[]{data-label="fig: infer_non_para1"}](./FIG/inference_v1flow/sintel_result/2/flow-272.png "fig:"){width=".2\linewidth"} ![Examples of inference of displacement field on V1Deform, V1FlyingObjects and MPI-Sintel. For each block, from left to right are $\I_t$, $\I_{t+1}$, ground truth displacement field and inferred displacement field by pre-trained FlowNet 2.0 model and our learned model respectively. $^\dagger$ indicates that the results are refined by the refinement CNN. The displacement fields are color coded. See supplementary \[sect: color map\] for the color code [@liu2010sift].[]{data-label="fig: infer_non_para1"}](./FIG/inference_v1flow/sintel_result/res/272.png "fig:"){width=".2\linewidth"}
![Examples of inference of displacement field on V1Deform, V1FlyingObjects and MPI-Sintel. For each block, from left to right are $\I_t$, $\I_{t+1}$, ground truth displacement field and inferred displacement field by pre-trained FlowNet 2.0 model and our learned model respectively. $^\dagger$ indicates that the results are refined by the refinement CNN. The displacement fields are color coded. See supplementary \[sect: color map\] for the color code [@liu2010sift].[]{data-label="fig: infer_non_para1"}](./FIG/inference_v1flow/sintel_result/img1/65.png "fig:"){width=".2\linewidth"} ![Examples of inference of displacement field on V1Deform, V1FlyingObjects and MPI-Sintel. For each block, from left to right are $\I_t$, $\I_{t+1}$, ground truth displacement field and inferred displacement field by pre-trained FlowNet 2.0 model and our learned model respectively. $^\dagger$ indicates that the results are refined by the refinement CNN. The displacement fields are color coded. See supplementary \[sect: color map\] for the color code [@liu2010sift].[]{data-label="fig: infer_non_para1"}](./FIG/inference_v1flow/sintel_result/img2/65.png "fig:"){width=".2\linewidth"} ![Examples of inference of displacement field on V1Deform, V1FlyingObjects and MPI-Sintel. For each block, from left to right are $\I_t$, $\I_{t+1}$, ground truth displacement field and inferred displacement field by pre-trained FlowNet 2.0 model and our learned model respectively. $^\dagger$ indicates that the results are refined by the refinement CNN. The displacement fields are color coded. See supplementary \[sect: color map\] for the color code [@liu2010sift].[]{data-label="fig: infer_non_para1"}](./FIG/inference_v1flow/sintel_result/gt/65.png "fig:"){width=".2\linewidth"} ![Examples of inference of displacement field on V1Deform, V1FlyingObjects and MPI-Sintel. For each block, from left to right are $\I_t$, $\I_{t+1}$, ground truth displacement field and inferred displacement field by pre-trained FlowNet 2.0 model and our learned model respectively. $^\dagger$ indicates that the results are refined by the refinement CNN. The displacement fields are color coded. See supplementary \[sect: color map\] for the color code [@liu2010sift].[]{data-label="fig: infer_non_para1"}](./FIG/inference_v1flow/sintel_result/2/flow-65.png "fig:"){width=".2\linewidth"} ![Examples of inference of displacement field on V1Deform, V1FlyingObjects and MPI-Sintel. For each block, from left to right are $\I_t$, $\I_{t+1}$, ground truth displacement field and inferred displacement field by pre-trained FlowNet 2.0 model and our learned model respectively. $^\dagger$ indicates that the results are refined by the refinement CNN. The displacement fields are color coded. See supplementary \[sect: color map\] for the color code [@liu2010sift].[]{data-label="fig: infer_non_para1"}](./FIG/inference_v1flow/sintel_result/res/65.png "fig:"){width=".2\linewidth"}
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FN-C FN-S FN-CS FN-CSS FN2 Ours Ours + Refine
----------------- ------- ------- ------- -------- --------------- --------------- ---------------
V1Deform 1.324 1.316 0.713 0.629 0.686 [**0.444**]{} -
V1FlyingObjects 0.852 0.865 0.362 0.299 0.285 0.442 [**0.202**]{}
MPI-Sintel 0.363 0.410 0.266 0.234 [**0.146**]{} 0.337 0.212
: Average endpoint error of the inferred displacement. (FN stands for FlowNet)[]{data-label="tab: infer_comp"}
\[table: infer\]
Unsupervised learning {#sect: unsupervised}
---------------------
Assume there is a dataset of frame sequences, where the ground truth displacement fields are unknown. We can learn the model by the following steps: (1) first we take the frames as static images, deform the images like what we did for V1Deform to get image pairs, and learn the model as an initialization; (2) then we infer the displacement fields between adjacent pair of frames using the initialized model; (3) using adjacent pair of frames as training data, we alternatively update the model parameters and re-infer displacement fields. In this task, we use the parametric $M$ and infer the displacement field by gradient descent on a weighted sum of $\sum_x L_{1, x}(\delta(x))$ and $\|\triangledown \delta(x)\|^2$. At each iteration, we start the inference from the inferred displacement field from the last iteration.
We test the unsupervised learning on MUG Facial Expression dataset [@aifanti2010mug]. Figure \[fig: infer\_unsupervised\] shows some examples of inferred displacement fields by the unsupervised learning. The inference results are reasonable, which capture the motions around eyes, eyebrows, chin or mouth. See supplementary \[supp: filters\] and \[supp: face\] for the learned filters and more inferred examples.
![Examples of inferred displacement fields by unsupervised learning. The top row shows the observed image sequences, while the bottom row shows the inferred color coded displacement field [@liu2010sift]. []{data-label="fig: infer_unsupervised"}](./FIG/infer_unsupervised_crop/2_img.png "fig:"){width=".47\linewidth"} ![Examples of inferred displacement fields by unsupervised learning. The top row shows the observed image sequences, while the bottom row shows the inferred color coded displacement field [@liu2010sift]. []{data-label="fig: infer_unsupervised"}](./FIG/infer_unsupervised_crop/11_img.png "fig:"){width=".47\linewidth"}\
![Examples of inferred displacement fields by unsupervised learning. The top row shows the observed image sequences, while the bottom row shows the inferred color coded displacement field [@liu2010sift]. []{data-label="fig: infer_unsupervised"}](./FIG/infer_unsupervised_crop/2_motion.png "fig:"){width=".47\linewidth"} ![Examples of inferred displacement fields by unsupervised learning. The top row shows the observed image sequences, while the bottom row shows the inferred color coded displacement field [@liu2010sift]. []{data-label="fig: infer_unsupervised"}](./FIG/infer_unsupervised_crop/11_motion.png "fig:"){width=".47\linewidth"}\
![Examples of inferred displacement fields by unsupervised learning. The top row shows the observed image sequences, while the bottom row shows the inferred color coded displacement field [@liu2010sift]. []{data-label="fig: infer_unsupervised"}](./FIG/infer_unsupervised_crop/1_img.png "fig:"){width=".47\linewidth"} ![Examples of inferred displacement fields by unsupervised learning. The top row shows the observed image sequences, while the bottom row shows the inferred color coded displacement field [@liu2010sift]. []{data-label="fig: infer_unsupervised"}](./FIG/infer_unsupervised_crop/29_img.png "fig:"){width=".47\linewidth"}\
![Examples of inferred displacement fields by unsupervised learning. The top row shows the observed image sequences, while the bottom row shows the inferred color coded displacement field [@liu2010sift]. []{data-label="fig: infer_unsupervised"}](./FIG/infer_unsupervised_crop/1_motion.png "fig:"){width=".47\linewidth"} ![Examples of inferred displacement fields by unsupervised learning. The top row shows the observed image sequences, while the bottom row shows the inferred color coded displacement field [@liu2010sift]. []{data-label="fig: infer_unsupervised"}](./FIG/infer_unsupervised_crop/29_motion.png "fig:"){width=".47\linewidth"}\
We perform ablation studies to analyze the effect of two components of the proposed model: (1) dimensionality of sub-vectors; (2) sub-sampling rate. Please refer to supplementary \[supp: ablation\] for the details.
Conclusion
==========
This paper proposes a simple representational model that couples vector representations of local image contents and matrix representations of local motions. Unlike existing models for V1 that focus on statistical properties of natural images or videos, our model serves a direct purpose of perception of local motions caused by the relative motions between the agent and the 3D environment. Our model learns Gabor-like units with quadrature phases. We also give biological interpretations of the learned model and connect it to the spatiotemporal energy model. Our model is novel, and it is our hope that it adds to our understanding of motion perception in V1 in terms of modeling and inference.
In our future work, we shall study the inference of ego-motion, object motions and 3D depth information based on local pixel displacements by expanding our model. We shall also extend our model to stereo in binocular vision by allowing separate encoding matrices for the pair of input images to the two eyes related by pixel displacements caused by depths.
### Project page {#project-page .unnumbered}
<http://www.stat.ucla.edu/~ruiqigao/v1/main.html>
### Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
The work is supported by DARPA XAI project N66001-17-2-4029; ARO project W911NF1810296; ONR MURI project N00014-16- 1-2007; and a Hikvision gift to UCLA. We thank Prof. Terrence Sejnowski for helpful discussion. We gratefully acknowledge the support of NVIDIA Corporation with the donation of the Titan Xp GPU used for this research.
Implementation details {#sect: details}
======================
We learn our model $(W^{(k)}, M^{(k)}(\delta), k = 1, ..., K)$ from image pairs $(\I_t, (\delta(x)), \I_{t+1})$. The number of sub-vectors $K = 40$, and the number of units in each sub-vector $v^{(k)}(x)$ is 2. We also try other dimensionalities of sub-vector, e.g., 4 and 6. See supplementary \[supp: ablation\]. Each row of the encoding matrix $W^{(k)}$ is a filter. The size of the filter is 16 $\times$ 16, with a sub-sampling rate of 8 pixels in order to get $D_{-}$. We learn the model using stochastic gradient descent implemented by Adam [@kingma2014adam], with learning rate $0.0008$.
For unsupervised learning in section \[sect: unsupervised\], since the image size reduces to $64$, we use kernel size $8$ with a sub-sampling rate of $4$ pixels. In stage (1) for model initialization, we set the range of displacement to $[-3, +3]$. Displacements at image border are left out.
Color code of displacement field {#sect: color map}
================================
Figure \[fig: color map\] shows the color map for the color coded displacement fields used in this paper [@liu2010sift].
![Color map for the color coded displacement fields. The displacement of every pixel in this map is the vector from the center of the square to this pixel. The center pixel does not move. The range of color is taken according to the maximum length of flows in each displacement field.[]{data-label="fig: color map"}](./FIG/flow_code.png "fig:"){height=".2\linewidth"} ![Color map for the color coded displacement fields. The displacement of every pixel in this map is the vector from the center of the square to this pixel. The center pixel does not move. The range of color is taken according to the maximum length of flows in each displacement field.[]{data-label="fig: color map"}](./FIG/flow_code_arrow.png "fig:"){height=".2\linewidth"}
Animation of learned units: moving V1-like units {#supp: animation}
================================================
We have $M^{(k)}(\delta) v^{(k)}_t(x) = M^{(k)}(\delta) W^{(k)} \I[x]$, where each row of the encoding matrix $W^{(k)}$ serves as a filter. Let $W^{(k)}(\delta) = M^{(k)}(\delta)W^{(k)}$. By changing values of $\delta$, we can animate $W^{(k)}$ to make it move. Figure \[fig: animation\] shows several examples of the animation. Each block shows a certain $W^{(k)}$ animated by a fixed $\delta$. Each column shows the units in the same $W^{(k)}(\delta)$. As $\delta$ changes, the orientations of learned units remain the same, while the phases change, and the units belonging to the same sub-vector tend to have similar movements.
Learned filters {#supp: filters}
===============
Figure \[fig: filters\_sup\] shows the learned filters under different settings, including learned on V1FlyingObjects, learned with parametric $M$, learned with local mixing model (eqn \[eqn: local\_mixing\]) and learned unsupervisedly.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![Filters learned from under different settings: (a) filters learned on V1FlyingObjects with non-parametric $M$; (b) filters learned with parametric $M$; (c) filters learned with non-parametric $M$ and local mixing motion model (model used in section 5.3); (d) filters learned on MUG Facial expression dataset with unsupervised learning (model used in section 5.4). []{data-label="fig: filters_sup"}](./FIG/filter_v1flow.png "fig:"){height=".33\linewidth"} ![Filters learned from under different settings: (a) filters learned on V1FlyingObjects with non-parametric $M$; (b) filters learned with parametric $M$; (c) filters learned with non-parametric $M$ and local mixing motion model (model used in section 5.3); (d) filters learned on MUG Facial expression dataset with unsupervised learning (model used in section 5.4). []{data-label="fig: filters_sup"}](./FIG/filters_parametric.png "fig:"){height=".33\linewidth"} ![Filters learned from under different settings: (a) filters learned on V1FlyingObjects with non-parametric $M$; (b) filters learned with parametric $M$; (c) filters learned with non-parametric $M$ and local mixing motion model (model used in section 5.3); (d) filters learned on MUG Facial expression dataset with unsupervised learning (model used in section 5.4). []{data-label="fig: filters_sup"}](./FIG/filters_local_mixing.png "fig:"){height=".33\linewidth"} ![Filters learned from under different settings: (a) filters learned on V1FlyingObjects with non-parametric $M$; (b) filters learned with parametric $M$; (c) filters learned with non-parametric $M$ and local mixing motion model (model used in section 5.3); (d) filters learned on MUG Facial expression dataset with unsupervised learning (model used in section 5.4). []{data-label="fig: filters_sup"}](./FIG/filters_unsupervised.png "fig:"){height=".33\linewidth"}
\(a) V1FlyingObjects \(b) Parametric $M$ \(c) Local mixing \(d) Unsupervised learning
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Multi-step frame animation {#supp: frame_animation}
==========================
Given the starting frame $\I_0(x)$ and a sequence of displacement fields $\{\delta_1(x), ..., \delta_T(x), \forall x \}$, we can animate the subsequent multiple frames $\{\I_1(x), ..., \I_T(x)\}$ using the learned model. We use the model with local mixing with the same setting as in section \[sect: infer\]. We introduce a re-encoding process when performing multi-step animation. At time $t$, after we get the next animated frame $\I_{t+1}$, we take it as the observed frame at time $t+1$, and re-encode it to obtain the latent vector $v_{t+1}$ at time $t+1$.
Figure \[fig: predict\] displays several examples of a $6$-step animation, learned with non-parametric version of $M$ on V1Deform and V1FlyingObjects. The animated frames match the ground truth frames well. As a quantitative evaluation, we compute the per pixel distance between the predicted frames and observed frames, which is $9.032$ in the testing dataset for V1Deform and $12.076$ for V1FlyingObjects.
![Examples of multi-step animation. For each block, the first row shows the ground truth frame sequences, while the second row shows the animated frame sequences.[]{data-label="fig: predict"}](./FIG/0_observed_local.png "fig:"){width=".47\linewidth"} ![Examples of multi-step animation. For each block, the first row shows the ground truth frame sequences, while the second row shows the animated frame sequences.[]{data-label="fig: predict"}](./FIG/integral_v1flow/batch35_2_observed.png "fig:"){width=".47\linewidth"}\
![Examples of multi-step animation. For each block, the first row shows the ground truth frame sequences, while the second row shows the animated frame sequences.[]{data-label="fig: predict"}](./FIG/0_predict_local.png "fig:"){width=".47\linewidth"} ![Examples of multi-step animation. For each block, the first row shows the ground truth frame sequences, while the second row shows the animated frame sequences.[]{data-label="fig: predict"}](./FIG/integral_v1flow/batch35_2_predict.png "fig:"){width=".47\linewidth"}
Frame interpolation {#supp: interpolation}
===================
Inspired by the animation and inference results, we show that our model can also perform frame interpolation, by combining the animation and inference together. Specifically, given a pair of starting frame $\I_0$ and end frame $\I_T$, we want to derive a sequence of frames $(\I_0, \I_1, ..., \I_{T-1}, \I_{T})$ that changes smoothly. Let $v_0(x) = W\I_0[x]$ and $v_T(x) = W\I_T[x]$ for each $x \in D$. At time step $t+1$, like the inference, we can infer displacement field $\delta_{t+1}(x)$ by
$$\begin{aligned}
\hat{v}^{(k)}_{t+1}(x, \delta) &=& \sum_{\text{d} x \in \mathcal{S}} \nolimits M^{(k)}(\delta, \text{d} x) {v}_{t}^{(k)}(x + \text{d} x), \forall x\in D, \forall \delta \in \Delta, \forall k \\
\delta_{t+1}(x) &=& \arg\min_{\delta \in \Delta}\sum_{k=1}^K \left\|v_T^{(k)} - \hat{v}^{(k)}_{t+1}(x, \delta)\right\|^2, \forall x\in D\end{aligned}$$
Like the animation, we get the animated frame $\I_{t+1}$ by decoding $\hat{v}_{t+1}(x, \delta_{t+1}(x))$, and then re-encode it to obtain the latent vector $v_{t+1}(x)$.
The algorithm stops when $\I_t$ is close enough to $\I_T$ (mean pixel error $<10$). Figure \[fig: interpolation\] shows several examples, learned with non-parametric $M$ on V1Deform and V1FlyingObjects. For $96.0\%$ of the testing pairs, the algorithm can accomplish the frame interpolation within $10$ steps. With this algorithm, we are also able to infer displacements larger than the acceptable range of $\delta$.
![Examples of frame interpolation, learned with non-parametric $M$. For each block, the first frame and last frame are given, while the frames between them are interpolated frames.[]{data-label="fig: interpolation"}](./FIG/interpolation/Batch57_0.png "fig:"){width=".37\linewidth"} ![Examples of frame interpolation, learned with non-parametric $M$. For each block, the first frame and last frame are given, while the frames between them are interpolated frames.[]{data-label="fig: interpolation"}](./FIG/interpolation/Batch15_0.png "fig:"){width=".464\linewidth"}\
![Examples of frame interpolation, learned with non-parametric $M$. For each block, the first frame and last frame are given, while the frames between them are interpolated frames.[]{data-label="fig: interpolation"}](./FIG/interpolation_v1flow/Batch30_0.png "fig:"){width=".37\linewidth"} ![Examples of frame interpolation, learned with non-parametric $M$. For each block, the first frame and last frame are given, while the frames between them are interpolated frames.[]{data-label="fig: interpolation"}](./FIG/interpolation_v1flow/Batch3_0.png "fig:"){width=".464\linewidth"}\
Ablation study {#supp: ablation}
==============
We perform an ablation study to analyze the effect of several components of the proposed model. All the models in the ablation study are trained with non-parametric $M(\delta)$ on V1Deform.
[**Dimensionality of sub-vectors.**]{} In the experiments, we assume that the number of units in each sub-vector $v^{(k)}(x)$ is $2$, so that within each sub-vector, a pair of V1-like patterns are learned. However, we show that the dimensionality of sub-vectors does not have to be $2$. In figure \[fig: ablation\](a) we show the learned filters with dimension of sub-vectors equal to $4$ and $6$. For fair comparison, we fix the total number of units in the whole vector to $96$, and change the number of units in each sub-vector. Table \[tab: ablation\] summarizes the quantitative analysis of the models learned with different dimensionalities of sub-vectors, in terms of the performances of multi-step animation and inference of displacement field. As the dimensionality of sub-vectors increases, the error rates of the two tasks decrease first and then increase. Besides, in figure \[fig: ablation\](b) we show the learned filters without the assumption of sub-vectors.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![(a) Filters learned with higher dimension of sub-vectors. The total number of units in the whole vector is fixed to $96$. Each block shows the learned units within the same sub-vectors. (b) Filters learned without sub-vector assumption.[]{data-label="fig: ablation"}](./FIG/filters_bk4 "fig:"){height=".4\linewidth"} ![(a) Filters learned with higher dimension of sub-vectors. The total number of units in the whole vector is fixed to $96$. Each block shows the learned units within the same sub-vectors. (b) Filters learned without sub-vector assumption.[]{data-label="fig: ablation"}](./FIG/filters_bk6 "fig:"){height=".4\linewidth"}
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\
(a)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --
![(a) Filters learned with higher dimension of sub-vectors. The total number of units in the whole vector is fixed to $96$. Each block shows the learned units within the same sub-vectors. (b) Filters learned without sub-vector assumption.[]{data-label="fig: ablation"}](./FIG/filters_gp1_1 "fig:"){height=".78\linewidth"}
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --
\
(b)
Sub-vector dim 2 4 6 8 12
---------------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------
animation MSE 8.684 8.387 7.486 7.926 8.412
inference EPE 0.554 0.520 0.496 0.500 0.528
: Quantitative analysis of the models learned with different dimensionalities of sub-vectors.[]{data-label="tab: ablation"}
Sub-sampling rate 4 8 16
------------------- ------- ------- --------
animation MSE 7.492 8.094 10.808
inference EPE 0.658 0.505 0.565
: Quantitative analysis of the models learned with different sub-sampling rates.[]{data-label="tab: ablation2"}
[**Sub-sampling rate.**]{} Another factor that may affect the learned model is the sub-sampling rate in order to get $D_{-}$. In the experiments, we use sub-sampling rate $8$, which is half of the filter size. We can also increase or decrease the sub-sampling rate to make the adjacent image patches connected with each other more loosely or tightly. Table \[tab: ablation2\] summarizes the performance of learned models with different sub-sampling rates, in terms of multi-step animation and inference of displacement field.
Unsupervised learning: more results
===================================
See figure \[fig: infer\_unsupervised\_sup\] for more inference results by unsupervised learning. \[supp: face\]
![More examples of inferred displacement fields by unsupervised learning. The top row shows the observed image sequences, while the bottom row shows the inferred color coded displacement field. []{data-label="fig: infer_unsupervised_sup"}](./FIG/infer_unsupervised_crop/37_img.png "fig:"){width=".47\linewidth"} ![More examples of inferred displacement fields by unsupervised learning. The top row shows the observed image sequences, while the bottom row shows the inferred color coded displacement field. []{data-label="fig: infer_unsupervised_sup"}](./FIG/infer_unsupervised_crop/34_img.png "fig:"){width=".47\linewidth"}\
![More examples of inferred displacement fields by unsupervised learning. The top row shows the observed image sequences, while the bottom row shows the inferred color coded displacement field. []{data-label="fig: infer_unsupervised_sup"}](./FIG/infer_unsupervised_crop/37_motion.png "fig:"){width=".47\linewidth"} ![More examples of inferred displacement fields by unsupervised learning. The top row shows the observed image sequences, while the bottom row shows the inferred color coded displacement field. []{data-label="fig: infer_unsupervised_sup"}](./FIG/infer_unsupervised_crop/34_motion.png "fig:"){width=".47\linewidth"}\
Refinement CNN model structure {#sect: cnn model}
==============================
Table \[tab: arch\] summarizes the model architecture of the refinement CNN used in the inference of displacement field.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$3\times3$ conv. $8$ ReLU, stride $1$
$3\times3$ conv. $16$ ReLU, stride $1$
Residual blocks
$\left\{
\begin{array}{c}
3 \times 3 \; \text{conv.} \; 16 \; \text{ BN \; ReLU}, \; \text{stride} \; 1 \\
3 \times 3 \; \text{conv.} \; 16 \; \text{ BN}, \; \text{stride} \; 1
\end{array}
\right\} \times 4$
$3\times3$ conv. $8$ ReLU, stride $1$
$3\times3$ conv. $2$ ReLU, stride $1$
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
: Refinement CNN model structure[]{data-label="tab: arch"}
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Follow-up observations of large numbers of gamma-ray burst (GRB) afterglows, facilitated by the Swift satellite, have produced a large sample of spectral energy distributions and light curves, from which the basic micro- and macrophysical parameters of afterglows may be derived. However, a number of phenomena have been observed that defy explanation by simple versions of the standard fireball model, leading to a variety of new models. Polarimetry has shown great promise as a diagnosis of afterglow physics, probing the magnetic field properties of the afterglow and geometrical effects (e.g. jet breaks). Unfortunately, high quality polarimetry of a significant sample of afterglows is difficult to acquire, requiring specialised instrumentation and observing modes. In this talk I will review the recent successes in afterglow polarimetry, also showing first results of new instruments and observing campaigns. I will particularly focus on jet breaks.'
address: 'University of Leicester, University Road, Leicester, LE1 7RH, United Kingdom'
author:
- 'K. Wiersema'
title: 'Linear and circular polarimetry observations of gamma-ray burst afterglows'
---
Introduction
============
Right after the first detection of optical afterglows of gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) and the diagnosis of GRB afterglow radiation as synchrotron emission, predictions have been made for the linear and circular polarisation of GRBs and their afterglows (see for a review Lazzati 2006 and references therein). While time resolved polarimetry of sources as faint and transient as GRB afterglows is technically complicated and requires specialised instrumentation on large telescopes, the rewards are high: from time resolved polarimetric light curves we can determine GRB parameters (e.g. the jet structure, magnetic field configuration, viewing angle, etc.) that can not easily be measured from light curves alone. The first detections of polarisation of afterglows in the pre-Swift era demonstrated technical feasibility, and shown that afterglows generally have low levels of polarisation ($\sim1\%$) that vary as a function of time (see Lazzati 2006 for an overview of pre-Swift measurements).
The Swift era has provided further incentive to perform detailed polarimetry: the observed richness in afterglow light curve morphology (X-ray flares, plateaux, steep decays etc., see Evans 2009 for statistics), has resulted in new models with various additional components to the standard fireball model, including for example the effects of high latitude emission, variable microphysics, energy injection mechanisms, etc. Many of these new model ingredients can be explored via the large sample of well sampled Swift GRB afterglow light curves and spectral energy distributions (SEDs), but the large number of parameters and relatively low sensitivity of optical and X-ray light curves to some parameters (e.g. $\epsilon_B$) make the addition of new independent constraints on the models, such as the linear or circular polarisation as a function of time, particularly useful.
Jet breaks
==========
One of the primary focus points of polarimetry models of GRB afterglows has been the jet collimation and our viewing angle into the jet (the angle between our sightline and the jet axis): simple afterglow models show that small differences in viewing angles and internal jet structure lead to strong and in principle easily identifiable differences in the behaviour of the polarisation as a function of time, in contrast with the optical and X-ray light curves, in which the differences are small and difficult to detect (Rossi 2004 and references therein). In the case of uniform, top-hat, jets with a unordered magnetic field, a key prediction is the existence of two bumps in the polarisation light curve, with a 90 degree change in polarisation position angle around the time of the jet break. Confirmation of the existence of such a change in position angle would give a new, light curve independent way of estimating jet opening angles, internal jet structure and viewing angle, for assumed magnetic field configurations. However, as indicated by Lazzati (2003), the presence of polarisation caused by scattering by dust particles in the host galaxy alters both the linear polarisation and polarisation angle light curves. This implies that to successfully use polarimetry as indicator of jet collimation, we require datasets that [*(i)*]{} span a wide time range, with data extending to far after the time of jet break; [*(ii)*]{} measure polarisation as a function of wavelength (e.g. through spectropolarimetry or multi-band imaging polarimetry), to separate the dust-induced polarisation from afterglow polarisation; [*(iii)*]{} have well sampled multi wavelength light curves so that the presence of a light curve break can be established.
Early attempts in the pre-Swift era did not detect a 90 degree angle change in polarisation light curves (see e.g. Covino 2003, Greiner 2003, Rol 2003, Masetti 2003, Gorosabel 2004). The most important reason appears to be that in most cases the polarimetric light curves were too sparsely sampled (only half a dozen sources have 3 or more data points), and most of these have rather uncertain jet break times. The sources with best polarimetric coverage are 021004 and 030329, both of these have highly irregular optical light curves, characterised by rebrightenings and bumps. The case of 030329 in particular shows some correlated behaviour between the light curve bumps and polarisation behaviour (Greiner 2003), which makes interpretation in terms of simple polarimetry models difficult (Granot & Königl 2003). Data of GRB020813 may also obey this correlation between light curve and polarisation variability: its polarisation curve is smooth (Fig 1; Barth 2003; Gorosabel 2004; Lazzati 2004) just like the optical light curve (Laursen & Stanek 2003).
Using the Very Large Telescope in Chile, we embarked on a campaign to obtain well-sampled polarimetry light curves of Swift bursts, selected solely by an initial on-board UVOT identification of an afterglow, thus avoiding an observational bias towards sources that have a long-lasting shallow afterglow decay. A first success of this campaign is the dataset presented in Figure 1 (for details see Wiersema 2012). Presented in this figure are the linear polarisation data points of the afterglow of GRB091018 as obtained with the FORS2 instrument (in $R$ band, green symbols) and a datapoint obtained with the ISAAC instrument (in $Ks$ band, open square), gathered over 3 nights after the burst. The optical and X-ray light curves of this afterglow show a break, with no change in the X-ray to optical spectral energy distribution, i.e. the break is achromatic. We interpret this break as a jet break: the horizontal axis of Figure 1 shows time since burst normalised by the jet break time. Immediately apparent is that data at $t/t_{\rm break} < 2$ have a constant polarisation angle, data after that have a higher but variable angle. A weighted average angle of 6 degrees is found in the first interval, this is drawn as a dotted line in Figure 1. The dotted line at $t/t_{\rm break} >
1.5$ is drawn at 96 degrees, and shows that the data is consistent with a 90 degree change in polarisation angle occurring slightly after $t/t_{\rm break}=1$. The uniform top hat jet model with random field predicts that two bumps should be visible in the polarisation curve, and each bump has a constant polarisation angle. The data at $t/t_{\rm break} < 2$ is perfectly consistent with this prediction, if the viewing angle is slightly off-axis ($\sim0.2*\theta_{\rm jet}$). The later data is not consistent with a simple broad bump with constant angle. Highlighted in an inset in Figure 1 is the behaviour of the polarisation angle around $t/t_{\rm break} \sim 3$. The angle shows a rapid sweep of the source through the Stokes plane: angle and polarisation can jointly be explained if in addition to the expected smooth bump from the simple models there is a slowly variable, low polarisation component present with an angle nearly 90 degrees offset from the expected bump (96 degrees). The addition of these two components can largely reproduce the observed behaviour (Wiersema in prep.). We therefore consider this case the first with a polarisation-based jet break identification.
There are further features of interest in the 091018 data. First of all, we acquired not only linear polarimetry, but also circular polarimetry in $R$, again using VLT FORS2, in between the first and second datapoint in Figure 1. These show a non-detection of circular polarisation, with a limit of $P_{\rm circ} < 0.23\%\, (3\sigma)$ (Wiersema 2012). There are no signs of reverse shock contribution to the afterglow of this burst, so we consider this a tight limit on the forward shock circular polarisation, and therefore on the presence of weak but ordered magnetic fields in the blast wave.
A second point of interest is the very low polarisation at early times. This, together with the angle behaviour described above, makes structured jet models very unlikely, but also sets a strong lower limit on the size and number of any coherent patches of emission on the blast wave (Gruzinov & Waxman 1999).
Finally, if the fast variability behaviour at $t/t_{\rm break} > 2$ is a common one, i.e. if it is something that may be seen in all afterglows rather than caused by something which is specific to this burst only, we may need a much larger emphasis on late-time polarimetry, in the sense that a 90 degree angle shift from early data can only be measured using several data points together. I would like to note that data taken after the conference of another GRB seem to imply that this behaviour is indeed a common one, though analysis is ongoing (Wiersema in prep.).
On Figure 1 I also plot the pre-Swift GRBs which have 3 or more data points and an estimate of the jet break time from light curves (taken from Zeh 2006), excluding GRB030329 for reasons stated above. Polarisation angles are shifted so that their early time values fall on the GRB091018 value, so that it is easier to see angle changes. This plot demonstrates that if all bursts behave like GRB091018, there are not sufficient data points beyond $t/t_{\rm break} > 2$ to diagnose a 90 degree angle change. One exception is GRB020813, which has some data in this interval, but may have fallen victim to the same rapid variability behaviour as seen in GRB091018.
![This figure shows the linear polarisation data of a sample of pre-Swift bursts overlaid on the dataset of Swift GRB 091018 (Wiersema 2012). For easier comparison, the polarisation angles of all datasets have been shifted so their average at $t/t_{\rm break}$ is the same as that of 091018 (angle $\theta$), indicated by the horizontal dashed line for $t/t_{\rm break} < 1.5$. The horizontal dashed line at $t/t_{\rm break} > 1.5$ is drawn at an angle $\theta+90$. The times of (candidate) jet breaks of the pre-Swift bursts are as found in Zeh (2006). []{data-label="figalllin"}](fig1.eps){width="\textwidth"}
Dust
====
As mentioned in the previous section, scattering of afterglow photons on dust particles in the host galaxy results in wavelength dependent linear polarisation. In sight lines in our own Galaxy, the wavelength dependence is often describe by the empirical Serkowski curve (Serkowski 1975), the black dashed curve in Figure 1. The induced polarisation peaks with polarisation value $P_{\rm max}$ at wavelength $\lambda_{\rm max}$. If we assume this curve, or a similar parametrisation, to also be valid for extragalactic sight lines, we can express the expected polarisation in different photometric bands (e.g. in $R$ and $K$) in terms of dust parameter $R_V$ (Klose 2004). As can also be seen in Figure 1, the ratio of the detected polarisation in $R$ and $K$ does not show evidence for significant dust induced polarisation. This is also true for the other, pre-Swift, cases where wavelength dependent polarimetry exists (e.g. Barth 2003), reflecting the low amount of dust seen in these sightlines, a low degree of dust grain alignment, or dust grain size distributions different from Galactic environments. Further study of dust induced polarisation in afterglows would be very useful, in particular because the high quality spectra and SEDs that can be obtained for these afterglows can be combined with polarimetry to better understand dust processing in GRB environments. Figure 2 shows that even at $z\sim3$ the $K$ band is red ward of the peak of the Serkowski curve, whereas the R band is blue ward for all but the very lowest redshift GRBs. To exploit this fact, we are performing a small survey of afterglows using the LIRIS instrument on the 4.2m William Herschel Telescope, in imaging polarimetry mode, which has had some success already (Wiersema 2012b).
![ The Serkowski curve, which gives an empirical description of the polarisation as a function of wavelength in the case of dust scattering in our own Galaxy, drawn at $z=0, 1$ (red, the redshift of GRB091018 is 0.97) and $3$. The curve is characterised by a typical wavelength $\lambda_{\rm max}$ at which maximum polarisation $P_{\rm max}$ is present. []{data-label="figserk"}](fig2.eps){width="7cm"}
Reverse shocks and short time scales
====================================
In recent years, new, dedicated, instrumentation has succeeded in robustly measuring the polarisation of gamma-rays of the GRB prompt emission (Yonetoku 2011). In all cases high values of polarisation were found, in contrast with the low values found in the late time forward shocks shown in Figure 1. The use of polarimetry instruments on robotic telescopes allows investigation of the transition of prompt to afterglow emission, and is able to probe the reverse shock (or its absence), and therefore investigate the magnetisation of the GRB ejecta. The case of GRB 090102 in particular showed a high polarisation likely associated with reverse shock (Steele 2009). Early circular polarimetry of GRB afterglows can probe the ordered field component in reverse shock emission, and in some cases even fairly late observations may be sufficient for a detection (Wiersema in prep.).
Resolving the decay of the reverse shock and rise of the forward shock will require the ability to acquire polarimetry at short timescales (exposure times), but short exposure polarimetry is also of some interest at late times: if the fast variability seen in GRB 091018 after the jet break is commonplace, we need short exposures to resolve its variability timescale. Secondly, the model where a large number of small patches of coherent magnetic field contribute to the received emission (Gruzinov & Waxman 1999) can be tested through short time scale variability tests. We use LIRIS at the WHT for this: the instrument utilises a double-Wollaston, and therefore records $Q,U$ simultaneously in each exposure. We typically use 30 second exposure sets (3 sub exposures of 10 seconds), to get good sky subtraction in the $Ks$ band. An analysis of field stars in a GRB field, shown in Figure 3, shows we can do linear polarimetry with polarisation errors of 1% in 30 second exposures for $Ks < 15.3$ (Vega magnitudes; Wiersema in prep.).
![Polarimetry of 4 field stars in a field associated with a GRB observation done in $Ks$ band with LIRIS on the WHT. Measurements of Stokes $Q,U$ are done on 30 second integrations. The values of the 4 stars are vertically displaced for clarity. The afterglow is too faint for meaningful polarimetry on these short time scales. []{data-label="figtiming"}](fig3.eps){width="7cm"}
Conclusions
===========
It is clear from the above that polarimetry of GRB afterglows is a important pursuit. The recent measurements of $\gamma$-ray polarisation of GRB prompt emission, the advent of polarimeters on robotic telescopes capable of probing the very early afterglow, and the increasing capabilities for polarimetry at longer wavelengths (e.g. ALMA, JVLA) highlight the importance of late-time, deep, and densely sampled polarisation curves. The recent results on GRB091018 give some long sought-after confirmation of basic predictions of blast wave models, in particular a 90 degree change in polarisation angle after the jet break. Similar campaigns on other bursts are required to probe the relation of polarisation behaviour with other burst parameters, e.g. the bulk Lorentz factor, burst energetics, reverse shock properties and the viewing angle into the jet. Besides giving some support to jet break models, the dataset of GRB091018 appears to show a new kind of unpredicted fast variability around or just after the jet break, illustrating that there is still plenty of discovery space left in afterglow polarisation studies.
[99]{}
Barth, A. J., Sari, R., Cohen, M. H. 2003, ApJ, 584, 57 Covino, S., Malesani, D., Ghisellini, G. 2003, A&A, 400, L9 Evans, P. A., Beardmore, A. P., Page, K. L. 2009, MNRAS, 397, 1177 Gorosabel, J., Rol, E., Covino, S. 2004, A&A, 422, 113 Granot, J., Königl A., 2003, ApJ, 594, L83 Granot J., Taylor G. B., 2005, ApJ, 625, 263 Greiner, J., Klose, S., Reinsch, K. 2003, Nature, 426, 157 Gruzinov, A., & Waxman, E. 1999, ApJ, 511, 852 Klose S., Palazzi, E., Masetti, N. 2004, A&A, 420, 89 Laursen, L. T., Stanek, K. Z. 2003, ApJ, 597, 107 Lazzati, D., Covino, S., di Serego Alighieri, S. 2003, A&A, 410, 823 Lazzati, D., 2006, NJPh, 8, 131 Masetti, N., Palazzi, E., Pian, E. 2003, A&A, 404, 465 Rol, E., Wijers, R. A. M. J., Fynbo, J. P. U. 2003, A&A, 405, 23 Rossi, E. M., Lazzati, D., Salmonson, J. D. 2004, MNRAS, 354, 86 Serkowski K., Mathewson D.L., Ford V.L., 1975, ApJ, 196, 261 Steele, I. A., Mundell, C. G., Smith, R. J. 2009, Nature, 462, 767 Wiersema, K., Curran, P. A., Krühler, T. 2012, MNRAS, 426, 2 Wiersema, K., van der Horst, A. J., Levan, A. J. 2012b, MNRAS, 421, 1942 Yonetoku, D., Murakami, T., Gunji, S. 2011, ApJ, 743, 30 Zeh, A., Klose, S., Kann, D. A. 2006, ApJ, 637, 889
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
The influence of non-uniform distribution of nuclei on crystallization kinetics of amorphous materials is investigated. This case cannot be described by the well-known Johnson-Mehl-Avrami (JMA) equation, which is only valid under the assumption of a spatially homogeneous nucleation probability. The results of computer simulations of crystallization kinetics with nuclei distributed according to a cluster and a hardcore distribution are compared with JMA kinetics. The effects of the different distributions on the so-called Avrami exponent $n$ are shown.\
Furthermore, we calculate the small-angle scattering curves of the simulated structures which can be used to distinguish experimentally between the three nucleation models under consideration.
address: 'Institut für Festkörper- und Werkstofforschung Dresden, PF 27 00 16, D-01171 Dresden, Germany'
author:
- Patric Uebele and Helmut Hermann
title: 'Computer simulation of crystallization kinetics with non-Poisson distributed nuclei'
---
\[Simulation of crystallization kinetics\]
\[intro\]Introduction
=====================
The properties of metallic glasses and other amorphous materials may be impaired by even small amounts of crystalline phases. Crystallization can also improve the properties of some amorphous materials, e.g. glass ceramics. So the understanding of the crystallization process is very important. The analysis of experimental data is often made within the framework of the Avrami theory [@avrami39; @johnson39] by means of the Johnson-Mehl-Avrami equation, which gives a relation between the fraction of transformed (i.e. crystallized) material $\chi (t)$ and the time at constant temperature. An equivalent approach was made by Kolmogorov [@shepilov94].\
Both models are based on the following assumptions:
1. \[1\] Crystallization is considered in an unlimited medium.
2. \[2\] Nucleation of crystals begins at time $t=0$ and occurs in a non-crystallized region. The nucleation rate per unit volume, $\alpha
(t)$, is assumed to be independent of the coordinates.
3. \[3\] The growth of crystals ceases at the points of mutual impingements, whereas it continues unchanged elsewhere. Before they touch each other, the crystals have a geometrically similar and convex shape (the Avrami approach is restricted to spherical crystals).
4. \[4\] The growth rate $v(t)$ in a given direction is the same for all crystals and depends only on time.\
Based on these assumptions, one can derive the following exact relation: $$\label{JMA1}
\chi (t) = 1 - \exp{\left [ -\int\limits_0^t \alpha(\tau) V(\tau,t) \mbox{d}\tau
\right ] }$$ where $$V(\tau,t) = V_0 \left [\int\limits_{\tau}^{t} v(t^{\prime}) \mbox{d}
t^{\prime} \right ]^3 \pu$$ $V_0$ is a form factor, in the case of spherical crystals $V_0 = 4\pi/3$. An integration of equation (\[JMA1\]) is only possible by making specific assumptions about the time dependence of the nucleation rate $\alpha(t)$.\
If both $v$ and $\alpha$ are independent of time (interface controlled growth and continuous nucleation), then \[JMA2\] (t)=1-If only the growth rate $v$ is constant and all crystals are formed simultaneously at $t=0$ with a mean number density $\beta$ (instantaneous nucleation), the resulting nucleation rate $\alpha(t)=\beta \delta(t)$ can be substituted into equation (\[JMA1\]). In this case \[JMA3\] (t) = 1 - Avrami proposed that for a three-dimensional nucleation and growth process with constant or decreasing nucleation rate, the general relation \[JMA4\] (t) = 1 - (-k t\^n) should describe the crystallized volume fraction. Equation (\[JMA4\]) is the so-called Avrami equation with the Avrami exponent $n$, where $3\le n \le 4$.\
This equation is often used to analyse experimental data by means of a logarithmic plot, where $\ln \left \{ - \ln [1- \chi(t) ] \right \}$ is plotted versus $\ln(t)$. The slope of the resulting straight line is the Avrami exponent $n$, which describes crystallization kinetics. But if the previously mentioned assumptions are not exactly satisfied, the resulting Avrami exponents $n$ may be misleading. We study cases where some of the assumptions (\[1\]-\[4\]) are violated and no analytical results for the crystallization kinetics are available.\
If the chemical composition of the two phases involved in the transformation is different, the growth rate is diffusion controlled. In this case, the radii $r$ of spherical crystals grow according to \[difflaw\] r(t\^,t) = g where $g$ is a constant and $t$ and $t^{\prime}$ are the observation and nucleation times, respectively. Substituting (\[difflaw\]) into equation (\[JMA1\]) leads to an Avrami-exponent $n$ with $1.5 \le n \le 2.5$. But if continuous nucleation occurs, assumption (\[4\]) is violated, as the growth rate decreases with increasing life time of the crystal. As a consequence, crystals nucleated at different times have different growth rates. In the Johnson-Mehl method, the growth law (\[difflaw\]) allows “phantom crystals" (crystals that are nucleated in an already crystallized area) to outgrow the real crystal. Therefore, the crystallized volume fraction is overestimated.\
The assumption (\[2\]) has no physical reasons. In practice, nucleation may occur preferentially in certain macroscopic regions (e.g. grain boundaries), so that the nucleation probability becomes dependent on the coordinates [@christian].\
Furthermore, the grains have to reach a critical size $r_{\rm crit}$ to start growing.This critical radius is determined by the free energy and the surface energy. Therefore, in a sphere of radius $r_{\rm crit }$ only one crystal can nucleate [@christian]. This also violates assumption (\[2\]).\
In the present paper the influence of non-uniformly distributed nuclei and critical radii on crystallization kinetics is studied by computer simulation. We use methods of stochastic geometry [@stoyan83; @stoyan87; @hermann91], namely the germ-grain models. The models are explained in section \[models\] and the simulation technique is pointed out in section \[simulation\]. The results are presented in section \[results\].
\[models\]The models
====================
A germ-grain model is defined by a point field $P_1,
P_2, ...$ with density $\lambda$ and a series of grains $A_1, A_2,...$ with finite size. The complete model $A$ is formed by the union of the grains $A_n$ shifted to the points $P_n$. Due to the diversity of point fields and types of possible grains there is a great variety of germ-grain models. In our study, we always use spherical grains of radius $r_i$.\
To model the pure JMA case with assumptions (\[1\]-\[4\]) fulfilled, we use a [*Poisson model*]{} for the underlying point field. The two fundamental properties of this point field are:
- The number, $N(G)$, of points lying in an arbitrary region $G$ with volume $V(G)$ is a random variable. The probability $P$ of finding $n$ points in the region $G$ is given by the Poisson distribution P(N(G)=n) = n=1,2,...
- Considering disconnected regions $G_1, G_2, ...$, the numbers $N(G_1), N(G_2), ...$ are independent random variables.
Germ-grain models with an underlying Poisson point field and overlapping grains are also called [*Boolean models*]{}. For these models it is possible to calculate the volume fraction $\chi_{\rm A}$ analytically [@stoyan83; @stoyan87; @hermann91; @porod52]: $$\label{volpoi}
\chi_{\rm A} = 1 - \exp [ -\lambda \bar{V}(A) ] \pu$$ Here, $\lambda$ is the number density of the Poisson point field and $\bar{V}(A)$ is the mean volume of the grains. Equation (\[volpoi\]) is equivalent to equations (\[JMA2\] - \[JMA4\]) if the corresponding nucleation and growth laws are inserted.\
To model a system with increased nucleation probability in certain regions, we use a [*cluster point field*]{}. The nuclei are distributed uniformly and independently within spheres of radius $R_{\rm cl}$. These spheres are distributed according to a Poisson point field with parameter $\lambda_{\rm par}$, the numbers of points within the spheres are Poisson distributed with mean value $N_{\rm cl}$. Hence, the density of the cluster point field is $\lambda_{\rm cl} = \lambda_{\rm par} N_{\rm
cl}$.\
An appropriate set of parameters for characterizing the cluster model is $(\lambda_{\rm cl}, N_{\rm cl}, c)$ where $c = 2 R_{\rm cl} / \bar{r}_1$. Here, $\bar{r}_1$ is the mean distance of the midpoints of neighbouring clusters given by [@hermann91]: $$\bar{r}_1 = \left ( \frac{3}{4 \pi} \right )^{1/3} \Gamma(4/3) \lpar
^{-1/3} \approx 0.554 \lpar ^{-1/3} \pu$$ For $c \gg 1$ the point field approaches a Poisson point field of density $\lambda_{\rm cl}$.\
A [*hard-core point field*]{} is used to force a certain minimum distance between the nuclei. The distance between any points of the model with density $\lhc$ is forbidden to be smaller than a given value $R_{\rm hc}$. The essential property of the structure is described by the packing fraction $\phc = 4 \pi
/3 R_{\rm hc}^3 \lhc$. For $\phc \rightarrow 0$ the point field approaches a Poisson point field.\
Neither for the cluster model nor for the hard-core model analytical expressions are known that describe the volume fractions.\
The small-angle scattering intensity $I(q)$ per unit volume is given by [@sonntag81]: $$\label{sans}
I(q) = 4 \pi \int\limits_0^{\infty} r^2 [ C_{\rm A}(r) - \chi^2_{\rm A}(r) ]
\frac{\sin(qr)}{qr} \d r \pu$$ To calculate the small-angle scattering intensities of the germ-grain models, the covariance $C_{\rm A}(r)$ of the systems is needed. This is the probability $P$ of two random points $\vec{r}_1, \vec{r}_2$ with distance $r$ both lying in the region covered by the model: $$\label{cov}
C_{\rm A}(r) = P(\vec{r}_1 \in A, \vec{r}_2 \in A)\:,\: r = \mid \vec{r}_1 -
\vec{r}_2 \mid \pu$$ For Boolean models an analytical expression [@porod52] exists: $$\label{cov-poi}
C_{\rm A} = 2 \chi_{\rm A} - 1 + (1 - \chi_{\rm A})^2 \exp \left [\lambda
\gamma ^0 (r) \right ]$$ where $\gamma ^0 (r)$ is the mean distance probability function averaged over all spheres with density $f(x)$ of the radii distribution: $$\label{gamma}
\gamma ^0 (r) = \frac{4 \pi}{3} \int\limits_{r/2}^{\infty} x^3 \left ( 1 -
\frac{3r}{4x} + \frac{r^3}{16 x^3} \right ) f(x) \d x \pu$$ The constructional details of the point fields mentioned above are explained in the next section.
\[simulation\]The simulation technique
======================================
The nucleation and growth processes are simulated in a cube of unit lenght $L_0$ and volume $V_0 = L_0^3$. All lengths are scaled to $L_0$. To model an infinite structure, periodic boundary conditions are applied. We use spheres of equal (instantaneous nucleation) or different (continuous nucleation) size as grains. They grow according to the specified growth law and nuclei are generated randomly according to the underlying point field. In the case of instantaneous nucleation (INST), all grains start growing at $t=0$. If continuous nucleation (CONT) is considered, in every evolutionary step $\d t$ a mean number of nuclei starts growing according to the nucleation rate $\alpha(t)$. In this case, the nuclei that are created in an already transformed area have to be ommitted.\
After every time step, the volume fraction $\chi_{\rm A}$ of the system is calculated. Optionally, the covariance $C_{\rm A}(r)$ of the structure can be calculated at a given volume fraction.\
In every simulation, 500 - 700 nuclei are generated. To limit the influence of statistical fluctuations, the whole procedure is repeated 10 - 40 times and the average of the relevant quantities is evaluated.
Construction of the point fields
--------------------------------
In a first step of the simulation the underlying point field has to be created.\
To generate a Poisson point field, the number $N_{\rm nu}$ of nuclei is drawn from a Poisson distribution with parameter $\lambda V_0$. Then $N_{\rm nu}$ points with cartesian coordinates equally distributed in $(0, L_0)$ are created.\
A cluster point field is build by a two-step procedure. First, a Poisson point field of parent points with parameter $\lambda_{\rm par}$ is created in $V_0$. In a second step, spheres of radius $\rcl$ are attached to these parent points. In each of these spheres, another Poisson process with parameter $\ncl$ is created. Omitting the parent points, the remaining nuclei obey a cluster distribution with density $\lcl = \lambda_{\rm par} \ncl$.\
To construct a hardcore point field, single points with equally distributed coordinates are generated subsequently. New points are accepted only if their distance to all existing points is greater than $2\rhc$. This procedure is repeteated until the desired number of nuclei (Poisson deviated with parameter $\lhc V_0$) is reached.\
Nucleation and growth
---------------------
After the definition of the point fields, the time evolution of the system starts.\
In the case INST, all predefined grains start growing at $t=0$. In every time step, their radii are calculated as $r(t) = \int_0^t v(\tau) \d
\tau$. All grains have the same size.\
If continuous nucleation is simulated, in every time step $N_{\rm
act}$ nuclei start growing. $N_{\rm act}$ is Poisson deviated with the parameter $\alpha (t) \d t$. The radii of the grains are different now, depending on the life time $t_i$ of each individual grain $i$: $$r_i(t_i) = \int\limits_0^{t_i} v(\tau) \d\tau \pu$$
Calculation of the volume fraction and the covariance
-----------------------------------------------------
To calculate the volume fraction, a fine grid of $N_{\rm test}$ test points is constructed in the unit cube. The coordinates of these test points are determined using a quasi-random sequence according to Sobol [@sobol67; @antonov79; @nrc]. The volume fraction is given by the number of test points $N_{\rm in}$ that lie within the area covered by the spheres: $$\label{volsim}
\chia = \frac{N_{\rm in}}{N_{\rm test}} \pu$$ To evaluate the covariance, the distances between all the test points are calculated. The numbers $N(r)$ of test points that lie within discrete distance intervalls between $r$ and $r + \d r$ are determined. Then, the covariance is given as $$\label{covsim}
C_{\rm A} (r) = \frac{N_{\rm in}(r)}{N(r)}$$ where $N_{\rm in}(r)$ denotes the number of test points in the distance intervall $(r,r + \d r)$ that are covered by a sphere.\
The small-angle scattering intensities can now be calculated according to equation (\[sans\]). To solve the integral, we use a Fourier transfom method and fit a polynomial to the discrete values of $C_{\rm A} (r) -
\chia ^2$ in order to obtain the function to be integrated.
Test of accuracy
----------------
Due to the finite and discrete nature of the simulation, two sources of systematic errors have to be considered:
- The size of the system (i.e. the number of grains) has to be large enough in order to describe an infinite system.
- In the simulation of CONT, the nucleation proceeds in small but finite time steps $\d t$.
In order to check the accuracy of the simulation, we performed calculations using the Poisson point field and compared the results for the volume fraction and the covariance with the exact equations (\[JMA2\]) and (\[JMA3\]), respectively.\
In figure \[testvol1\], the results of simulations in the case of instantaneous and continuous nucleation are shown. The simulations were performed 10 times with a step size $\d t = 10$ (INST) resp. $\d t = 1$ (CONT)[^1] and $5\cdot 10^4$ test points were used. An Avrami analysis by means of linear regression yielded an Avrami exponent $n = 2.96$ for the simulation of instantaneous nucleation, which is in good agreement with the exact value $n = 3$.\
In the case of continuous nucleation, the value of the Avrami exponent is $n=3.95$, compared with the exact value $n=4$.\
The simulated small-angle scattering intensities of instantaneous nucleation (parameters as above) at different volume fractions are shown in figure \[sanstest\]. Here, quantitative differences between the simulated values and the exact ones calculated according to (\[sans\]), (\[cov-poi\]) and (\[gamma\]) occur, although the covariance values are in quite good agreement, see figure \[covtest\]. In both cases, the same numerical integration method was used. Because of the multiplication of $\cova (r) - \chia ^2$ by $r$ in equation (\[sans\]), very small differences between the simulated covariance values and the exact ones at large r-values yield substantial differences after integration.\
Hence, with the present accuracy of our method, only qualitative statements concerning the small-angle scattering curves are possible. But the main features of the scattering intensities at different volume fractions are represented properly. The curve with low volume fraction shows well-resolved maxima and minima as the single spheres are still nearly isolated. With increasing volume fraction, the amplitudes of the oscillations decrease, at $\chia = 0.9$ there are only weak ripples left.
=
=
=
\[results\]Results and discussion
=================================
We investigated the dependence of crystallization kinetics on the spatial distribution of the nuclei in the case of continuous nucleation (CONT) and instantaneous nucleation (INST). Additionally, for CONT the case of diffusion controlled growth was surveyed. The small-angle scattering intensities were calculated for instantaneous nucleation in order to check if it is possible to distinguish between the several grain distributions by means of small-angle scattering methods.
Instantaneous nucleation
------------------------
In the case of instantaneous nucleation, we checked the influence of cluster- and hardcore-model on crystallization kinetics. The results were compared with the corresponding simulated values for the Poisson model. We used constant growth rates $v$ for calculations[^2].\
Furthermore, the covariance values and the resulting small-angle scattering intensities were evaluated.
### Results on crystallization kinetics
In figure \[avr-cluhc-nonu\], Avrami plots of a cluster model and a hardcore model are compared with that of a Poisson model with equal point density $\lambda$. It is clearly shown that the distribution of the nuclei according to a cluster model leads to a reduced Avrami exponent $n$ compared with the value $n=3$ expected for the Poisson model. For small values of $c$, the simulated values deviate from a straight line in the Avrami plot, which means that the crystallization kinetics cannot be represented by an exponential law according to in these cases. If $c$ is small enough, $n$ raises again and the deviations from the exponential law decrease again. The values of the simulated Avrami exponents (drawn from a linear regression analysis) are shown in table \[avr-cluhc-nonu.tab\] for two simulations with ($\lcl = 50, \ncl = 10, c$) and ($\lcl = 25, \ncl = 20, c$), respectively.
[@llllll]{} & &\
$c$ & $n$ & $c$ & $n$ & $\phc$ & $n$\
2.66 & 2.36 & 2.11 & 2.08 & 0.26 & 3.56\
2.00 & 2.26 & 1.58 & 2.01 & 0.13 & 3.27\
1.33 & 2.26 & 1.06 & 2.07 & 0.06 & 3.07\
0.67 & 2.46 & 0.53 & 2.33 & 0.02 & 2.99\
0.33 & 2.43 & & & &\
0.17 & 2.64 & & & &\
0.08 & 2.80 & & & &\
0.04 & 2.88 & & & &\
Simulation results in the case of a hardcore model with $\lhc = 500$ and several hardcore radii $\rhc$ are also listed. The simulation of the corresponding JMA case yields an Avrami exponent $n = 2.97$. According to these simulation results, a distribution of the nuclei according to a hardcore model leads to an increased Avrami exponent $n$ compared with the one expected by the JMA theory. A deviation from the linear behaviour in the Avrami plot can also be observed for large values of $\phc$.\
=
### Results on small-angle scattering data
To check the possibility of distinguishing experimentally between the distributions under consideration, we investigated the small-angle scattering curves at several volume fractions.\
The scattering curves of the Poisson model were already shown in . shows scattering curves of a germ-grain model with underlying hardcore distribution. For low volume fractions, the curves exhibit a significant first peak. This peak is characteristic for a hard-sphere model with non-overlapping spheres (see, e.g. [@hermann91]). With increasing volume fraction this peak disappears as the structure of the system is now far away from the structure of the generating nuclei and the overlapping of the grains becomes larger. The scattering curves of a cluster model with different volume fractions are shown in . Here, at low volume fractions no sharp peaks are present. With increasing volume fraction, the amplitude of the oscillations first increases and then decreases again.\
Considering these results, it should be possible to distinguish between the three distributions of the nuclei by using small-angle scattering and observing the whole crystallization process.
=
=
Continuous nucleation
---------------------
The same investigations as in the case of instantaneous nucleation were also made for continuous nucleation and linear growth rate $v
=\mbox{const.}$. In the case of diffusion controlled growth, we analysed the error that is made by applying the JMA equation.\
In both cases, predefined point fields of density $\lambda = 750$ and a nucelation rate $\alpha = 5 / \d t$ were used for the simulation.\
In , the influence of a cluster and a hardcore point distribution on crystallization kinetics is shown (the given parameters describing the point fields refer to the predefined nuclei). Further simulation results are listed in .
[@llllll]{} & &\
$c$ & $n$ & $c$ & $n$ & $\phc$ & $n$\
4.57 & 3.72 & 3.63 & 3.56 & 0.27 & 4.04\
3.05 & 3.59 & 2.42 & 3.33 & 0.20 & 3.99\
1.52 & 3.40 & 1.21 & 3.14 & &\
As in the case of INST, a nuclei distribution according to the cluster model results in a decreased Avrami exponent compared with the JMA case and in deviations from the exponential behaviour. A hardcore distribution leads to an increased Avrami exponent, but the differences to the Poisson model are not as distinct as in case INST.
=
Discussion of crystallization kinetics
--------------------------------------
The deviations from the Poisson model in the cases INST and CONT can be explained by looking at the derivation of the JMA equation (see, e.g. [@christian]). To calculate the transformed volume fraction, a so-called [*extended volume*]{} is introduced, which is simply the sum of the volumes of all grains without considering their mutual overlappings. To get a connection between this extended volume and the real transformed volume, assumption (\[2\]) is applied.\
If the grains are distributed according to the cluster model, their overlapping is underestimated by the JMA model and hence the transformed volume fraction is overestimated. For $c \gg 1$ (clusters lose their cluster-like nature), $n$ is close to the JMA-value. With decreasing $c$ of the underlying cluster point field, the Avrami exponent $n$ gets smaller and substantial deviations from the exponential behaviour of the JMA-kinetics occur. If $c \rightarrow 0$, the Avrami exponent increases again and the Avrami plot shows a linear behaviour. In this case, the clusters are widely spaced and act like single Poisson-distributed nuclei. In between these two limiting cases ($c \gg 1$ and $c \rightarrow 0$), deviations from the JMA-behaviour occur. Values of $c$ with approximately $1 < c < 2$ give the maximum deviation (minimum $n$).\
On the other side, a hardcore distribution leads to a smaller overlapping compared with a uniform distribution. The transformed volume fraction is larger than in the pure JMA case, since more of the space nuclei grow into is empty. Our simulations show an increase of the Avrami exponent $n$ with increasing packing fraction $\phc$ of the underlying point field. On the other hand, in the case of $\phc
\rightarrow 0$ $n$ reaches the value of the pure JMA-case. Unfortunately, with our present algorithm we could not reach the limiting case of a close-packing of the underlying point field.\
As outlined in , in the case of diffusion controlled growth the crystallized volume fraction is overestimated. To check for this, we performed simulations with an underlying Poisson distribution of the nuclei. In a first series, the phantom nucleii that nucleated in an already crystallized region were discarded. Afterwards, they were treated like regular grains and contributed to the volume fraction. Doing so, we could estimate the error that is made in applying the JMA equation on diffusion controlled growth. The calculation of the differences $\Delta _{\rm abs}$ of the volume fractions yielded differences $\Delta _{\rm abs} \leq 9 \cdot 10^{-3}$. These results are in good agreement with simulations made by Shepilov and Bochkarev [@shepilov87].\
Conclusions
===========
Our simulations concernig the dependence of crystallization kinetics on the spatial nuclei distribution clearly showed that the analysis of experimental data by the JMA equation must be done with care. If the nuclei are not distributed equally, the use of the JMA equation can yield substantially wrong results. Therefore it should be checked if the JMA equation is applicable. One possibility to do so is the use of small-angle scattering. The scattering curves of the investigated nuclei distributions differ clearly from one another, especially in an early stage of the crystallization process.\
On the other hand, the simulations showed that the error that is made by applying the JMA equation on diffusion controlled growth processes with continuous nucleation can be neglected.\
References {#references .unnumbered}
==========
[13]{}
Avrami M, [*J. Chem. Phys.*]{} [**7**]{}, 1103 (1939).
Johnson W A and Mehl A, [*Trans. Am. Inst. Mining. Ing.*]{} [**135**]{}, 416 (1939).
Shepilov M P and Baik D S, [*J. Non-Cryst. Solids*]{} [**171**]{}, 141 (1994).
Christian J W, [*The Theory of Transformations in Metals and Alloys*]{} (Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, 1985).
Stoyan D and Mecke J, [*Stochastische Geometrie. Eine Einführung.*]{} (Akademie-Verlag, Berlin, 1983).
Stoyan D, Kendall W S, and Mecke J, [*Stochastic Geometry and its Applications*]{} (Wiley & Sons, Chichester, 1987).
Hermann H, in [*Stochastic Models of Heterogeneous Materials*]{}, [ *Materials Science Forum*]{} vol. 78, edited by G E Murch and F H Wöhlbier (Trans Tech Publications, Zürich, 1991).
Porod G, [*Kolloid-Z.*]{} [**125**]{}, 51 (1952).
Sonntag U, Stoyan D, and Hermann H, [*Phys. Stat. Sol. (a)*]{} [**68**]{}, 281 (1981).
Sobol I M, [*USSR Computational Mathematics and Mathematical Physics*]{} [**7**]{}, 86 (1967).
Antonov I A and Saleev V M, [*USSR Computational Mathematics and Mathematical Physics*]{} [**19**]{}, 252 (1979).
Press W H, Teukolsky S A, Vetterling W T, and Flannery B P, [ *Numerical Recipes in FORTRAN: The Art of Scientific Computing*]{} (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1992).
Shepilov M P and Bochkarev V B, [*Sov. Phys. Crystallogr.*]{} [**32**]{}, 11 (1987).
[^1]: The time scaling does not have any influence on the resulting Avrami exponent.
[^2]: Note that in the case of instantaneous nucleation time dependent growth rates can be reduced to this case as all grains start growing at the same time. See [@shepilov94].
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'In this paper the relation between nonanticipative rate distortion function (RDF) and Bayesian filtering theory is further investigated on general Polish spaces. The relation is established via an optimization on the space of conditional distributions of the so-called directed information subject to fidelity constraints. Existence of the optimal reproduction distribution of the nonanticipative RDF is shown using the topology of weak convergence of probability measures. Subsequently, we use the solution of the nonanticipative RDF to present the realization of a multidimensional partially observable source over a scalar Gaussian channel. We show that linear encoders are optimal, establishing joint source-channel coding in real-time.'
address: 'The authors are with the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering (ECE), University of Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus'
author:
- 'P. A. Stavrou'
- 'C. D. Charalambous'
bibliography:
- 'photis\_filtering\_weak.bib'
- 'photis\_filtering\_weakstar.bib'
title: 'Nonanticipative Rate Distortion Function and Filtering Theory: A Weak Convergence Approach'
---
Nonanticipative rate distortion function ,realizability ,weak convergence ,filtering theory ,optimal reproduction conditional distribution.
Introduction
============
In the past, rate distortion (or distortion rate) functions and filtering theory have evolved independently. Specifically, classical rate distortion function (RDF) addresses the problem of reproduction of a process subject to a fidelity criterion without much emphasis on the realization of the reproduction conditional distribution via causal[^1] operations. On the other hand, filtering theory is developed by imposing real-time realizability on estimators with respect to measurement data. Specifically, least-squares filtering theory deals with the characterization of the conditional distribution of the unobserved process given the measurement data, via a stochastic differential equation which causally depends on the observation data [@elliott-aggoun-moore1995].\
Although, both reliable communication and filtering (state estimation for control) are concerned with the reproduction of processes, the main underlying assumptions characterizing them are different.\
Historically, the work of R. Bucy [@bucy] appears to be the first to consider the direct relation between distortion rate function and filtering, by carrying out the computation of a realizable distortion rate function with square criteria for two samples of the Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process. The work of A. K. Gorbunov and M. S. Pinsker [@gorbunov91] on $\epsilon$-entropy defined via a causal constraint on the reproduction distribution of the RDF, although not directly related to the realizability question pursued by Bucy, computes the nonanticipative RDF for stationary Gaussian processes via power spectral densities. Recently, the authors in [@charalambous-stavrou-ahmed2013] investigated relations between filtering theory and RDF defined via mutual information using the topology of weak$^*$ convergence on appropriate defined spaces. The derivations of the results in [@charalambous-stavrou-ahmed2013] require elaborate arguments.\
The objective of this paper is to further investigate the connection between nonanticipative rate distortion theory and filtering theory for general distortion functions and random processes on abstract Polish spaces using the topology of weak convergence. Moreover, instead of mutual information we invoke directed information with an inherent causality, which defines the reproduction conditional distribution. Further, the connection is established via optimization of directed information [@massey90] over the space of conditional distributions which satisfy an average distortion constraint. In comparison to [@charalambous-stavrou-ahmed2013], we impose natural technical assumptions to obtain analogous results under the topology of weak convergence of probability measures, by using Prohorov’s theorem without introducing new spaces as done in [@charalambous-stavrou-ahmed2013]. We also present a new example to illustrate the realization of the filter via nonanticipative RDF. Specifically, we consider a multidimensional partially observable source, we compute the nonanticipative RDF, and we show how to realize it over a scalar additive Gaussian noise channel showing that linear encoder strategies are optimal. This example is new and it is considered as an open problem in information theory [@derpich-ostergaard2012].\
The main results discussed in this paper are the following.
(1)
: Existence of optimal reproduction distribution minimizing directed information using the topology of weak convergence of probability measures on Polish spaces;
(2)
: example of a multidimensional source which is realized over a scalar additive Gaussian noise channel, for which the filter is obtained.
This work is motivated by recent applications of sensor networks in which estimators are desired to have a specific accuracy, when processing information , and control over limited rate communication channel applications [@tatikonda-mitter2004; @freudenberg-middleton2008; @yuksel-meyn2013]. It is important to note that over the years several papers have appeared in the literature utilizing information theoretic measures for estimator and control applications [@feng-loparo-fang1997; @guo-yin-wang-chai2009].\
First, we give a brief high level discussion on the relation between nonanticipative RDF and filtering theory, and discuss their connection.\
Consider a discrete-time process $X^n{{\stackrel}{\triangle}{=}}\{X_0,X_1,\ldots,X_n\}\in{\cal X}_{0,n} {{\stackrel}{\triangle}{=}}\times_{i=0}^n{\cal X}_i$, and its reproduction $Y^n{{\stackrel}{\triangle}{=}}\{Y_0,Y_1,\ldots,Y_n\}\in{\cal Y}_{0,n} {{\stackrel}{\triangle}{=}}\times_{i=0}^n{\cal Y}_i$ where ${\cal X}_i$ and ${\cal Y}_i$ are Polish spaces.\
[*Bayesian Estimation Theory.*]{} In classical filtering (see Fig. \[filtering\]), one is given a mathematical model that generates the process $X^n$, $\{P_{X_i|X^{i-1}}(dx_i|x^{i-1}):i=0,1,\ldots,n\}$, often induced via discrete-time recursive dynamics, a mathematical model that generates observed data obtained from sensors, say $Z^n$, $\{P_{Z_i|Z^{i-1},X^i}$ $(dz_i|z^{i-1},x^i):i=0,1,\ldots,n\}$, and the objective is to compute causal estimates of some function of the process $X^n$ based on the observed data $Z^n$. The classical Kalman Filter is a well-known example, where the estimate $\widehat{X}_i =\mathbb{E}[X_i | Z^{i-1}],~i=0,1,\ldots,n$, is the conditional mean which minimizes the average least-squares estimation error.
![Block Diagram of the Filtering Problem[]{data-label="filtering"}](filtering_problem.jpg)
[*Nonanticipative Rate Distortion Theory and Estimation.*]{} In nonanticipative rate distortion theory one is given a process $X^n$, which induces a distribution $\{P_{X_i|X^{i-1}}(dx_i|x^{i-1}):~i=0,1,\ldots,n\}$, and the objective is to determine the causal reproduction conditional distribution $\{P_{Y_i|Y^{i-1},X^i}(dy_i|y^{i-1},x^i):~i=0,1,\ldots,n\}$ which minimizes the directed information from $X^n$ to $Y^n$ subject to distortion or fidelity constraint. The filter $\{Y_i:~i=0,1,\ldots,n\}$ of $\{X_i:~i=0,1,\ldots,n\}$ is found by realizing the optimal reproduction distribution $\{P_{Y_i|X^{i-1},X^i}(dy_i|y^{i-1},x^i):~i=0,1,\ldots,n\}$ via a cascade of sub-systems as shown in Fig. 2. Thus, in nonanticipative rate distortion theory the observation or mapping from $\{X_i:~i=0,1,\ldots,n\}$ to $\{Z_i:~i=0,1,\ldots,n\}$ is part of the realization procedure, while in filtering theory, this mapping is given á priori. Indeed, this is the main difference between Bayesian estimation theory and nonanticipative RDF for the purpose of estimation.
![Block Diagram of Filtering via Nonanticipative Rate Distortion Function[]{data-label="filtering_and_causal"}](CRDF_and_filtering_v1.jpg)
The precise problem formulation necessitates the definitions of distortion function or fidelity, and directed information.\
The distortion function or fidelity constraint [@berger] between $x^n$ and its reproduction $y^n$, is a measurable function defined by $$\begin{aligned}
d_{0,n} : {\cal X}_{0,n} \times {\cal Y}_{0,n} {\rightarrow}[0, \infty], \: \: d_{0,n}(x^n,y^n){{\stackrel}{\triangle}{=}}\frac{1}{n+1}\sum^n_{i=0}\rho_{0,i}(x^i,y^i).\end{aligned}$$ Directed information from a sequence of Random Variables (RV’s) $X^n{{\stackrel}{\triangle}{=}}\{X_0,X_1,\ldots,X_n\}\in{\cal X}_{0,n}{{\stackrel}{\triangle}{=}}\times_{i=0}^n{\cal X}_i$, to another sequence $Y^n{{\stackrel}{\triangle}{=}}\{Y_0,Y_1,\ldots,Y_n\}\in{\cal Y}_{0,n}{{\stackrel}{\triangle}{=}}\times_{i=0}^n{\cal Y}_i$ is often defined via [@massey90; @charalambous-stavrou2012] $$\begin{aligned}
I(X^n\rightarrow{Y}^n)&{{\stackrel}{\triangle}{=}}\sum_{i=0}^n{I}(X^i;Y_i|Y^{i-1})\nonumber\\
&=\sum_{i=0}^n\int\log\Big(\frac{P_{Y_i|Y^{i-1},X^i}(dy_i|y^{i-1},x^i)}{{P}_{Y_i|Y^{i-1}}(dy_i|y^{i-1})}\Big)P_{X^i,Y^i}(dx^i,dy^i)\label{1a}\\
&\equiv\mathbb{I}_{X^n\rightarrow{Y^n}}(P_{X_i|X^{i-1},Y^{i-1}},P_{Y_i|Y^{i-1},X^i}:~i=0,1,\ldots,n).\label{1b}\end{aligned}$$ The notation $\mathbb{I}_{X^n\rightarrow{Y^n}}(\cdot,\cdot)$ illustrates the dependence of directed information $I(X^n\rightarrow{Y^n})$ on the two sequences of nonanticipative or causal conditional distributions $\{P_{X_i|X^{i-1},Y^{i-1}}(\cdot|\cdot,\cdot),~P_{Y_i|Y^{i-1},X^i}(\cdot|\cdot,\cdot)~:~i=0,1,\ldots,n\}$. In information theory, directed information $\mathbb{I}_{X^n\rightarrow{Y^n}}(\cdot,\cdot)$ is often used as a measure of information from the sequence $(X^i,Y^{i-1})$ over the channel $P_{Y_i|Y^{i-1},X^{i}}(\cdot|\cdot,\cdot)$ to the random variable (RV) $Y_i$, $i=0,1,\ldots,n$. Directed information is also used in biological applications [@solo2008; @quinn-coleman-kiyavash-hatsopoulos2011] as a measure of causality, describing the cause and effect.\
In this paper, it is assumed that $$\begin{aligned}
P_{X_i|X^{i-1},Y^{i-1}}(dx_i|x^{i-1},y^{i-1})=P_{X_i|X^{i-1}}(dx_i|x^{i-1})-a.s.,~\forall~i=0,1,\ldots,n. \label{2}\end{aligned}$$ The above assumption states that the process $\{X_i:~i=0,1,\ldots,n\}$ is conditionally independent of $Y^{i-1}=y^{i-1}$ given knowledge of $X^{i-1}=x^{i-1}$. Clearly, (\[2\]) is implied by the following conditional independence, $P_{Y_i|Y^{i-1},X^{\infty}}$ $(dy_i|y^{i-1},x^{\infty})=P_{Y_i|Y^{i-1},X^i}(dy_i|y^{i-1},x^i)-a.s.,~\forall~i=0,1,\ldots,n$. The last assumption implies that the reproduction of $Y_i$ does not depend on future values $X_{i+1}^{\infty}{{\stackrel}{\triangle}{=}}\{X_{i+1},X_{i+2},\ldots,X_{\infty}\}$, stating that $Y_i$ is nonanticipative with respect to the process $\{X_i:~i=0,1,\ldots,n\}$.\
Given a sequence of source distributions $\{{P}_{X_i|X^{i-1}}(\cdot|\cdot):~i=0,1,\ldots,n\}$ and a sequence of reproduction conditional distributions $\{P_{Y_i|Y^{i-1},X^i}(\cdot|\cdot,\cdot):~i=0,1,\ldots,n\}$ define the joint distribution $P_{X^n,Y^n}(dx^n,dy^n)={P}_{X^n}(dx^n)\otimes\big(\otimes_{i=0}^n{P}_{Y_i|Y^{i-1},X^i}(dy_i|y^{i-1},x^i)\big)$. The nonanticipative RDF is a special case of directed information defined for $i=0,1,\ldots,n$, by $$\begin{aligned}
I_{P_{X^n}}(X^n\rightarrow{Y^n})=\mathbb{I}_{X^n\rightarrow{Y^n}}(P_{X^n},P_{Y_i|Y^{i-1},X^i}:~i=0,1,\ldots,n)\label{3}\end{aligned}$$ [*Nonanticipative RDF.*]{} The nonanticipative RDF is defined by $${R}^{na}_{0,n}(D){{\stackrel}{\triangle}{=}}\inf_{\substack{P_{Y_i|Y^{i-1},X^i}(\cdot|\cdot,\cdot):~i=0,1,\ldots,n:\\
\mathbb{E}\big\{d_{0,n}(X^n,Y^n)\leq{D}\big\}}}I_{P_{X^n}}(X^n\rightarrow{Y^n}).\label{7}$$ The definition of the nonanticipative RDF is consistent with [@gorbunov-pinsker] in which nonanticipation is defined via the Markov chain $X_{n+1}^\infty \leftrightarrow X^n \leftrightarrow Y^n$, e.g., $P_{Y^n|X^{\infty}}(dy^n|x^{\infty})=P_{Y^n|X^n}(dy^n|x^n)$. Therefore, by finding the solution of (\[7\]), then one can realize it via a channel from which one can construct an optimal filter causally as in Fig. \[filtering\_and\_causal\].
The paper is organized as follows. Section \[abstract\] discusses the formulation on abstract spaces. Section \[existence\] establishes existence of optimal minimizing distribution, and Section \[necessary\] presents the optimal minimizing distribution for stationary processes, which was derived in [@charalambous-stavrou-ahmed2013]. Section \[realization1\] describes the realization of nonanticipative RDF for a vector partially observable Gaussian system over a scalar additive Gaussian noise communication channel for which the optimal causal filter is obtained.
Abstract Formulation {#abstract}
====================
The source and reproduction alphabets are sequences of Polish spaces [@dupuis-ellis97] as defined in the previous section. Probability distributions on any measurable space $( {\cal Z}, {\cal B}({\cal Z}))$ are denoted by ${\cal M}_1({\cal Z})$. For $({\cal X}, {\cal B}({\cal X})), ({\cal Y}, {\cal B}({\cal Y}))$ measurable spaces, the set of conditional distributions $P_{Y|X}(\cdot|X=x)$ is denoted by ${\cal Q}({\cal Y};{\cal X})$, and these are equivalent to stochastic kernels on $({\cal Y},{\cal B}({\cal Y}))$ given $({\cal X},{\cal B}({\cal X}))$.\
Given the process distributions $P_{X^n}(dx^n)$ and $\{P_{Y_i|Y^{i-1},X^i}(dy_i|y^{i-1},x^i):~i=0,1,\ldots,n\}$, the following probability distributions are defined.\
([**P1**]{}): The reproduction conditional probability distribution ${\overrightarrow P}_{Y^n|X^n}(dy^n|x^n)$ $ \in {\cal M}_1({\cal Y}_{0,n})$: $$\begin{aligned}
{\overrightarrow P}_{Y^n|X^n}(dy^n|x^n)&{{\stackrel}{\triangle}{=}}\int_{A_0}P_{Y_0|X_0}(dy_0|x_0)\int_{A_1}P_{Y_1|Y_0,X^1}(dy_1|y_0,x^1)\ldots\nonumber\\
&\ldots\int_{{A}_n}P_{Y_n|Y^{n-1},X^n}(dy_n|y^{n-1},x^n),~~A_{0,n}=\times_{i=0}^n{A_i}\in{\cal B}({\cal X}_{0,n}). \label{4}\end{aligned}$$ ([**P2**]{}): The joint probability distribution $P_{X^n,Y^n}\in {\cal M}_1({\cal Y}_{0,n}\times {\cal X}_{0, n})$: $$\begin{aligned}
P_{X^n,Y^n}(G_{0,n})&{{\stackrel}{\triangle}{=}}(P_{X^n} \otimes \overrightarrow{P}_{Y^n|X^n})(G_{0,n}),\:G_{0,n} \in {\cal B}({\cal X}_{0,n})\times{\cal B}({\cal Y}_{0,n})\nonumber\\
&=\int \overrightarrow{P}_{Y^n|X^n}(G_{0,n,x^n}|x^n)P_{X^n}(d{x^n})\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $G_{0,n,x^n}$ is the $x^n-$section of $G_{0,n}$ at point ${x^n}$ defined by $G_{0,n,x^n}{{\stackrel}{\triangle}{=}}\{y^n \in {\cal Y}_{0,n}: (x^n, y^n) \in G_{0,n}\}$ and $\otimes$ denotes the convolution.\
([**P3**]{}): The marginal distribution $P_{Y^n}\in {\cal M}_1({\cal Y}_{0,n})$:$$\begin{aligned}
P_{Y^n}(F_{0,n})&{{\stackrel}{\triangle}{=}}P({\cal X}_{0, n} \times F_{0,n}),~F_{0,n} \in {\cal B}({\cal Y}_{0,n})\nonumber\\
&=\int \overrightarrow{P}_{Y^n|X^n}(({\cal X}_{0, n}\times F_{0,n})_{{x}^{n}};{x}^{n})P_{X^n}(d{x^n})\nonumber \\
&=\int \overrightarrow{P}_{Y^n|X^n}(F_{0,n}|x^n) P_{X^n}(d{x^n}).\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ ([**P4**]{}): The product distribution $\Pi_{0,n}:{\cal B}({\cal X}_{0,n}) \times
{\cal B}({\cal Y}_{0,n}) \mapsto [0,1] $ of $P_{X^n}\in{\cal M}_1({\cal X}_{0, n})$ and $P_{Y^n}\in{\cal M}_1({\cal Y}_{0, n})$: $$\begin{aligned}
\Pi_{0,n}(G_{0,n})&{{\stackrel}{\triangle}{=}}(P_{X^n} \times P_{Y^n})(G_{0,n}),~G_{0,n} \in {\cal B}({\cal X}_{0,n}) \times {\cal B}({\cal Y}_{0,n})\nonumber\\
&=\int_{{\cal X}_{0, n}} P_{Y^n}(G_{0,n,x^n}) P_{X^n}(dx^n).\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Directed information (special case) is defined via the Kullback-Leibler distance: $$\begin{aligned}
I_{P_{X^n}}(X^n\rightarrow{Y^n})&{{\stackrel}{\triangle}{=}}\mathbb{D}(P_{X^n,Y^n}|| \Pi_{0,n})=\mathbb{D}(P_{X^n}\otimes{\overrightarrow{P}}_{Y^n|X^n}||P_{X^n}\times{P}_{Y^n})\nonumber\\
&=\int\log \Big( \frac{d (P_{X^n} \otimes \overrightarrow{P}_{Y^n|X^n}) }{d ( P_{X^n} \times P_{Y^n} ) }\Big) d(P_{X^n} \otimes\overrightarrow{P}_{Y^n|X^n}) \nonumber\\
& = \int \log \Big( \frac{\overrightarrow{P}_{Y^n|X^n}(dy^n|x^n)}{P_{Y^n}(dy^n)} \Big)\overrightarrow{P}_{Y^n|X^n}(dy^n|x^n)\otimes{P}_{X^n}(dx^n)\nonumber\\
&\equiv \mathbb{I}_{X^n\rightarrow{Y^n}}(P_{X^n},\overrightarrow{P}_{Y^n|X^n}).\label{re3}
\end{aligned}$$ Note that (\[re3\]) states that directed information is expressed as a functional of $\{P_{X^n},\overrightarrow{P}_{Y^n|X^n}\}$.\
Define the set of all $(n+1)$-fold convolution distributions by $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal Q}^{c}({\cal Y}_{0,n};{\cal X}_{0,n})=\Big\{&{\overrightarrow P}_{Y^n|X^n}(dy^n|x^n)\in{\cal Q}({\cal Y}_{0,n};{\cal X}_{0,n}):\\
&{\overrightarrow P}_{Y^n|X^n}(dy^n|x^n) {{\stackrel}{\triangle}{=}}\otimes^n_{i=0}P_{Y_i|Y^{i-1},X^i}(dy_i|y^{i-1},x^i)\Big\}.\end{aligned}$$ Next, the definition of nonanticipative RDF is given.
\[def1\] $($[**Nonanticipative Rate Distortion Function**]{}$)$ Suppose $d_{0,n}{{\stackrel}{\triangle}{=}}\frac{1}{n+1}\sum^n_{i=0}\rho_{0,i}(x^i,y^i)$ is ${\cal B}({\cal X}_{0,n}) \times {\cal B }( {\cal Y}_{0,n})$-measurable distortion function, and let ${\cal Q}^c_{0,n}(D)$ (assuming is non-empty) denotes the average distortion or fidelity constraint defined by $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal Q}^c_{{0,n}}(D){{\stackrel}{\triangle}{=}}\Big\{&\overrightarrow{P}_{Y^n|X^n} \in {\cal Q}^{c}({\cal Y}_{0,n};{\cal X}_{0,n}) :~\ell_{d_{0,n}}(\overrightarrow{P}_{Y^n|X^n}){{\stackrel}{\triangle}{=}}\int d_{0,n}(x^n,y^n) \nonumber \\
&\overrightarrow{P}_{Y^n|X^n}(dy^n|x^n)\otimes{P}_{X^n}(dx^n)\leq D\Big\},~D\geq0.\label{eq2}\end{aligned}$$ The nonanticipative RDF is defined by $$\begin{aligned}
{R}^{na}_{0,n}(D) {{\stackrel}{\triangle}{=}}\inf_{{\overrightarrow{P}_{Y^n|X^n}\in{\cal Q}^c_{0,n}(D)}}{\mathbb I}_{X^n\rightarrow{Y^n}}({P}_{X^n},\overrightarrow{P}_{Y^n|X^n}).\label{ex12}\end{aligned}$$
Clearly, ${R}^{na}_{0,n}(D)$ is characterized by minimizing $\mathbb{I}_{X^n\rightarrow{Y^n}}({P}_{X^n},\overrightarrow{P}_{Y^n|X^n})$ over ${\cal Q}^c_{0,n}(D)$.
Existence Of Reproduction Conditional Distribution {#existence}
==================================================
In this section, the existence of the minimizing $(n+1)$-fold convolution of conditional distributions in (\[ex12\]) is established by using the topology of weak convergence of probability measures on Polish spaces. Before we present the relevant results we state some properties of average distortion set ${\cal Q}^c_{0,n}(D)$ and functional ${\mathbb I}_{X^n\rightarrow{Y^n}}({P}_{X^n},\overrightarrow{P}_{Y^n|X^n})$. The majority of these properties is derived in [@charalambous-stavrou2013] for the case of general directed information functional ${\mathbb I}_{X^n\rightarrow{Y^n}}(\overleftarrow{P}_{X^n|Y^{n-1}},\overrightarrow{P}_{Y^n|X^n})$ where $\overleftarrow{P}_{X^n|Y^{n-1}}(\cdot|y^{n-1})=\otimes_{i=0}^n{P}_{X_i|X^{i-1},Y^{i-1}}(dx_i|x^{i-1},y^{i-1})$.
([**Convexity Properties**]{})\[convexity\_properties\] Let $\{{\cal X}_n:~n\in\mathbb{N}\}$ and $\{{\cal Y}_n:~n\in\mathbb{N}\}$ be Polish spaces. Then
(1)
: The set $\overrightarrow{P}_{Y^n|X^n}\in{\cal Q}^{c}({\cal Y}_{0,n};{\cal X}_{0,n})$ is convex.
(2)
: ${\mathbb I}_{X^n\rightarrow{Y^n}}({P}_{X^n},\overrightarrow{P}_{Y^n|X^n})$ is a convex functional of $\overrightarrow{P}_{Y^n|X^n}\in{\cal Q}^{c}({\cal Y}_{0,n};{\cal X}_{0,n})$ for a fixed $P_{X^n}\in{\cal M}_1({\cal X}_{0,n})$.
(3)
: The set ${\cal Q}^c_{0,n}(D)$ is convex.
Parts (1) and (2) are derived in [@charalambous-stavrou2013 Theorems III.3, III4]. Part (3) follows from Part (1).
Let $BC({\cal Z})$ denotes the set of bounded continuous real-valued functions on a Polish space ${\cal Z}$. A sequence $\{P_n:n\geq1\}$ of probability measures is said to [*converge weakly*]{} to $P\in{\cal M}_1({\cal Z})$ if $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{n\longrightarrow\infty}\int_{\cal Z}f(z)dP_n(z)=\int_{\cal Z}f(z)dP(z),~\forall{f}\in{BC}({\cal Z}).\nonumber \end{aligned}$$ Below, we introduce the main conditions for establishing existence of an optimal solution for the nonanticipative RDF (\[ex12\]).
\[conditions-existence\] The following conditions are assumed throughout the paper.
(1)
: ${\cal Y}_{0,n}$ is a compact Polish space, ${\cal X}_{0,n}$ is a Polish space;
(2)
: for all $h(\cdot){\in}BC({\cal Y}_{n})$, the function mapping $$\begin{aligned}
(x^{n},y^{n-1})\in{\cal X}_{0,n}\times{\cal Y}_{0,n-1}\mapsto\int_{{\cal Y}_n}h(y)P_{Y|Y^{n-1},X^n}(dy|y^{n-1},x^n)\in\mathbb{R}\end{aligned}$$ is continuous jointly in the variables $(x^{n},y^{n-1})\in{\cal X}_{0,n}\times{\cal Y}_{0,n-1}$;
(3)
: $d_{0,n}(x^n,\cdot)$ is continuous on ${\cal Y}_{0,n}$;
(4)
: the distortion level $D$ is such that there exist sequence $(x^n,y^{n})\in{\cal X}_{0,n}\times{\cal Y}_{0,n}$ satisfying $d_{0,n}(x^n,y^{n})<D$.
Note that since ${\cal Y}_{0,n}$ is assumed to be a compact Polish space, then by [@dupuis-ellis97] probability measures on ${\cal Y}_{0,n}$ are weakly compact. Moreover, the following weak compactness result can be obtained, which we use to show existence of an optimal nonanticipative RDF, $R_{0,n}^{na}(D)$.
([**Compactness**]{})\[compactness2\] Suppose Assumption \[conditions-existence\], (1), (2) hold.\
Then
(1)
: The set $\overrightarrow{P}_{Y^n|X^n}\in{\cal Q}^{c}({\cal Y}_{0,n};{\cal X}_{0,n})$ is closed and tight, hence compact.
(2)
: Under the additional conditions (3), (4) the set $ {\cal Q}^c_{0,n}(D)$ is a closed subset of the compact set $\overrightarrow{P}_{Y^n|X^n}\in{\cal Q}^{c}({\cal Y}_{0,n};{\cal X}_{0,n})$, hence compact.
\(1) The tightness of the proof is shown in from [@charalambous-stavrou2013 Theorem III.5, Part A., A4)]. This follows from the fact that any ${\overrightarrow{P}}_{Y^n|X^n}(dy^n|x^n)\in{\cal Q}^{c}({\cal Y}_{0,n};{\cal X}_{0,n})$ is factorized as ${\overrightarrow{P}}_{Y^n|X^n}(dy^n|x^n)=\otimes_{i=0}^n{P}_{Y_i|Y^{i-1},X^i}(dy_i|y^{i-1},x^i)$-a.s., where ${P}_{Y_i|Y^{i-1},X^i}(dy_i|y^{i-1},x^i)\in{\cal Q}({\cal Y}_i;{\cal Y}_{0,i-1}\times{\cal X}_{0,i})\subset{\cal M}_1({\cal Y}_i)$, $i=0,1,\ldots,{n}$, and ${\cal Y}_{0,n}$ compact Polish space which implies that $\{P_{Y_i|Y^{i-1},X^i}(\cdot|y^{i-1},x^i):y_0\in{\cal Y}_{0},y_1\in{\cal Y}_{1},\ldots,y_{i-1}\in{\cal Y}_{i-1},x^i\in{\cal X}_{0,i}\}$ is compact, hence by Prohorov’s theorem it is uniformly tight $\forall{i}$.\
Therefore, by Prohorov’s theorem [@dupuis-ellis97] the compactness of the set $\overrightarrow{P}_{Y^n|X^n}\in{\cal Q}^{c}({\cal Y}_{0,n};{\cal X}_{0,n})$ will follow if we show that it is closed, i.e., given $\{\overrightarrow{P}_{Y^n|X^n}^{\alpha}(\cdot|x^{n}):\alpha=1,2,\ldots\}\subset{\cal Q}^{c}({\cal Y}_{0,n};{\cal X}_{0,n})$ with $\overrightarrow{P}_{Y^n|X^n}^{\alpha}(\cdot|x^{n}) \buildrel w \over \longrightarrow\overrightarrow{P}_{Y^n|X^n}^{0}(\cdot|x^{n})$ then $\overrightarrow{P}_{Y^n|X^n}^{0}(\cdot|x^{n})\in{\cal Q}^{c}({\cal Y}_{0,n};{\cal X}_{0,n})$. Since the family of measures $\overrightarrow{P}_{Y^n|X^n}(\cdot|x^{n})\in{\cal Q}^{c}({\cal Y}_{0,n};{\cal X}_{0,n})$ and $\{P_{Y_i|Y^{i-1},X^i}(\cdot;y^{i-1},x^{i}):~i=0,1,\ldots,n\}$, are tight, and $P_{Y_i|Y^{i-1},X^i}(\cdot;y^{i-1},x^{i})$ are probability measures on ${\cal M}_1({\cal Y}_i)$, $i=0,1,\ldots,n$, then, for $\overrightarrow{P}_{Y^n|X^n}^{\alpha}(\cdot|x^{n})\in{\cal Q}^{c}({\cal Y}_{0,n};{\cal X}_{0,n})$ there is a collection of probability measures $\{P_{Y_i|Y^{i-1},X^i}(\cdot;y^{i-1},x^{i}):i=0,1,\ldots,n\}$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
P^{\alpha}_{Y_i|Y^{i-1},X^i}(\cdot;y^{i-1},x^{i})\buildrel w \over \longrightarrow{P}^{0}_{Y_i|Y^{i-1},X^i}(\cdot;y^{i-1},x^{i}),~i=0,1,\ldots,n.\end{aligned}$$ Hence, to show closedness of $\overrightarrow{P}_{Y^n|X^n}\in{\cal Q}^{c}({\cal Y}_{0,n};{\cal X}_{0,n})$ it suffices to show that $$\begin{aligned}
\otimes_{i=0}^n{P}^{\alpha}_{Y_i|Y^{i-1},X^i}(\cdot;y^{i-1},x^{i})\buildrel w \over \longrightarrow\otimes_{i=0}^n{P}^0_{Y_i|Y^{i-1},X^i}(\cdot;y^{i-1},x^{i})\end{aligned}$$ whenever $P^{\alpha}_{Y_i|Y^{i-1},X^i}(\cdot;y^{i-1},x^{i})\buildrel w \over \longrightarrow{P}^{0}_{Y_i|Y^{i-1},X^i}(\cdot;y^{i-1},x^{i}),~i=0,1,\ldots,n$. Utilizing Assumptions \[conditions-existence\] (2), this can be shown by induction, and hence $\overrightarrow{P}_{Y^n|X^n}\in{\cal Q}^{c}({\cal Y}_{0,n};{\cal X}_{0,n})$ is also a closed set. This completes the derivation of part (1).\
(2) Utilizing compactness of $\overrightarrow{P}_{Y^n|X^n}\in{\cal Q}^{c}({\cal Y}_{0,n};{\cal X}_{0,n})$, condition (3) of Assumption \[conditions-existence\] on $d_{0,n}(x^n,\cdot)$, and some fundamental measure theoretic results like Lebesgue’s monotone convergence theorem and Fatou’s lemma, it can be shown that $ {\cal Q}^c_{0,n}(D)$ is a closed subset of ${\cal Q}^{c}({\cal Y}_{0,n};{\cal X}_{0,n})$, and hence by Prohorov’s theorem it is compact.
The previous results utilize Prohorov’s theorem that relates tightness and weak compactness.
The next theorem establishes existence of the minimizing reproduction distribution for (\[ex12\]). We need the following theorem derived in [@charalambous-stavrou2013].
([**Lower Semicontinuity**]{})\[lower-semicontinuity\] Under Assumption \[conditions-existence\] (1), (2), ${\mathbb{I}}_{X^n\rightarrow{Y^n}}({P}_{X^n}, {\overrightarrow P}_{Y^n|X^n})$ is lower semicontinuous on ${\overrightarrow P}_{Y^n|X^n}\in{\cal Q}^{c}({\cal Y}_{0,n};{\cal X}_{0,n})$ for a fixed ${P}_{X^n}\in{\cal M}_1({\cal X}_{0,n})$.
The proof is immediate from [@charalambous-stavrou2013 Theorem III.7], and it is obtained by just relegating the general directed information functional ${\mathbb I}_{X^n\rightarrow{Y^n}}(\overleftarrow{P}_{X^n|Y^{n-1}},\overrightarrow{P}_{Y^n|X^n})$ to the special case of ${\mathbb{I}}_{X^n\rightarrow{Y^n}}({P}_{X^n}, {\overrightarrow P}_{Y^n|X^n})$ where $\overleftarrow{P}_{X^n|Y^{n-1}}(\cdot|y^{n-1})=P_{X^n}(x^{n})-a.s.$
By Lemma \[compactness2\] and Lemma \[lower-semicontinuity\] we have the following existence result.
([**Existence**]{})\[existence\_rd\] Suppose the conditions and results of Lemma \[compactness2\] and Lemma \[lower-semicontinuity\] hold. Then ${R}^{na}_{0,n}(D)$ has a minimum.
Provided that the results from Lemma \[compactness2\] and Lemma \[lower-semicontinuity\] hold, then the existence of a global minimum solution follows from an extended version of Weierstrass’ theorem (e.g., a lower semicontinuous function on a compact set attains its minimum).
The fundamental difference between [@charalambous-stavrou-ahmed2013] and this paper, is that we show existence of solution to the nonanticipative RDF using the topology of weak convergence of probability measures under very relaxed conditions, i.e., Assumption \[conditions-existence\]. These are natural generalization of the existence result discussed by Csiszár in [@csiszar74], for single letter classical RDF.
Optimal Reproduction of Nonanticipative RDF for Stationary Processes {#necessary}
====================================================================
In this section, we present the form of the optimal stationary reproduction conditional distribution. Since we have shown existence of solution to the nonanticipative RDF, the method of obtaining the optimal solution is identical to the one in [@charalambous-stavrou-ahmed2013 Section IV]. We introduce the following main assumption.
$($[**Stationarity**]{}$)$\[stationarity\] The $(n+1)$-fold convolution of conditional distribution $\overrightarrow{P}_{Y^n|X^n}(dy^n|x^n)=\otimes^n_{i=0}P_{Y_i|Y^{i-1},X^i}$ $(dy_i|y^{i-1},x^i)$, is the convolution of stationary conditional distributions.
Assumption \[stationarity\] holds for stationary process $\{(X_i,Y_i):i\in\mathbb{N}\}$ and $\rho_{0,i}(x^i,y^i)\equiv\rho(T^i{x^n},T^i{y^n})$, where $T^i{x^n}=\tilde{x}^{n}$ is the $i^{th}$ shift operator on the source sequence $x^n$, with $\tilde{x}_{n}=x_{n+i}$ (similarly for $T^i{y^n}$), and $\sum_{i=0}^n\rho(T^ix^n,T^iy^n)$ depends only on the components of $(x^n,y^n)$ [@gray2010]. The consequence of Assumption \[stationarity\], which holds for stationary processes and a single letter distortion function, is that the Gateaux differential of $\mathbb{I}_{X^n\rightarrow{Y^n}}(P_{X^n},\overrightarrow{P}_{Y^n|X^n})$ is done in only one direction $\big{(}$since $P_{Y_i|Y^{i-1},X^i}(dy_i|y^{i-1},x^i)$ are stationary$\big{)}$. Therefore, we define the variation of $\overrightarrow{P}_{Y^n|X^n}$ in the direction of $\overrightarrow{P}_{Y^n|X^n}-\overrightarrow{P}_{Y^n|X^n}^0$ via $\overrightarrow{P}_{Y^n|X^n}^{\epsilon}{{\stackrel}{\triangle}{=}}\overrightarrow{P}_{Y^n|X^n}+\epsilon\big{(}\overrightarrow{P}_{Y^n|X^n}-\overrightarrow{P}_{Y^n|X^n}^0\big{)}$, $\epsilon\in[0,1]$, since under Assumption \[stationarity\], the functionals $\{P_{Y_i|Y^{i-1},X^i}(dy_i|y^{i-1},x^i)\in{\cal Q}({\cal Y}_i;{\cal Y}_{0,i-1}\times{\cal X}_{0,i}):~i=0,1,\ldots,n\}$ are identical.
\[th5\] Suppose Assumption \[stationarity\] holds and ${\mathbb I}_{P_{X^n}}(\overrightarrow{P}_{Y^n|X^n}) {{\stackrel}{\triangle}{=}}\mathbb{I}_{X^n\rightarrow{Y^n}}$ $(P_{X^n},\overrightarrow{P}_{Y^n|X^n})$ is well defined for every $\overrightarrow{P}_{Y^n|X^n}\in {\cal Q}^c_{0,n}(D)$ possibly taking values from the set $[0,\infty]$. Then $\overrightarrow{P}_{Y^n|X^n} \rightarrow {\mathbb I}_{P_{X^n}}(\overrightarrow{P}_{Y^n|X^n})$ is Gateaux differentiable at every point in ${\cal Q}^c_{0,n}(D)$, and the Gateaux derivative at the point $\overrightarrow{P}_{Y^n|X^n}^0$ in the direction $\overrightarrow{P}_{Y^n|X^n}-\overrightarrow{P}_{Y^n|X^n}^0$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
&&\delta{\mathbb I}_{P_{X^n}}(\overrightarrow{P}_{Y^n|X^n}^0,\overrightarrow{P}_{Y^n|X^n}-\overrightarrow{P}_{Y^n|X^n}^0)\nonumber\\
&&=\int\log \Bigg(\frac{\overrightarrow{P}_{Y^n|X^n}^0(dy^n|x^n)}{P_{Y^n}^0(dy^n)}\Bigg)(\overrightarrow{P}_{Y^n|X^n}-\overrightarrow{P}_{Y^n|X^n}^0)(dy^n|x^n) P_{X^n}(dx^n)\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $P_{Y^n}^0\in{\cal M}_1({\cal Y}_{0,n})$ is the marginal measure corresponding to $\overrightarrow{P}_{Y^n|X^n}^0\otimes{P}_{X^n}(dx^n)\in{\cal M}_1({\cal Y}_{0,n}\times{\cal X}_{0,n})$.
The proof is similar to the one in [@farzad06 Theorem 4.1].
By Theorem \[convexity\_properties\], the nonanticipative RDF is a convex optimization problem, and by Theorem \[existence\_rd\] a solution exists. Hence, using these theorems, it can be shown that the constrained problem defined by (\[ex12\]) can be reformulated as an unconstrained problem using Lagrange multipliers. This procedure is described in [@charalambous-stavrou-ahmed2013 Theorem IV.3], hence it is omitted; preferably, we state the main result, that is, the optimal reproduction conditional distribution that characterized nonanticipative RDF is defined.
([**Optimal Reproduction of Nonanticipative RDF**]{}) \[th6\] Suppose the Assumptions \[conditions-existence\] hold and consider $d_{0,n}(x^n,y^n){{\stackrel}{\triangle}{=}}\frac{1}{n+1}\sum_{i=0}^n\rho(T^i{x^n},T^i{y^n})$. Then
(1)
: The infimum is attained at $\overrightarrow{P}^*_{Y^n|X^n} \in{\cal Q}^c_{0,n}(D)$ given by[^2] $$\begin{aligned}
\overrightarrow{P}^*_{Y^n|X^n}(dy^n|x^n)&=\otimes_{i=0}^n{P}^*_{Y_i|Y^{i-1},X^i}(dy_i|y^{i-1},x^i)\nonumber\\
&=\otimes_{i=0}^n\frac{e^{s \rho(T^i{x^n},T^i{y^n})}P^*_{Y_i|Y^{i-1}}(dy_i|y^{i-1})}{\int_{{\cal Y}_i} e^{s \rho(T^i{x^n},T^i{y^n})} P^*_{Y_i|Y^{i-1}}(dy_i|y^{i-1})},~s\leq{0}\label{ex14}\end{aligned}$$ and $P^*_{Y_i|Y^{i-1}}(dy_i|y^{i-1})\in {\cal Q}({\cal Y}_i;{\cal Y}_{0,{i-1}})$.
(2)
: The nonanticipative RDF is given by $$\begin{aligned}
{R}_{0,n}^{na}(D)&\left.=(n+1)sD -\sum_{i=0}^n\int\log \Big( \int_{{\cal Y}_i} e^{s\rho(T^i{x^n},T^i{y^n})} P^*_{Y_i|Y^{i-1}}(dy_i|y^{i-1})\Big)\right.\nonumber\\[-1.5ex]\label{ex15}\\[-1.5ex]
&\quad\left.\times{\overrightarrow{P}^*_{Y^{i-1}|X^{i-1}}(dy^{i-1}|x^{i-1})\otimes{P}_{X^i}(dx^i).}\right.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ If ${R}_{0,n}^{na}(D) > 0$ then $ s < 0$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{n+1}\sum_{i=0}^n\int\rho(T^i{x^n},T^i{y^n})\overrightarrow{P}^*_{Y^{i}|X^{i}}(dy^i;x^i)P_{X^i}(dx^i)=D.\label{eq.7}\end{aligned}$$
The proof is similar to [@charalambous-stavrou-ahmed2013 Theorem IV.4], hence it is omitted.
Note that if the distortion function satisfies $\rho(T^i{x^n},T^i{y^n})=\rho(x_i,T^i{y^n})$ then $$\begin{aligned}
{P}^*_{Y_i|Y^{i-1},X^i}(dy_i|y^{i-1},x^i)={P}^*_{Y_i|Y^{i-1},X^i}(dy_i|y^{i-1},x_i)-a.s.,~i=0,1,\ldots,n.\end{aligned}$$ That is, the reproduction kernel is Markov in $X^n$. However, without further restrictions one cannot claim that this conditional distribution is also Markov with respect to $\{Y_i:~i=0,1,\ldots,n\}$.
Note that unlike [@charalambous-stavrou-ahmed2013], we have derived the main results using the topology of weak convergence of probability measures.
Realization Of Nonanticipative Rate Distortion Function and Example {#realization1}
===================================================================
In this section, we first describe the construction of the filter using the optimal solution of the nonanticipative RDF and then we present the multidimensional partially observable Gaussian system, which is realizable over a scalar additive Gaussian noise channel.
Realization of the Nonanticipative RDF
--------------------------------------
The realization of the nonanticipative RDF (optimal reproduction conditional distribution) is equivalent to the sensor mapping as shown in Fig. \[filtering\_and\_causal\], which produces the auxiliary random process $\{Z_i:~i\in\mathbb{N}\}$ that will be used for filtering. This is equivalent to identifying a communication channel, an encoder and a decoder such that the reproduction from the sequence $X^n$ to the sequence $Y^n$ matches the nonanticipative rate distortion minimizing reproduction kernel. Fig. \[realization\_figure\] illustrates the cascade sub-systems that realize the nonanticipative RDF, which is consistent with the discussion in the introduction.
$($[**Realization**]{}$)$\[realization\] Given a source $\{P_{X_i|X^{i-1}}(dx_i|x^{i-1}):i=0,\ldots,n\}$, a channel $\{P_{B_i|B^{i-1},A^{i}}(db_i|b^{i-1},a^i):i=0,\ldots,n\}$ is a realization of the optimal reproduction distribution if there exists a pre-channel encoder $\{P_{A_i|A^{i-1},B^{i-1},X^i}$ $(da_i|a^{i-1},b^{i-1},x^i):i=0,\ldots,n\}$ and a post-channel decoder $\{P_{Y_i|Y^{i-1},B^i}(dy_i|$ $y^{i-1},b^i):i=0,\ldots,n\}$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
{\overrightarrow {P}}_{Y^{n}|X^{n}}^*(dy^n|x^n){{\stackrel}{\triangle}{=}}\otimes_{i=0}^n P^*_{Y_i|Y^{i-1},X^i}(dy_i|y^{i-1},x^i)\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where the joint distribution is $$\begin{aligned}
&P_{X^n, A^n, B^n, Y^n}(dx^n,da^n,db^n,dy^n) \nonumber \\
&=\otimes_{i=0}^n P_{Y_i|Y^{i-1},B^i}(dy_i|y^{i-1},b^i) \otimes P_{B_i|B^{i-1},A^{i}}
(db_i|b^{i-1},a^i) \nonumber \\
&~~~\otimes P_{A_i|A^{i-1},B^{i-1},X^i}(da_i|a^{i-1},b^{i-1},x^i)\otimes P_{X_i|X^{i-1}}(dx_i|x^{i-1}) \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ The filter is given by $\{P_{X_i|B^{i-1}}(dx_i|b^{i-1}):i=0,\ldots,n\}$ or by $\{P_{X_i|Y^{i-1}}(dx_i|y^{i-1}):i=0,\ldots,n\}$.
![Block Diagram of Realizable Nonanticipative Rate Distortion Function[]{data-label="realization_figure"}](realization_CRDF_v1.jpg)
Thus, if $\{P_{B_i|B^{i-1},A^{i}}(db_i|b^{i-1},a^i):i=0,\ldots,n\}$ is a realization of the nonanticipative RDF minimizing distribution then the channel connecting the source, encoder, channel, decoder achieves the nonanticipative RDF, and the filter is obtained. Clearly, $\{B_i:~i=0,1,\ldots,n\}$ is an auxiliary random process which is needed to obtain the filter $\{P_{X_i|B^{i-1}}(dx_i|b^{i-1}):i=0,\ldots,n\}$.\
Note that if we also impose the requirement that the channel capacity is equal to the $\lim_{n\longrightarrow\infty}\frac{1}{n+1}R^{na}_{0,n}(D)$, then the realization procedure described in Definition \[realization\], is equal to the joint source-channel matching [@gastpar2003] for sources with memory without anticipation. Next, we present an example where the optimal communication via symbol-by-symbol or uncoded transmission is established.
Example: Mutlidimensional Gaussian Processes over a Scalar AWGN Channel {#example}
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
In this section, we present an example to illustrate the realization procedure described in Section \[realization1\]. We consider multidimensional Gaussian-Markov sources transmitted optimally over a scalar additive Gaussian channel. Hence, this example is distinguished from a companion example described in [@charalambous-stavrou-ahmed2013 Section VI] where the multidimensional Gaussian-Markov source is transmitted optimally over a vector additive Gaussian channel.\
Consider the following discrete-time partially observed linear Gauss-Markov system described by $$\begin{aligned}
\left\{ \begin{array}{ll} X_{t+1}=AX_t+BW_t,~X_0=X\in\mathbb{R}^n,~t\in\mathbb{N}\\
Y_t=CX_t+GV_t,~t\in\mathbb{N} \end{array} \right.\label{equation51}\end{aligned}$$ where $X_t\in\mathbb{R}^m$ is the state (unobserved) process of information source (plant), and $Y_t\in\mathbb{R}^p$ is the partially measurement (observed) process. Assume that ($C,A$) is detectable and ($A,\sqrt{BB^{tr}}$) is stabilizable, ($G\neq0$). The state and observation noises $\{(W_t,V_t):t\in\mathbb{N}\}$, $W_t\in\mathbb{R}^k$ and $V_t\in\mathbb{R}^p$, are Gaussian IID processes with zero mean and identity covariances are mutually independent, and independent of the Gaussian RV $X_0$, with parameters $N(\bar{x}_0,\bar{V}_0)$.
The objective is to reconstruct $\{Y_t:~t\in\mathbb{N}\}$ from $\{\tilde{Y}_t:~t\in\mathbb{N}\}$ causally. The distortion is single letter defined by $$\begin{aligned}
d_{0,n}(y^n,\tilde{y}^n){{\stackrel}{\triangle}{=}}\frac{1}{n+1}\sum_{t=0}^n||y_t-\tilde{y}_t||_{\mathbb{R}^p}^2.\end{aligned}$$ The objective is to compute $$\begin{aligned}
R_{0,n}^{na}(D)=\inf_{\overrightarrow{P}_{\tilde{Y}^n|Y^n}\in{\cal Q}^c_{0,n}(D)}\frac{1}{n+1}\mathbb{I}_{Y^n\rightarrow\tilde{Y}^n}(P_{Y^n},\overrightarrow{P}_{\tilde{Y}^n|Y^n})\end{aligned}$$ and then realize the reproduction distribution. According to Theorem \[th6\], the optimal reproduction is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\overrightarrow{P}^*_{\tilde{Y}^n|Y^n}(d\tilde{y}^n|y^n)=\otimes_{t=0}^n\frac{e^{s||\tilde{y}_t-y_t||_{\mathbb{R}^p}^2}P_{\tilde{Y}_t|\tilde{Y}^{t-1}}(d\tilde{y}_t|\tilde{y}^{t-1})}{\int_{\tilde{\cal Y}_t}e^{s||\tilde{y}_t-y_t||_{\mathbb{R}^p}^2}P_{\tilde{Y}_t|\tilde{Y}^{t-1}}(d\tilde{y}_t|\tilde{y}^{t-1})},~s\leq{0}.\label{eq.9}\end{aligned}$$ Hence, from (\[eq.9\]) it follows that $P_{\tilde{Y}_t|\tilde{Y}^{t-1},Y^t}=P_{\tilde{Y}_t|\tilde{Y}^{t-1},Y_t}(d\tilde{y}_t|\tilde{y}^{t-1},y_t)-a.a.~(\tilde{y}^{t-1},y_t)$, that is the reproduction is Markov with respect to the process $\{Y_t:~t\in\mathbb{N}\}$. Moreover, since the exponential term $||\tilde{y}_t-y_t||_{\mathbb{R}^p}^2$ in the right hand side of (\[eq.9\]) is quadratic in $(y_t,\tilde{y}_t)$, and $\{X_t:~t\in\mathbb{N}\}$ is Gaussian, then $\{(X_t,{Y}_t):~t\in\mathbb{N}\}$ is jointly Gaussian, hence it follows that $P_{\tilde{Y}_t|\tilde{Y}^{t-1},Y_t}(\cdot|\tilde{y}^{t-1},y_t)$ is Gaussian (for a fixed realization of $(\tilde{y}^{t-1},y_t)$). Hence, it has the general form $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{Y}_t=\bar{A}_tY_t+\bar{B}_t\tilde{Y}^{t-1}+\bar{Z}_t,~t\in\mathbb{N}\label{eq.10}\end{aligned}$$ where $\bar{A}_t\in\mathbb{R}^{p\times{p}}$, $\bar{B}_t\in\mathbb{R}^{p\times{t}p}$, and $\{Z_t:~t\in\mathbb{N}\}$ is an independent sequence of Gaussian vectors.\
Next, we chose to realize (\[eq.10\]) over a scalar additive Gaussian noise channel with feedback defined by $$\begin{aligned}
B_t=A_t+Z_t,~t\in\mathbb{N}\label{eq.11}\end{aligned}$$ where the encoder is a mapping $A_t=\Phi_t(Y_t,\tilde{Y}^{t-1})$ with power $P_t{{\stackrel}{\triangle}{=}}\mathbb{E}\{(A_t)^2\}$ as shown in Fig. \[discrete\_time\_communication\_system\].
![Design of Realizable Nonanticipative Rate Distortion Function[]{data-label="discrete_time_communication_system"}](discrete_time_communication_system_v2.jpg)
Recall that for $A_t$ Gaussian, the directed information is $I(A^t\rightarrow{B}^t)=\log\big(1+\mathbb{E}\{(A_t)^2\}Var(Z_t)^{-1}\big)$. The decoder at time $t\in\mathbb{N}$ receives $B^t$ and computes the reproduction $\tilde{Y}_t=\Psi_t(B^t,\tilde{Y}^{t-1})$.\
[*Calculation of Nonanticipative RDF.*]{} First, we compute the Gaussian innovation process $\{K_t:~t\in\mathbb{N}\}$, defined by $$\begin{aligned}
K_t{{\stackrel}{\triangle}{=}}{Y}_t-\mathbb{E}\Big{\{}Y_t|\sigma\{\tilde{Y}^{t-1}\}\Big{\}},~t\in\mathbb{N}\label{equation52}\end{aligned}$$ whose covariance is defined by $\Lambda_t{{\stackrel}{\triangle}{=}}{E}\{K_tK_t^{tr}\}$. The decoder consists of a pre-decoder $\{\tilde{K}_t:~t\in\mathbb{N}\}$ which is defined by $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{K}_t{{\stackrel}{\triangle}{=}}\tilde{Y}_t-\mathbb{E}\Big{\{}Y_t|\sigma\{\tilde{Y}^{t-1}\}\Big{\}},~t\in\mathbb{N}.\label{eq.12}\end{aligned}$$ Note that the fidelity criterion satisfies $d_{0,n}(Y^n,\tilde{Y}^n)=d_{0,n}(K^n,\tilde{K}^n)=\frac{1}{n+1}\sum_{t=0}^n||\tilde{K}_t-K_t||_{\mathbb{R}^p}^2=\frac{1}{n+1}\sum_{t=0}^n||\tilde{\Gamma}_t-\Gamma_t||_{\mathbb{R}^p}^2$. Let $\{E_t:~t\in\mathbb{N}\}$ be the unitary matrix that diagonalizes $\{\Lambda_t:~t\in\mathbb{N}\}$, such that $$\begin{aligned}
E_t\Lambda_t{E}_t^{tr}=diag\{\lambda_{t,1},\ldots\lambda_{t,p}\},~t\in\mathbb{N}.\label{equation53}\end{aligned}$$ Define $\Gamma_t{{\stackrel}{\triangle}{=}}{E}_tK_t$. Then $\{\Gamma_t:~t\in\mathbb{N}\}$ has independent components. Let $\{\tilde{\Gamma}_t:~t\in\mathbb{N}\}$, where $\tilde{\Gamma}=E_t\tilde{K}_t$ denote its reproduction and define $d_{0,n}(\Gamma^n,\tilde{\Gamma}^n){{\stackrel}{\triangle}{=}}\frac{1}{n+1}\sum_{t=0}^n||\Gamma_t-\tilde{\Gamma}_t||_{\mathbb{R}^p}^2$. Then by [@blahut1987] (invoking an upper and Shannon’s lower bound if necessary) we can have, $$\begin{aligned}
R^{na}(D)&=\lim_{n\longrightarrow\infty}R_{0,n}^{na}(D){{\stackrel}{\triangle}{=}}\lim_{n\longrightarrow\infty}\inf_{\substack{\overrightarrow{P}_{\tilde{Y}^n|Y^n}:\\~\mathbb{E}\big{\{}d_{0,n}(Y^n,\tilde{Y}^n)\leq{D}\big{\}}}}\frac{1}{n+1}\mathbb{I}_{Y^n\rightarrow\tilde{Y}^n}(P_{Y^n},\overrightarrow{P}_{\tilde{Y}^n|Y^n})\nonumber\\
&=\lim_{n\longrightarrow\infty}R_{0,n}^{na,K^n,\tilde{K}^n}(D){{\stackrel}{\triangle}{=}}\lim_{n\longrightarrow\infty}\inf_{\substack{\overrightarrow{P}_{\tilde{K}^n|K^n}:\\~\mathbb{E}\big{\{}d_{0,n}(K^n,\tilde{K}^n)\leq{D}\big{\}}}}\frac{1}{n+1}\mathbb{I}(P_{K^n},\overrightarrow{P}_{\tilde{K}^n|K^n})\nonumber\\
&=\lim_{n\longrightarrow\infty}R_{0,n}^{na,\Gamma^n,\tilde{\Gamma}^n}(D){{\stackrel}{\triangle}{=}}\lim_{n\longrightarrow\infty}\inf_{\substack{\overrightarrow{P}_{\tilde{\Gamma}^n|\Gamma^n}:\\~\mathbb{E}\big{\{}d_{0,n}(\Gamma^n,\tilde{\Gamma}^n)\leq{D}\big{\}}}}\frac{1}{n+1}\mathbb{I}(P_{\Gamma^n},\overrightarrow{P}_{\tilde{\Gamma}^n|\Gamma^n})\\
&=\lim_{n\longrightarrow\infty}\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{n+1}\sum_{t=0}^n\sum_{i=1}^p\log\Big{(}\frac{\lambda_{t,i}}{\delta_{t,i}}\Big{)}=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i=1}^p\log\Big{(}\frac{\lambda_{\infty,i}}{\delta_{\infty,i}}\Big{)}\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $\lambda_{\infty,i}{{\stackrel}{\triangle}{=}}\lim_{t\longrightarrow\infty}\lambda_{t,i}$, $\delta_{\infty,i}{{\stackrel}{\triangle}{=}}\lim_{t\longrightarrow\infty}\delta_{t,i}$, $\xi_{\infty}{{\stackrel}{\triangle}{=}}\lim_{t\longrightarrow\infty}\xi_t$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\delta_{t,i} {{\stackrel}{\triangle}{=}}\left\{ \begin{array}{ll} \xi_t & \mbox{if} \quad \xi_t\leq\lambda_{t,i} \\
\lambda_{t,i} & \mbox{if}\quad\xi_t>\lambda_{t,i} \end{array} \right.,~t\in\mathbb{N},~i=1,\ldots,p\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ and $\{\xi_t:~t\in\mathbb{N}\}$ satisfies $\sum_{i=1}^p\delta_{t,i}=D$.\
Define $$\begin{aligned}
H_{\infty}&{{\stackrel}{\triangle}{=}}\lim_{t\longrightarrow\infty}{H}_t,{H}_t{{\stackrel}{\triangle}{=}}{diag}\{\eta_{t,1},\ldots,\eta_{t,p}\}\in\mathbb{R}^{p\times{p}},
\eta_{t,i}{{\stackrel}{\triangle}{=}}{1}-\frac{\delta_{t,i}}{\lambda_{t,i}},~t\in\mathbb{N},~i=1,\ldots,p\\
\Delta_{\infty}&{{\stackrel}{\triangle}{=}}\lim_{t\longrightarrow\infty}\Delta_t, \Delta_t{{\stackrel}{\triangle}{=}}{diag}\{\delta_{t,1},\ldots,\delta_{t,p}\},~t\in\mathbb{N},~i=1,\ldots,p.\end{aligned}$$ The reproduction conditional distributions is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\overrightarrow{P}^*_{\tilde{\Gamma}^n|\Gamma^n}(d\tilde{\gamma}^n|{\gamma}^n)=\otimes_{t=0}^n{P}^*_{\Gamma_t|\tilde{\Gamma}_t}(d\tilde{\gamma}_t|\gamma_t),~~{P}^*_{\Gamma_t|\tilde{\Gamma}_t}(\cdot|\cdot)\sim{N}(H_t\Gamma_t,H_t\Delta_t).\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Hence, from Fig. \[discrete\_time\_communication\_system\] the reproduction is obtained from $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{Y}_t&=\tilde{K}_t+\mathbb{E}\big\{Y_t|\sigma\{\tilde{Y}^{t-1}\}\big\}=E_t^{tr}\tilde{\Gamma}_t+\mathbb{E}\big\{Y_t|\sigma\{\tilde{Y}^{t-1}\}\big\}\\
&=E_t^{tr}H_tE_tK_t+E_t^{tr}\sqrt{H_t\Delta_t}Z_t+\mathbb{E}\big\{Y_t|\sigma\{\tilde{Y}^{t-1}\}\\
&=E_t^{tr}H_tE_tC\big(X_t-\mathbb{E}\big\{X_t|\sigma\{\tilde{Y}^{t-1}\}\big\}\big)+E_t^{tr}H_tE_tDV_t+E_t^{tr}\sqrt{H_t\Delta_t}Z_t+\mathbb{E}\big\{Y_t|\sigma\{\tilde{Y}^{t-1}\}\big\}.\end{aligned}$$ The received signal is decompressed by $\tilde{\Gamma}_t={\cal B}_tB_t$ at the pre-decoder. By the knowledge of the decoder output $\tilde{Y}^{t-1}$, the mean square estimator $\hat{X}_t$ is generated at the decoder (and encoder because $\widehat{X}_{t|t-1}{{\stackrel}{\triangle}{=}}\mathbb{E}\big{\{}X_t|\sigma\{\tilde{Y}_{t-1}\}\big{\}}$). Next we pick a specific AWGN channel and we show how to realize the reproduction distribution, see Fig. \[discrete\_time\_communication\_system\].\
[*Realization over a Scalar AWGN Channel.*]{} Consider a scalar channel $B_t=A_t+Z_t,~t\in\mathbb{N}$, where $Z_t$ is Gaussian zero mean, $Q{{\stackrel}{\triangle}{=}}{Var}(Z_t)$, and $A_t\in\mathbb{R}$. Since by data processing inequality $I(X^n\rightarrow{Y^n})\geq{I}(A^n\rightarrow{Y^n})$, then we should compress the information signal $\{\Gamma_t:t\in\mathbb{N}\}$ before we send it over the AWGN channel. Thus, we define $$\begin{aligned}
A_t={\cal A}_t\Gamma_t={\cal A}_tE_tK_t,~{\cal A}_t\in\mathbb{R}^{1\times{p}}.\end{aligned}$$ Since the channel capacity and nonanticipative RDF must be equal we set $$\begin{aligned}
C(P){{\stackrel}{\triangle}{=}}\lim_{n\longrightarrow\infty}C_{0,n}(P_0,\ldots,P_n)&=\lim_{n\longrightarrow\infty}\frac{1}{n+1}I(A^n\rightarrow{B}^n)\\
&=\lim_{n\longrightarrow\infty}\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{n+1}\sum_{t=0}^n\log(1+\mathbb{E}\{A_t\}^2Var(Z_t)^{-1})\\
&=\lim_{n\longrightarrow\infty}\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{n+1}\sum_{t=0}^n\log(1+\frac{P_t}{Q})\\
&=\lim_{n\longrightarrow\infty}\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{n+1}\sum_{t=0}^n\log\frac{|\Lambda_t|}{|\Delta_t|}{{\stackrel}{\triangle}{=}}\frac{1}{2}\log\frac{|\Lambda_\infty|}{|\Delta_\infty|}.\end{aligned}$$ We can design $\{({\cal A}_t,{\cal B}_t):~t\in\mathbb{N}\}$, by introducing the nonnegative components $\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_p$, $\sum_{i=1}^p{\alpha}_i=1$, $i=2,\ldots,p$, and by considering the following transformations $${\cal A}_t=\Big{[}\sqrt{\frac{\alpha_1{P}_t}{\lambda_{t,1}}},\ldots,\sqrt{\frac{\alpha_p{P}_t}{\lambda_{t,p}}}\Big{]},~
{\cal B}_t=\Big{[}\sqrt{\alpha_1{P}_t\lambda_{t,1}},\ldots,\sqrt{\alpha_p{P}_t\lambda_{t,p}}\Big{]}^{tr},~t\in\mathbb{N}.\label{equation54}$$ Define $$\begin{aligned}
H_t&={\cal B}_t{\cal A}_t=\Big{[}\sqrt{\alpha_1{P}_t\lambda_{t,1}},\ldots,\sqrt{\alpha_p{P}_t\lambda_{t,p}}\Big{]}^{tr}\Big{[}\sqrt{\frac{\alpha_1{P}_t}{\lambda_{t,1}}},\ldots,\sqrt{\frac{\alpha_p{P}_t}{\lambda_{t,p}}}\Big{]}\nonumber\\
&= \left[ \begin{array}{c}
\sqrt{\alpha_1{P}_t\lambda_{t,1}} \\
\ldots\\
\sqrt{\alpha_p{P}_t\lambda_{t,p}} \end{array} \right]\Big{[}\sqrt{\frac{\alpha_1{P}_t}{\lambda_{t,1}}},\ldots,\sqrt{\frac{\alpha_p{P}_t}{\lambda_{t,p}}}\Big{]}\nonumber\\
&= P_t\left[ \begin{array}{ccc}
\alpha_1 & \ldots \sqrt{\alpha_1\alpha_p\frac{\lambda_{t,1}}{\lambda_{t,p}}} \\
\vdots & \vdots\\
\sqrt{\alpha_p\alpha_1 \frac{\lambda_{t,p}}{\lambda_{t,1}}} & \ldots \alpha_p\end{array} \right]\in\mathbb{R}^{p\times{p}}.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, $$\tilde{\Gamma}_t={\cal B}_t{\cal A}_tE_tK_t+{\cal B}_tZ_t,~\Gamma_t=E_tK_t,~t\in\mathbb{N}.\label{equation56}$$ By pre-multiplying $\tilde{\Gamma}_t$ by $E_t^{tr}$ we can construct $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{K}_t&=&E_t^{tr}\tilde{\Gamma}_t\\
&=&E_t^{tr}{\cal B}_t{\cal A}_tE_tK_t+E_t^{tr}{\cal B}_tZ_t,~t\in\mathbb{N}.\end{aligned}$$ The reproduction of $Y_t$ is given by the sum of $\tilde{K}_t$ and $C\widehat{X}_{t|t-1}$ as follows. $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{Y}_t&=&\Psi_t(B^t,\tilde{Y}^{t-1})\nonumber\\
&=&\tilde{K}_t+C\widehat{X}_{t|t-1},~\hat{X}_t=\mathbb{E}\Big{\{}X_t|\sigma\{\tilde{Y}^{t-1}\}\Big{\}}\label{eq.13}\\
&=&E_t^{tr}{\cal B}_t{\cal A}_tE_tK_t+E_t^{tr}{\cal B}_tZ_t+C\widehat{X}_{t|t-1},~t\in\mathbb{N}.\label{eq.14}\end{aligned}$$ Next, it will be shown that the desired distortion is achieved by the above realization while the filter of $\{Y_t:~t\in\mathbb{N}\}$ is based on $\{\tilde{Y}_t:~t\in\mathbb{N}\}$ given by (\[eq.14\]).\
First, we notice that $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{n\longrightarrow\infty}\mathbb{E}\Big{\{}(Y_t-\tilde{Y}_t)^{tr}(Y_t-\tilde{Y}_t)\Big{\}}=\lim_{n\longrightarrow\infty}Trace\Big{(}\mathbb{E}\Big{\{}(Y_t-\tilde{Y}_t)(Y_t-\tilde{Y}_t)^{tr}\Big{\}}\Big{)}\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Then we can compute $$\begin{aligned}
&\mathbb{E}\Big{\{}(Y_t-\tilde{Y}_t)^{tr}(Y_t-\tilde{Y}_t)\Big{\}}=Trace\mathbb{E}\Big{\{}(K_t-\tilde{K}_t)(K_t-\tilde{K}_t)^{tr}\Big{\}}\nonumber\\
&=Trace\mathbb{E}\Big{\{}(K_t-E_t^{tr}\tilde{\Gamma}_t)(K_t-E_t^{tr}\tilde{\Gamma}_t)^{tr}\Big{\}}\nonumber\\
&=Trace\mathbb{E}\Big{\{}(K_t-E_t^{tr}{\cal B}_t{\cal A}_tE_tK_t-E_t^{tr}{\cal B}_tZ_t)(K_t-E_t^{tr}{\cal B}_t{\cal A}_tE_tK_t-E_t^{tr}{\cal B}_tZ_t)^{tr}\Big{\}}\nonumber\\
&=Trace\mathbb{E}\Big{\{}\big{(}(I-E_t^{tr}{\cal B}_t{\cal A}_tE_t)K_t-E_t^{tr}{\cal B}_tZ_t\big{)}\big{(}(I-E_t^{tr}{\cal B}_t{\cal A}_tE_t)K_t-E_t^{tr}{\cal B}_tZ_t\big{)}^{tr}\Big{\}}\nonumber\\
&=Trace\Big{\{}(I-E_t^{tr}{\cal B}_t{\cal A}_tE_t)\Lambda_t(I-E_t^{tr}{\cal B}_t{\cal A}_tE_t)^{tr}+E_t^{tr}{\cal B}_tQ{\cal B}_t^{tr}E_t\Big{\}}\nonumber\\
&=Trace\Big{\{}(I-E_t^{tr}{\cal B}_t{\cal A}_tE_t)E_t^{tr}diag(\lambda_{t,1},\ldots,\lambda_{t,p})E_t(I-E_t^{tr}{\cal B}_t{\cal A}_tE_t)^{tr}+E_t^{tr}{\cal B}_tQ{\cal B}_t^{tr}E_t\Big{\}}\nonumber\\
&=Trace\Big{\{}E_t^{tr}\Big{(}(I-{\cal B}_t{\cal A}_t)diag(\lambda_{t,1},\ldots,\lambda_{t,p})(1-{\cal B}_t{\cal A}_t)^{tr}+({\cal B}_tQ{\cal B}_t^{tr})\Big{)}E_t\Big{\}}\nonumber\\
&=Trace\Big{\{}E_t^{tr}diag(\delta_{t,1},\ldots,\delta_{t,p})E_t\Big{\}}=\sum_{i=1}^p\delta_{t,i}=D.\label{equation57}\end{aligned}$$ Hence, $\lim_{n\longrightarrow\infty}\frac{1}{n+1}\sum_{t=0}^n\mathbb{E}\Big{\{}(Y_t-\tilde{Y}_t)^{tr}(Y_t-\tilde{Y}_t)\Big{\}}=\lim_{n\longrightarrow\infty}\frac{1}{n+1}\sum_{t=0}^n\sum_{i=1}^p\delta_{t,i}=\sum_{i=1}^p\delta_{\infty,i}=D$.\
Thus, by substituting the values of ${\cal B}_t, {\cal A}_t$ in terms of $\{\delta_{t,i}\}_{i=1}^p, \{\lambda_{t,i}\}_{i=1}^p, P_t, Q$, and taking the limit in (\[equation57\]) for $P_{\infty}{{\stackrel}{\triangle}{=}}\lim_{t\longrightarrow\infty}P_t$, we get the general equation $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{i=1}^p\Big[(1-\alpha_iP_\infty)\lambda_{\infty,i}(1-\alpha_i{P}_\infty)+a_iP_\infty{Q}\lambda_{\infty,i}\Big]=\sum_{i=1}^p\delta_{\infty,i}=D.\label{equation58}\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, to complete the realization we need to calculate $\{a_\infty\}_{i=1}^p$ in terms of the known eigenvalues $\{\lambda_{\infty,i},\delta_{\infty,i}\}_{i=1}^p$, the constants of the power level $P_\infty$, and channel’s noise variance $Q$. Note that due to the solution of the nonanticipative RDF for multidimensional partially observed Gaussian source, the encoding is performed only when $\frac{\{\lambda_{\infty,i}\}_{i=1}^p}{\{\delta_{\infty,i}\}_{i=1}^p}>1$. For more than one active modes of transmission $\{\lambda_{\infty,i}:~i=1,\ldots,k,~2\leq{k}\leq{p}\}$ then $\sum_{i=1}^k\xi_{\infty}=D\Longrightarrow\xi_{\infty}=\frac{D}{k}$.\
We demonstrate this for the case where two active modes $\lambda_{\infty,1},~\lambda_{\infty,2}$, transmitted over the scalar channel, i.e., $\sum_{i=1}^2\alpha_i=\alpha_1+\alpha_2=1$, $\alpha_1\geq{0}$, $\alpha_2\geq{0}$. For $k=2$, (\[equation58\]) is simplified as:\
$$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{i=1}^2\Big[(1-\alpha_iP_\infty)\lambda_{\infty,i}(1-\alpha_iP_\infty)+a_iP_{\infty}Q\lambda_{\infty,i}\Big]=\sum_{i=1}^2\delta_{\infty,i}=D
\label{equation60}\end{aligned}$$ with the following encoding requirement $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\lambda_{\infty,1}}{\xi_{\infty}}>1,~\frac{\lambda_{\infty,2}}{\xi_{\infty}}>1\Longrightarrow\frac{\lambda_{\infty,1}+\lambda_{\infty,2}}{D}>1.\end{aligned}$$ After some calculations, (\[equation60\]) is simplified in the following second order equation $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha_2^2\Big[(\lambda_{\infty,1}+\lambda_{\infty,2})P_\infty^2\Big]+\alpha_2\Big[P_\infty\big((\lambda_{\infty,1}-\lambda_{\infty,2})(2-Q)-2\lambda_{\infty,1}P_t\big)\Big]\nonumber\\
+(\lambda_{\infty,1}+\lambda_{\infty,2})-D+\lambda_{\infty,1}P_\infty\Big[P_\infty+Q-1\Big]=0.\label{equation61}\end{aligned}$$ This quadratic equation can be solved numerically simultaneously with the equation of the filter, i.e., see (\[11\]).\
[*Decoder.*]{} The decoder (mean square estimator) is $\tilde{Y}_t=\tilde{K}_t+C\widehat{X}_{t|t-1}$, where $\widehat{X}_{t|t-1}:~t\in\mathbb{N}$ is obtained from the modified Kalman filter as follows. Recall that $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{Y}_t&=&\tilde{K}_t+C\widehat{X}_{t|t-1}\nonumber\\
&=&E_\infty^{tr}H_\infty{E}_\infty(Y_t-C\widehat{X}_{t|t-1})+E_\infty^{tr}{\cal B}_\infty{Z}_t+C\widehat{X}_{t|t-1}\nonumber\\
&=&E_\infty^{tr}H_{\infty}E_{\infty}(CX_t+GV_t-C\widehat{X}_{t|t-1})+E_\infty^{tr}{\cal B}_{\infty}Z_t+C\widehat{X}_{t|t-1}\nonumber\\
&=&E_\infty^{tr}H_{\infty}E_{\infty}(CX_t-\widehat{X}_{t|t-1})+C\widehat{X}_{t|t-1}+(E_{\infty}^{tr}H_{\infty}E_{\infty}GV_t+E_{\infty}^{tr}{\cal B}_{\infty}Z_t)\nonumber$$ where $\{V_t:~t\in\mathbb{N}\}$ and $\{Z_t:~t\in\mathbb{N}\}$ are independent Gaussian vectors. Then $\widehat{X}_{t|t-1}=E\big{\{}X_t|\sigma\{\tilde{Y}^{t-1}\}\big{\}}$ is given by the modified Kalman filter $$\begin{aligned}
\widehat{X}_{t+1|t-1}&=A\widehat{X}_{t|t-1}+A\Sigma_\infty(E_\infty^{tr}H_{\infty}E_{\infty}C)^{tr}M_{\infty}^{-1}\big(\tilde{Y}_t-C\widehat{X}_{t|t-1}\big),~\widehat{X}_0=\bar{x}_0\label{10}\\
\Sigma_{\infty}&=A\Sigma_\infty{A}^{tr}-A\Sigma_{\infty}(E_\infty^{tr}H_\infty{E}_{\infty}C)^{tr}M_{\infty}^{-1}(E_{\infty}^{tr}H_{\infty}E_{\infty}C)\Sigma_{\infty}A+BB_{\infty}^{tr}\label{11}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
M_\infty&=E_\infty^{tr}H_\infty{E}_{\infty}C\Sigma_{\infty}(E_{\infty}^{tr}H_{\infty}E_{\infty}C)^{tr}+E_{\infty}^{tr}H_{\infty}E_{\infty}GG^{tr}(E_{\infty}^{tr}H_{\infty}E_{\infty})^{tr}\nonumber\\
&+E_{\infty}^{tr}{\cal B}_{\infty}Q{\cal B}_{\infty}^{tr}E_t^{tr}\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ and $E_{\infty}$ is the unitary matrix that diagonalizes $\Lambda_{\infty}$ by $$\begin{aligned}
E_{\infty}\Lambda_{\infty}E_{\infty}^{tr}=diag(\lambda_{\infty,1},\ldots,\lambda_{t,p}).\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Finally, the matching of the source to the channel is obtained as follows. First, we remind that the power constraint satisfies $\mathbb{E}\{(A_t)^2\}={P}_t$, $\lim_{t\rightarrow\infty}P_t=P_{\infty}\equiv{P}$. $$\begin{aligned}
R^{na}(D)&=\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\inf_{\substack{P_{\tilde{Y}^n|Y^n}(d\tilde{y}^n|{y}^n)\\ \in{\cal Q}^c_{0,n}(D)}}\frac{1}{n+1}\mathbb{I}_{X^n\rightarrow{Y^n}}(P_{Y^n},\overrightarrow{P}_{\tilde{Y}^n|Y^n})\nonumber\\
&=\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{n+1}\sum_{t=0}^n\sum_{i=1}^p\log\Big(\frac{\lambda_{t,i}}{\delta_{t,i}}\Big)\nonumber\\
&=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i=1}^p\log\Big(\frac{\lambda_{\infty,i}}{\delta_{\infty,i}}\Big)\nonumber\\
&=\frac{1}{2}\log\frac{|\Lambda_{\infty}|}{|\Delta_{\infty}|}=\frac{1}{2}\log(1+\frac{P}{Q})=C(P).\nonumber$$
Thus, for a given $(D,P)$, $C(P)=R^{na}(D)$ is the minimum capacity under which there exists a realizable filter for the data reproduction of $\{Y_t:~t\in\mathbb{N}\}$ by $\{\tilde{Y}_t:~t\in\mathbb{N}\}$ ensuring an average distortion equal to $D$. The filter of $\{X_i:~i\in\mathbb{N}\}$ or $\{Y_i:~i\in\mathbb{N}\}$ is obtained for $\{\tilde{Y}_i:~i\in\mathbb{N}\}$ given by (\[equation56\]) or the auxiliary data $B_i=A_i(Y_i,\tilde{Y}^{i-1})+Z_i$, $i\in\mathbb{N}$. Finally, the filter is the steady state version of (\[10\]), (\[11\]).
Conclusion
==========
In this paper, the solution of the nonanticipative RDF is obtained on abstract spaces using the topology of weak convergence of probability measures and a special case of directed information. A specific example that realizes the optimal causal filter is presented and the connection between nonanticipative RDF and source-channel matching via uncoded or symbol-by-symbol transmission is derived.
[^1]: The terms causal and nonanticipative are used interchangeably with the same meaning for conditional distributions.
[^2]: Due to stationarity assumption $P_{Y_i|Y^{i-1}}(\cdot|\cdot)=P(\cdot|\cdot)$ and ${P}^*_{Y_i|Y^{i-1},X^i}(\cdot|\cdot,\cdot)={P}^*(\cdot|\cdot,\cdot)$
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We derive from a microscopic model the effective theory of nematic order in a system with a spontaneous quantum anomalous Hall effect in two dimensions. Starting with a model of two-component fermions (a spinor field) with a quadratic band crossing and short range four-fermion marginally relevant interactions we use a $1/N$ expansion and bosonization methods to derive the effective field theory for the hydrodynamic modes associated with the conserved currents and with the local fluctuations of the nematic order parameter. We focus on the vicinity of the quantum phase transition from the isotropic Mott Chern insulating phase to a phase in which time-reversal symmetry breaking coexists with nematic order, the nematic Chern insulator. The topological sector of the effective field theory is a BF/Chern-Simons gauge theory. We show that the nematic order parameter field couples with the Maxwell-type terms of the gauge fields as the space components of a locally fluctuating metric tensor. The nematic field has $z=2$ dynamic scaling exponent. The low-energy dynamics of the nematic order parameter is found to be governed by a Berry phase term. By means of a detailed analysis of the coupling of the spinor field of the fermions to the changes of their local frames originating from long-wavelength lattice deformations we calculate the Hall viscosity of this system and show that in this system it is not the same as the Berry phase term in the effective action of the nematic field, but both are related to the concept of torque Hall viscosity which we introduce here.'
author:
- Yizhi You
- Eduardo Fradkin
title: Field Theory of Nematicity in the Spontaneous Quantum Anomalous Hall effect
---
Introduction and motivation {#sec:introduction}
===========================
The theory of topological phases of matter has been a central problem in condensed matter physics since the discovery of the quantum Hall effects[@Klitzing-1980; @Tsui-1982] in two-dimensional electron gases (2DEG) in large magnetic fields. The precisely observed (quantized or fractional) values of the Hall conductance is a manifestation of the fact that it is a topological invariant of the incompressible fluid.[@Laughlin-1981; @Thouless-1982; @Niu-1985] The fractional quantum Hall fluids, on the other hand, are explained by the universal properties encoded in the structure of their wave functions[@Laughlin-1983] whose excitations (vortices) carry fractional charge and fractional statistics.[@Laughlin-1983; @Haldane-1983; @Halperin-1984] The robustness of these properties a consequence of their topological character. In addition to having fractionalized excitations, these topological fluids have a ground state degeneracy which depends on the topology of the surface on which they reside, which is not a consequence of the spontaneous breaking of any global symmetry.[@Wen-1990] The universal behavior of these topological fluids is encoded in an effective low-energy, the Chern-Simons gauge theory.[@Zhang-1989; @Lopez-1991; @Frohlich1991; @Wen-1992; @Wen-1995]
There is now a growing body of (mostly theoretical) evidence that such topological phases of matter exist in several models of frustrated quantum antiferromagnets[@Jiang-2011] and in quantum dimer models.[@Rokhsar-1988; @Moessner-2001] The recent discovery of topological insulators[@Bernevig-2006b; @Konig-2007; @Fu-2007b; @Hasan-2010; @Hasan-2011] has opened a new arena in which these ideas play out. Interacting versions of simple models of topological Chern insulators, such as the Haldane model,[@qah] have topological phases with fractionalized excitations.[@Neupert-2011; @Sheng-2011; @Regnault-2011; @Cinicio-2013]
An interesting question is the interlay and possible coexistence of topological order and spontaneous symmetry breaking. For some filling fraction the 2DEG is known to have a ferromagnetic quantum Hall ground state,[@Sondhi-1993; @Ho-1994] in which spin rotational symmetry is spontaneously broken. Also, a state with a nematic “valley” order has also been seen in quantum Hall fluids on misoriented samples.[@Shkolnikov-2005; @Abanin-2010] On the other hand, experiments in the 2DEG in the second Landau level found a nematic state in a regime in which the fractional (and integer) quantum Hall effect is absent.[@Lilly-1999; @Pan-1999; @Cooper-2002] In this phase the 2DEG is an uniform gapless electron fluid with a spontaneously broken spatial rotational symmetry.[@Fradkin-1999; @Fradkin-2000]
Recent experiments by Xia and coworkers found that the 2DEG in the first Landau level in tilted magnetic fields has a strong tendency to break rotational invariance inside an incompressible fractional quantum Hall Laughlin state.[@Xia-2010; @Xia-2011] Although in the the experiments rotational invariance is broken explicitly by the tilted magnetic field, the temperature dependence of the transport anisotropy suggest that this state has a large nematic susceptibility and may be close to a phase transition to a nematic state. These experiments motivated Mulligan, Kachru and Nayak to develop a theory in which nematic order coexists with a fractional quantum Hall fluid.[@chetan; @Mulligan-2011] The possible existence of such states was anticipated by two early proposals of wave functions for anisotropic quantum Hall fluids.[@Balents-1996; @Musaelian-1996]
The experiments of Xia and coworkers have also motivated the inquiry of the role of more microscopic, “geometrical”, degrees of freedom in the physics of these topological fluids.[@Haldane-2011; @haldanemetric; @Qiu-2012] Recently, Maciejko and coworkers proposed an effective field theory of the anisotropic fractional quantum Hall state.[@Maciejko-2013] Using mainly symmetry arguments, they found that the nematic order parameter couples to the fractional quantum Hall fluid in the same way as the space components of a metric tensor. A similar effect was found earlier in a theory of a nematic charge $4e$ superconductor[@Barci-2011] involving, instead, the order parameter field of the superconductor. A key result of Ref.\[\] is that the dynamics of the nematic degrees of freedom is governed by a Berry phase term in the effective action whose coefficient is the Hall viscosity of the topological fluid.[@avron1995; @Read-2009; @taylor; @Nicolis-2011; @vis]
There are many aspects of this problem which remain unclear. In the case of the 2DEG the existence of a compressible nematic phase (in the second Landau level) suggests that it must be related to the anisotropy seen in the first Landau level, albeit in the incompressible phase. The theory of Ref.\[\] suggests a possible mechanism (and an identification of the nematic degrees of freedom) solely in terms of the low-energy degrees of freedom of the quantum Hall fluid, but runs into difficulties in systems with Galilean invariance. In addition, that theory should also apply to the case of the integer quantum Hall effect. Although it is possible to write down a wave function for an anisotropic quantum Hall state by breaking rotational invariance explicitly at the microscopic level,[@haldanemetric] such an approach does not explain how it may come about from an isotropic incompressible state.
In this paper we will investigate these problems by deriving an effective field theory for a Mott Chern insulator in a nematic phase in a a simple microscopic lattice model recently proposed in by Sun and coworkers.[@kai] We will discuss in detail the case of the 2DEG in magnetic fields in a separate publication.[@You-2013] The model of Ref.\[\] describes a correlated two-dimensional system of spinless fermions on a checkerboard square lattice in which two bands have a quadratic crossing at the corners of the (square) Brillouin zone. In the non-interacting system the quadratic band crossing is protected by the $C_4$ point group symmetry of square lattice and by time-reversal invariance.
Due to the quadratic band crossing, this electronic system has a dynamical scaling exponent $z=2$ (i.e. the energy scales with the square of the momentum). As a direct consequence of the $z=2$ scaling, four fermion operators are naively marginal operators. This free-fermion system, which can be regarded as a fermionic version of a quantum Lifshitz model,[@Ardonne2004] is at an infrared unstable fixed point of the renormalization group (RG). This semimetal fixed point is unstable to infinitesimal repulsive interactions to a) a gapped phase with a spontaneously broker time-reversal invariance, i.e. a topological Mott Chern insulator with a spontaneous quantum anomalous Hall state[@qi], b) to a gapless semimetal nematic phase in which the point group symmetry breaks spontaneously from $C_4$ down to $C_2$, and c) to a gapped phase in which both time reversal symmetry-breaking and the point group symmetry breaking coexist.[@kai]
Models with quadratic band crossings describe the low-energy description of graphene bilayers,[@Nandkishore2010; @Vafek2010; @Lemonik2012] where there are two such crossings, and in the topologically protected surface states of 3D topological crystalline insulators.[@Fu2011; @Fang2012] We discuss below some caveats on the relevance of this model to such systems. In particular, a (Mott) Chern insulating state has been conjectured to exist in bilayer graphene.[@Nandkishore2010]
Due to the marginal relevance of local interactions, the behavior of the system in these phases can be investigated using controlled approximations, such as $1/N$ expansions and perturbative RG calculations. In contrast, in the case of the massless Dirac fermion, local interactions are irrelevant and a finite (and typically large) critical value of the coupling constant is need to drive the system into a Mott Chern insulating phase.[@qi] Here we will use the $1/N$ expansion and bosonization methods to derive an effective field theory of the Mott Chern insulator and of its quantum phase transition to a nematic Chern insulator in the context of the model of Ref.\[\]. The effective field theory includes a the hydrodynamic degrees of freedom of the conserved currents of the fermions, in the form of a BF/Chern-Simons gauge theory, and the local fluctuations of the nematic order parameter. In particular in this theory the nematic fluctuations are present at low energies which is required to describe a continuous quantum phase transition to a nematic Mott Chern insulator.
We will also show that the effective low-energy dynamics of the nematic order parameter is indeed a Berry phase term, with a structure similar to that proposed by Maciejko and collaborators. We also find that the nematic fields can be regarded as providing a local fluctuating spatial metric for the hydrodynamic gauge fields of the Mott Chern insulator. However we will also show that the nematic degrees of freedom do not couple to the fermionic degrees of freedom as a local frame field and hence, they cannot be identified with a local geometry. We show that the Hall viscosity, which in system of spinors is the response of the system to a change of the local frames[@taylor] (i.e. a long-wavelength distortion of the lattice), is not equal to the Berry phase of the nematic modes. Instead, the Berry phase is related to the concept of torque Hall viscosity which we introduce here. In addition, we find that in this system the Hall viscosity is not given by the coefficient of the $q^2$ term in the Hall conductance. Recently, Hoyos and Son showed that in Galilean-invariant one-component quantum Hall fluids systems these two coefficients should be equal to each other.[@vis] These assumptions do not apply to multi-component fermionic (spinor) systems as in the present case. We also find that the Hall viscosity and the Berry phase coefficient are related to the Hall torque viscosity.
This paper is organized as follows. In Section \[sec:model\] we present the model of interacting fermions in two dimensions with a quadratic band crossing and we discuss its phase diagram. In Section \[sec:effective-field-theory\] we develop an effective field theory of the interplay of nematic order and of the hydrodynamic gauge theory. In Section \[sec:1/N\] we use the $1/N$ expansion to derive the effective action in the vicinity of the nematic transition inside the spontaneous quantum anomalous Hall phase, and use it to discuss briefly the nature of the two phases and the quantum and thermal critical behavior. In Section \[sec:nematic-effective-action\] we present the effective field theory of the nematic fields in the presence of broken time-reversal invariance. Here we discuss in detail the role played by the Hall viscosity in the effective field theory. In Section \[sec:torque-viscosity\] we introduce the concept of Hall torque viscosity and discuss its relation with the Hall viscosity and with the Berry phase. Our conclusions are presented in Section \[sec:conclusions\]. Details of the calculations, including the proofs of gauge invariance, are given in several appendices.
The Quadratic Band-Crossing Model and its Phases {#sec:model}
================================================
In this paper we will use the following simple model for a quadratic band crossing (QBC),introduced by Sun and collaborators.[@kai] We begin with a summary of the results of their work that will be useful for our analysis. On of the cases discussed by Sun [*et. al*]{} is a system of spinless fermions on a checkerboard lattice. This lattice has two sublattices, and the single-particle states are two-component spinors. The band structure of this system is described by the tight-binding one-particle Hamiltonian $$\begin{aligned}
h_{0}(\textbf{k})=&t(\cos k_1-\cos k_2)\sigma_3+4t' \cos\left(\frac{k_1}{2}\right)\cos\left(\frac{k_2}{2}\right)\sigma_1
\nonumber\\
&
\label{eq:h0-QBC}
\end{aligned}$$ where $\textbf{k}=(k_1,k_2)$ are vectors of the first Brillouin zone (BZ), $|k_i|\leq \pi$ (with $i=1,2$), and $\sigma_1$ and $\sigma_3$ are two (real symmetric, $2 \times 2$) Pauli matrices. The lattice model also has a contribution proportional to the $2\times 2$ identity matrix which, for a range of parameters, can be ignored.[@sun2011] Tsai and coworkers[@tsai-2011] discussed a similar problem on the Lieb lattice.
In this system the two bands cross at the Fermi energy at the corners of the BZ, $(\pi,\pi)$ (and its symmetry related points). For a half-filled system, the Fermi energy is exactly at the band crossing points, and the ground state of the non-interacting system describes a semi-metal with a quadratic band dispersion. Similar problems have been discussed in the context of bilayer graphene.[@Nandkishore2010; @Vafek2010; @Vafek2010b]
The band structure of this semi-metal has a non-trivial Berry phase $$\begin{aligned}
i \oint_\Gamma d\textbf{k}\cdot \langle \textbf{k}|\nabla_{\textbf{k}}|\textbf{k}\rangle=n\pi
\end{aligned}$$ where $|\textbf{k}\rangle$ is a Bloch state at momentum $\textbf{k}$ of the BZ, and $\Gamma$ is a closed curve on the BZ that encloses the quadratic band crossing point, $(\pi,\pi)$. For a two-band system with a QBC the integer $n=2$ ($n=\pm 1$ for Dirac fermions). In this case the changes of the Chern number of the two bands are carried entirely by the (single) quadratic crossing. At the non-interacting level, the Berry phase here is protected by both discrete lattice symmetries and by time reversal invariance.
For momenta $\textbf{k}=(\pi,\pi)-\textbf{q}$ close to the crossing points (the corners of the BZ) we can approximate the one-particle Hamiltonian by expanding Eq. about the crossing point. Let us denote by $\psi_\alpha(\textbf{q})$ (with $\alpha=1,2$) be a two-component Fermi field with wave vectors $\textbf{q}$ (measured from the $(\pi,\pi)$ point). The effective free fermion Hamiltonian, in momentum and in position space, is $$\begin{aligned}
H_0=&\int \frac{d^2q}{(2\pi)^2} \psi^\dagger_\alpha(\textbf{q}) \Big( (q_{1}^2-q_{2}^2) \sigma_3 +2 q_1 q_2 \sigma_1 \Big)_{\alpha \beta} \psi_\beta(\textbf{q})\nonumber\\
=-&\int d^2x \; \psi^\dagger_\alpha(\textbf{x}) \Big(\sigma_3 \; (\partial_1^2-\partial_2^2) + \sigma_1 \; 2\partial_1 \partial_2 \Big)_{\alpha \beta} \psi_\beta(\textbf{x})
\label{eq:H0-long-wavelengths}
\end{aligned}$$ Here, and from now on, we have set $t=t'$ for simplicity (and rescaled the energy scale so that $t=1$). This is a special point of high (rotational) symmetry which does not qualitatively change the results. In the case of bilayer graphene one has two “valleys” (or species) of fermions whose free-fermion Hamiltonians are given by Eq., except that the sign of $t'$, a chirality that distinguishes one valley from the other. Thus for bilayer graphene one has $|t|=|t'|$.
For a system of (spinless) fermions with a QBC with short-range repulsive microscopic interactions, the effective low-energy Hamiltonian is the sum of the free-fermion Hamiltonian $H_0$ of Eq. and an interaction term $H_{\rm int}$ which can be succinctly written in the form $$H_{\rm int}=-\int d^2x \; \frac{1}{2} \Big(g_0 \Phi_0^2(\textbf{x})+g {\bm \Phi}^2(\textbf{x})\Big)
\label{eq:Hint-spinless}$$ where $g_0$ and $g$ are two (positive) coupling constants. The operators $\Phi_0(\bm{x})$ and ${\bm \Phi}(\bm{x})$ in Eq. are, respectively, given by the (Hermitian) bilinears of fermion operators, $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi_0({\bm x})=&\psi^\dagger(\textbf{x}) \sigma_2 \psi(\textbf{x})\label{eq:time-reversal-order-parameter}\\
{\bm \Phi}(\bm{x})=& \psi^\dagger(\textbf{x}) \bm{\sigma} \psi(\textbf{x})
\label{eq:nematic-order-parameter}\end{aligned}$$ Here $\bm{\sigma}=(\sigma_1,\sigma_3)$, and, for clarity, where we have suppressed the spinor indices. For $t=t'$ the full Hamiltonian, $H=H_0+H_{\rm int}$ is invariant under time-reversal and under arbitrary rotations. However for $t \neq t'$, it is only invariant under the (discrete) point-group $C_{4}$.
The operator $\Phi_0(\bm{x})$ of Eq. breaks time-reversal invariance and is the order parameter for time-reversal symmetry breaking. If $\langle \Phi \rangle \neq 0$ the system would have a gap and exhibit a zero-field quantum Hall effect with $\sigma_{xy}=e^2/h$ (i.e. an anomalous quantum Hall effect). The operator ${\bm \Phi}(\bm{x})$ of Eq. breaks rotational invariance and it is the nematic order parameter. In fact $\bm{\Phi}$ is invariant under a rotation by $\pi$ and hence it is not a vector but a director, as it should be. Moreover, if we were to add terms proportional to the operators $\Phi_0$ and ${\bm \Phi}$ to the free-fermion Hamiltonian of Eq. , the QBC either gets gapped (if $\langle \Phi_0\rangle \neq 0$) or splits into two massless Dirac fermions which are separated either along the $x$ (or $y$) axis (is $\langle \Phi_1 \rangle \neq 0)$) or along a diagonal (if $\langle \Phi_2 \rangle \neq 0$). Hence this state breaks rotational invariance (or $C_4$ or $C_6$ down to $C_2$). Hence, a state with $\langle \Phi_0 \rangle \neq 0$ is a topological Chern insulator, while a state with $\langle {\bm \Phi}\rangle \neq 0$ is a nematic semi-metal. If spin and other degrees of freedom are also considered, other operators (and hence possible phases) which transform non-trivially under other symmetries must be considered, leading, for instance, to a state with a spin Hall effect, a ferromagnet, triplet nematic order, and others.[@kai; @Nandkishore2010; @Vafek2010; @Vafek2010b; @Lemonik2012]
In the case of the theory of a massless Dirac fermions (e.g., graphene) short-range interactions are irrelevant operators, rendering the semi metallic phase stable, and can only trigger a (quantum) phase transition if the coupling constants are larger than a critical value.[@wilson-1970] However, in the case of a theory of fermions with a QBC, short-range interactions of the form of Eq. are marginally relevant and destabilize the QBC semimetal even for arbitrarily weak interactions[@kai] (see also the prescient work of Abrikosov and coworkers[@Abrikosov1974]).
The kinematic differences between the two systems, Dirac and the QBC, leads to a change in the scaling behavior of the operators.[@kai] In particular the Hamiltonian $H_0$ of Eq. describes a quantum critical system of free fermions with dynamical exponent $z=2$ and, hence, in this system time scales as the square of a length, $L^2$. For this reason it has some similarities with systems in the quantum Lifshitz universality class.[@Ardonne2004] Consequently, in a system with $z=2$ dynamic scaling, in two space dimensions the fermion operator has scaling dimension $\Delta_\psi=1$, $[\psi]=L^{-1}$, and all four-fermion operators have scaling dimension $4$.
In [*two*]{} (space) dimensions this means that all four fermion operators are [*marginal*]{} (in the renormalization group (RG) sense) since here $d+z=4$. Therefore, the stability (or instability) of the free-fermion QBC semimetal, such as the surface states of the three-dimensional crystalline topological insulators,[@Fu2011; @Hasan2012; @Yazdani2013] such as Pb$_{1-x}$Sn$_x$Te, is determined by quantum corrections. In contrast, systems with a QBC in [*three*]{} dimensions, such as the pyrochlore iridates A$_2$Ir$_2$O$_7$ (where A is a lanthanide or yttrium) ,[@Yang2010; @Witczak-Krempa2012; @Witczak-Krempa2013] short-range interactions are perturbatively irrelevant and the QBC semimetal is stable (up to a critical value of the coupling constants) (see, once again, Ref.\[\]).
One-loop renormalization group calculations show that, in two dimensions, in a system with microscopic repulsive interactions, and hence $g_0>0$ and $g>0$, four-fermion operators of the form of Eq. are [*marginally relevant*]{},[@kai; @Vafek2010; @Vafek2010b] and, hence, weak repulsive interactions render the semi-metal free-fermion ground state unstable. Several phases can occur depending on the details of the microscopic interactions. In Ref.\[\] it was shown that in the case of the QBC of the checkerboard lattice a weak (infinitesimal) repulsive interaction drives the system into a state with a spontaneous anomalous quantum Hall effect (i.e. a Chern insulator with a spontaneously-broken time-reversal symmetry), with a subsequent phase transition to a nematic semimetal state. Sun and coworkers[@kai] also found a regime in which the nematic state and the Chern insulating state coexist. Thus, in this phase, the system has a spontaneously broken time-reversal invariance and also a spontaneously broken rotational invariance, and is a nematic Chern insulator. Such topological Mott insulators were proposed earlier on by Raghu, Qi, Honerkamp and Zhang in the context of Dirac-type systems where they can only occur at relatively large values of the interactions.[@qi]
Effective gauge theory for the anisotropic QAH state {#sec:effective-field-theory}
====================================================
Our goal is to derive an effective action for the spontaneous QAH phase and to describe the transition to a nematic QAH phase. To this end we will generalize our system to one in which there are $N$ “flavors" of fermions and to drive the effective field theory using a large-$N$ expansion. Sun and coworkers have shown that, unlike the familiar case of the Luttinger liquids in one space dimensions, the renormalization group beta function(s) for the $N=1$ case has the same structure as the $N>1$ case.[@kai] The resulting effective Lagrangian density for the spinor fermionic field $\psi_{a}(x)$ (with $a=1,\ldots,N$, $x=(x_0,\vec x)$, and $x_0$ is the time coordinate) (here we are omitting the spinor indices)
$$\mathcal{L}_F[\bar \psi,\psi,a_\mu]=\bar \psi_a (x) \Big(i \gamma_0 D_0- \gamma_1(D_1^2-D_2^2)- \gamma_2 (D_1 D_2+D_2D_1) \Big) \psi_a(x)+ \frac{g_0}{2N} \Phi_0(x)^2+\frac{g}{2N} {\bm \Phi}^2(x)
\label{eq:Lagrangian}$$
where $\Phi_0(x)$ and ${\bm \Phi}(x)$ are the fermion bilinears defined in Eq. and Eq., respectively, suitably generalized for a system with $N$ flavors of fermions. Minimal coupling of the fermions to the gauge field requires that we change of the Hamiltonian of the system to insure its hermiticity and gauge invariance.
In Eq. we have used the standard $2 \times 2$ Dirac gamma matrices, given in terms of the three Pauli matrices $$\gamma_0=\sigma_2, \qquad \gamma_1=i \sigma_1, \qquad \gamma_2=-i \sigma_3$$ and satisfy the Dirac (Clifford) algebra (with $\mu=0,1,2$) $$\{ \gamma_\mu,\gamma_\nu\}=2 \eta_{\mu \nu} I$$ where $I$ is the $2 \times 2$ identity matrix and $\eta_{\mu \nu}=\textrm{diag}(1,-1,-1)$ is the Minkowski metric in $2+1$ space-time dimensions.
In the Lagrangian of Eq. we introduced the coupling to a gauge field $a_\mu$ through the covariant derivatives $$D_\mu=\partial_\mu-i a_\mu
\label{eq:covariant-derivative}$$ The coupling to a gauge field is needed both to describe the interactions with an external electromagnetic field $A_\mu$ and also to express the charge currents of the fermions in terms of a dual gauge field. This latter procedure leads to a hydrodynamic theory of the Chern insulating phase.[@atma]
The hydrodynamic theory is derived using the procedure of functional bosonization of Ref. \[\] and expanded in Ref. \[\] (see also Ref.\[\]). Following the work of Chan [*et al.*]{},[@atma] we will derive the effective hydrodynamic theory by considering the partition function of the fermionic theory with the Lagrangian of Eq. coupled to a dynamical gauge field $a_\mu$ whose field strength $\mathcal{F}_{\mu \nu}=\partial_\mu a_\nu-\partial_\nu a_\mu$ vanishes everywhere (in space and time), and hence is a gauge transformation. For a system with periodic boundary conditions, integrating the partition function over all gauge transformations (including large gauge transformations) amounts to averaging the partition function (and hence all its observables) over the torus of boundary conditions.
The averaged partition function is $$\begin{aligned}
Z[A_\mu]=&\nonumber\\
\int \mathcal{D} \bar \psi \mathcal{D}\psi & \mathcal{D}a_\mu \; \prod_{x,\mu,\nu} \delta(\mathcal{F}_{\mu \nu})
\; \exp\Big(i \int d^3x \mathcal{L}_F [\bar \psi,\psi,A_\mu+a_\mu]\Big)
\label{eq:averagedZ}\end{aligned}$$ where $A_\mu$ is a weak external electromagnetic field (used a s source), $\mathcal{L}_F$ is the Lagrangian of Eq.. Using the representation of the delta function $$\prod_{x,\mu,\nu} \delta(\mathcal{F}_{\mu \nu})=\int \mathcal{D}b_\mu\; \exp(i \int d^3x \; b_\mu \epsilon^{\mu \nu \lambda} \partial_\nu a_\lambda)$$ and the invariance of the measure under shifts $a_\mu \to a_\mu-A_\mu$, we find that the averaged partition function can be written in the equivalent form $$\begin{aligned}
Z[A_\mu]=&\nonumber\\
\int \mathcal{D} \bar \psi \mathcal{D}\psi & \mathcal{D}a_\mu \mathcal{D}b_\mu \;
\exp\Big(i \int d^3x \mathcal{L}[\bar \psi,\psi,A_\mu,a_\mu,b_\mu]\Big)
\label{eq:Zaveraged+b}\end{aligned}$$ The Lagrangian in the exponent of Eq. is given by $$\mathcal{L}[\bar \psi,\psi,A_\mu,a_\mu,b_\mu]=b_\mu \epsilon^{\mu \nu \lambda}\partial_\nu \left(a_\lambda-A_\lambda\right)+
\mathcal{L}_F[\bar \psi,\psi,a_\mu]
\label{eq:Laveraged}$$ where the Lagrangian $\mathcal{L}_F$ on the r.h.s. of Eq. is given in Eq.. In the Chern insulating phase, this expression leads to the $BF$ topological field theory form of the hydrodynamic theory.[@atma; @Cho2011]
It is now straightforward to show[@Fradkin1994; @LeGuillou1997; @atma] that the fermionic currents $j_\mu$ can be expressed in terms of the dual hydrodynamic field $j_\mu\equiv \epsilon_{\mu \nu \lambda} \partial^\nu b^\lambda$ as an operator identity. This hydrodynamic identity is the starting point of the effective field theory of the fractional quantum Hall fluids.[@Frohlich1991b; @Wen1992; @Wen1995]
On the other hand the conserved and gauge-invariant fermionic currents $j_\mu$ have the explicit form $$\begin{aligned}
j_0=&\frac{\delta \mathcal{L}_F}{\delta a_0}=\bar \psi_a \gamma_0 \psi_a=\psi_a^\dagger \psi_a \label{eq:j0}\\
j_1=&\frac{\delta \mathcal{L}_F}{\delta a_1}=i \bar \psi_a \Big(\gamma_1 D_1+\gamma_2 D_2\Big)\psi_a+\textrm{h.c.} \label{eq:j1}\\
j_2=&\frac{\delta \mathcal{L}_F}{\delta a_2}=i \bar \psi_a \Big(-\gamma_1 D_2+\gamma_2 D_1\Big)\psi_a+\textrm{h.c.}\label{eq:j2}\end{aligned}$$ where $D_1$ and $D_2$ denote the spatial components of the covariant derivative, and where the summation over the index $a$ has been assumed. Notice that, unlike the relativistic Dirac theory but in close resemblance to the non-relativistic case, the spatial components of the fermionic current depend explicitly on the gauge field $a_\mu$, as expected for a theory with dynamical exponent $z=2$.
We will now proceed to derive an effective action which is accurate in the large $N$ limit (but which is qualitatively correct for all finite $N$). To this end we will decouple the four-fermion interactions in the Lagrangian $\mathcal{L}_F$ by means of a Hubbard-Stratonovich transformation. In terms of three real Hubbard-Stratonovich fields $M_0(x)$, which couples to the time-reversal-symmetry-breaking order parameter $\Phi_0$ (of Eq.), and $M_1(x)$ and $M_2(x)$, which couple to the components of the nematic order parameter ${\bm \Phi}$ (of Eq.), the Lagrangian $\mathcal{L}_F$ of Eq. takes the form
$$\mathcal{L}_F[\bar \psi,\psi,a_\mu,M_0,\bm{M}]=
\bar \psi_a (x) \Big(i \gamma_0 D_0- \gamma_1(D_1^2-D_2^2)- \gamma_2 (D_1 D_2+D_2D_1)+M_0(x)+\bm{M}(x) \cdot \bm{\gamma} \Big) \psi_a(x)
- \frac{N}{2g_0} M_0(x)^2-\frac{N}{2g} \bm{M}^2(x)
\label{eq:Lagrangian+HS}$$
Upon integrating-out the fermionic fields we obtain the following expression for the averaged partition function $$\begin{aligned}
Z[A_\mu]=&\nonumber\\
\int \mathcal{D}a_\mu & \mathcal{D}b_\mu Z[a_\mu]
\exp\Big(i \int d^3x \; N\; b_\mu \epsilon^{\mu \nu \lambda}\partial_\nu \left(a_\lambda-A_\lambda\right)\Big)\end{aligned}$$ where we scaled the $b_\mu$ field by a factor of $N$ for future convenience. The partition function $Z[a_\mu]$ is given by $$Z[a_\mu]=
\int \mathcal{D}M_0 \mathcal{D}\bm{M} \exp(i N S[a_\mu,M_0,\bm{M}])
\label{eq:ZcalA}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
S[a_\mu, M_0,\bm{M}]&=\nonumber\\
-\int d^3x & \left[ \frac{1}{2g_0} M_0^2(x)+\frac{1}{2g} \bm{M}(x)^2\right]
\nonumber\\
&-i \textrm{Tr} \ln \mathcal{M}[a_\mu,M_0,\bm{M}]
\label{eq:effective-action}\end{aligned}$$ and $\mathcal{M}$ is the differential operator
$$\mathcal{M}[a_\mu,M_0,\bm{M}]=i \gamma_0 D_0- \gamma_1(D_1^2-D_2^2)- \gamma_2 (D_1 D_2+D_2D_1)+M_0(x)+\bm{M}(x) \cdot \; \bm{\gamma}
\label{diffop}$$
is the action used in Eq.. Notice that the Hubbard-Stratonovich fields $M_0$ and $\bm{M}$ have units of $(\textrm{momentum})^2\equiv \textrm{energy}$ (which is consistent since $z=2$.)
Putting it all together we find that the partition function of the full problem is $$Z[A_\mu]=\int \mathcal{D} b_\mu \mathcal{D} a_\mu \mathcal{D} M_0 \mathcal{D} \bm{M} e^{i N S_{\rm eff}[a_\mu,M_0,{\bm M},A_\mu]}$$ where the effective action is $$S_{\rm eff}=S[a_\mu, M_0,\bm{M}]+\int d^3x \; b_\mu \epsilon^{\mu \nu \lambda}\partial_\nu \left(a_\lambda-A_\lambda\right)
\label{effective-action-total}$$ Here $S[a_\mu, M_0,\bm{M}]$ is given by Eq.. Notice that from Eq. the following identities hold $$\frac{\Phi_0}{N} = \frac{M_0}{g_0}, \qquad
\frac{{\bm \Phi}}{N} =\frac{\bm{M}}{g}
\label{eq:constraints}$$ As usual, the correlation functions of the Hubbard-Stratonovich fields are (essentially) the same as those of the order parameters.
We can now proceed to solve this theory in the large $N$ limit. The effective action we are seeking will be obtained in the leading order of the $1/N$ expansion which is equivalent to a one-loop approximation. (For a general discussion of large $N$ (“vector”) field theories see, e.g., the extensive review of Ref.\[\].)
In the large $N$ limit the partition function $Z[a_\mu]$ (of Eq.) is well approximated by an expansion about the saddle-points of the effective action $S_{\rm eff}$ of Eq.. Here we will seek translationally-invariant states, such as the phases with spontaneously broken time-reversal invariance, with $\langle \Phi_0\rangle \neq 0$, and/or spontaneously broken rotational invariance, with $\langle {\bm \Phi} \rangle \neq 0$. In what follows the gauge field $a_\mu$ can be taken to be a weak perturbation (and hence it will not affect the saddle-point equations). Hence we will set $a_\mu=0$ in the saddle-point equations. The effects of quantum fluctuations of the gauge field $a_\mu$ will appear in the $1/N$ corrections.
The saddle-point-equations (the “gap equations”) are $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\delta S_{\rm eff}}{\delta M_0(x)}=0 & \Rightarrow & \frac{m}{g_0}=& -i \; \textrm{tr} G(x,x;m,\bm{M})\\
\frac{\delta S_{\rm eff}}{\delta \bm{M}(x)}=0 & \Rightarrow &\frac{\bm{M}}{g}=& -i \;\textrm{tr} \left[G (x,x;m,\bm{M}) \bm{\gamma}\right]
\label{eq:gap-equations}\end{aligned}$$ \[eq:SPE\] where a sum over repeated indices is assumed and the trace runs over the spinor indices. $S_{\alpha \beta}(x,x';m, \bm{M})$ (with $\alpha,\beta=1,2$ being the spinor indices) is the Feynman (time-ordered) propagator of a fermionic field with $z=2$ with constant values of the fields $M_0\equiv m$ and $\bm{M}$,
$$G_{\alpha \beta}(x,x'; m, \bm{M})=-i \langle T(\psi_\alpha(x) \bar \psi_\beta(x'))\rangle
= \langle x, \alpha \vert \Big(i \gamma_0 \partial_0- \gamma_1(\partial_1^2-\partial_2^2)- \gamma_2 2 \partial_1 \partial_2+m+\bm{M} \cdot \; \bm{\gamma} \Big)^{-1}\vert x', \beta \rangle
\label{eq:Feynman-propagator}$$
In frequency and momentum space $q_\mu=(q_0,\bm{q})$, the Feynman propagator is (dropping the spinor indices) $$G(p;m, {\bm M})=\frac{1}{p_0\gamma_0-(p_1^2-p_2^2)\gamma_1-2p_1p_2 \gamma_2-m -\bm{M} \cdot \bm{\gamma}-i\epsilon}
\label{eq:Feynman-propagator-pmu}$$
from where we read-off the spectrum of (one-particle) fermionic excitations $$E_\pm (\bm{q};m,\bm{M})=\pm E(\bm{q};m,\bm{M})
\label{eq:one-particle-spectrum}$$ and $$E(\bm{q};m,\bm{M})= \sqrt{\left(q_1^2-q_2^2+M_1\right)^2+\left(2q_1q_2+M_2\right)^2+m^2}
\label{eq:E(q)}$$ Clearly, $M_0=m$ is a (time-reversal symmetry breaking) mass gap, and $\bm{M}$ breaks rotational invariance, by splitting the QBC into two Dirac cones, along a direction and by an amount set by $\bm{M}$.
Upon computing the traces over the spinor indices, and after an integration over frequencies, the “gap” equations Eq. can be put in the form $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{m}{g_0}&=
\int \frac{d^2q}{(2\pi)^2}\; \frac{m}{E(\bm{q};m,\bm{M})}
\label{eq:SPEm}
\\
\frac{M_1}{g}&=
\int \frac{d^2q}{(2\pi)^2}\; \frac{q_1^2-q_2^2+M_1}{E(\bm{q};m,\bm{M})}
\label{eq:SPEM1}
\\
\frac{M_2}{g}&=
\int \frac{d^2q}{(2\pi)^2}\; \frac{2q_1q_2+M_2}{E(\bm{q};m,\bm{M})}
\label{eq:SPEM2}\end{aligned}$$ where $E(\bm{q};m,\bm{M})$ is given in Eq.. The integrals in Eqs. , Eq. and Eq. are logarithmically divergent at large momenta $\bm{q}$ and require a UV momentum cutoff $\Lambda \sim \pi/a$, where $a$ is the lattice spacing. This logarithmic divergence is a consequence of the marginally relevant nature of the interactions.
In the $N \to \infty$ limit, the ground state energy density of the system $\mathcal{E}(m,\bm{M})$ is $$\mathcal{E}(m,\bm{M})=\frac{N}{2g_0} m^2+\frac{N }{2g} \bm{M}^2-N \int \frac{d^2q}{(2\pi)^2} E(\bm{q};m,\bm{M})
\label{eq:SPE-gnd}$$ where we have filled up the negative energy states. This ground state energy density has extrema at the values of $m$ and $\bm{M}$ which are the simultaneous solutions of Eq., Eq., and Eq..
The saddle-point equations, Eq., Eq., and Eq., have three types of uniform solutions: a) an isotropic (or $C_4$ invariant) phase with $m\neq0$ and $\bm{M}=0$ in which time reversal invariance is spontaneously broken which is an insulating (Mott) phase with a spontaneous QAH effect, b) a phase with $m=0$ but with $\bm{M} \neq 0$ with a spontaneously broken rotational (or $C_4$) invariance which is a nematic semi-metal with a spectrum of two massless Dirac fermions, and c) a coexistence phase with $m\neq 0$ and $\bm{M}\neq 0$, in which both time-reversal and rotational invariance are spontaneously broken, i.e. this is an insulating nematic QAH phase.
In Ref. \[\] it was found that, for certain range of parameters the quantum phase transition from the QAH phase to the nematic QAH phase is continuous while the subsequent transition to a the nematic semimetal is first order. The details of the phase diagram depend also on the parameters $t$ and $t'$ , defined in the free fermion Hamiltonian of Eq., that break the continuous symmetry under rotations dow to the $C_4$ point-group symmetry (for the case of the checkerboard lattice).
In this paper we will focus on the (isotropic or $C_4$-symmetric) QAH phase and its continuous quantum phase transition to the nematic QAH phase in which both orders are present. In the $N \to \infty$ limit the ground state energy density of the QAH phase is $$\mathcal{E}(m,\bm{M})=\mathcal{E}_0+\frac{m^2}{2g_0}-\frac{m^2}{8\pi} \ln \left(\dfrac{2\Lambda^2}{|m|}\right)
\label{eq:Egnd-QAH}$$ where $\mathcal{E}_0=-\Lambda^2/(8\pi)$ (here and below $\Lambda$ is a momentum cutoff, $\Lambda \sim \pi/a$) is the ground state energy density of free fermions with a QBC, and where we have kept the leading (divergent) terms in $\Lambda^2/|m| \to \infty$. in Eq. we have omitted an overall factor of $N$.
The ground state energy of Eq. is minimized if the saddle-point equation Eq. is satisfied, which now becomes $$\dfrac{1}{g_0}=\frac{1}{4\pi} \ln\left(\dfrac{2\Lambda^2}{|m|}\right)
\label{eq:SPEm'}$$ The solution of this equation is $$|m|=2\Lambda^2 \; \exp\left(-\frac{4\pi}{g_0}\right)
\label{eq:gap}$$ which has the characteristic form of a marginally relevant perturbation. From now on we will assume that the leading instability of the system is to the QAH phase, which opens the finite gap $m$ is the fermion spectrum and breaks spontaneously time-reversal invariance.
We will consider the case in which the onset of nematic order takes place inside the QAH phase. In this situation the nematic order will be weak and its onset will not affect appreciably, to lowest order, the time-reversal-symmetry breaking mass gap $m$. With these assumptions we can expand the ground state energy of Eq. in powers of the nematic order parameter $\bm{M}$ up to quartic order, which has the form $$\mathcal{E}(m,\bm{M})=\mathcal{E}_{QAH}+r(m) \bm{M}^2+ u(m) \bm{M}^4+O(\bm{M}^6)
\label{eq:E_g-m+M}$$ where $\mathcal{E}_{QAH}$ is the ground state energy of the nematic phase, and the parameters $r(m)$ and $u(m)$ are $$r(m)=\frac{1}{2g}-\frac{1}{8\pi} \ln \left(\dfrac{2\Lambda^2}{|m|}\right), \qquad u=\dfrac{21}{256 \pi} \frac{1}{m^2}
\label{eq:gnd-expansion}$$ From here we find that there is a (quantum) phase transition to a nematic QAH phase at a critical value $g_c$, $$\frac{1}{g_c}=\frac{1}{4\pi} \ln \left(\frac{2\Lambda^2}{|m|}\right)$$ Within these approximations, the transition takes place at $g_c = g_0$. For $g>g_c$ nematic order parameter $\bm{M}$ has a non-vanishing expectation value, $$\bar{|\bm{M}|}=\left(\frac{-r(m)}{2u(m)}\right)^{1/2}= A\; |m|\; \left(\frac{1}{g_c}-\frac{1}{g}\right)^{1/2}
\label{eq:|M|}$$ where $A^2=64 \pi/21$. Further inside the nematic QAH phase the QAH order parameter, $m$, becomes progressively suppressed until a first-order quantum phase transition to a nematic semimetal phase is reached.[@kai]
Effective action and $1/N$ expansion {#sec:1/N}
====================================
We will now derive the effective field theory for the quantum fluctuations in the QAH phase close to the nematic quantum phase transition. To this end we will compute the effects of quantum fluctuations to the lowest order in the $1/N$ expansion. In the QAH phase the only field with a non-vanishing expectation value is the field $M_0$, whereas the nematic field $\bm{M}$ has a vanishing expectation value in the QAH phase (but not in the nematic phase). By gauge invariance the gauge fields $a_\mu$ and $b_\mu$ cannot have a non-vanishing expectation value (although their fluxes could).
The fluctuations of the time-reversal symmetry-breaking field $M_0$ are massive in the QAH phase (and in the nematic QAH phase). Since we are interested in the effective field theory close to the transition to the nematic QAH phase we will not be interested in the fluctuations of this massive field, whose main effect is a renormalization of the effective parameters. Thus in what follows we will ignore the fluctuations of the field $M_0$ about the $N=\infty$ expectation value $M_0=m$.
We will now expand the effective action of Eq. to lowest orders in the $1/N$ expansion. Let us denote by $G_0(x,x';m)$ $$G_0(x,x'; m)\equiv \langle x \left| \mathcal{M}^{-1}_0 \right|x' \rangle
\label{eq:calM0}$$ the Feynman propagator of the fermions in the QAH phase given by Eq.. Here we implicit the spinor indices and set the expectation value of the nematic field $\bm{M}$ to zero and $M_0=m$. In Eq. $\mathcal{M}_0$ is the differential operator of Eq. in the symmetric phase with broken time reversal symmetry.
In momentum space the propagator of Eq. becomes $$G_0(p)=\frac{p_0 \gamma_0-(p_1^2-p_2^2)\gamma_1-2p_1p_2\gamma_2+m}{p_0^2-(p_1^2+p_2^2)^2-m^2-i\epsilon}
\label{eq:propagator}$$
The expansion in powers of $1/N$ can now be determined by using the expansion of the logarithm
$$\begin{aligned}
\textrm{tr} \ln \mathcal{M}=&\textrm{tr} \ln \left(\mathcal{M}_0+\delta \mathcal{M}\right)\nonumber\\
=&\textrm{tr} \ln \mathcal{M}_0+\textrm{tr} \ln \left(I+\mathcal{M}_0^{-1}\delta \mathcal{M}\right)\end{aligned}$$
where $$\begin{aligned}
\textrm{tr}\; \ln &\left(I+\mathcal{M}_0^{-1}\delta \mathcal{M}\right)= \nonumber\\
\textrm{tr}\; & \left(\mathcal{M}_0^{-1} \delta \mathcal{M}\right) -\frac{1}{2} \textrm{tr}\; \left(\mathcal{M}_0^{-1} \delta \mathcal{M}\right)^2+&\frac{1}{3} \textrm{tr}\; \left(\mathcal{M}_0^{-1} \delta \mathcal{M}\right)^3\nonumber\\
&+\ldots
\label{eq:expansion-determinant}\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathcal{M}_0$ and $\delta \mathcal{M}$ are the operators $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{M}_0=&i \gamma_0 \partial_0- \gamma_1(\partial_1^2-\partial_2^2)- \gamma_2 2 \partial_1 \partial_2 +m \nonumber\\
\delta \mathcal{M}=&\bm{M}(x) \cdot \; \bm{\gamma} +a_{\mu} \mathcal{J}^{\mu}-{\bm T}_{ij} a_i a_j\end{aligned}$$ with the vertices $\mathcal{J}_{\mu}$ and given by $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{J}_0=&\gamma_0 \\
\mathcal{J}_1=& i \gamma_1 \partial_1+i \gamma_2 \partial_2+\textrm{h.c.} \\
\mathcal{J}_2=&-i \gamma_1 \partial_2+i \gamma_2 \partial_1+\textrm{h.c.}
\label{eq:vertices1}\end{aligned}$$ where $i,j=1,2$ label the two spatial components of the gauge field $a_\mu$, and the matrix ${\bm T}$ is $${\bm T}=
\begin{pmatrix}
\gamma_1 & \gamma_2\\
\gamma_2 & -\gamma_1
\end{pmatrix}
\label{eq: vertices2}$$ where $\gamma_1$ and $\gamma_2$ are the two spatial Dirac gamma matrices.
The terms in the expansion of Eq. that are quadratic in the nematic fields $\bm M$ and on the hydrodynamic gauge field $a_\mu$ represent the leading quantum fluctuations about the $N=\infty$ limit. The effective action for the quantum fluctuations of the hydrodynamic gauge field $a_\mu$ and the nematic fields $\bm{M}$ have the form
$$S_{\rm eff}[a_\mu,\bm{M}]=S_{\rm eff} [a_\mu]+S_{\rm eff}[\bm{M}]+S_{\rm eff}[a_\mu,\bm{M}]$$
Here $S[\bm{M}]$ describes the dynamics of the nematic field, and will be studied in detail in the next section. In this section, we focus on the effective action of the hydrodynamic gauge fields and on their coupling to the nematic fields, $S_{\rm eff}[a_\mu]+S_{\rm eff}[a_\mu,\bm{M}]$. The details of the Feynman diagrams and of the calculations included in this section can be found in Appendix \[app:effective-gauge-theory\]. The resulting effective Lagrangian is
$$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{L}_{\rm eff}[a_\mu]+\mathcal{L}_{\rm eff}[a_\mu,\bm{M}]=&
\frac{N}{4\pi}\epsilon^{\mu \nu \rho} a_{\mu} \partial_{\nu} a_{\rho}+N b_{\mu}\epsilon^{\mu \nu \rho} \partial_{\nu} (a_{\rho}-A_{\rho}) \nonumber\\
&+\frac{N}{8\pi} \left(\frac{1}{m} + \frac{M_1}{2m^2}\right)(\partial_0 a_1-\partial_1 a_0)^2 +\frac{N}{8\pi} \left(\frac{1}{m}-\frac{M_1}{2m^2}\right)(\partial_0 a_2-\partial_2 a_0)^2 \nonumber \\
&+ \frac{N}{8\pi} \frac{M_2}{m^2} (\partial_0 a_1-\partial_1 a_0)(\partial_0 a_2-\partial_2 a_0)-\frac{N}{4\pi}(\partial_2 a_1-\partial_1 a_2)^2
\label{eq:effective-action-gauge-fields}
\end{aligned}$$
The effective gauge theory is a Maxwell-Chern-Simons theory. The first term is the Chern-Simons term from the nontrivial fermion band, the second term is the BF term obtained from the functional bosonization technique we used. It is straightforward to see that this effective action predicts that the QAH phase has a Hall quantized Hall conductivity $\sigma_{xy}=N e^2/h$, as expected for the quadratic band crossing case.[@kai]
The rest of the terms in the effective action of Eq. are the parity-even Maxwell terms and the local coupling of the fluctuation of the nematic fields to the hydrodynamic gauge field. The latter has the form of an effective spatial anisotropy. Hence, it is apparent from Eq. that the nematic order parameters couple to the gauge fields as an effective spatial metric. To make this more clear, let us rewrite the Maxwell terms, $\mathcal{L}_{\rm Maxwell}$ in the form (for comparison, see Ref.\[\]) $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{L}_{\rm Maxwell}=&-\frac{N}{8\pi \sqrt{2m}} f_{\mu \nu} g^{\mu \alpha} f_{\alpha \beta} g^{\beta \nu}\\
f_{\mu \nu}=& \partial_\mu a_\nu-\partial_\nu a_\mu\\
g_{\mu \nu}=&\eta_{\mu \nu}+ \frac{1}{2m} Q_{\mu \nu}\end{aligned}$$ where we have rescaled the time coordinate and temporal component of the gauge field $x_0 \rightarrow \frac{1}{\sqrt{2m}}x_0,a_0\rightarrow\sqrt{2m} a'_0$ so as to renormalize the dielectric constant and make the “speed of light” be $1$. The modified metric in the Maxwell term are composed of a regular flat metric of $2+1$-dimensional Minkowski space-time, $\eta_{\mu \nu}={\rm diag}(1,-1,-1)$, locally modified by a traceless metric $Q_{\mu \nu}$ induced by the local spatial anisotropy. The traceless symmetric tensor $Q_{\mu \nu}$ only has non-vanishing spatial components, $$\begin{aligned}
Q_{\mu \nu}=
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & M_1& M_2 \\
0 & M_2& -M_1
\end{pmatrix}\end{aligned}$$
From the expression of $Q_{\mu \nu}$, it is clear that this is the hydrodynamic theory of a gauge field on a manifold with a fluctuating nontrivial (purely spatial) metric due to the coupling to the nematic field. As the fluctuation of the nematic field modifies the local metric, in the anisotropic phase, where the tensor $Q_{ij}$ (or, equivalently, $\bm{M}$) acquires an nonzero expectation value, the Maxwell term becomes anisotropic. This leads to anisotropic transport (at finite wave vector $\bm q$) in the nematic QAH. This phenomenon is equivalent to having an anisotropic dielectric dielectric tensor that plays the role of the metric tensor we introduced here.
effective theory of the nematicity {#sec:nematic-effective-action}
==================================
Let us now derive the effective theory of the nematic field ${\bm {M}}$. The effective action $S_{\rm eff}(\bm M)$, obtained for the integration of the fermions and from the Hubbard-Stratonovich fields, has the form $$\begin{aligned}
S_{\rm eff}(\bm M)=N \ln \textrm{det}(G^{-1}_{0}- {\bm M} \cdot {\bm \gamma})
-\int d^3x \; \frac {N}{2g} {\bm M}^2\end{aligned}$$ By expanding the effective action to the quadratic order, we get $$\begin{aligned}
S_{\rm eff}=&-\frac {N}{2} \textrm{tr}(G_{0} {\bm \gamma} \cdot {\bm M} G_{0} {\bm \gamma} \cdot {\bm M}) -\int d^3x \; \frac {N}{2g} {\bm M}^2\nonumber \\
= -\frac {N}{2} &\int \frac{d^3 p}{(2\pi)^3} M_{i}(-p)\Gamma_{ij}(p) M_{j}(p) -\frac{N}{2g} \int \frac{d^3p}{(2\pi)^3} |{\bm M}(p)|^2\end{aligned}$$ where $\Gamma_{ij}(p)$ is the one-loop kernel $$\Gamma_{ij}(p) =\int \frac{d^3 k}{(2\pi)^3} \textrm{tr}(\gamma_{i} G_{0}(p+k)\gamma_{j} G_{0}(k))$$ which is given by the self-energy diagram discussed in Appendix \[app:effective-action-nematic\].
Let us now define a $2 \times 2$ traceless symmetric tensor field ${\bm Q}$ which is natural to describe a nematic phase [@Oganesyan-2001; @chaikin-1995] $$\begin{aligned}
{\bm Q}=
\begin{pmatrix}
M_1 & M_2 \\
M_2 & -M_1
\end{pmatrix}\end{aligned}$$ At long wavelengths and low frequencies, the effective Lagrangian of the nematic order parameter $\mathcal{L}[\bm Q]$ is $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{N} \mathcal{L}_{\rm eff}[\bm Q]=& -\chi(m) \epsilon^{bc} Q_{ab} \partial_0 Q_{ac} - r(m) \textrm{Tr}[{\bm Q} {\bm Q}]\nonumber\\
+\kappa_1 \textrm{Tr}[{\bm Q}&{\bm K}{\bm Q}]+ \kappa_2\textrm{Tr}[\sigma_1 {\bm Q}{\bm K}'{\bm Q}]
-u(m) \textrm{Tr}[{\bm Q}{\bm Q}{\bm Q}{\bm Q}]
\label{eq:Leff-Q}\end{aligned}$$ where $\bm K$ and ${\bm K}'$ are the $2 \times 2$ symmetric matrix differential operators $${\bm K}=
\begin{pmatrix}
\partial^2_1 & \partial_1 \partial_2 \\
\partial_2 \partial_1 & \partial^2_2
\end{pmatrix},\quad
{\bm K}'=
\begin{pmatrix}
\partial_2 \partial_1 & \partial^2_2\\
\partial^2_1 & \partial_2 \partial_1
\end{pmatrix}$$ and $\sigma_1$ is the (symmetric and real) Pauli matrix.
The coefficients $r(m)$ and $u(m)$ in Eq. were given already in Eq.. The coefficient $\chi(m)$ shown in Eq., is given by $$\chi(m)=\frac{1}{64\pi} \frac{1}{m}
\label{eq:chi}$$ The coefficient coefficient $\chi(m)$ depends on [*both*]{} the [*magnitude*]{} and the [*sign*]{} of the parameter $m$, i.e. on the expectation value of the order parameter that measures the spontaneous breaking of time-reversal invariance in the Mott Chern insulator. This behavior is reminiscent of the Parity Anomaly of a Dirac fermion in $2+1$ dimensions.[@Deser-1982; @Redlich-1984] In the next section we will see shortly that $\chi(m)$ is related to the Hall viscosity and hall torque viscosity of the spontaneous QAH phase. Moreover, the presence of this Berry phase term makes the dynamic critical exponent of the effective theory of the nematic fields to be $z=2$.
The first term of the effective action $\mathcal{L}_{\rm eff}[\bm Q]$ of Eq. is of first order in time derivatives, reflecting the spontaneous breaking of time-reversal invariance in the (spontaneous) QAH phase and, hence, is [*odd*]{} under time-reversal. This term can be regarded as a Berry phase of the time evolution of the nematic order parameter field. Maciejko and collaborators[@Maciejko-2013] have shown that it is possible to rewrite the effective field theory of the nematic order parameter field as a non-linear sigma model whose target space is a hyperbolic space, a coset of $SO(2,1)$. The form of our Berry phase term is consistent with the one discussed by of Maciejko and collaborators[@Maciejko-2013] in the limit ${\bm Q}\ll 1$ which we have used here.
Before we discuss the phases of this theory and the behavior of the nematic degrees of freedom it is worth to comment on the symmetries of the effective Lagrangian of Eq.. As it is apparent this effective Lagrangian is invariant under a global rotation of the nematic order parameter field (modulo $\pi$). This symmetry is the result of setting $t=t'$ in the lattice Hamiltonian of Eq. and of the fact that we kept only the lowest terms in momenta in the long wavelength theory of the fermions of Eq.. On the other hand, if $t\neq t'$ the effective low-energy theory has a lower $C_4$ symmetry. At the level of the nematic order parameter, this is equivalent to an Ising symmetry (of rotations by $\pi/2$. The same type of symmetry breaking is obtained in the corrections to Eq. of order $p^4$ (or higher) in the effective low-energy Hamiltonian of the fermions. The net effect of these corrections are nominally irrelevant operators which break the continuous $O(2)$ symmetry down to a discrete (Ising) symmetry.
The isotropic QAH phase
-----------------------
In the isotropic QAH phase, and to lowest order in the $1/N$ expansion, we find that the stiffnesses are $$\kappa_1= \frac{1}{12 \pi |m|}, \qquad \kappa_2=0
\label{eq:stiffnesses}$$ Hence, in the isotropic phase, the terms of the effective action that depend on the spatial gradients, after an integration by parts, can be written in the form $$-\kappa_1\textrm{Tr}[{\bm Q}{\bm K}{\bm Q}]= \kappa_1((\nabla\cdot\bm{M})^2+(\nabla\times\bm{M})^2)$$ Hence the two Frank constants are equal in the isotropic phase.
It is straightforward to see that the nematic modes are gapped in the isotropic phase and that their gap vanishes at the quantum phase transition. Again, provided the explicit lattice symmetry breaking effects we discussed above can be neglected, the spectrum of nematic modes will ge gapped but degenerate.
The nematic QAH phase
---------------------
However in the nematic QAH phase where, the rotational symmetry is spontaneously broken. This has two consequences. One is that instead of a single Frank constant (stiffness) we now find two, $$\kappa_1= \frac{1}{12 \pi |m|},\qquad \kappa_2=\frac{|\bar {\bm M}|}{16 \pi m^2}
\label{eq:Frank-nematic}$$ where $\bm Q$ represents now the [*fluctuations*]{} of the nematic order parameter in the nematic QAH phase, $|\bar {\bm M}|$ is the expectation value of the nematic field in the $N \to \infty$ limit and is given in Eq.. By symmetry, the Frank stiffness $\kappa_2$ is an odd function of the magnitude of the nematic order parameter $|\bar {\bf M}|$. Thus, provided we restrict ourselves to the vicinity of the transition, in Eq. we may keep only the leading (linear) term.
Hence, as expected, in the nematic QAH phase there are two Frank constants, and the spatial terms of the effective Lagrangian for the nematic fluctuations now becomes (also after an integration by parts) $$\begin{aligned}
&-\kappa_1\textrm{Tr}[{\bm Q}{\bm K}{\bm Q}]- \kappa_2\textrm{Tr}[\sigma_1 {\bm Q}{\bm K}'{\bm Q}]\nonumber\\
&= (\kappa_1+\kappa_2)(\nabla\cdot{\bm M})^2+(\kappa_1-\kappa_2)(\nabla\times{\bm M})^2
\label{eq:nematic-energy}\end{aligned}$$ which is the generally expected form for the energy of nematic fluctuations.[@deGennes-1993; @chaikin-1995] A similar result generally holds in other electronic nematic phases.[@Oganesyan-2001]
The other consequence is that there is a gapless Goldstone mode of the spontaneously broken symmetry. Again, if the microscopic theory only has a discrete $C_4$ invariance the Goldstone modes is gapped but the gap can be small if the explicit symmetry breaking is weak.
Critical Behavior
-----------------
We will now discuss briefly the critical behavior. By examining the effective Lagrangian of Eq. we see that the nematic order parameter field has scaling dimension $1$, i.e. $[Q]=l^{-1}$ (where $l$ is a length scale) or $\Delta_Q=1$. This scaling follows from the presence of the Berry phase term in the effective Lagrangian. Incidentally, the main effect of the Berry phase term is to make the two components of the nematic order parameter field to be canonically conjugate pairs. From the fact that the order parameter has scaling dimension $\Delta_1=1$ it follows that the scaling dimension of the quartic term of the effective Lagrangian has dimension $\Delta_4=4$ and that the effective coupling constant can be made dimensionless (by absorbing the Berry phase $\chi(m)$ in a rescaling of the nematic field). This is consistent with the fact that the dynamical exponent is $z=2$ and the the dimensionality of space is $d=2$. Hence the “effective dimension is $d+z=4$. hence the quartic term of the Lagrangian is superficially marginal at the nematic quantum critical free field point, $r=0$. Thus, this theory appears to behave much in the same way as conventional (relativistically invariant) $\phi^4$ quantum field theory of four space-time dimensions.
Just as in conventional $\phi^4$ theory, the quartic term is also marginally irrelevant at the free field fixed point with $z=2$. Provided this assumption (which we have not verified) is correct, we deduce that the quantum critical behavior is that of the effective classical theory, of Eq., with logarithmic corrections to scaling. On the other hand, if the quartic term were to be marginally relevant, it would turn this quantum phase transition in to a fluctuation-induced first order transition.
Finally this theory has a finite-temperature thermodynamic phase transition at a $T_c$ at which the nematic order is lost. If the symmetry is $O(2)$ then we expect a conventional nematic continuous (Kosterlitz-Thouless) phase transition. On the other hand if the symmetry is broken (microscopically) down to a discrete Ising ($\mathbb{Z}_2$) symmetry, the the finite-temperature transition would be in the 2D ising universality class.
Transverse dissipationless response to shear stress: Hall torque viscosity in the quantum anomalous Hall state {#sec:torque-viscosity}
==============================================================================================================
Quantum Hall fluids and other two-dimensional systems with broken time-reversal invariance such as Chern insulators, show a variety of dissipationless responses to external fields which do not exist in normal fluids. In a system with broken time-reversal invariance due either to an external perpendicular magnetic field or to topologically non-trivial band structures, an in-plane electric field induces a Hall current which is perpendicular to the applied field and has a Hall conductance which is precisely determined by the topological properties of these fluids. Similarly, in a two-dimensional system with broken time reversal invariance and parity, by shearing the system in one direction a momentum transfer is induced in the perpendicular direction. As a result, the stress tensor has an anti-symmetric component which is proportional to the shear rate. The associated transport coefficient is the Hall viscosity.[@avron1995; @Read-2009; @taylor; @vis; @Hughes-2013]
While the resulting Hall conductance is dimensionless and universal (in units of $e^2/h$), the Hall viscosity has units of length$^{-2}$. If the system is Galilean invariant (which is the case, to a good approximation, in the 2DEG in AlAs-GaAs heterostructures and quantum wells) then the length scale is supplied by the magnetic length and, in this sense, the Hall viscosity is also universal.[@vis] On the other hand, in the case of topological Chern insulators, although there is a finite Hall viscosity in general it is the sums of a non-universal term (which is determined by microscopic physics) and an essentially universal term.[@taylor]
In this section we will first derive an expression of the Hall viscosity for the system at hand, a Chern insulator originating from an instability of a system with a quadratic band crossing. Here we will show that the Hall viscosity is related to both the Hall conductivity of the QAH phase and with the coefficient $\chi$ of he Berry phase term obtained in Eq.. We will also see how this is related to the concept of Hall torque viscosity which we introduce below.
For a parity violating system, such as the quantum Hall fluids of 2DEGs, a change in the background metric $g_{ij}$ of the surface on which the electron fluid resides modifies the definition of the momentum of the electrons through their coupling to the metric. A consequence of the breaking of time reversal and parity (either explicit or spontaneous) the effective field theory of the weak perturbation of the metric contains a term which is odd under parity and time reversal. Such Chern-Simons-type terms are first order in time derivatives, and their coefficient is the Hall viscosity.
On the other hand, the fermion field of the system we are interested in is a theory of two-component spinors and it is not Galilean invariant. A system of spinors, such as the one given in the effective long wavelength Hamiltonian of Eq., is defined with respect to a frame of orthonormal two-component vectors ${\bm e}^a$ (with $a=1,2$) tangent to the two-dimensional space. Microscopically these vectors are tied to the local geometry of the underlying two-dimensional lattice. Thus, under a lattice deformation (which includes local rotations), these local frames, which following tradition we will call zweibeins, accordingly change slowly.
Let us now suppose that we rotate the "spinor frame” of the fermion field, i.e. that we make a local change of basis of the spinors. A global change of basis with a rotation axis normal to the plane is a symmetry since it is equivalent to a rotation of the space axis. However spinor rotations about arbitrary axis and/or under a local change of basis, i.e. a change of the local frame, are not symmetries of the system. As a result of such transformations the system generally experiences a torque viscosity which is perpendicular to the axis of rotation. In what follows we will be interested in adiabatic changes in the frames of the spinors and in the Berry phase terms they induce.
We will now show that the coefficient $\chi(m)$ of the effective action of the nematic order parameter fields is related to the Hall viscosity in the QAH phase.[@avron1995; @Read-2009; @taylor; @vis] An excellent discussion of the Hall viscosity can be found in the recent work of Hughes, Leigh and Parrikar[@Hughes-2013] whose methods we use here.
In order to represent the local deformations of the space one couples the frames (the zweibiens) directly to the covariant derivative. However, in our case there is an orbital degree of freedom and an analog of a spin connection is required. The long-wavelength Lagrangian for the free fermions on the undistorted lattice is $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{L}=
\bar \psi_a (x) (i \gamma_0 \partial_0- \gamma_1(\partial_1^2-\partial_2^2)- \gamma_2 2 \partial_1 \partial_2+M_0 ) \psi_a(x)
\label{eq:QBT}\end{aligned}$$ In this Section we will discuss the behavior of the Hall viscosity and the Hall torque viscosity in the isotropic QAH in the $N \to \infty$ limit. In this limit, and in this phase, the nematic order parameter field has vanishing expectation value and does not contribute. However its fluctuations do contribute (to order $1/N$) to the corrections at small but finite momenta of these quantities.
By adding the background distortion connecting between real space (or momentum) and orbital space, the new Lagrangian, which now depends explicitly on the frame fields ${\bm e}^a(x)$, becomes $$\mathcal{L}=
\bar \psi_{\alpha} (x) \left( i \gamma_0 \partial_0 - T^{ij}_a e^a_k \gamma_k \partial_i \partial_j + M_0 \right)_{\alpha, \beta} \psi_{\beta}(x)
\label{eq:L-distorted}$$ where, $a=1,2$, $\alpha,\beta=1,2$, and $i, j, k=1,2$. As before, we have set $T_1= \sigma_z$ and $ T_2= \sigma_x$. The metric tensor of the 2D distorted space is $g_{ij}=e^a_i e^a_j$. For a system on a flat metric, i.e. an undistorted lattice, the frame vectors are $e^a_i=\delta^a_i$ and, in this case, $g_{ij}=\delta_{ij} $, and the Lagrangian of Eq. reduces to our original free fermion Lagrangian of Eq..
Here we will be interested in shear distortions and rotations, which are area-preserving diffeomorphisms. We can parametrize the frame fields ${\bm e}^a$ as follows $$e^1_1-1=-(e^2_2-1)=e_1,\qquad e^1_2=e^2_1=e_2
\label{eq:frame-change}$$ Under this distortion, the free-fermion Lagrangian becomes $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal L}=&\;
\bar \psi (x) \left( i \gamma_0 \partial_0 - \gamma_1 (\partial_1^2 - \partial_2^2) - \gamma_2 2 \partial_1 \partial_2 -M_0\right) \psi(x)
\nonumber\\
+& \; \bar \psi (x) \left(- e_1 \gamma_1 (\partial_1^2 - \partial_2^2)+e_1 \gamma_2 2 \partial_1 \partial_2 \right) \psi(x)
\nonumber\\
+& \; \bar \psi (x) \left(- e_2 \gamma_2 (\partial_1^2 - \partial_2^2) - e_2 \gamma_1 \partial_1 \partial_2 \right) \psi(x)
\label{eq:L-distorted-frames}\end{aligned}$$ where $e_1(x)$ and $e_2(x)$ are two slowly varying functions of space and time.
After integrating-out the fermion field, the effective theory of the frame fields ${\bm e}^a$ contains a parity-violating term which appears to the first order time derivatives. In momentum and frequency space it has the form $$\begin{aligned}
S_{\rm eff}[{\bm e}_i]=&\int \frac{d\omega}{2\pi} \frac{d^2p}{(2\pi)^2}\; i \eta({\bm p},\omega) \omega \; \epsilon^{ij} e_i ({\bm p},\omega) e_j (-{\bm p},-\omega)\nonumber\\
& +\ldots\end{aligned}$$ where $\eta({\bm p},\omega)$ is given by $$\eta({\bm p},\omega) =\frac{1}{i \omega} \epsilon^{ij} \frac{\delta^2 S}{ \delta e_i({\bm p},\omega) \delta e_j(-{\bm p},-\omega) }$$
In what follows we will only be interested in the adiabatic regime. Thus we will take the limit $\omega \to 0$. In this limit w can expand $\eta({\bm p},0)=\eta({\bm p})$ in powers of the momentum ${\bm p}$. In the isotropic QAH phase $\eta({\bm p})$ can only be a function of ${\bm p}^2$. To lowest orders we obtain $$\eta({\bm p})=\eta(0)+\eta_1 {\bm p}^2+ \eta_2 {\bm p}^4+\ldots
\label{eq:eta-expansion}$$ where ${\bm p}^4=({\bm p}^2)^2$, etc. For symmetry reasons, only powers even powers of the momentum are allowed to enter in this expansion.
On the other hand, in the nematic QAH insulating phase, in addition to an isotropic component of the form of Eq. there is an anisotropic piece. Close to the quantum critical point the anisotropic piece of the term quadratic in momenta is a linear function of the expectation value of the nematic order parameters and has the form (up to a constant prefactor) $(p_1^2-p_2^2)M_1+2p_1p_2 M_2$. Similar considerations apply to the higher order terms in the expansion in momenta.
The zeroth-order coefficient, $\eta(0)$, in Eq. is the Hall viscosity $\eta$, $$\begin{aligned}
\eta=&\int \frac{d^2k}{(2\pi)^2} \frac{m\; (k_1^2+k_2^2)^2}{(k_0^2-(k_1^2+k_2^2)^2-m^2-i\epsilon)^2} \nonumber\\
=&\frac{m}{16\pi} \ln\left(\frac{2\Lambda^2}{m}\right)-\frac{m}{16\pi}
\label{eq:eta0}\end{aligned}$$ which depends both on the magnitude [*and*]{} the sign of the mass $m$. Notice that the Hall viscosity, as expected, has units of $m$, or what is the same units of length$^{-2}$. The Hall viscosity $\eta=\eta(0)$ can also be computed from the correlation function of the stress tensor, $\langle T^a_iT^b_j \rangle$.[@taylor]
The coefficient $\eta_2$ for the term $O({\bm p}^4)$ in the expansion of Eq. is proportional to the coefficient $\chi(m)$ appearing in the Berry phase term in effective nematic theory, $$\begin{aligned}
\eta_2=&\; \epsilon^{ij} \frac{1}{i\omega}\frac{\delta^2 S}{ \delta [p^2 e_i(p)] \delta [p^2 e_j(-p)]}\nonumber\\
\propto &\; \int \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^3}\frac{m}{(k_0^2-(k_1^2+k_2^2)^2-m^2-i\epsilon)^2}
\end{aligned}$$ Hence we find that $$\begin{aligned}
\eta_2 \propto &\; \lim_{\omega \to 0} \lim_{ {\bm p} \to 0} \epsilon^{bc} \frac{1}{i\omega}\frac{\delta^2 S_{\rm eff}(\bm M)}{ \delta Q_{ab}(p) \delta Q_{ac}(-p)}\nonumber\\
=&\; \chi(m)\end{aligned}$$ Actually, the coefficient of the $p^2$ term of the expansion is proportional to the Hall conductance, $$\begin{aligned}
\eta_1=&\; \epsilon^{ij} \frac{1}{i\omega}\frac{\delta^2 S}{ \delta [p e_i(p)] \delta [p e_j(-p)]}\nonumber\\
\propto&\; \int \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^3} \frac{m \; (k_1^2+k_2^2)}{(k_0^2-(k_1^2+k_2^2)^2-m^2-i\epsilon)^2}
\end{aligned}$$ Hence, we also find that $$\begin{aligned}
\eta_1 \propto&\;\lim_{\omega \to 0} \lim_{ {\bm p} \to 0} \epsilon^{ij} \frac{1}{i\omega}\frac{\delta^2 S_{\rm eff}(\bm M)}{ \delta A_i (p) \delta A_j (-p)}\nonumber\\
=&\; \frac{1}{4}\sigma_{xy}\end{aligned}$$
Unlike the Hall conductivity, the Hall viscosity is not a topological response as it does depend on microscopic details of the fermionic system. Furthermore, if we were to include the nematic field in Eq., even in the isotropic phase its fluctuations to order $1/N$ modify the values of $\eta_1$ and $\eta_2$ but do not affect the value of the Hall viscosity $\eta$. In this sense, the relationship between $\chi $, $\sigma_{xy}$ and $\eta_1,\eta_2$ is not universal. Moreover, in the nematic phase the coefficients $\eta_1$ and $\eta_2$ become tensors, reflecting the nematic nature of the phase.
Now we come to the Hall torque viscosity. As in most (but not all) Chern insulators, the fermion field of the quadratic band crossing model is a two component spinor which labels the two different bands. In the case of the checkerboard model the spinor labels can be traced back to the two-sublattice structure of the lattice. Suppose we now rotate the “spinor frame” of the fermion by an SU(2) unitary transformation of the form $$\begin{aligned}
\Psi'_{\alpha} (x)=\left[e^{i (-\theta_2 \sigma_x + \theta_1 \sigma_z)}\right]_{\alpha \beta}\Psi_\beta(x)\end{aligned}$$ The rotation axis of this transformation lies on the $xz$ plane. Suppose now that we consider an infinitesimal rotation angle so that we can expand the rotation matrix to lowest order in $\theta$, $$\Psi'=\Omega \Psi, \qquad
\Omega=
\begin{pmatrix}
1-i\theta_2 & i\theta_1\\
i\theta_1 & 1+i\theta_2
\end{pmatrix}
\label{eq:spinor-rotation}$$ This is not a symmetry transformation of the Lagrangian. Indeed, upon this rotation of the spinor frame, the Lagrangian Eq. changes as follows $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{L}=&\;
\bar \psi' (x) (i \gamma_0 \partial_0- \gamma_1(\partial_1^2-\partial_2^2)- \gamma_2 2 \partial_1 \partial_2 -m ) \psi'(x) \nonumber\\
- \bar \psi'& (x) (\theta_1(\partial_1^2-\partial_2^2)+\theta_2 2 \partial_1 \partial_2+m\theta_1 \gamma_1 + m\theta_2 \gamma_2) \psi'(x)\end{aligned}$$ As we can see, the last two terms generated by a rotation of the spinor frame have exactly the same form as the nematic order parameter. in addition, the spinor rotation also mixes with the time reversal symmetry breaking mass term (albeit with terms which are quadratic in spatial derivatives).
It is straightforward to obtain the effective action for the spinor rotation angles in the adiabatic regime. Similarly to the calculation that we did for the Hall viscosity, here too we find an antisymmetric term which is first order in time derivatives, $$\mathcal{L}(\theta)= -\eta^s\epsilon^{ij} \theta_i \partial_0 \theta_j+\ldots$$ where $\eta_s$ is the torque viscosity and we find it to be $$\eta_s=-\frac{m}{16\pi} \ln\left(\frac{2\Lambda^2}{m}\right)+\frac{m}{8\pi}
\label{eq:torque-viscosity}$$ This result shows the existence of a dissipationless transport property, namely the Hall torque viscosity, which is the response of the action under an adiabatic rotation of the spinor frame.
By analogy with the stress-energy tensor for a metric distortion, here we can define the torque $\langle {\bm S} \rangle$ for the rotation of the spinor frame, $$\langle S_i \rangle=\frac{\delta S}{\delta \theta_i}=A^{ij} \partial_0 \theta_j +B^{ij} \theta_j + \ldots$$ The second term yields the linear response between the torque and the time derivative of the rotation angle (the angular velocity). The rank tensor $A^{ij}$ is the torque viscosity. In a time-reversal and parity invariant fluid, this viscosity tensor is symmetric, indicating the rotation entails an energy cost and, furthermore, in general it is a dissipative response. However, in a system of spinors with broken parity and time-reversal invariance, such as QAH phase of our system, the tensor $A^{ij}$ must have an antisymmetric part which is odd under parity. Thus, when we rotate the spinor frame in the QAH phase, there is a torque viscosity $\eta^s$, which is not parallel but perpendicular to the direction of the rotation. This dissipationless rotation response is a unique signature of parity-violating phase of a system with spinors degrees of freedom.
In Chern insulators, the spinor and orbital degrees of freedom are locked to each other. In the case of a Dirac (weyl) fermion, the spinor polarization is locked with the direction of propagation of the state (the momentum). In our case, the spinor polarization is locked instead with quadrupole moment of the momentum of the state. In this way, a rotation in spinor space induces a momentum current and vice versa.
A consequence of these observations is that there must be a relation between the Hall viscosity and Hall torque viscosity. To see what the relation is let us compare the stress tensor with the spinor torque. Let us compute the rate of change of the action under an infinitesimal change of the frame fields, parametrized by $e_1$ and $e_2$ respectively (defined in Eq.), and compare that with the torque. We obtain $$\begin{aligned}
T_{ij}+T_{ji}=&\frac{\delta S}{\delta e_1}=-\bar \psi (2 \partial_1\partial_2 \gamma_1+(\partial_1^2-\partial_2^2)\gamma_2) \psi\nonumber\\
T_{ii}-T_{jj}=&\frac{\delta S}{\delta e_2}=-\bar \psi (-2 \partial_1\partial_2 \gamma_2+(\partial_1^2-\partial_2^2)\gamma_1) \psi \end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
S_1=&\frac{\delta S}{\delta \theta_1}=\bar \psi ((\partial_1^2-\partial_2^2)+m \gamma_1) \psi \nonumber\\
S_2=&\frac{\delta S}{\delta \theta_2}=\bar \psi (2\partial_1 \partial_2+m \gamma_2) \psi \end{aligned}$$ After some simple algebra, it is easy to check the equivalence between spin rotation torque and the stress tensor, $$\begin{aligned}
T_{ij}+T_{ji}=&\; -(S_1 \gamma_2+S_2 \gamma_1)\nonumber\\
T_{ii}-T_{jj}=&\; -(S_1 \gamma_1-S_2 \gamma_2)\end{aligned}$$ As a result, if we subtract the antisymmetric parts from both the stress tensor correlator and of the torque correlator, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
- \left< \frac{\delta^2 S}{\delta \theta_1 \delta \theta_2} \right> + \left< \frac{\delta^2 S}{\delta M_1 \delta M_2} \right> = \left< \frac{\delta^2 S}{\delta e_1 \delta e_2}\right>
\label{eq:viscosity}\end{aligned}$$ This identity implies the following linear relation between Hall viscosity $\eta$, the Hall torque viscosity $\eta^s$, and the Berry phase $\chi$ coefficient in our effective theory, $$\begin{aligned}
-\eta^s+4\chi=\eta
\label{eq:relation}\end{aligned}$$ Thus, the Berry phase term that was obtained from the effective theory for the nematic order parameter field measures the difference of Hall viscosity and Hall torque viscosity. We should note that the expressions for $\chi$, $\eta$ and $\eta_s$ given, respectively, in Eqs. , and , obey this relation exactly.
The validity of these results are not restricted to the particular Chern insulator we studied here. The Hall torque viscosity is a universal property in all kinds of QAH phases. In systems in which the fermions arise from of several orbitals, the fermion operator in the effective action is a multi-component spinor. Suppose that the system has a non-vanishing Chern number, and hence that it is in a QAH state. If we rotate the spinor frame, the torque viscosity tensor, which is the linear response coefficient between torque and the angular velocity of the spinor rotation, must always include an antisymmetric part resulting from the parity violation in the fermion system.
As an example, let us choose the case of a Dirac (Weyl) fermion. Suppose we rotate the spinor frame in a similar way as in Eq.. After this rotation which, again is not a symmetry transformation, the Lagrangian changes to $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{L}=\;
&\bar \psi'(x) (i \gamma_0 p_0- \gamma_1p_1- \gamma_2 p_2-m) \psi'(x)\nonumber\\
+\; &\bar \psi'(x)(\theta_1 p_1+\theta_2 p_2+m\theta_1 \gamma_1 + m\theta_2 \gamma_2) \psi'(x)\end{aligned}$$ In the case of a Dirac (weyl) fermion the rotation metric couples both with the current and momentum. If we integrate-out the fermion, we would also get a Hall torque viscosity term $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{L}(\theta)=
\frac{(-m \Lambda+4m^2)}{8\pi} \epsilon^{ij} \theta_i \partial_0 \theta_j+\ldots\end{aligned}$$ For a Dirac fermion, the spin is locked with linear momentum. Therefore, the equivalence between a spinor rotation and momentum current is expected and, hence, there is a similar relation between Hall viscosity and Hall torque viscosity.
Conclusions {#sec:conclusions}
===========
In this paper we presented a theory of the Mott quantum anomalous Hall state in the vicinity of its transition to a nematic QAH state. Our theory was developed in the context of a theory of spinless fermions which, at the free fermion level has a quadratic band crossing. A main result of this work is the effective field theory of Sections \[sec:1/N\] and \[sec:nematic-effective-action\] in which we derived the effective action for the hydrodynamic gauge fields $a_\mu$ and $b_\mu$ (which represent the charge currents) and the nematic order parameter field ${\bm M}$. The gauge theory sector is dominated by two topological terms, the BF term and the Chern-Simons term. The effective action of the nematic fields was found to contain a Berry phase term whose parity and time-reversal odd coefficient $\chi$ controls the dynamics. In particular the effective dynamical exponent of the nematic fields is $z=2$, consistent with the results of Maciejko [*et al*]{} developed in the context of the fractional quantum Hall states.[@Maciejko-2013] We also found that the nematic fields couple to the gauge field $a_\mu$ as a spatial metric. Our results clarify the role of geometric degrees of freedom in systems that exhibit the quantum Hall effect. We expect that these results should also apply to the case of the fractional quantum Hall effect and we will discuss these results elsewhere.[@You-2013]
In this work we considered the transition from the QAH phase to a nematic QAH phase (which is a continuous transition). It is is also possible to instead consider different regime of coupling constants in which the leading instability from the QBC is to a nematic semi-metal followed by a first order transition to the nematic QAH.[@kai] However in this case the theory that we presented here does not strictly apply since the transition would now be first order. Nevertheless the structure of our main results will still hold. A direct instability from the free QBC system to a nematic QAH phase does not seem to occur naturally.
In Section \[sec:torque-viscosity\] we investigated the relation between the coefficient $\chi$ of the Berry phase of the nematic fields and the Hall viscosity $\eta$ of the spinors, which measures the transverse response to a local change of the spinor frame. Here we found that the complete picture requires the introduction of the concept of the torque Hall viscosity $\eta_s$, which is related to the fact that for s system of spinors a deformation of the underlying space requires the introduction of a spin connection. This effect is associated with the kinematics of spinors. Although it is always present multi-component fermionic systems, it takes a different form for Dirac fermions and in this model with a quadratic band crossing (with unit Chern number). In particular we found that these three coefficients obey a universal linear relation given in Eq.. Nevertheless these features are generic properties.
Our results are of interest in several systems accessible to experiment. One such system is bilayer graphene, which has two (almost exact) quadratic band crossings in the Brillouin zone. They are almost exact in that their quadratic band crossing is not protected by symmetry. However it is “protected” by the chemistry (and physics) of the orbitals of carbon which renders their parity-even gaps extremely small (and negligible in practice). This is a point that has been investigated at length in the literature.[@Nandkishore2010; @Vafek2010; @Lemonik2012] However in the case of bilayer graphene it is necessary to include the spin degrees of freedom (which we suppressed here). This leads to a more complex (and interesting!) phase diagram[@kai; @Vafek2010; @Vafek2010b] which deserves further exploration.
In the transport experiments of Xia [*et al.*]{}[@Xia-2010] on the 2DEG in the first Landau level a large nematic susceptibility is seen in the longitudinal resistivities at finite temperature with a weak in-plane magnetic field. The results presented elsewhere in this paper predict a similar behavior for the longitudinal resistivity at finite temperature in the QAH-nematic phase.
Other systems of great interest for which these results may be relevant are the topological crystalline insulators.[@Fu2011] Systems of these type have surface states (protected by mirror symmetry) which to a good approximation are described (at the level of the band structure) by a low-energy Hamiltonian with two quadratic band crossings. In materials such as Pb$_{1-x}$Sn$_x$Se and Pb$_{1-x}$Sn$_x$Te, these crossings which are expected to occur at the $X$ points on the edges of the surface Brillouin zone have been seen in ARPES and STM experiments.[@Hsieh2012; @Hasan2012; @Story2012; @Hasan2013; @Yazdani2013] However each quadratic crossing is found to be split into a pair of gapless Dirac cones. Although there are materials-specific symmetry breaking effects that can explain these findings,[@Fang2012] it is also possible that the splittings may be driven by correlation effects, as in the case of the nematic semimetal phase discussed in Ref.\[\]. Nevertheless it is possible that these materials (or a close relative of them) may also exhibit a spontaneous quantum anomalous Hall phase such as the one discussed here (based on the work of Ref.\[\]) and that the physics that we discussed here in detail may apply there too. Other materials in which these ideas may be relevant are the pyrochlore iridates.[@Yang2010; @Wan-2011; @Witczak-Krempa2012]
One of the motivations of this work, as we stated above, was to explore the interplay between the topological sector of these systems and the more microscopic “geometric” degrees of freedom. This issue was raised originally in the context of the experiments of Xia [*et al.*]{} in fractional quantum Hall states in the first Landau level of the 2DEG[@Xia-2010] and has motivated several important theoretical developments.[@chetan; @Mulligan-2011; @Haldane-2011; @Maciejko-2013] Much of that work (see, e.g. Ref.\[\]) has focused on the role of geometric changes at the microscopic level (i.e. at the length scale of the magnetic length). However, as we showed in this paper these “geometric” degrees of freedom can be self-organized into nematic order parameter fields whose fluctuations may manifest at even long length scales and hence may trigger a quantum phase transition of a nematic topological phase. In a separate publication[@You-2013] we will show how the ideas presented here extend to the case of the 2DEG in the fractional quantum Hall regime.
We would like to thanks Kai Sun, Taylor Hughes, Rob Leigh, Joseph Maciejko, Mike Mulligan, Chetan Nayak, Steve Kivelson, Benjamin Hsu, Shivaji Sondhi, Chen Fang, Gil Cho and Matthew Gilbert for helpful discussions. Y-Z would like to thank Bo Yang for intuitive advice. This work is supported in part by the National Science Foundation through the grant DMR-1064319 at the University of Illinois.
The calculation of the effective gauge theory {#app:effective-gauge-theory}
=============================================
To obtain the effective action of the gauge fields $S[a_\mu]$ we need to compute the one loop self-energy diagrams shown in Fig.\[fig:bubble\] and Fig.\[fig:penguin\]
Let $G(p)$ be the fermion propagator of the quadratic band dispersion Chern insulator with mass $m$, i.e. in the isotropic QAH phase given in Eq. with $\bm{M}=0$, we can write the one-loop correction to the action $S^{(2)}[a_\mu]$ of the gauge fields in the standard form $$S^{(2)}[a_\mu]=\frac{N}{2}\int \frac{d^3p}{(2\pi)^3} a_{\mu}(-p) \Pi_{\mu \nu}(p) a_{\nu}(p)$$ $\Pi_{\mu \nu}(p)$ is the polarization operator which is the sum of two contributions: $$\Pi_{\mu \nu}(p)=\Pi^{(1)}_{\mu \nu}(p)+\Pi^{(2)}_{\mu \nu}(p)$$ $\Pi_{\mu \nu}^{(1)}(p)$ is the diagram shown in Fig.\[fig:bubble\] and is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\Pi_{\mu \nu}^{(1)} &(p) =\nonumber\\
=i &\int \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^3} \textrm{tr}\Big[G_0(p+k) \mathcal{J}_{\mu}(2k+p) G_0(k) \mathcal{J}_{\nu}(2k+p)\Big]
\label{eq:pI1}\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{J}_0(2k+p)=&\gamma_0 \\
\mathcal{J}_1(2k+p)=& \gamma_1 (2k_1+p_1)+\gamma_2 (2k_2+p_2)\\
\mathcal{J}_2(2k+p)=&- \gamma_1 (2k_2+p_2)+ \gamma_2 (2k_1+p_1)\end{aligned}$$ So the polarization tensor $\Pi_{\mu \nu}^{(1)} (p)$ has the expression,
$$\begin{aligned}
\Pi_{\mu \nu}^{(1)} (p)
=i \int \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^3} \textrm{tr}\Big[&
\frac{(p_0+k_0) \gamma_0-((p_1+k_1)^2-(p_2+k_2)^2)\gamma_1-2(p_1+k_1)(p_2+k_2)\gamma_2+m}{(p_0+k_0)^2-((p_1+k_1)^2+(p_2+k_2)^2)^2-m^2-i\epsilon}\\\nonumber
\times & \mathcal{J}_{\mu}(2k+p) \frac{k_0 \gamma_0-(k_1^2-k_2^2)\gamma_1-2k_1k_2\gamma_2+m}{k_0^2-(k_1^2+k_2^2)^2-m^2-i\epsilon} \mathcal{J}_{\nu}(2k+p)\Big]\end{aligned}$$
As we only concern the long wave length behavior, we expand momentum p in $G_0(p+k)$ by order and only keeps $O(p^2)$.
$\Pi_{\mu \nu}^{(2)}(p)$ is given by the diagram shown in Fig.\[fig:penguin\] and is given by $$\Pi_{\mu \nu}^{(2)}(p)=- i \int \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^3} \textrm{tr}[G_0(k) \bm{T}_{ij}] \\
\label{eq:Pi2}$$ where $G_0(p)$ is the Feynman propagator of the isotropic QAH phase given in Eq., and $$\begin{aligned}
T_{11}=&\gamma_1,&
T_{22}=&-\gamma_1\nonumber\\
T_{12}=&\gamma_2,&
T_{21}=&\gamma_2
\label{eq:Tij}\end{aligned}$$ In Eq. the indices $\mu,\nu=i,j$ act only on the spatial components. Here we have to trace over all the matrix indices involved. Since there is either $\gamma_1$ or $\gamma_2$ in the expression for $T_{ij}$ (see Eq.), the only non-vanishing contribution to the trace of $$G_0(k)=\frac{k_0 \gamma_0-(k_1^2-k_2^2)\gamma_1-2k_1k_2\gamma_2+m}{k_0^2-(k_1^2+k_2^2)^2-m^2-i\epsilon}$$ should also include $\gamma_1$ or $\gamma_2$. However, these contributions have factors of $k^2_1-k^2_2$ or $k_1 k_2$ in the numerator and hence cancel out we perform the after momentum integration. Thus we have $$\Pi_{\mu \nu}^{(2)}(p)=0$$
The full one-loop polarization $\Pi_{\mu \nu}(p)$ is explicitly transverse. The resulting action $S[a_\mu]$ is gauge-invariant and is a sum of a parity-odd Chern-Simons term and a parity-even Maxwell term. The proof of gauge invariance is presented in Appendix \[app:proof\].
To obtain the leading coupling between nematic field and gauge field $S[a_\mu,\bm{M}]$, we need to calculate three-leg one-loop diagrams shown in Fig.\[fig:bubble+nematic\] a and b.
$$\begin{aligned}
S[a_\mu,\bm{M}]=& \\ \nonumber
=\frac{N}{3}\int &\frac{d^3p}{(2\pi)^3} \Pi_{\mu \nu, i}(p_1,p_2) a_{\mu}(-p_1-p_2) a_{\nu}(p_1) M_{i} (p_2)\end{aligned}$$
There are two diagrams with non vanishing value, so $\Pi_{\mu \nu ,i}$ are composed of two parts which are included in Fig.\[fig:bubble+nematic\] a and b, $$\Pi_{\mu \nu, i}(p_1,p_2) =\Pi_{\mu \nu,i}^{(1)}(p_1,p_2) +\Pi_{\mu \nu ,i} ^{(2)}(p_1)$$ where $p_1$ and $p_2$ are, respectively, the energy-momenta of the gauge field $a_\nu$ and of the nematic field $M_i$. Notice that $\Pi_{\mu \nu ,i} ^{(2)}(p_1)$ is only defined for $\mu, \nu=1,2$.
The one-loop three-legged diagram of Fig.\[fig:bubble+nematic\] a is
$$\Pi_{\mu \nu ,i}^{(1)}=-i\int \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^3} \textrm{tr}[G_0 (k-p_2)\mathcal{J}_{\mu}(2k-p_2+p_1)
G_0(k+p_1) \mathcal{J}_{\nu}(2k+p_1) G_0(k) \gamma_{i}]$$
Note here greek symbol index labels the gauge field while latin symbol index labels the nematic field. The latin symbols only run for spatial index. The one-loop diagram of Fig.\[fig:bubble+nematic\]b has the expression (for $\mu=j$ and $\nu=k$) $$\Pi_{j k ,i} ^{(2)}(p_2) =i\int \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^3} \; \textrm{tr}[G_0(-p_2+k) T_{jk} G_0(k) \gamma_{i}]$$ where $T_{jk}$ is given in Eq..
Here we expand the momentum $p_i$ by order and found the leading coupling term is the interplay between the nematic field and Maxwell term which is parity even. This is quite obvious. Since the gauge field enters quadratically in these diagrams, the leading gauge-invariant terms can only be the Chern-Simons term and Maxwell term. Since this theory is not Lorentz invariant, terms like $B \nabla \cdot E$ are allowed. We can ignore them as they are of higher order in derivatives than the Maxwell term. The Chern-Simons term is topological and as such it does not depend on the metric of the space-time. Thus, the only most relevant coupling should be the Maxwell term. This can also be seen from the polarization tensor.
If we expand derivatives of nematic field $p_2$ in the polarization tensor by order, to the $O(1)$ order, we have
$$\begin{aligned}
\Pi_{\mu \nu ,i}^{(1)}(p_1)&=-i\int \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^3} \textrm{tr}\Big[G_0 (k)\mathcal{J}_{\mu}(2k+p_1)
G_0(k+p_1) \mathcal{J}_{\nu}(2k+p_1) G_0(k) \gamma_{i}\Big] \\\nonumber
&=-i\int \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^3} \textrm{tr}\Big[\mathcal{J}_{\mu}(2k+p_1)
G_0(k+p_1) \mathcal{J}_{\nu}(2k+p_1) G_0(k) \gamma_{i} G_0 (k)\Big] \end{aligned}$$
If it is odd in $p_1$, the first terms in the products $$\mathcal{J}_{\mu}(2k+p_1) G_0(k+p_1) \mathcal{J}_{\nu}(2k+p_1) G_0(k)$$ being even and symmetric in the momentum $k$, should include a Levi-Civita tensor. In this sense, to obtain a non-vanishing value after trace, the $\gamma_{i} G_0 (k)$ term should not contribute any Gamma matrix. As a result, it would involve with $k_1^2-k_2^2$ which make the whole polarization tensor vanish after integration.
Upon expanding in derivatives of the nematic field $p_2$ to the $O(p_2)$ order, we have,
$$\begin{aligned}
\Pi_{\mu \nu ,i}^{(1)}=&-i\int \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^3} \textrm{tr}[G_0 (k)\mathcal{J}_{\mu}(-p_2)
G_0(k+p_1) \mathcal{J}_{\nu}(2k+p_1) G_0(k) \gamma_{i}] \nonumber \\
&-i\int \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^3} \textrm{tr}[\frac{F(p_2,k)}{k_0^2-(k_1^2+k_2^2)^2-m^2-i\epsilon} \mathcal{J}_{\mu}(2k+p_1)
G_0(k+p_1) \mathcal{J}_{\nu}(2k+p_1) G_0(k) \gamma_{i}]
\label{eq:Pimunui1}\end{aligned}$$
Here $F(p_2,k)$ is a function which is linear in $p_2$ and odd in $k$.
If it is odd in $p_1$, the second term of Eq. $$\mathcal{J}_{\mu}(2k+p_1) G_0(k+p_1) \mathcal{J}_{\nu}(2k+p_1) G_0(k)$$ includes a Levi-civita tensor and is even and symmetric in $k$. However, $F(p_2,k)$ is odd in $k$ and the integral vanishes. For the first term of Eq., if $\mu=0$, $\mathcal{J}_{0}(-p_2) $ does not depend on $p_2$, this term is still of zeroth-order in $p_2$, and vanishes as we showed before. Otherwise, if it is odd in $p_1$, it is also odd in $k$ and the integral vanishes. Thus, to lowest order, there is no parity-odd coupling between the nematic field ${\bm M}$ and the gauge field $a_\mu$.
The calculation of the effective nematic action {#app:effective-action-nematic}
===============================================
The only one-loop diagram that contributes is the self-energy of the effective field theory of the nematic order parameter is shown in Fig.\[fig:nematic-self-energy\] and it is given by the expression
$$\begin{aligned}
S_{\rm eff}(\bm M)&=-\frac {N}{2}\int d^3x d^3y \; \textrm{tr} \left(G_{0}(x-y) {\bm \gamma} \cdot {\bm M}(y) G_{0}(y-x) {\bm \gamma} \cdot {\bm M}(x)\right) -\int d^3x \; \frac {N}{2g} {\bm M}^2(x)\nonumber \\
&= -\frac {N}{2} \int \frac{d^3 p}{(2\pi)^3} M_{i}(-p)\Gamma_{ij}(p) M_{j}(p) -\frac{N}{2g} \int \frac{d^3p}{(2\pi)^3} |{\bm M}(p)|^2\end{aligned}$$
where $\Gamma_{ij}(p)$ is the one-loop kernel $$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma_{ij}(p) =&\int \frac{d^3 k}{(2\pi)^3} \textrm{tr}(\gamma_{i} G_{0}(p+k)\gamma_{j} G_{0}(k)) \\\nonumber
=&\epsilon^{ij} p_0 \int \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^3} \frac{m}{(k_0^2-(k_1^2+k_2^2)^2-m^2-i\epsilon)^2}
+\delta_{ij}\int \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^3} \frac{m^2-k_0^2}{(k_0^2-(k_1^2+k_2^2)^2-m^2-i\epsilon)^2} +O(p^2)\end{aligned}$$
The first term is odd in the frequency $p_0$ and contributes to the Berry phase term. The second term, which is even in the frequency $p_0$, contributes to the mass term of the nematic order parameter field and thus contains the information of the critical coupling constant for the quantum phase transition to the nematic phase.
![One-loop self energy diagram for the nematic order parameter field.[]{data-label="fig:nematic-self-energy"}](fig3.eps){width="40.00000%"}
Short proof on gauge invariance of the polarization tensor {#app:proof}
==========================================================
To verify the gauge invariance of the effective field theory we sketch here a proof on the gauge invariance of the polarization tensor. For the one-loop gauge field self-energy diagrams shown in Figs.\[fig:bubble\] and \[fig:penguin\]. For gauge invariance to hold the polarization tensor should obey the transversality (conservation) condition $$\begin{aligned}
\Pi_{\mu \nu} p^{\nu}=0\end{aligned}$$
Since the theory we start with is not Lorentz-invariant, the polarization tensor here decomposes into two parts, one of which, called $\Pi_{\mu \nu}^{(1)}$, comes from the linear terms of the gauge field $a_\mu$ of the Lagrangian, while $\Pi_{\mu \nu}^{(2)}$ comes from the terms which are quadratic in this gauge field, $$\begin{aligned}
\Pi_{\mu \nu} =\Pi_{\mu \nu}^{(1)} +\Pi_{\mu \nu}^{(2)} \end{aligned}$$ We already showed in appendix A that the second piece vanishes, $\Pi_{\mu \nu}^{(2)}=0.$ Hence, we only have to prove that $$\Pi_{\mu \nu}^{(1)} p^{\nu}=0$$ Explicitly the left-hand-side of this equation is equal to $$\begin{aligned}
\Pi_{\mu \nu}&p^{\nu}=\nonumber\\
=&\; \textrm{tr}\Big[ \int \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^3} G_0 (p+k) \mathcal{J}_{\mu}(2k+p) G_0 (k) \mathcal{J}_{\nu}(2k+p) p_{\nu}\Big] \nonumber\\
&
\label{eq:Pimunu-transversality1}\end{aligned}$$ Using the following Ward identity (whose validity is elementary to check) $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{J}_{\nu}(2k+p) p^{\nu} =&\; p_0 \gamma_0 +(p_1^2-p_1^2+2p_1k_1-2p_2k_2) \gamma_1
\nonumber\\
&+ 2(p_1p_2+p_1k_2+p_2k_1)\gamma_2\nonumber\\
=&\; G_0^{-1} (p+k) -G_0^{-1}(k)\end{aligned}$$ we can write Eq. in the form
$$\begin{aligned}
\Pi_{\mu \nu}p^{\nu} =&=\textrm{tr}\Big[\int \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^3} G_0 (p+k) \mathcal{J}_{\mu}(2k+p) G_0 (k) (G_0^{-1} (p+k) -G_0^{-1}(k) )\Big] \nonumber\\
&=\textrm{tr}\Big[\int \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^3} G_0 (p+k) \mathcal{J}_{\mu}(2k+p) \Big]
-\textrm{tr}\Big[\int \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^3} G_0 (k) \mathcal{J}_{\mu}(2k+p) \Big]\end{aligned}$$
For $\mu=0$, $\mathcal{J}_{0}=\gamma_0$, we find $$\begin{aligned}
\textrm{tr}\Big[\int \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^3} G_0 (p+k) \gamma_{0}\Big]-\textrm{tr}\Big[\int \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^3} G_0 (k) \gamma_{0}\Big]=0\end{aligned}$$ and for $\mu=1$, we get $$\begin{aligned}
\textrm{tr}\Big[\int \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^3} G_0 (p+k) \mathcal{J}_{\mu}(2k+p)\Big]-\textrm{tr}\Big[\int \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^3} G_0 (k) \mathcal{J}_{\mu}(2k+p)\Big]
&=-\textrm{tr}\Big[\int \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^3} G_0 (p+k) (p_x \gamma_1+p_y \gamma_2) \Big]\nonumber\\
&=-\textrm{tr}\Big[\int \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^3} G_0 (k) (p_x \gamma_1+p_y \gamma_2) \Big]
=0\end{aligned}$$ Similarly, for $\mu=2$ we also get $$\begin{aligned}
\textrm{tr}\Big[\int \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^3} G_0 (p+k) \mathcal{J}_{\mu}(2k+p)\Big]
-\textrm{tr}\Big[\int \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^3} G_0 (k) \mathcal{J}_{\mu}(2k+p)\Big]
&=-\textrm{tr}\Big[\int \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^3} G_0 (p+k) (-p_y \gamma_1+p_x \gamma_2) \Big]\nonumber\\
&=-\textrm{tr}\Big[\int \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^3} G_0 (k) (-p_y \gamma_1+p_x \gamma_2) \Big]
=0\end{aligned}$$
Thus the polarization tensor of the gauge field $a_\mu$, the one-loop diagram of Fig.\[fig:bubble\], is transverse and, hence, the action of $a_\mu$ is gauge invariant.
We now turn to the gauge invariance of the coupling between the gauge field $a_\mu$ and the nematic order parameter field ${\bm M}$. The lowest order contribution to this coupling in the $1/N$ expansion is given by the Feynman diagrams shown in Fig.\[fig:bubble+nematic\] a and Fig.\[fig:bubble+nematic\] b. These diagrams contribute to the effective action in the form $$\begin{aligned}
&S[a_\mu,\bm{M}]\\\nonumber
&=\frac{N}{3}\int \frac{d^3p}{(2\pi)^3} \Pi_{\mu \nu i}(p_1,p_2) a_{\mu}(-p_1-p_2) a_{\nu}(p_1) M_{i}(p_2)\end{aligned}$$ Invariance under a gauge transformation $a_{\mu}+\partial_{\mu} \theta$ requires that this new polarization tensor, $\Pi_{\mu \nu i}(p_1,p_2)$, should obey the following rule $$\begin{aligned}
&\Pi_{\mu \nu, i}^{1}(p_1,p_2) p_1^{\nu} a_{\mu}(-p_1-p_2) M_{i}(p_2) \nonumber\\
&+\Pi_{\tau \sigma ,j}^{1}(p_1,p_2) (-p_1^{\tau}-p_2^{\tau}) a_{\sigma}(p_1) M_{j}(p_2) \nonumber\\
&+\Pi_{\alpha \beta, k}^{2}(p_1,p_2) (-p_1^\alpha-p_2^\alpha) T_{\alpha \beta} a_{\beta} (p_1) M_{k}(p_2) \nonumber\\
&+\Pi_{\alpha \beta ,k}^{2}(p_1,p_2) p_{1}^\beta T_{\alpha \beta} a_{\alpha} (-p_{1}-p_{2}) M_{k}(p_2)=0\end{aligned}$$ where $\Pi_{\mu \nu, i}^{1}(p_1,p_2)$ is given by
$$\begin{aligned}
\Pi^{1}_{\mu \nu ,i}(p_1,p_2) p_1^{\nu}
&=\textrm{tr}\Big[\int \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^3} G_0 (k-p_2) \mathcal{J}_{\mu}G_0 (k+p_1) \mathcal{J}_{\nu} p_{\nu} G_0 (k) \gamma_{i}\Big]
\nonumber\\
&=\textrm{tr}\Big[\int \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^3} G_0 (k-p_2) \mathcal{J}_{\mu}G_0 (k+p_1) (G_0^{-1} (k+p_1)-G_0^{-1} (k))G_0 (k) \gamma_{i}\Big]\nonumber\\
&=\textrm{tr}\Big[\int \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^3} G_0 (k-p_2) \mathcal{J}_{\mu}G_0 (k) \gamma_{i}\Big]
-\textrm{tr}\Big[\int \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^3} G_0 (k-p_2) \mathcal{J}_{\mu} G_0 (k+p_1) \gamma_{i}\Big]\end{aligned}$$
For $\mu=0$, $\mathcal{J}_0=\gamma_0$, we get $$\begin{aligned}
\Pi^{1}_{\mu \nu,i}(p_1,p_2) p_1^{\nu}
&=\textrm{tr}\Big[\int \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^3} G_0 (k-p_2) \gamma_0 G_0 (k) \gamma_{i}\Big]
-\textrm{tr}\Big[\int \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^3} G_0 (k-p_2) \gamma_0 G_0 (k+p_1) \gamma_{i}\Big]\nonumber\\
&=\textrm{tr}\Big[\int \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^3} G_0 (k-p_2) \gamma_0 G_0 (k) \gamma_{i}\Big]
-\textrm{tr}\Big[\int \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^3} G_0 (k-p_2) \gamma_0 G_0 (k+p_1) \gamma_{i}\Big]\nonumber\\
&=\textrm{tr}\Big[\int \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^3} G_0 (k-p_2) \gamma_0 G_0 (k) \gamma_{i}\Big]
-\textrm{tr}\Big[\int \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^3} G_0 (k-p_2-p_1) \gamma_0 G_0 (k) \gamma_{i}\Big]\end{aligned}$$
Likewise, for $\sigma=0$, $\mathcal{J}_0=\gamma_0$, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\Pi^{1}_{\tau \sigma,j}(p_1,p_2) (-p_{1}^\tau-p_{2}^\tau )
&=\textrm{tr}\Big[\int \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^3} G_0 (k-p_2) \mathcal{J}_{\tau} p_{\tau} G_0 (k+p_1) \mathcal{J}_{\sigma} G_0 (k) \gamma_{j}\Big]\nonumber\\
&=\textrm{tr}\Big[\int \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^3} G_0 (k-p_2) (G_0^{-1} (k-p_2)
-G_0^{-1} (k+p_1)) G_0 (k+p_1) \mathcal{J}_{\sigma} G_0 (k) \gamma_{j}\Big]\nonumber\\
&=\textrm{tr}\Big[\int \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^3} G_0 (k+p_1) \mathcal{J}_{\nu} G_0 (k) \gamma_{j}\Big]
-\textrm{tr}\Big[\int \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^3} G_0 (k-p_2) \mathcal{J}_{\sigma} G_0 (k) \gamma_{j}\Big]\end{aligned}$$ Hence $$\Pi^{1}_{\tau \sigma ,j}(p_1,p_2) (-p_{1}^\tau-p_{2}^\tau )
=\textrm{tr}\Big[\int \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^3} G_0 (k+p_1) \gamma_0 G_0 (k) \gamma_{j}\Big]
-\textrm{tr}\Big[\int \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^3} G_0 (k-p_2) \gamma_0 G_0 (k) \gamma_{j}\Big]$$ It is easy to check that for each $\nu=\tau$, $\mu=\sigma=0$, $$\Pi^{1}_{\mu \nu ,i}(p_1,p_2) p_1^{\nu} a_{\mu}(-p_1-p_2) M_{i}(p_2)
=-\Pi^{1}_{\tau \sigma ,j}(p_1,p_2) (-p_{1}^\tau-p_{2}^\tau ) a_{\sigma}(p_1) M_{j}(p_2).$$
For $\mu=1$ we get $$\begin{aligned}
\Pi^{1}_{\mu \nu, i}(p_1,p_2) p_1^{\nu}
&=\textrm{tr}\Big[\int \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^3} G_0 (k-p_2) \mathcal{J}_1(2k-p_2+p_1) G_0 (k) \gamma_{i}\Big] \nonumber\\
&-\textrm{tr}\Big[ \int \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^3} G_0 (k-p_2) \mathcal{J}_1(2k-p_2+p_1) G_0 (k+p_1) \gamma_{i}\Big]
\nonumber\\
&=\textrm{tr}\Big[\int \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^3} G_0 (k-p_2) \mathcal{J}_1(2k-p_2+p_1) G_0 (k) \gamma_{i}\Big]
\nonumber\\
& -\textrm{tr}\Big[\int \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^3} G_0 (k-p_2-p_1) \mathcal{J}_1(2k-p_2-p_1) G_0 (k) \gamma_{i}\Big]
\nonumber\\
&=\textrm{tr}\Big[\int \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^3} G_0 (k-p_2) \mathcal{J}_1(2k-p_2) G_0 (k) \gamma_{i}\Big]
+\textrm{tr}\Big[\int \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^3} G_0 (k-p_2) \mathcal{J}_1(p_1) G_0 (k) \gamma_{i}\Big]
\nonumber\\
& -\textrm{tr}\Big[\int \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^3} G_0 (k-p_2-p_1) \mathcal{J}_1(2k-p_2-p_1) G_0 (k) \gamma_{i}\Big]\end{aligned}$$ and for $\sigma=1$, $$\begin{aligned}
\Pi^{1}_{\tau \sigma ,j}(p_1,p_2) (-p_{1}^\tau-p_{2}^\tau )
=& \:\textrm{tr}\Big[\int \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^3} G_0 (k+p_1) \mathcal{J}_1(2k+p_1) G_0 (k) \gamma_{j}]
-\textrm{tr}\Big[\int \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^3} G_0 (k-p_2) \mathcal{J}_1(2k+p_1) G_0 (k) \gamma_{j} \Big]\nonumber\\
=& \: \textrm{tr}[ \int \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^3} G_0 (k+p_1) \mathcal{J}_1(2k+p_1) G_0 (k) \gamma_{j} \Big] \nonumber\\
&-\textrm{tr}\Big[\int \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^3} G_0 (k-p_2) \mathcal{J}_1(2k-p_2+p_2+p_1) G_0 (k) \gamma_{j} \Big]\nonumber\\
=& \; \textrm{tr}\Big[\int \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^3} G_0 (k+p_1) \mathcal{J}_1(2k+p_1) G_0 (k) \gamma_{j} \Big]
-\textrm{tr}\Big[ \int \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^3} G_0 (k-p_2) \mathcal{J}_1(2k-p_2) G_0 (k) \gamma_{j} \Big] \nonumber\\
&+\textrm{tr} \Big[ \int \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^3} G_0 (k-p_2) \mathcal{J}_1(-p_2-p_1) G_0 (k) \gamma_{j} \Big]\end{aligned}$$
After some algebra, it could be checked that the rest terms after a gauge transformation are, $$\begin{aligned}
\Pi^{1}_{1 \nu, i}(p_1,p_2) p_1^{\nu} a_{1}(-p_1-p_2) M_{i}(p_2)
&+\Pi^{1}_{\tau 1 ,i}(p_1,p_2) (-p_{1}^\tau-p_{2}^\tau ) a_{1}(p_1) M_{i}(p_2) \nonumber\\
&=2 \; \textrm{tr} \Big[\int \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^3} G_0 (k-p_2)
\mathcal{J}_1(-p_2-p_1) G_0 (k) \gamma_{i}\Big] a_{1}(p_1) M_{i}(p_2)\end{aligned}$$
This contribution is cancelled by the “tadpole+nematic” diagram of Fig.\[fig:bubble+nematic\] b. Indeed, up to a gauge transformation, the extra terms generated in this diagram are $$\begin{aligned}
\Pi_{\alpha 1 ,k}^{2}(p_1,p_2) (-p_{1}^{\alpha}-p_{2}^{\alpha}) T_{\alpha 1} a_1 (p_1) M_{k}(p_2)
&+\Pi_{1 \beta ,k}^{2}(p_1,p_2) p_{1}^{\beta } T_{1 \beta } a_1 (-p_{1}-p_{2}) M_{k}(p_2)\nonumber \\
&=-2\; \textrm{tr} \Big[ \int \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^3} G_0 (k-p) (\gamma_1 p'_x+\gamma_2 p'_y) G_0 (k) \gamma_{k} \Big] a_{1}(-p-p' ) M_{k}(p)\nonumber\\
&=-2 \; \textrm{tr}\Big[\int \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^3} G_0 (k-p) \mathcal{J}_1(p') G_0 (k) \gamma_{k} \Big] a_{1}(-p-p' ) M_{k}(p)\end{aligned}$$ which exactly cancels the offending terms.
In the case of the three-legged diagram which defines the tensor $\Pi^{1}_{2\nu, i}(p_1,p_2)$ we also obtain the same condition for $\mu=\sigma=2$. The remaining terms, after a gauge transformation, are $$\begin{aligned}
\Pi^{1}_{2\nu, i}(p_1,p_2) p_1^{\nu} a_{2}(-p_1-p_2) M_{i}(p_2)
&+\Pi^{1}_{\tau 2, i}(p_1,p_2) (-p_{1}^\tau-p_{2}^\tau ) a_{2}(p_1) M_{i}(p_2)\nonumber\\
&=2 \;\textrm{tr}[\int \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^3} G_0 (k-p_2)
\mathcal{J}_{2}(-p_2-p_1) G_0 (k) \gamma_{i}] a_{2}(p_1) M_{i}(p_2)\end{aligned}$$ This contribution is canceled by the extra terms in the tadpole+nematic diagram, Fig.\[fig:bubble+nematic\] b, after the gauge transformation $$\begin{aligned}
-2\; \textrm{tr}\Big[ \int \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^3} G_0 (k-p) (\gamma_2 p'_x-\gamma_1 p'_y) G_0 (k) \gamma_{k}\Big] a_{2}(p' )& M_{k}(p)
=\nonumber\\
&=-2\; \textrm{tr}\Big[\int \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^3} G_0 (k-p) \mathcal{J}_2(p') G_0 (k) \gamma_{k} \Big] a_{2}(-p-p' ) M_{k}(p)\end{aligned}$$ So the polarization tensor is transverse and the action is gauge-invariant (as it should be).
[90]{} 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 this paper, we study fault-tolerant distributed consensus in wireless systems. In more detail, we produce two new randomized algorithms that solve this problem in the abstract MAC layer model, which captures the basic interface and communication guarantees provided by most wireless MAC layers. Our algorithms work for any number of failures, require no advance knowledge of the network participants or network size, and guarantee termination with high probability after a number of broadcasts that are polynomial in the network size. Our first algorithm satisfies the standard agreement property, while our second trades a faster termination guarantee in exchange for a looser agreement property in which most nodes agree on the same value. These are the first known fault-tolerant consensus algorithms for this model. In addition to our main upper bound results, we explore the gap between the abstract MAC layer and the standard asynchronous message passing model by proving fault-tolerant consensus is impossible in the latter in the absence of information regarding the network participants, even if we assume no faults, allow randomized solutions, and provide the algorithm a constant-factor approximation of the network size.'
author:
- |
Calvin Newport\
Georgetown University\
`[email protected]`
- |
Peter Robinson\
McMaster University\
`[email protected]`
bibliography:
- 'wireless-consensus.bib'
- 'wireless.bib'
- 'sinr.bib'
title: 'Fault-Tolerant Consensus with an Abstract MAC Layer[^1]'
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
Consensus provides a fundamental building block for developing reliable distributed systems [@guerraoui:1997; @guerraoui:2000; @guerraoui:2001]. Accordingly, it is well studied in many different system models [@lynch:1996]. Until recently, however, little was known about solving this problem in distributed systems made up of devices communicating using commodity wireless cards. Motivated by this knowledge gap, this paper studies consensus in the [*abstract MAC layer*]{} model, which abstracts the basic behavior and guarantees of standard wireless MAC layers. In recent work [@newport:2014], we proved deterministic fault-tolerant consensus is impossible in this setting. In this paper, we describe and analyze the first known randomized fault-tolerant consensus algorithms for this well-motivated model.
[**The Abstract MAC Layer.**]{} Most existing work on distributed algorithms for wireless networks assumes low-level synchronous models that force algorithms to directly grapple with issues caused by contention and signal fading. Some of these models describe the network topology with a graph (c.f., [@baryehuda:1987; @jurdzinski:2002; @kowalski:2005; @moscibroda:2005; @czumaj:2006; @gasieniec:2007]), while others use signal strength calculations to determine message behavior (c.f., [@moscibroda:2006; @moscibroda:2007; @goussevskaia:2009; @halldorsson:2012b; @jurdzinski:2013:random; @daum:2013]).
As also emphasized in [@newport:2014], these models are useful for asking foundational questions about distributed computation on shared channels, but are not so useful for developing algorithmic strategies suitable for deployment. In real systems, algorithms typically do not operate in synchronous rounds and they are not provided unmediated access to the radio. They must instead operate on top of a general-purpose MAC layer which is responsible for many network functions, including contention management, rate control, and co-existence with other network traffic.
Motivated by this reality, in this paper we adopt the [*abstract MAC layer*]{} model [@kuhn:2011abstract], an asynchronous broadcast-based communication model that captures the basic interfaces and guarantees provided by common existing wireless MAC layers. In more detail, if you provide the abstract MAC layer a message to broadcast, it will eventually be delivered to nearby nodes in the network. The specific means by which contention is managed—e.g., CSMA, TDMA, uniform probabilistic routines such as DECAY [@baryehuda:1987]—is abstracted away by the model. At some point after the contention management completes, the abstract MAC layer passes back an [*acknowledgment*]{} indicating that it is ready for the next message. This acknowledgment contains no information about the number or identities of the message recipient.
(In the case of the MAC layer using CSMA, for example, the acknowledgment would be generated after the MAC layer detects a clear channel. In the case of TDMA, the acknowledgment would be generated after the device’s turn in the TDMA schedule. In the case of a probabilistic routine such as DECAY, the acknowledgment would be generated after a sufficient number of attempts to guarantee successful delivery to all receivers with high probability.)
The abstract MAC abstraction, of course, does not attempt to provide a detailed representation of any specific existing MAC layer. Real MAC layers offer many more modes and features then is captured by this model. In addition, the variation studied in this paper assumes messages are always delivered, whereas more realistic variations would allow for occasional losses.
This abstraction, however, still serves to capture the fundamental dynamics of real wireless application design in which the lower layers dealing directly with the radio channel are separated from the higher layers executing the application in question. An important goal in studying this abstract MAC layer, therefore, is attempting to uncover principles and strategies that can close the gap between theory and practice in the design of distributed systems deployed on standard layered wireless architectures.
[**Our Results.**]{} In this paper, we studied randomized fault-tolerant consensus algorithms in the abstract MAC layer model. In more detail, we study binary consensus and assume a single-hop network topology. Notice, our use of randomization is necessary, as deterministic consensus is impossible in the abstract MAC layer model in the presence of even a single fault (see our generalization of FLP from [@newport:2014]). To contextualize our results, we note that the abstract MAC layer model differs from standard asynchronous message passing models in two main ways: (1) the abstract MAC layer model provides the algorithm no advance information about the network size or membership, requiring nodes to communicate with a blind broadcast primitive instead of using point-to-point channels, (2) the abstract MAC layer model provides an acknowledgment to the broadcaster at some point after its message has been delivered to all of its neighbors. This acknowledgment, however, contains no information about the number or identity of these neighbors (see above for more discussion of this fundamental feature of standard wireless MAC layers). Most randomized fault-tolerant consensus algorithms in the asynchronous message passing model strongly leverage knowledge of the network. A strategy common to many of these algorithms, for example, is to repeatedly collect messages from at least $n-f$ nodes in a network of size $n$ with at most $f$ crash failures (e.g., [@benor]). This strategy does not work in the abstract MAC layer model as nodes do not know $n$. To overcome this issue, we adapt an idea introduced in early work on fault-tolerant consensus in the asynchronous shared memory model: [*counter racing*]{} (e.g., [@chandra; @jim]). At a high-level, this strategy has nodes with initial value $0$ advance a shared memory counter associated with $0$, while nodes with initial value $1$ advance a counter associated with $1$. If a node sees one counter get ahead of the other, they adopt the initial value associated with the larger counter, and if a counter gets sufficiently far ahead, then nodes can decide.
Our first algorithm (presented in Section \[slow\]) implements a counter race of sorts using the acknowledged blind broadcast primitive provided by the model. Roughly speaking, nodes continually broadcast their current proposal and counter, and update both based on the pairs received from other nodes. Proving safety for this type of strategy in shared memory models is simplified by the atomic nature of register accesses. In the abstract MAC layer model, by contrast, a broadcast message is delivered non-atomically to its recipients, and in the case of a crash, may not arrive at some recipients at all.[^2] Our safety analysis, therefore, requires novel analytical tools that tame a more diverse set of possible system configurations.
To achieve liveness, we use a technique loosely inspired by the randomized delay strategy introduced by Chandra in the shared memory model [@chandra] . In more detail, nodes probabilistically decide to replace certain sequences of their counter updates with $nop$ placeholders. We show that if these probabilities are adapted appropriately, the system eventually arrives at a state where it becomes likely for only a single node to be broadcasting updates, allowing progress toward termination.
Formally, we prove that with high probability in the network size $n$, the algorithm terminates after $O(n^3\log{n})$ broadcasts are scheduled. This holds regardless of which broadcasts are scheduled (i.e., we do not impose a fairness condition), and regardless of the number of faults. The algorithm, as described, assumes nodes are provided unique IDs that we treat as comparable black boxes (to prevent them from leaking network size information). We subsequently show how to remove that assumption by describing an algorithm that generates unique IDs in this setting with high probability.
Our second algorithm (presented in Section \[fast\]) trades a looser agreement guarantee for more efficiency. In more detail, we describe and analyze a solution to [*almost-everywhere*]{} agreement [@dwork:1988], that guarantees most nodes agree on the same value. This algorithm terminates after $O(n^2\log^4{n}\log\log{n})$ broadcasts, which is a linear factor faster than our first algorithm (ignoring log factors). The almost-everywhere consensus algorithm consists of two phases. The first phase is used to ensure that almost all nodes obtain a good approximation of the network size. In the second phase, nodes use this estimate to perform a sequence of broadcasts meant to help spread their proposal to the network. Nodes that did not obtain a good estimate in Phase 1 will leave Phase 2 early. The remaining nodes, however, can leverage their accurate network size estimates to probabilistically sample a subset to actively participate in each round of broadcasts. To break ties between simultaneously active nodes, each chooses a random rank using the estimate obtained in Phase 1. We show that with high probability, after not too long, there exists a round of broadcasts in which the first node receiving its acknowledgment is both active and has the minimum rank among other active nodes—allowing its proposal to spread to all remaining nodes.
Finally, we explore the gap between the abstract MAC layer model and the related asynchronous message passage passing model. We prove (in Section \[sec:lower\]) that fault-tolerant consensus is impossible in the asynchronous message passing model in the absence of knowledge of network participants, even if we assume no faults, allow randomized algorithms, and provide a constant-factor approximation of $n$. This differs from the abstract MAC layer model where we solve this problem without network participant or network size information, and assuming crash failures. This result implies that the fact that broadcasts are acknowledged in the abstract MAC layer model is crucial to overcoming the difficulties induced by limited network information.
[**Related Work.**]{} Consensus provides a fundamental building block for reliable distributed computing [@guerraoui:1997; @guerraoui:2000; @guerraoui:2001]. It is particularly well-studied in asynchronous models [@paxos; @schiper:1997; @mostefaoui:1999; @aguilera:2000]. The abstract MAC layer approach[^3] to modeling wireless networks was introduced in [@kuhn:2009] (later expanded to a journal version [@kuhn:2011abstract]), and has been subsequently used to study several different problems [@cornejo2009neighbor; @khabbazian:2010; @khabbazian:2011; @cornejo2014reliable; @newport:2014]. The most relevant of this related work is [@newport:2014], which was the first paper to study consensus in the abstract MAC layer model. This previous paper generalized the seminal FLP [@flp] result to prove deterministic consensus is impossible in this model even in the presence of a single failure. It then goes on to study deterministic consensus in the absence of failures, identifying the pursuit of fault-tolerant [*randomized*]{} solutions as important future work—the challenge taken up here.
We note that other researchers have also studied consensus using high-level wireless network abstractions. Vollset and Ezhilchelvan [@vollset:2005], and Alekeish and Ezhilchelvan [@alekeish:2012], study consensus in a variant of the asynchronous message passing model where pairwise channels come and go dynamically—capturing some behavior of [mobile]{} wireless networks. Their correctness results depend on detailed liveness guarantees that bound the allowable channel changes. Wu et al. [@wu:2009] use the standard asynchronous message passing model (with unreliable failure detectors [@chandra:1996]) as a stand-in for a wireless network, focusing on how to reduce message complexity (an important metric in a resource-bounded wireless setting) in solving consensus.
A key difficulty for solving consensus in the abstract MAC layer model is the absence of advance information about network participants or size. These constraints have also been studied in other models. Ruppert [@ruppert2007anonymous], and Bonnet and Raynal [@bonnet2010anonymous], for example, study the amount of extra power needed (in terms of shared objects and failure detection, respectively) to solve wait-free consensus in [*anonymous*]{} versions of the standard models. Attiya et al. [@attiya2002computing] describe consensus solutions for shared memory systems without failures or unique ids. A series of papers [@cavin:2004; @greve:2007; @alchieri:2008], starting with the work of Cavin et al. [@cavin:2004], study the related problem of [*consensus with unknown participants*]{} (CUPs), where nodes are only allowed to communicate with other nodes whose identities have been provided by a [*participant detector*]{} formalism. Closer to our own model is the work of Abboud et al. [@abboud:2008], which also studies a single hop network where nodes broadcast messages to an unknown group of network participants. They prove deterministic consensus is impossible in these networks under these assumptions without knowledge of network size. In this paper, we extend these existing results by proving this impossibility still holds even if we assume randomized algorithms and provided the algorithm a constant-factor approximation of the network size. This bound opens a sizable gap with our abstract MAC layer model in which consensus is solvable without this network information.
We also consider almost-everywhere (a.e.) agreement [@dwork:1988], a weaker variant of consensus, where a small number of nodes are allowed to decide on conflicting values, as long as a sufficiently large majority agrees. Recently, a.e. agreement has been studied in the context of peer-to-peer networks (c.f. [@king:2006; @augustine:2015]), where the adversary can isolate small parts of the network thus rendering (everywhere) consensus impossible. We are not aware of any prior work on a.e. agreement in the wireless settings.
Model and Problem {#sec:model}
=================
In this paper, we study a variation of the [*abstract MAC layer*]{} model, which describes system consisting of a single hop network of $n\geq 1$ computational devices (called [*nodes*]{} in the following) that communicate wirelessly using communication interfaces and guarantees inspired by commodity wireless MAC layers.
In this model, nodes communicate with a $bcast$ primitive that guarantees to eventually deliver the broadcast message to all the other nodes (i.e., the network is single hop). At some point after a given $bcast$ has succeeded in delivering a message to all other nodes, the broadcaster receives an $ack$ informing it that the broadcast is complete (as detailed in the introduction, this captures the reality that most wireless contention management schemes have a definitive point at which they know a message broadcast is complete). This acknowledgment contains no information about the number or identity of the receivers.
We assume a node can only broadcast one message at a time. That is, once it invokes $bcast$, it cannot broadcast another message until receiving the corresponding $ack$ (formally, overlapping messages are discarded by the MAC layer). We also assume any number of nodes can permanently stop executing due to crash failures. As in the classical message passing models, a crash can occur during a broadcast, meaning that some nodes might receive the message while others do not.
This model is event-driven with the relevant events scheduled asynchronously by an arbitrary [*scheduler*]{}. In more detail, for each node $u$, there are four event types relevant to $u$ that can be scheduled: $init_u$ (which occurs at the beginning of an execution and allows $u$ to initialize), $recv(m)_u$ (which indicates that $u$ has received message $m$ broadcast from another node), $ack(m)_u$ (which indicates that the message $m$ broadcast by $u$ has been successfully delivered), and $crash_u$ (which indicates that $u$ is crashed for the remainder of the execution).
A distributed algorithm specifies for each node $u$ a finite collection of steps to execute for each of the non-$crash$ event types. When one of these events is scheduled by the scheduler, we assume the corresponding steps are executed atomically at the point that the event is scheduled. Notice that one of the steps that a node $u$ can take in response to these events is to invoke a $bcast(m)_u$ primitive for some message $m$. When an event includes a $bcast$ primitive we say it is [*combined*]{} with a broadcast.[^4]
We place the following constraints on the scheduler. It must start each execution by scheduling an $init$ event for each node; i.e., we study the setting where all participating nodes are activated at the beginning of the execution. If a node $u$ invokes a valid $bcast(m)_u$ primitive, then for each $v\neq u$ that is not crashed when the broadcast primitive is invoked, the scheduler must subsequently either schedule a single $recv(m)_v$ or $crash_v$ event at $v$. At some point after these events are scheduled, it must then eventually schedule an $ack(m)_u$ event at $u$. These are the only $recv$ and $ack$ events it schedules (i.e., it cannot create new messages from scratch or cause messages to be received/acknowledged multiple times). If the scheduler schedules a $crash_v$ event, it cannot subsequently schedule any future events for $u$.
We assume that in making each event scheduling decision, the scheduler can use the schedule history as well as the algorithm definition, but it does not know the nodes’ private states (which includes the nodes’ random bits). When the scheduler schedules an event that triggers a broadcast (making it a combined event), it is provided this information so that it knows it must now schedule receive events for the message. We assume, however, that the scheduler does not learn the [*contents*]{} of the broadcast message.[^5]
Given an execution $\alpha$, we say the [*message schedule*]{} for $\alpha$, also indicated $msg[\alpha]$, is the sequence of message events (i.e., $recv$, $ack$, and $crash$) scheduled in the execution. We assume that a message schedule includes indications of which events are combined with broadcasts.
[**The Consensus Problem.**]{} In this paper, we study binary consensus with probabilistic termination. In more detail, at the beginning of an execution each node is provided an [*initial value*]{} from $\{0,1\}$ as input. Each node has the ability to perform a single irrevocable $decide$ action for either value $0$ or $1$. To solve consensus, an algorithm must guarantee the following three properties: (1) [*agreement*]{}: no two nodes decide different values; (2) [*validity*]{}: if a node decides value $b$, then at least one node started with initial value $b$; and (3) [*termination (probabilistic)*]{}: every non-crashed node decides with probability $1$ in the limit.
Studying finite termination bounds is complicated in asynchronous models because the scheduler can delay specific nodes taking steps for arbitrarily long times. In this paper, we circumvent this issue by proving bounds on the number of scheduled events before the system reaches a [*termination state*]{} in which every non-crashed node has: (a) decided; or (b) will decide whenever the scheduler gets around to scheduling its next $ack$ event.
Finally, in addition to studying consensus with standard agreement, we also study [*almost-everywhere*]{} agreement, in which only a specified majority fraction (typically a $1-o(n)$ fraction of the $n$ total nodes) must agree.
$c_u \gets 0$ $n_u \gets 2$ $C_u \gets \{ (id_u, c_u,v_u) \}$ $peers \gets \{ id_u\}$ $phase \gets 0$ $active \gets true$ $decide \gets -1$ $k \gets 3$ $c\gets k+3$ $(nop,id_u,n_u)$
$phase \gets phase +1$ $(b)$ and [**halt**]{}$()$ $newm \gets \bot$ $C_u' \gets C_u$ $\hat c_u^{(0)} \gets$ max counter in $C_u'$ paired with value $0$ (default to $0$ if no such elements) $\hat c_u^{(1)} \gets$ max counter in $C_u'$ paired with value $1$ (default to $0$ if no such elements)
$v_u \gets 0$ $v_u \gets 1$
$newm \gets (decide,0)$ $newm \gets (decide,1)$
$c_u \gets c_u + 1$ $c_u \gets max\{\hat c_u^{(0)}, \hat c_u^{(1)} \}$
$(id_u,*,*)$ element in $C_u$ with new $c_u$ and $v_u$ $newm \gets (counter,id_u,c_u,v_u,n_u)$
with probability $1/n_u$ $active\gets true$ otherwise $active\gets false$ $(newm)$ $(nop,id_u,n_u)$
$(m)$ $decide \gets b$ $(id,c',v')$ from $C_u$ $(id,c,v)$ to $C_u$
\[alg:1\]
$peers \gets peers \cup \{id\}$ $n_u \gets \max\{ n_u,|peers|, n'\}$
Consensus Algorithm {#slow}
===================
Here we describe analyze our randomized binary consensus algorithm: [*counter race consensus*]{} (see Algorithms $1$ and $2$ for pseudocode, and Section \[sec:slow:alg\] for a high-level description of its behavior). This algorithm assumes no advance knowledge of the network participants or network size. Nodes are provided unique IDs, but these are treated as comparable black boxes, preventing them from leaking information about the network size. (We will later discuss how to remove the unique ID assumption.) It tolerates any number of crash faults.
Algorithm Description {#sec:slow:alg}
---------------------
The counter race consensus algorithm is described in pseudocode in the figures labeled Algorithm $1$ and $2$. Here we summarize the behavior formalized by this pseudocode.
The core idea of this algorithm is that each node $u$ maintains a counter $c_u$ (initialized to $0$) and a proposal $v_u$ (initialized to its consensus initial value). Node $u$ repeatedly broadcasts $c_u$ and $v_u$, updating these values before each broadcast. That is, during the $ack$ event for its last broadcast of $c_u$ and $v_u$, node $u$ will apply a set of [*update rules*]{} to these values. It then concludes the $ack$ event by broadcasting these updated values. This pattern repeats until $u$ arrives at a state where it can safely commit to deciding a value.
The update rules and decision criteria applied during the $ack$ event are straightforward. Each node $u$ first calculates $\hat c_u^{(0)}$, the largest counter value it has sent or received in a message containing proposal value $0$, and $\hat c_u^{(1)}$, the largest counter value it has sent or received in a message containing proposal value $1$.
If $\hat c_u^{(0)} > \hat c_u^{(1)}$, then $u$ sets $v_u \gets 0$, and if $\hat c_u^{(1)} > \hat c_u^{(0)}$, then $u$ sets $v_u \gets 1$. That is, $u$ adopts the proposal that is currently “winning" the counter race (in case of a tie, it does not change its proposal).
Node $u$ then checks to see if either value is winning by a large enough margin to support a decision. In more detail, if $\hat c_u^{(0)} \geq \hat c_u^{(1)} + 3$, then $u$ commits to deciding $0$, and if $\hat c_u^{(1)} \geq \hat c_u^{(0)} + 3$, then $u$ commits to deciding $1$.
What happens next depends on whether or not $u$ committed to a decision. If $u$ did [*not*]{} commit to a decision (captured in the [**if**]{} $newm = \bot$ [**then**]{} conditional), then it must update its counter value. To do so, it compares its current counter $c_u$ to $\hat c_u^{(0)}$ and $\hat c_u^{(1)}$. If $c_u$ is smaller than one of these counters, it sets $c_u \gets \max\{ \hat c_u^{(0)}, \hat c_u^{(1)}\}$. Otherwise, if $c_u$ is the largest counter that $u$ has sent or received so far, it will set $c_u \gets c_u + 1$. Either way, its counter increases. At this point, $u$ can complete the $ack$ event by broadcasting a message containing its newly updated $c_u$ and $v_u$ values.
On the other hand, if $u$ committed to deciding value $b$, then it will send a $(decide,b)$ message to inform the other nodes of its decision. On subsequently receiving an $ack$ for this message, $u$ will decide $b$ and halt. Similarly, if $u$ ever receives a $(decide, b)$ message from [*another*]{} node, it will commit to deciding $b$. During its next $ack$ event, it will send its own $(decide,b)$ message and decide and halt on its corresponding $ack$. That is, node $u$ will not decide a value until it has broadcast its commitment to do so, and received an $ack$ on the broadcast.
The behavior described above guarantees agreement and validity. It is not sufficient, however, to achieve liveness, as an ill-tempered scheduler can conspire to keep the race between $0$ and $1$ too close for a decision commitment. To overcome this issue we introduce a random delay strategy that has nodes randomly step away from the race for a while by replacing their broadcast values with $nop$ placeholders ignored by those who receive them. Because our adversary does not learn the [*content*]{} of broadcast messages, it does not know which nodes are actively participating and which nodes are taking a break (as in both cases, nodes continually broadcast messages)—thwarting its ability to effectively manipulate the race.
In more detail, each node $u$ partitions its broadcasts into [*groups*]{} of size $6$. At the beginning of each such group, $u$ flips a weighted coin to determine whether or not to replace the counter and proposal values it broadcasts during this group with $nop$ placeholders—eliminating its ability to affect other nodes’ counter/proposal values. As we will later elaborate in the liveness analysis, the goal is to identify a point in the execution in which a single node $v$ is broadcasting its values while all other nodes are broadcasting $nop$ values—allowing $v$ to advance its proposal sufficiently far ahead to win the race.
To be more specific about the probabilities used in this logic, node $u$ maintains an estimate $n_u$ of the number of nodes in the network. It replaces values with $nop$ placeholders in a given group with probability $1/n_u$. (In the pseudocode, the $active$ flag indicates whether or not $u$ is using $nop$ placeholders in the current group.) Node $u$ initializes $n_u$ to $2$. It then updates it by calling the [*updateEstimate*]{} routine (described in Algorithm $2$) for each message it receives.
There are two ways for this routine to update $n_u$. The first is if the number of unique IDs that $u$ has received so far (stored in $peers$) is larger than $n_u$. In this case, it sets $n_u \gets |peers|$. The second way is if it learns another node has an estimate $n' > n_u$. In this case, it sets $n_u \gets n'$. Node $u$ learns about other nodes’ estimates, as the algorithm has each node append its current estimate to all of its messages (with the exception of $decide$ messages). In essence, the nodes are running a network size estimation routine parallel to its main counter race logic—as nodes refine their estimates, their probability of taking useful breaks improves.
Safety
------
We begin our analysis by proving that our algorithm satisfies the agreement and validity properties of the consensus problem. Validity follows directly from the algorithm description. Our strategy to prove agreement is to show that if any node sees a value $b$ with a counter at least $3$ ahead of value $1-b$ (causing it to commit to deciding $b$), then $b$ is the only possible decision value. Race arguments of this type are easier to prove in a shared memory setting where nodes work with objects like atomic registers that guarantee linearization points. In our message passing setting, by contrast, in which broadcast messages arrive at different receivers at different times, we will require more involved definitions and operational arguments.[^6]
We start with a useful definition. We say $b$ [*dominates*]{} $1-b$ at a given point in the execution, if every (non-crashed) node at this point believes $b$ is winning the race, and none of the messages in transit can change this perception. To formalize this notion we need some notation. In the following, we say [*at point $t$*]{} (or [*at $t$*]{}), with respect to an event $t$ from the message schedule of an execution $\alpha$, to describe the state of the system immediately after event $t$ (and any associated steps that execute atomically with $t$) occurs. We also use the notation [*in transit at $t$*]{} to describe messages that have been broadcast but not yet received at every non-crashed receiver at $t$.
Fix an execution $\alpha$, event $t$ in the corresponding message schedule $msg[\alpha]$, consensus value $b\in \{0,1\}$, and counter value $c\geq 0$. We say $\alpha$ is [*$(b,c)$-dominated*]{} at $t$ if the following conditions are true:
For every node $u$ that is not crashed at $t$: $\hat c_u^{(b)}[t] > c$ and $\hat c_u^{(1-b)}[t] \leq c$, where at point $t$, $\hat c_u^{(b)}[t]$ (resp. $\hat c_u^{(1-b)}[t]$) is the largest value $u$ has sent or received in a counter message containing consensus value $b$ (resp. $1-b$). If $u$ has not sent or received any counter messages containing $b$ (resp. $1-b$), then by default it sets $\hat c_u^{(b)}[t] \gets 0$ (resp. $\hat c_u^{(1-b)}[t] \gets 0$) in making this comparison.
For every message of the form $(counter,id,1-b,c',n')$ that is in transit at $t$: $c' \leq c$.
\[def:dom\]
The following lemma formalizes the intuition that once an execution becomes dominated by a given value, it remains dominated by this value.
Assume some execution $\alpha$ is $(b,c)$-dominated at point $t$. It follows that $\alpha$ is $(b,c)$-dominated at every $t'$ that comes after $t$. \[lem:dom\]
In this proof, we focus on the suffix of the message schedule $msg[\alpha]$ that begins with event $t$. For simplicity, we label these events $E_1,E_2,E_3,...$, with $E_1 = t$. We will prove the lemma by induction on this sequence.
The base case ($E_1$) follows directly from the lemma statement. For the inductive step, we must show that if $\alpha$ is $(b,c)$-dominated at point $E_{i}$, then it will be dominated at $E_{i+1}$ as well. By the inductive hypothesis, we assume the execution is dominated immediately before $E_{i+1}$ occurs. Therefore, the only way the step is violated is if $E_{i+1}$ transitions the system from dominated to non-dominated status. We consider all possible cases for $E_{i+1}$ and show none of them can cause such a transition.
The first case is if $E_{i+1}$ is a $crash_u$ event for some node $u$. It is clear that a crash cannot transition a system into non-dominated status.
The second case is if $E_{i+1}$ is a $recv(m)_u$ event for some node $u$. This event can only transition the system into a non-dominated status if $m$ is a counter message that includes $1-b$ and a counter $c' > c$. For $u$ to receive this message, however, means that the message was in transit immediately before $E_{i+1}$ occurs. Because we assume the system is dominated at $E_i$, however, no such message can be in transit at this point (by condition $2$ of the domination definition).
The third and final case is if $E_{i+1}$ is a $ack(m)_u$ event for some node $u$, that is combined with a $bcast(m')_u$ event, where $m'$ is a counter message that includes $1-b$ and a counter $c' > c$. Consider the values $\hat c_u^{(b)}$ and $\hat c_u^{(1-b)}$ set by node $u$ early in the steps associated with this $ack(m)_u$ event. By our inductive hypothesis, which tells us that the execution is dominated right before this $ack(m)_u$ event occurs, it must follow that $\hat c_u^{(b)} > \hat c_u^{(1-b)}$ (as $\hat c_u^{(b)} = \hat c_u^{(b)}[E_{i}]$ and $\hat c_u^{(1-b)} = \hat c_u^{(1-b)}[E_{i}]$). In the steps that immediately follow, therefore, node $u$ will set $v_u \gets b$. It is therefore impossible for $u$ to then broadcast a counter message with value $v_u = 1-b$.
To prove agreement, we are left to show that if a node commits to deciding some value $b$, then it must be the case that $b$ dominates the execution at this point—making it the only possible decision going forward. The following helper lemma, which captures a useful property about counters, will prove crucial for establishing this point.
Assume event $t$ in the message schedule of execution $\alpha$ is combined with a $bcast(m)_v$, where $m=(counter, id_v, c,b,n_v)$, for some counter $c>0$. It follows that prior to $t$ in $\alpha$, every node that is non-crashed at $t$ received a counter message with counter $c-1$ and value $b$. \[lem:inc\]
Fix some $t$, $\alpha$, $v$ and $m=(counter, id_v, c,b,n_v)$, as specified by the lemma statement. Let $t'$ be the first event in $\alpha$ such that at $t'$ some node $w$ has local counter $c_w \geq c$ and value $v_w = b$. We know at least one such event exists as $t$ and $v$ satisfy the above conditions, so the earliest such event, $t'$, is well-defined. Furthermore, because $t'$ must modify local counter and/or consensus values, it must also be an $ack$ event.
For the purposes of this argument, let $c_w$ and $v_w$ be $w$’s counter and consensus value, respectively, immediately before $t'$ is scheduled. Similarly, let $c_w'$ and $v_w'$ be these values immediately after $t'$ and its steps complete (i.e., these values at point $t'$). By assumption: $c_w' \geq c$ and $v_w'=b$. We proceed by studying the possibilities for $c_w$ and $v_w$ and their relationships with $c_w'$ and $v_w'$.
We begin by considering $v_w$. We want to argue that $v_w=b$. To see why this is true, assume for contradiction that $v_w=1-b$. It follows that early in the steps for $t'$, node $w$ switches its consensus value from $1-b$ to $b$. By the definition of the algorithm, it only does this if at this point in the $ack$ steps: $\hat c_w^{(b)} > \hat c_w^{(1-b)} \geq c_w$ (the last term follows because $c_w$ is included in the values considered when defining $c_w^{(1-b)}$). Note, however, that $c_w^{(b)}$ must be less than $c$. If it was greater than or equal to $c$, this would imply that a node ended an earlier event with counter $\geq c$ and value $b$—contradicting our assumption that $t'$ was the earliest such event. If $c_w^{(b)} < c$ and $c_w^{(b)} > c_w$, then $w$ must increase its $c_w$ value during this event. But because $\hat c_w^{(b)} > \hat c_w^{(1-b)}\geq c_w$, the only allowable change to $c_w$ would be to set it to $\hat c_w^{(b)} < c$. This contradicts the assumption that $c_w' \geq c$.
At this checkpoint in our argument we have argued that $v_w=b$. We now consider $c_w$. If $c_w \geq c$, then $w$ starts $t'$ with a sufficiently big counter—contradicting the assumption that $t'$ is the earliest such event. It follows that $c_w < c$ and $w$ must increase this value during this event.
There are two ways to increase a counter; i.e., the two conditions in the [*if/else-if*]{} statement that follows the $newm = \bot$ check. We start with the second condition. If $\max\{\hat c_w^{(b)}, \hat c_w^{(1-b)}\} > c_w$, then $w$ can set $c_w$ to this maximum. If this maximum is equal to $\hat c_w^{(b)}$, then this would imply $\hat c_w^{(b)} \geq c$. As argued above, however, it would then follow that a node had a counter $\geq c$ and value $b$ before $t'$. If this is not true, then $\hat c_w^{(1-b)} > c_w^{(b)}$. If this was the case, however, $w$ would have adopted value $1-b$ earlier in the event, contradicting the assumption that $v_w' = b$.
At this next checkpoint in our argument we have argued that $v_w =b$, $c_w < c$, and $w$ increases $c_w$ to $c$ through the first condition of the [*if/else if*]{}; i.e., it must find that $\max\{\hat c_w^{(b)}, \hat c_w^{(1-b)}\} \leq c_w$ and $m\neq nop$. Because this condition only increases the counter by $1$, we can further refine our assumption to $c_w = c-1$.
To conclude our argument, consider the implications of the $m\neq nop$ component of this condition. It follows that $t'$ is an $ack(m)_w$ for an actual message $m$. It cannot be the case that $m$ is a $decide$ message, as $w$ will not increase its counter on acknowledging a $decide$. Therefore, $m$ is a counter message. Furthermore, because counter and consensus values are not modified after broadcasting a counter message but before receiving its subsequent acknowledgment, we know $m=(counter, id_w, c_w,v_w,*) = (counter, id_w, c-1, b,*)$ (we replace the network size estimate with a wildcard here as these estimates could change during this period).
Because $w$ has an acknowledgment for this $m$, by the definition of the model, prior to $t'$: every non-crashed node received a counter message with counter $c-1$ and consensus value $b$. This is exactly the claim we are trying to prove.
Our main safety theorem leverages the above two lemmas to establish that committing to decide $b$ means that $b$ dominates the execution. The key idea is that counter values cannot become too stale. By Lemma \[lem:inc\], if some node has a counter $c$ associated with proposal value $1-b$, then all nodes have seen a counter of size at least $c-1$ associated with $1-b$. It follows that if [some]{} node thinks $b$ is far ahead, then all nodes must think $b$ is far ahead in the race (i.e., $b$ dominates). Lemma \[lem:dom\] then establishes that this dominance is permanent—making $b$ the only possible decision value going forward.
The Counter Race Consensus algorithm satisfies validity and agreement. \[safety\]
Validity follows directly from the definition of the algorithm. To establish agreement, fix some execution $\alpha$ that includes at least one decision. Let $t$ be the first $ack$ event in $\alpha$ that is combined with a broadcast of a $decide$ message. We call such a step a [*pre-decision*]{} step as it prepares nodes to decide in a later step. Let $u$ be the node at which this $ack$ occurs and $b$ be the value it includes in the $decide$ message. Because we assume at least one process decides in $\alpha$, we know $t$ exists. We also know it occurs before any decision.
During the steps associated with $t$, $u$ sets $newm\gets (decide,b)$. This indicates the following is true: $\hat c_u^{(b)} \geq \hat c_u^{(1-b)} + 3.$ Based on this condition, we establish two claims about the system at $t$, expressed with respect to the value $\hat c_u^{(1-b)}$ during these steps:
- [*Claim 1.*]{} The largest counter included with value $1-b$ in a counter message broadcast[^7] before $t$ is no more than $\hat c_u^{(1-b)} + 1$.
Assume for contradiction that before $t$ some $v$ broadcast a counter message with value $1-b$ and counter $c > \hat c_u^{(1-b)} + 1$. By Lemma \[lem:inc\], it follows that before $t$ every non-crashed node receives a counter message with value $1-b$ and counter $c-1 \geq \hat c_u^{(1-b)} + 1$. This set of nodes includes $u$. This contradicts our assumption that at $t$ the largest counter $u$ has seen associated with $1-b$ is $\hat c_u^{(1-b)}$.
- [*Claim 2.*]{} Before $t$, every non-crashed node has sent or received a counter message with value $b$ and counter at least $\hat c_u^{(1-b)}+2$.
By assumption on the values $u$ has seen at $t$, we know that before $t$ some node $v$ broadcast a counter message with value $b$ and counter $c \geq \hat c_u^{(1-b)}+3$. By Lemma \[lem:inc\], it follows that before $t$, every node has sent or received a counter with value $b$ and counter $c-1 \geq \hat c_u^{(1-b)}+2$.
Notice that claim 1 combined with claim 2 implies that the execution is $(b,\hat c_u^{(1-b)}+1)$-dominated before $t$. By Lemma \[lem:dom\], the execution will remain dominated from this point forward. We assume $t$ was the first pre-decision, and it will lead $u$ to tell other nodes to decide $u$ before doing so itself. Other pre-decision steps might occur, however, before all nodes have received $u$’s preference for $b$. With this in mind, let $t'$ be any other pre-decision step. Because $t'$ comes after $t$ it will occur in a $(b,\hat c_u^{(1-b)}+1)$-dominated system. This means that during the first steps of $t'$, the node will adopt $b$ as its value (if it has not already done so), meaning it will also promote $b$.
To conclude, we have shown that once any node reaches a pre-decision step for a value $b$, then the system is already dominated in favor of $b$, and therefore $b$ is the only possible decision value going forward. Agreement follows directly.
Liveness
--------
We now turn our attention liveness. Our goal is to prove the following theorem:
With high probability, within $O(n^3\ln{n})$ scheduled $ack$ events, every node executing counter race consensus has either crashed, decided, or received a $decide$ message. In the limit, this termination condition occurs with probability $1$. \[live:thm:main\]
Notice that this theorem does not require a fair schedule. It guarantees its termination criteria (with high probability) after [*any*]{} $O(n^3\ln{n})$ scheduled $ack$ events, regardless of [*which*]{} nodes these events occur at. Once the system arrives at a state in which every node has either crashed, decided, or received a $decide$ message, the execution is now univalent (only one decision value is possible going forward), and each non-crashed node $u$ will decide after at most two additional $ack$ events at $u$.[^8]
Our liveness proof is longer and more involved than our safety proof. This follows, in part, from the need to introduce multiple technical definitions to help identify the execution fragments sufficiently well-behaved for us to apply our probabilistic arguments. With this in mind, we divide the presentation of our liveness proof into two parts. The first part introduces the main ideas of the analysis and provides a road map of sorts to its component pieces. The second part, which contains the details, can be found in the full paper [@fullpaper].
### Main Ideas
Here we discuss the main ideas of our liveness proof. A core definition used in our analysis is the notion of an [*$x$-run*]{}. Roughly speaking, for a given constant integer $x \geq 2$ and node $u$, we say an execution fragment $\beta$ is an $x$-run for some node $u$, if it starts and ends with an $ack$ event for $u$, it contains $x$ total $ack$ events for $u$, and no other node has more than $x$ $ack$ events interleaved. We deploy a recursive counting argument to establish that an execution fragment $\beta$ that contains at least $n\cdot x$ total $ack$ events, must contain a sub-fragment $\beta'$ that is an $x$-run for some node $u$.
To put this result to use, we focus our attention on $(2c+1)$-runs, where $c=6$ is the constant used in the algorithm definition to define the length of a [*group*]{} (see Section \[sec:slow:alg\] for a reminder of what a group is and how it is used by the algorithm). A straightforward argument establishes that a $(2c+1)$-run for some node $u$ must contain at least one [*complete group*]{} for $u$—that is, it must contain all $c$ broadcasts of one of $u$’s groups.
Combining these observations, it follows that if we partition an execution into [*segments*]{} of length $n\cdot(2c+1)$, each such segment $i$ contains a $(2c+1)$-run for some node $u_i$, and each such run contains a complete group for $u_i$. We call this complete group the [*target group*]{} $t_i$ for segment $i$ (if there are multiple complete groups in the run, choose one arbitrarily to be the target).
These target groups are the core unit to which our subsequent analysis applies. Our goal is to arrive at a target group $t_i$ that is [*clean*]{} in the sense that $u_i$ is $active$ during the group (i.e., sends its actual values instead of $nop$ placeholders), and all broadcasts that arrive at $u$ during this group come from [*non-active*]{} nodes (i.e., these received messages contain $nop$ placeholders instead of values). If we achieve a [*clean*]{} group, then it is not hard to show that $u_i$ will advance its counter at least $k$ ahead of all other counters, pushing all other nodes into the termination criteria guaranteed by Theorem \[live:thm:main\].
To prove clean groups are sufficiently likely, our analysis must overcome two issues. The first issue concerns network size estimations. Fix some target group $t_i$. Let $P_i$ be the nodes from which $u_i$ receives at least one message during $t_i$. If all of these nodes have a network size estimate of at least $n_i = |P_i|$ at the start of $t_i$, we say the group is [*calibrated.*]{} We prove that if $t_i$ is calibrated, then it is clean with a probability in $\Omega(1/n)$.
The key, therefore, is proving most target groups are calibrated. To do so, we note that if some $t_i$ is not calibrated, it means at least one node used an estimate strictly less than $n_i$ when it probabilistically defined $active$ at the beginning of this group. During this group, however, all nodes will receive broadcasts from at least $n_i$ unique nodes, increasing all network estimates to size at least $n_i$.[^9] Therefore, each target group that fails to be calibrated increases the minimum network size estimate in the system by at least $1$. It follows that at most $n$ target groups can be non-calibrated.
The second issue concerns probabilistic dependencies. Let $E_i$ be the event that target group $t_i$ is clean and $E_j$ be the event that some other target group $t_j$ is clean. Notice that $E_i$ and $E_j$ are not necessarily independent. If a node $u$ has a group that overlaps both $t_i$ and $t_j$, then its probabilistic decision about whether or not to be active in this group impacts the potential cleanliness of both $t_i$ and $t_j$.
Our analysis tackles these dependencies by identifying a subset of target groups that are pairwise independent. To do so, roughly speaking, we process our target groups in order. Starting with the first target group, we mark as unavailable any future target group that overlaps this first group (in the sense described above). We then proceed until we arrive at the next target group [*not*]{} marked unavailable and repeat the process. Each available target group marks at most $O(n)$ future groups as unavailable. Therefore, given a sufficiently large set $T$ of target groups, we can identify a subset $T'$, with a size in $\Omega(|T|/n)$, such that all groups in $T'$ are pairwise independent.
We can now pull together these pieces to arrive at our main liveness complexity claim. Consider the first $O(n^3\ln{n})$ $ack$ events in an execution. We can divide these into $O(n^2\ln{n})$ segments of length $(2c+1)n \in \Theta(n)$. We now consider the target groups defined by these segments. By our above argument, there is a subset $T'$ of these groups, where $|T'| \in \Omega(n\ln{n})$, and all target groups in $T'$ are mutually independent. At most $n$ of these remaining target groups are not calibrated. If we discard these, we are left with a slightly smaller set, of size still $\Omega(n\ln{n})$, that contains only calibrated and pairwise independent target groups.
We argued that each calibrated group has a probability in $\Omega(1/n)$ of being clean. Leveraging the independence between our identified groups, a standard concentration analysis establishes with high probability in $n$ that at least one of these $\Omega(n/\ln{n})$ groups is clean—satisfying the Theorem statement.
Removing the Assumption of Unique IDs {#sec:ids}
-------------------------------------
The consensus algorithm described in this section assumes unique IDs. We now show how to eliminate this assumption by describing a strategy that generates unique IDs w.h.p., and discuss how to use this as a subroutine in our consensus algorithm.
We make use of a simple tiebreaking mechanism as follows: Each node $u$ proceeds by iteratively extending a (local) random bit string that eventually becomes unique among the nodes. Initially, $u$ broadcasts bit $b_1$, which is initialized to $1$ (at all nodes), and each time $u$ samples a new bit $b$, it appends $b$ to its current string and broadcasts the result. For instance, suppose that $u$’s most recently broadcast bit string is $b_1\dots b_i$. Upon receiving $ack(b_1\dots b_i)$, node $u$ checks if it has received a message identical to $b_1\dots b_i$. If it did not receive such a message, then $u$ adopts $b_1\dots b_i$ as its ID and stops. Otherwise, some distinct node must have sampled the same sequence of bits as $u$ and, in this case, the ID $b_1\dots b_i$ is considered to be already taken. (Note that nodes do not take receive events for their own broadcasts.) Node $u$ continues by sampling its $(i+1)$-th bit $b_{i+1}$ uniformly at random, and then broadcasts the string $b_1\dots b_i b_{i+1}$, and so forth.
\[thm:ids\] Consider an execution $\alpha$ of the tiebreaking algorithm. Let $t_u$ be an event in the message schedule $msg[\alpha]$ such that node $u$ is scheduled for $\Omega(\log n)$ ack events before $t_u$. Then, for each correct node $u$, it holds that $u$ has a unique ID of $O(\log n)$ bits with high probability at $t_u$.
Almost-Everywhere Agreement
===========================
\[fast\]
In the previous section, we showed how to solve consensus in $O(n^3\log{n})$ events. Here we show how to improve this bound by a near linear factor by loosening the agreement guarantees. In more detail, we consider a weaker variant of consensus, introduced in [@dwork:1988], called *almost-everywhere agreement*. This variation relaxes the agreement property of consensus such that $o(n)$ nodes are allowed to decide on conflicting values, as long as the remaining nodes all decide the same value. For many problems that use consensus as a subroutine, this relaxed agreement property is sufficient.
In more detail, we present an algorithm for solving almost-everywhere agreement in the abstract MAC layer model when nodes start with arbitrary (not necessarily binary) input values. The algorithm consists of two phases; see Algorithm \[alg:aea\] for the pseudo code. **Phase 1:** In this phase, nodes try to obtain an estimate of the network size by performing local coin flipping experiments. Each node $u$ records in a variable $X$ the number of times that its coin comes up tails before observing the first heads. Then, $u$ broadcasts its value of $X$ once, and each node updates $X$ to the highest outcome that it has seen until it receives the $ack$ for its broadcast. We show that, for all nodes in a large set called $EST$, variable $X$ is an approximation of $\log_2(n)$ with an additive $O(\log \log n)$ term by the end of Phase 1, and hence $N := 2^{X}$ is a good approximation of the network size $n$ for any node in $EST$.
**Phase 2:** Next, we use $X$ and $N$ as parameters of a randomly rotating leader election procedure. Each node decides after $T = \Theta(N \log^3 (N) \log\log(N))$ *rounds* (Note that due to the asynchronous nature of the abstract MAC layer model, different nodes might be executing in different rounds at the same point in time.) We now describe the sequence of steps comprising a round in more detail: A node $u$ becomes active with probability $1/N_u$ at the start of each round.[^10] If it is active, then $u$ samples a random rank $\rho$ from a range polynomial in $X_u$, and broadcasts a message $\langle r, \rho, val \rangle$ where $val$ refers to its current consensus input value. To ensure that the scheduler cannot derive any information about whether a node is active in a round, inactive nodes simply broadcast a dummy message with infinite rank. While an (active or inactive) node $v$ waits for its $ack$ for round $r$, it keeps track of all received messages and defers processing of a message sent by a node in some round $r'>r$ until the event in which $v$ itself starts round $r'$. On the other hand, if a received message was sent in $r'<r$, then $v$ simply discards that late message as it has already completed $r'$. Node $v$ uses the information of messages originating from the same round $r$ to update its consensus input value, if it receives such a message from an active node that has chosen a smaller rank than its own. (Recall that inactive nodes have infinite rank.) After $v$ has finished processing the received messages, it moves on the next round.
We first provide some intuition why it is insufficient to focus on a round $r$ where the “earliest” node is also active: Ideally, we want the node $w_1$ that is the first to receive its $ack$ for round $r$ to be active *and* to have the smallest rank among all active nodes in round $r$, as this will force all other (not-yet decided) nodes to adopt $w_1$’s value when receiving their own round $r$ $ack$, ensuring a.e. agreement. However, it is possible that $w_1$ and also the node $w_2$ that receives its round $r$ $ack$ right after $w_1$, are among the few nodes that ended up with a small (possibly constant) value of $X$ after Phase 1. We cannot use the size of $EST$ to reason about this probability, as some nodes are much likelier to be in $EST$ than others, depending on the schedule of events in Phase 1. In that case, it could happen that both $w_1$ and $w_2$ become active and choose a rank of $1$. Note that it is possible that the receive steps of their broadcasts are scheduled such that roughly half of the nodes receive $w_1$’s message before $w_2$’s message, while the other half receive $w_2$’s message first. If $w_1$ and $w_2$ have distinct consensus input values, then it can happen that both consensus values gain large support in the network as a result.
To avoid this pitfall, we focus on a set of rounds where [all]{} nodes *not* in $EST$ have already terminated Phase 2 (and possibly decided on a wrong value): from that point onwards, only nodes with sufficiently large values of $X$ and $N$ keep trying to become active. We can show that every node in $EST$ has a probability of at least $\Omega(1/(n\log n))$ to become active and a probability of $\Omega(1/\log n)$ to have chosen the smallest rank among all nodes that are active in the same round. Thus, when considering a sufficiently large set of (asynchronous) rounds, we can show that the event, where the first node in $EST$ that receives its $ack$ in round $r$ becomes active and also chooses a rank smaller than the rank of any other node active in the same round, happens with probability $1 - o(1)$.
$val \gets $ consensus input value
initialize $X \gets 0$; $R \gets \emptyset$ $X \gets X + 1$ $\textbf{bcast}(X)$ \[line:fstbcast\] add received messages to $R$ $X \gets \max(R \cup \{X\})$ $N \gets 2^X$
$T \gets \lceil c N \log^3(N)\log\log(N) \rceil$, where $c$ is a sufficiently large constant. \[line:t\] initialize array of sets $R[1],\dots,R[T] \gets \emptyset$ $u$ becomes active with probability $\tfrac{1}{N}$ $\rho \gets$ unif. at random sampled integer from $[1,X^4]$ $\rho \gets \infty$ $\textbf{bcast}(\langle i, \rho, val\rangle)$ add received messages to $R[i]$ $val \gets val'$ add $m$ to $R[i']$ discard message $m$ decide on $val$
\[thm:aea\] With high probability, the following two properties are true of our almost-everywhere consensus algorithm: (1) within $O(n^2 \log^4 n\cdot\log\log n)$ scheduled $ack$ events, every node has either crashed, decided, or will decided after it is next scheduled; (b) all but at most $o(n)$ nodes that decide, decide the same value.
Lower Bound
===========
\[sec:lower\]
We conclude our investigation by showing a separation between the abstract MAC layer model and the related asynchronous message passing model. In more detail, we prove below that fault-tolerant consensus with constant success probability is impossible in a variation of the asynchronous message passing model where nodes are provided only a constant-fraction approximation of the network size and communicate using (blind) broadcast. This bounds holds even if we assume no crashes and provide nodes unique ids from a small set. Notice, in the abstract MAC layer model, we solve consensus with broadcast under the harsher constraints of [no]{} network size information, no ids, and crash failures. The difference is the fact that the broadcast primitive in the abstract MAC layer model includes an acknowledgment. This acknowledgment is therefore revealed to be the crucial element of the our model that allows algorithms to overcome lack of network information. We note that this bound is a generalization of the result from [@abboud:2008], which proved deterministic consensus was impossible under these constraints.
\[thm:asyncImposs\] Consider an asynchronous network of $n$ nodes that communicate by broadcast and suppose that nodes are unaware of the network size $n$, but have knowledge of an integer that is guaranteed to be a $2$-approximation of $n$. No randomized algorithm can solve binary consensus with a probability of success of at least $1 - \epsilon$, for any constant $\epsilon< 2 - \sqrt{3}$. This holds even if nodes have unique identifiers chosen from a range of size at least $2n$ and all nodes are correct.
[^1]: Peter Robinson acknowledges the support of the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC), application ID RGPIN-2018-06322. Calvin Newport acknowledges the support of the National Science Foundation, award number 1733842.
[^2]: We note that register simulations are also not an option in our model for two reasons: standard simulation algorithms require knowledge of $n$ and a majority correct nodes, whereas we assume no knowledge of $n$ and wait-freedom.
[^3]: There is no [*one*]{} abstract MAC layer model. Different studies use different variations. They all share, however, the same general commitment to capturing the types of interfaces and communication/timing guarantees that are provided by standard wireless MAC layers
[^4]: Notice, we can assume without loss of generality, that the steps executed in response to an event never invoke more than a single $bcast$ primitive, as any additional broadcasts invoked at the same time would lead to the messages being discarded due to the model constraint that a node must receive an $ack$ for the current message before broadcasting a new message.
[^5]: This adversary model is sometimes called [*message oblivious*]{} and it is commonly considered a good fit for schedulers that control network behavior. This follows because it allows the scheduler to adapt the schedule based on the number of messages being sent and their sources—enabling it to model contention and load factors. One the other hand, there is not good justification for the idea that this schedule should somehow also depend on the specific bits contained in the messages sent. Notice, our liveness proof specifically leverages the message oblivious assumption as it prevents the scheduler from knowing which nodes are sending updates and which are sending $nop$ messages.
[^6]: We had initially hoped there might be some way to simulate linearizable shared objects in our model. Unfortunately, our nodes’ lack of information about the network size thwarted standard simulation strategies which typically require nodes to collect messages from a majority of nodes in the network before proceeding to the next step of the simulation.
[^7]: Notice, in these claims, when we say a message is “broadcast" we only mean that the corresponding $bcast$ event occurred. We make no assumption on which nodes have so far received this message.
[^8]: In the case where $u$ receives a $decide$ message, the first $ack$ might correspond to the message it was broadcasting when the $decide$ arrived, and the second $ack$ corresponds to the $decide$ message that $u$ itself will then broadcast. During this second $ack$, $u$ will decide and halt.
[^9]: This summary is eliding some subtle details tackled in the full analysis concerning which broadcasts are guaranteed to be received during a target group. But these details are not important for understanding the main logic of this argument.
[^10]: We use the convention $N_u$ when referring to the local variable $N$ of a specific node $u$.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
author:
- |
Andrei N. Frolov\
Dept. of Mathematics and Mechanics\
St. Petersburg State University\
St. Petersburg, Russia\
E-mail address: [email protected]
title: Bounds of the remainder in a combinatorial central limit theorem
---
60F05
combinatorial central limit theorem, Berry-Esseen inequality, Esseen inequality
Introduction
============
Let $\|X_{ij}\|$ be a $n \times n$ matrix of independent random variables and $\vec{\pi}=(\pi(1),\pi(2),\ldots, \pi(n))$ be a random permutation of $1,2,\ldots, n$, independent with $X_{ij}$. Assume that $\vec{\pi}$ has the uniform distribution on the set all such permutations. Denote $$S_n = \sum\limits_{i=1}^n X_{i\pi(i)}.$$
First results on asympotical normality of $S_n$ were obtained for $P(X_{ij}=c_{ij})=1$, $1\leqslant i, j \leqslant n$, in Wald and Wolfowits (1944). They found sufficient conditions for that when $c_{ij}=a_i b_j$. Noether (1949) proved that these conditions maybe relaxed. Hoeffding (1951) considered general case of $c_{ij}$ and obtained a combinatorial central limit theorem (CLT). Further results on the combinatorial CLT were obtained by Motoo (1957) and Kolchin and Chistyakov (1973).
Later investigations have been turned from limit theorems to non-asymptotic results similar to Berry–Esseen and Esseen inequalities in classical theory of summing of independent random variables. Von Bahr (1976) and Ho and Chen (1978) derived bounds for the remainder in a combinatorial CLT in the case of non-degenerated $X_{ij}$. Botlthausen (1984) obtained Esseen type inequality for the remainder for degenerated $X_{ij}$. The constant was not be specified in the last paper. Further results of this type may be found in Goldstein (2005) and Chen, Goldstein and Shao (2011). They contain explicit constants in the inequalities. For non-degenerated $X_{ij}$, Esseen type inequalities were stated by Neammanee and Suntornchost (2005), Neammanee and Rattanawong (2009) and Chen and Fang (2012). These inequalities were obtained for $X_{ij}$ with finite third moments by an application of Stein method. At the same time, it is known that the Berry–Esseen and Esseen inequalities maybe generalized to random variables without third moments. This techniques for sums of independent random variables may be found in Petrov (1995), for example. Applying similar techniques, Frolov (2014) obtained Esseen type bounds for the remainder in a combinatorial CLT for $X_{ij}$ with finite variations without third moments.
In this paper, we obtain new bounds for the remainder in a combinatorial CLT without moment assumptions. We also prove a general result in which there are no independence assumptions. In the case of independent random variables, our new results generalize those in Frolov (2014). Moreover, our results yield a combinatorial CLT for random variables without second moments. In our example, the summands belong to the domain of attraction of the normal law.
Results
=======
Let $\|X_{ij}\|$ be a $n \times n$ matrix of random variables and $\vec{\pi}=(\pi(1),\pi(2),\ldots, \pi(n))$ be a random permutation of $1,2,\ldots, n$, where $n\geqslant 2$. Note that we do not suppose the independence of random variables under consideration.
Denote $$S_n = \sum\limits_{i=1}^n X_{i\pi(i)}.$$
For real $a_n$ and $b_n>0$, put $$\Delta_n =\sup\limits_{x\in \mathbb{R}} \left|
P\left(\frac{S_n-a_n}{b_n} < x \right)-\Phi(x)\right|,$$ where $\Phi(x)$ is the standard normal distribution function.
Let $\|\mu_{ij}\|$ be a $n \times n$ matrix of real numbers and $\|t_{ij}\|$ be a $n \times n$ matrix with $0 < t_{ij} \leqslant +\infty$, where $n\geqslant 2$. For $1\leqslant i, j \leqslant n$, put $$\bar{X}_{ij} = (X_{ij}-\mu_{ij}) I\{ |X_{ij}-\mu_{ij}| < t_{ij}\},$$ where $I\{\cdot\}$ denotes the indicator of the event in brackets. Denote $$\bar{S}_n = \sum\limits_{i=1}^n \mu_{i\pi(i)}
+ \sum\limits_{i=1}^n \bar{X}_{i\pi(i)},\quad
\bar{e}_n = E \bar{S}_n,\quad
\bar{B}_n= D \bar{S}_n = E \bar{S}_n^2 - (\bar{e}_n)^2,$$ and $$\bar{\Delta}_n = \sup\limits_{x\in \mathbb{R}}
\left| P\left(\frac{\bar{S}_n - \bar{e}_n}{\sqrt{\bar{B}_n}}
< x\right)-\Phi(x)\right|.$$
For all $i$ and $j$ put $p_{ij}=P(\pi(i)=j)$ and $$q_{ij} =
\begin{cases}
P(|X_{ij}-\mu_{ij} | \geqslant t_{ij}|\pi(i)=j), & \text{if $p_{ij}>0$}, \\
0, & \text{otherwise}.
\end{cases}$$
Our first result is as follows.
\[th1\] [*The following inequality holds $$\label{be1}
\Delta_n \leqslant \bar{\Delta}_n + \Psi_n + \Theta_n + \Upsilon_n,$$ where $$\Psi_n =\sum\limits_{i,j=1}^n q_{ij} p_{ij}, \quad
\Theta_n =
\frac{|a_n -\bar{e}_n|}{\sqrt{2\pi} \sqrt{\bar{B}_n}},\quad
\Upsilon_n= \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi e}}
\max\left(\frac{\sqrt{\bar{B}_n}}{b_n}-1,
\frac{b_n}{\sqrt{\bar{B}_n}}-1 \right).$$* ]{}
This result is an analogue of Theorem 5.9 in Petrov (1995) for sums of random variables.
We now turn to the main case when random variables $X_{ij}$ are independent and permutation $\vec{\pi}$ is independent from summands and has the uniform distribution.
For every $n\times n$ matrix $\| m_{ij} \|$, put $$m_{i.} =\frac{1}{n} \sum\limits_{j=1}^n m_{ij},\quad
m_{.j} =\frac{1}{n} \sum\limits_{i=1}^n m_{ij},\quad
m_{..} =\frac{1}{n^2} \sum\limits_{i,j=1}^n m_{ij}, \quad
m_{ij}^{\ast} = m_{ij} - m_{i.} - m_{.j} + m_{..}$$ for all $i$ and $j$.
Denote $\bar{a}_{ij} = E \bar{X}_{ij}$ and $\bar{\sigma}^2_{ij} = D \bar{X}_{ij}$ for $1\leqslant i, j \leqslant n$. It is not difficult to check that $$\bar{e}_n= n (\bar{a}_{..}+\mu_{..}), \quad
\bar{B}_n= \frac{1}{n-1}\sum\limits_{i,j=1}^n
(\mu_{ij}^{\ast}+\bar{a}_{ij}^{\ast})^2
+\frac{1}{n} \sum\limits_{i,j=1}^n \bar{\sigma}_{ij}^2.$$
Moreover, in this case, $$\Psi_n = \frac{1}{n} \sum\limits_{i,j=1}^n
P(|X_{ij}-\mu_{ij}| \geqslant t_{ij}),$$ and Theorem \[th1\] has the following form.
\[th2\]
*Assume that random variables $X_{ij}$ are independent and permutation $\vec{\pi}$ is independent with $X_{ij}$. Suppose that $\vec{\pi}$ has the uniform distribution on the set of all permutation of $1,2, \ldots n$.*
Then the following inequality holds $$\label{be2}
\Delta_n \leqslant \bar{\Delta}_n + \frac{1}{n} \sum\limits_{i,j=1}^n P(|X_{ij}-\mu_{ij}| \geqslant t_{ij})
+ \Theta_n +\Upsilon_n.$$
There are no moment assumption in Theorems \[th1\] and \[th2\]. We now consider the case of finite means.
Assume that $E X_{ij} = c_{ij}$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{10}
c_{i.} = c_{.j}=0,
$$ for all $1\leqslant i, j \leqslant n$. Note that this property of the matrix $\| E X_{ij}\|$ plays in a combinatorial CLT the same role that the centering at mean of summands does in CLT.
Condition (\[10\]) implies that $E S_n=0$ and, therefore, we take $a_n=0$.
In the sequel, we also put $t_{ij} = b_n$ for all $1\leqslant i, j \leqslant n$.
\[th3\]
*Assume that the conditions of theorem \[th2\] are satisfied, relation (\[10\]) holds and $\mu_{i.} = \mu_{.j}=0$ for all $1\leqslant i, j \leqslant n$.*
Then there exists an absolute positive constant $A$ such that $$\label{be3}
\Delta_n \leqslant
\frac{A}{n \bar{B}_n^{3/2}} \sum\limits_{i,j=1}^n
\left(|\mu_{ij}|^{3} + E|\bar{X}_{ij}|^3 \right)+
\frac{1}{n} \sum\limits_{i,j=1}^n P(|X_{ij}-\mu_{ij}| \geqslant b_n)
+ \Theta_n + \Upsilon_n.$$
Note that we assume no moment conditions in Theorem \[th3\] besides existence of means.
Theorem \[th3\] contains many known results and allows to derive new bounds of remainder in a combinatorial CLT.
We start with the case of finite variations of random variables $X_{ij}$, in which Theorem \[th3\] yields the following result.
\[th4\]
*Assume that the conditions of Theorem \[th3\] hold and $D X_{ij} = \sigma_{ij}^2$. Put $$B_n = D S_n = \frac{1}{n-1}\sum\limits_{i,j=1}^n c_{ij}^2
+\frac{1}{n} \sum\limits_{i,j=1}^n \sigma_{ij}^2,$$*
Then there exists an absolute positive constant $A$ such that $$\label{be4}
\Delta_n \leqslant A \left(C_n + \Lambda_n + L_n \right),$$ where $$C_n = \frac{1}{n B_n^{3/2}} \sum\limits_{i,j=1}^n
|\mu_{ij}|^{3}, \quad
\Lambda_n = \frac{1}{n B_n} \sum\limits_{i,j=1}^n \alpha_{ij},\quad
L_n = \frac{1}{n B_n^{3/2}} \sum\limits_{i,j=1}^n \beta_{ij},$$ $\alpha_{ij}=E (X_{ij}-\mu_{ij})^2 I\{|X_{ij}-\mu_{ij}| \geqslant
\sqrt{B_n}\}$ and $\beta_{ij}=E\left|X_{ij}-\mu_{ij} \right|^3 I\{|X_{ij}-\mu_{ij}| < \sqrt{B_n} \}$ for $1\leqslant i, j \leqslant n$.
We would like to mention that constants $A$ are different in our theorems. Of course, one can find them as function of the constant in inequality (\[be3\]). The last constant becomes from bounds in a combinatorial CLT for summands with third moments. Unfortunately, this constant is large now and, therefore, we do not give exact expressions here.
Theorem \[th4\] is a generalization of Theorems 1 and 4 from Frolov (2014), where the cases $\mu_{ij}=0$ and $\mu_{ij}=c_{ij}$ for all $1\leqslant i, j \leqslant n$ have been considered. In the same way as in Frolov (2014), we arrive at the following result.
\[th5\]
*Assume that the conditions of Theorem \[th4\] hold. Let $g(x)$ be a positive, even function such that $g(x)$ and $x/g(x)$ are non-decreasing for $x>0$. Suppose that $g_{ij}=E (X_{ij}-\mu_{ij})^2 g(X_{ij}-\mu_{ij})<\infty$ for $1\leqslant i, j \leqslant n$.*
Then there exists an absolute positive constant $A$ such that $$\label{be5}
\Delta_n \leqslant A \left( \frac{1}{ B_n^{3/2} n} \sum\limits_{i,j=1}^n |\mu_{ij}|^3 +
\frac{1}{B_n g(\sqrt{B_n}) n} \sum\limits_{i,j=1}^n g_{ij} \right).$$
Theorem \[th5\] includes as partial cases Theorems 2 and 5 from Frolov (2014), where $\mu_{ij}=0$ and $\mu_{ij}=c_{ij}$ for all $1\leqslant i, j \leqslant n$, correspondingly. For $g(x)=|x|^{2+\delta}$, $\delta \in (0,1]$, we get the following result from Theorem \[th5\].
\[th6\]
*Assume that the conditions of Theorem \[th4\] hold.*
Then there exists an absolute positive constant $A$ such that $$\Delta_n
\leqslant A \left( \frac{1}{ B_n^{3/2} n} \sum\limits_{i,j=1}^n |\mu_{ij}|^3 +
\frac{1}{B_n^{1+\delta/2} n}
\sum\limits_{i,j=1}^n E |X_{ij}-\mu_{ij}|^{2+\delta}\right),$$ where $\delta \in (0,1]$.
Theorem \[th6\] improves Theorems 3 and 6 from Frolov (2014), where $\mu_{ij}=0$ and $\mu_{ij}=c_{ij}$ for all $1\leqslant i, j \leqslant n$, correspondingly.
Note that Theorems \[th4\] and \[th6\] imply a combinatorial CLT under Lyapunov and Lindeberg type conditions, correspondingly.
Theorems \[th5\] and \[th6\] may be applied to $-X_{ij}$ as well. Nevertheless, one can derive further results from Theorem \[th4\] under non-symmetric conditions on distributions of $X_{ij}$ by a method from Frolov (2014). Making use of this method, one can obtain bounds in terms of sums of $E|X_{ij}|^{2+\delta_{ij}}$ or some other moments depending on $i$ and $j$.
Let us turn to the case of infinite variations. In this case, Theorem \[th3\] also gives new results.
It is clear that we would like to put $b_n = \sqrt{\bar{B}_n}$ in this case. The problem is that $\bar{B}_n$ depends on $b_n$. Then consider the relation $b_n = \sqrt{\bar{B}_n}$ as an equation to determine $b_n$. Let us show how it works on an example.
Assume that $X_{ij}$ have the same distribution with the density $$p(x) =
\begin{cases}
|x|^{-3}, & \text{if $|x|>1$}, \\
0, & \text{otherwise}.
\end{cases}$$ Then $c_{ij} = \bar{a}_{ij} = 0$, $$\bar{\sigma}_{ij}^2 = \int\limits_{|x|<b_n} x^2 p(x) dx
= 2 \log b_n$$ for all $1\leqslant i, j \leqslant n$ and $$\bar{B}_n = \frac{1}{n} \sum\limits_{i,j=1}^n \bar{\sigma}_{ij}^2 =
2 n \log b_n.$$ It follows that the equation $b_n = \sqrt{\bar{B}_n}$ turns to $$b_n = \sqrt{2 n \log b_n}.$$ It is not difficult to check that $$b_n \sim \sqrt{n \log n} \quad \mbox{as} \quad n \rightarrow \infty.$$
We have $$P(|X_{ij}| \geqslant b_n)
= \int\limits_{|x| \geqslant b_n} p(x) dx =
\frac{1}{b_n^2} \sim \frac{1}{n \log n}
\quad \mbox{as} \quad n \rightarrow \infty.$$
Moreover, $$E |\bar{X}_{ij}|^3 = \int\limits_{|x|<b_n} x^3 p(x) dx =
2( b_n -1).$$
Relations $b_n = \sqrt{\bar{B}_n}$ and $a_{..}=0$ imply that $\Upsilon_n=0$ and $\Theta_n=0$, correspondingly.
It follows from (\[be3\]) that $$\Delta_n \leqslant A
\frac{n (b_n -1)}{ b_n^3} + \frac{ n}{b_n^2} =
O\left(\frac{1}{\log n}\right)
\quad \mbox{as} \quad n \rightarrow \infty.$$
It yields that Theorem \[th3\] gives a combinatorial CLT with a bound for a rate of convergence. Moreover, norming $\sqrt{n \log n}$ is determined in a similar way as for distributions from the domain of attraction of the standard normal law in usual CLT.
We now state a variant of a combinatorial CLT that follows from Theorem \[th3\]. We consider the case $\mu_{ij} = c_{ij}$.
\[th7\]
*Let $\{\|X_{nij}\|; 1\leqslant i, j \leqslant n, n=2,3,\ldots\}$ be a sequence of $n \times n$ matrix of independent random variables with $E X_{nij}=c_{nij}$ and $\vec{\pi}_n=(\pi(1),\pi(2),\ldots, \pi(n))$ be random permutations of $1,2,\ldots, n$, independent with $X_{nij}$. Assume that $\vec{\pi}_n$ has the uniform distribution on the set all permutations of $1,2,\ldots, n$ for $n=2,3,\ldots$ Denote $$S_n = \sum\limits_{i=1}^n X_{n i \pi_n(i)}.$$*
Assume that $c_{ni.}=c_{n.j} = 0$ for all $i$, $j$ and $n$.
Let $\{b_n\}$ be a sequence of positive constants. Put $\bar{X}_{nij} = (X_{nij} - c_{nij}) I\{|X_{nij} - c_{nij}| < b_n \}$, $ \bar{a}_{nij} = E \bar{X}_{nij}$, $\bar{\sigma}_{nij}^2 = D \bar{X}_{nij}$ for all $i$, $j$ and $n$. Denote $$\bar{B}_n = \frac{1}{n-1} \sum\limits_{i,j=1}^n
(c_{nij}+\bar{a}_{nij}-\bar{a}_{ni.}-\bar{a}_{n.j}+\bar{a}_{n..})^2
+ \frac{1}{n} \sum\limits_{i,j=1}^n \bar{\sigma}_{nij}^2.$$
Assume that the following conditions hold: $$\begin{aligned}
&&
1)\quad \frac{1}{ b_n^{3} n} \sum\limits_{i,j=1}^n |c_{nij}|^3 \rightarrow 0
\quad \mbox{as} \quad n \rightarrow \infty,
\\ &&
2) \quad \frac{1}{n} \sum\limits_{i,j=1}^n
P(|X_{nij} - c_{nij}| \geqslant \varepsilon b_n ) \rightarrow 0
\quad \mbox{as} \quad n \rightarrow \infty \quad \mbox{for every fixed}\quad \varepsilon>0,
\\ &&
3)\quad \frac{\bar{B}_n}{b_n^2} \rightarrow 1
\quad \mbox{as} \quad n \rightarrow \infty,
\\ &&
4)\quad \frac{1}{ b_n n} \sum\limits_{i,j=1}^n |\bar{a}_{nij}| \rightarrow 0
\quad \mbox{as} \quad n \rightarrow \infty.
\end{aligned}$$
Then $$\sup_{x\in\mathbb{R}} \left|P\left(\frac{S_n}{b_n}<x\right) - \Phi(x)\right|
\rightarrow 0
\quad \mbox{as} \quad n \rightarrow \infty.$$
Proofs
======
[**Proof of Theorem \[th1\].**]{} Put $p_n=b_n/\sqrt{\bar{B}_n}$, $q_n=(a_n - \bar{e}_n)/\sqrt{\bar{B}_n}$, $$\begin{aligned}
&&
\Delta_{n1} = \sup\limits_{x\in\mathbb{R}} \left|P\left(\frac{S_n-a_n}{b_n} < x \right)-
P\left(\frac{\bar{S}_n -a_n}{b_n} < x
\right)\right|,
\\ &&
\Delta_{n2} = \sup\limits_{x\in\mathbb{R}} \left| P\left(\frac{\bar{S}_n - \bar{e}_n}{\sqrt{\bar{B}_n}}
< p_n x +q_n \right) -\Phi\left( p_n x +q_n \right)\right|,
\\ &&
\Delta_{n3} = \sup\limits_{x\in\mathbb{R}} \left| \Phi\left( p_n x +q_n \right)-\Phi(x)\right|.
\end{aligned}$$ We have $$\Delta_n \leqslant \Delta_{n1}+ \Delta_{n2} + \Delta_{n3}.$$
It is clear that $\Delta_{n2}=\bar{\Delta}_n$ and, therefore, we will estimate $\Delta_{n1}$ and $\Delta_{n2}$.
Since $$S_n = \bar{S}_n + \sum\limits_{i=1}^n \left( X_{i\pi(i)}-\mu_{i\pi(i)}\right)
I\left\{|X_{i\pi(i)}-\mu_{i\pi(i)}| \geqslant t_{i\pi(i)} \right\},$$ we have $$\left\{S_n < x \right\} \subset
\left\{\bar{S}_n < x \right\} \cup
\bigcup\limits_{i=1}^n
\left\{|X_{i\pi(i)}-\mu_{i\pi(i)}| \geqslant t_{i\pi(i)} \right\}.$$ It follows that $$\begin{aligned}
&&
P(S_n < x) \leqslant P(\bar{S}_n < x)+ \sum\limits_{i=1}^n
P\left(|X_{i\pi(i)}-\mu_{i\pi(i)}| \geqslant t_{i\pi(i)} \right)
\\ &&
= P(\bar{S}_n < x)+\sum\limits_{i=1}^n \sum\limits_{j=1}^n
P\left(|X_{i\pi(i)}-\mu_{i\pi(i)}| \geqslant t_{i\pi(i)}, \pi(i) =j \right)
\\ &&
= P(\bar{S}_n < x)+\sum\limits_{i=1}^n \sum\limits_{j=1}^n
p_{ij} q_{ij} = P(\bar{S}_n < x)+ \Psi_n.\end{aligned}$$ From the other hand $$\left\{\bar{S}_n < x \right\} \subset
\left\{S_n < x \right\} \cup
\bigcup\limits_{i=1}^n
\left\{|X_{i\pi(i)}-\mu_{i\pi(i)}| \geqslant t_{i\pi(i)} \right\},$$ which yields that $$P(\bar{S}_n < x) \leqslant P(S_n < x) + \Psi_n.$$ It follows that $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta_{n1} \leqslant \Psi_n.\end{aligned}$$
The following result is a corollary of Lemma 5.2 in Petrov (1995).
\[l1\] [*For every real $p>0$ and $q$ the following inequality holds $$\sup\limits_{x\in\mathbb{R}} |\Phi\left( p x +q \right)-\Phi(x)| \leqslant
\frac{|q|}{\sqrt{2 \pi}} + \frac{1}{\sqrt{2 \pi e}}
\max\left(p-1, \frac{1}{p}-1\right).$$* ]{}
By Lemma \[l1\] we get $\Delta_{n3} \leqslant \Theta_n+\Upsilon_n$. This finishes the proof. $\Box$
We need the following known results (see, for example, Chen and Fang (2012)).
By Theorem A with $Y_{ij}= \mu_{ij}+\bar{X}_{ij}$, we have that $$\bar{\Delta}_n \leqslant \frac{A}{n \bar{B}_n^{3/2}}
\sum\limits_{i,j=1}^n E\left|\mu_{ij}+\bar{X}_{ij}
-\bar{a}_{i.}-\bar{a}_{.j}+\bar{a}_{..} \right|^3.$$ By the Hölder inequality we, get $$\bar{\Delta}_n \leqslant \frac{25 A}{n \bar{B}_n^{3/2}}
\sum\limits_{i,j=1}^n \left(|\mu_{ij}|^3+E|\bar{X}_{ij}|^3
+|\bar{a}_{i.}|^3+|\bar{a}_{.j}|^3+|\bar{a}_{..}|^3\right).$$
Making use of the Lyapunov inequality, we obtain that $|\bar{a}_{ij}|\leqslant (E|\bar{X}_{ij}|^3)^{1/3}$ for all $i$ and $j$. Applying again the Hölder inequality, we write $$|\bar{a}_{i.}|^3 = \frac{1}{n^3}
\left|\sum\limits_{j=1}^n \bar{a}_{ij}\right|^3
\leqslant \frac{1}{n^3}
\left(\sum\limits_{j=1}^n |\bar{a}_{ij}|\right)^3
\leqslant \frac{1}{n}
\sum\limits_{j=1}^n |\bar{a}_{ij}|^3
\leqslant \frac{1}{n}
\sum\limits_{j=1}^n E |\bar{X}_{ij}|^3.$$ It follows that $$\sum\limits_{i,j=1}^n |\bar{a}_{i.}|^3 \leqslant
\sum\limits_{i,j=1}^n E|\bar{X}_{ij}|^3.$$ In the same way, we arrive at $$\sum\limits_{i,j=1}^n |\bar{a}_{.j}|^3 \leqslant
\sum\limits_{i,j=1}^n E |\bar{X}_{ij}|^3.$$ Further, an application of the Hölder inequality yields that $$|\bar{a}_{..}|^3 = \frac{1}{n^6}
\left|\sum\limits_{i,j=1}^n \bar{a}_{ij}\right|^3
\leqslant \frac{1}{n^6}
\left(\sum\limits_{i,j=1}^n |\bar{a}_{ij}|\right)^3
\leqslant \frac{1}{n^2}
\sum\limits_{i,j=1}^n |\bar{a}_{ij}|^3
\leqslant \frac{1}{n^2} \sum\limits_{i,j=1}^n E |\bar{X}_{ij}|^3.$$ The latter inequality implies that $$\sum\limits_{i,j=1}^n |\bar{a}_{..}|^3 \leqslant
\sum\limits_{i,j=1}^n E|\bar{X}_{ij}|^3.$$
It follows that $$\bar{\Delta}_n \leqslant \frac{25 A}{n \bar{B}_n^{3/2}}
\sum\limits_{i,j=1}^n \left(|\mu_{ij}|^3+ 4 E|\bar{X}_{ij}|^3\right).$$ This bound and inequality (\[be2\]) yield (\[be3\]) and Theorems is proved. $\Box$
\[l2\] [*Assume that the conditions of Theorem \[th4\] hold. Then there exists an absolute constant $A'$ such that $$\left|1-\frac{\sqrt{\bar{B}_n}}{\sqrt{B_n}}\right|
\leqslant A' (C_n+\Lambda_n).$$* ]{}
[**Proof of Lemma \[l2\].**]{} Assume that $B_n=1$. Then $$\bar{X}_{ij} = (X_{ij} - \mu_{ij}) I\{ |X_{ij} - \mu_{ij}| < 1\}.$$ Put $$\hat{X}_{ij} = (X_{ij} - \mu_{ij}) I\{ |X_{ij} - \mu_{ij}| \geqslant 1\}.$$
We have $$\begin{aligned}
1-\bar{B}_n= B_n-\bar{B}_n
= \frac{1}{n } \sum\limits_{i,j=1}^n ( \sigma_{ij}^2 - \bar{\sigma}_{ij}^2) +
\frac{1}{n-1 } \sum\limits_{i,j=1}^n
(c_{ij}^2-
(\mu_{ij}+\bar{a}_{ij}-\bar{a}_{i.}-\bar{a}_{.j}+\bar{a}_{..})^2).\end{aligned}$$
Note that for all $i$ and $j$, $$\label{cij}
c_{ij} = \mu_{ij}+\bar{a}_{ij} + E \hat{X}_{ij}.$$
It follows that $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma_{ij}^2 - \bar{\sigma}_{ij}^2 = E(X_{ij}- \mu_{ij})^2 -
(c_{ij} - \mu_{ij})^2 - E \bar{X}_{ij}^2 + \bar{a}_{ij}^2
= E \hat{X}_{ij}^2 - 2 \bar{a}_{ij} E \hat{X}_{ij}
- (E \hat{X}_{ij})^2,\end{aligned}$$ for all $i$ and $j$. Taking into account that $|\bar{a}_{ij}|<1$, we have $$|\sigma_{ij}^2 - \bar{\sigma}_{ij}^2| \leqslant 4 E \hat{X}_{ij}^2.$$ Then $$\label{N1}
\frac{1}{n } \sum\limits_{i,j=1}^n ( \sigma_{ij}^2 - \bar{\sigma}_{ij}^2)
\leqslant 4 \Lambda_n.$$
Further, applying of (\[cij\]) implies that for all $i$ and $j$, $$\begin{aligned}
&&
c_{ij}^2-
(\mu_{ij}+\bar{a}_{ij}-\bar{a}_{i.}-\bar{a}_{.j}+\bar{a}_{..})^2
\\ &&
= 2 (\mu_{ij}+\bar{a}_{ij}) E \hat{X}_{ij} + (E \hat{X}_{ij})^2
+ 2 (\mu_{ij}+\bar{a}_{ij})(\bar{a}_{i.}+\bar{a}_{.j}-\bar{a}_{..})
- (\bar{a}_{i.}+\bar{a}_{.j}-\bar{a}_{..})^2.\end{aligned}$$
Note that $$\sum\limits_{i,j=1}^n \mu_{ij} \bar{a}_{i.} =
n \sum\limits_{i=1}^n \mu_{i.} \bar{a}_{i.} = 0,$$ and, similarly, $$\sum\limits_{i,j=1}^n \mu_{ij} \bar{a}_{.j} = 0, \quad
\sum\limits_{i,j=1}^n \mu_{ij} \bar{a}_{..} =0.$$ It follows that $$\begin{aligned}
\\ &&
\sum\limits_{i,j=1}^n
(c_{ij}^2-
(\mu_{ij}+\bar{a}_{ij}-\bar{a}_{i.}-\bar{a}_{.j}+\bar{a}_{..})^2)
\\ &&
= \sum\limits_{i,j=1}^n \left(
2 (\mu_{ij}+\bar{a}_{ij}) E \hat{X}_{ij} + (E \hat{X}_{ij})^2
+ 2 \bar{a}_{ij} (\bar{a}_{i.}+\bar{a}_{.j}-\bar{a}_{..})
- (\bar{a}_{i.}+\bar{a}_{.j}-\bar{a}_{..})^2 \right).\end{aligned}$$
Making use of the Hölder inequality, we have $$\label{N2}
(\bar{a}_{i.}+\bar{a}_{.j}-\bar{a}_{..})^2 \leqslant 3
(\bar{a}_{i.}^2+\bar{a}_{.j}^2+\bar{a}_{..}^2).$$
We write $$\begin{aligned}
&& \nonumber
\sum\limits_{i,j=1}^n \bar{a}_{i.}^2 = n \sum\limits_{i=1}^n \bar{a}_{i.}^2
= \frac{1}{n} \sum\limits_{i=1}^n \left(
\sum\limits_{j=1}^n ( c_{ij} - \mu_{ij} - E \hat{X}_{ij}) \right)^2
\\ && \nonumber
= \frac{1}{n} \sum\limits_{i=1}^n \left(
n c_{i.} - n \mu_{i.} - \sum\limits_{j=1}^n E \hat{X}_{ij}\right)^2
=
\frac{1}{n} \sum\limits_{i=1}^n \left(
\sum\limits_{j=1}^n E \hat{X}_{ij} \right)^2
\\ && \label{N3}
\leqslant
\sum\limits_{i,j=1}^n (E \hat{X}_{ij})^2
\leqslant
\sum\limits_{i,j=1}^n E \hat{X}_{ij}^2 = n \Lambda_n.\end{aligned}$$ We obtain in the same way that $$\label{N4}
\sum\limits_{i,j=1}^n \bar{a}_{.j}^2 \leqslant n \Lambda_n,
\quad
\sum\limits_{i,j=1}^n \bar{a}_{..}^2 \leqslant n \Lambda_n.$$ Further, we get by (\[N3\]) that $$\label{N5}
\sum\limits_{i,j=1}^n \bar{a}_{ij} \bar{a}_{i.} =
n \sum\limits_{i=1}^n \bar{a}_{i.}^2 \leqslant
n \Lambda_n.$$ It follows from (\[N4\]) in the same way that $$\label{N6}
\sum\limits_{i,j=1}^n \bar{a}_{ij} \bar{a}_{.j}
\leqslant n \Lambda_n,\quad
\sum\limits_{i,j=1}^n \bar{a}_{ij} \bar{a}_{..}
\leqslant n \Lambda_n.$$ Taking into account that $ x y \leqslant x^{3}/3 + 2 y^{3/2}/3$ for all non-negative $x$ and $y$, we get $$|\mu_{ij} E \hat{X}_{ij}| \leqslant
\frac{1}{3} |\mu_{ij}|^3 +
\frac{2}{3} |E \hat{X}_{ij}|^{3/2}
\leqslant
\frac{1}{3} |\mu_{ij}|^3+
\frac{2}{3} E \hat{X}_{ij}^{2}$$ for all $i$ and $j$. Hence $$\label{N7}
\sum\limits_{i,j=1}^n |\mu_{ij} E \hat{X}_{ij}| \leqslant
\frac{n C_n}{3} + \frac{2 n \Lambda_n}{3}.$$
Since $|\bar{a}_{ij}|<1$ for all $i$ and $j$, we conclude that $$\label{N8}
\sum\limits_{i,j=1}^n |\bar{a}_{ij} E \hat{X}_{ij}| \leqslant
\sum\limits_{i,j=1}^n E \hat{X}_{ij}^{2} = n \Lambda_n.$$
It follows from (\[N2\])–(\[N8\]) that $$\frac{1}{n-1 } \sum\limits_{i,j=1}^n
(c_{ij}^2-
(\mu_{ij}+\bar{a}_{ij}-\bar{a}_{i.}-\bar{a}_{.j}+\bar{a}_{..})^2)
\leqslant \frac{2 n}{3(n-1)} C_n +
\left(\frac{4 n}{3(n-1)}+ \frac{18 n}{(n-1)} \right) \Lambda_n.$$
The last inequality and (\[N1\]) yield that $$|B_n-\bar{B}_n| = |1-\bar{B}_n|
\leqslant \frac{2 n}{3(n-1)} C_n +
\left(\frac{4 n}{3(n-1)}+ \frac{18 n}{(n-1)} + 4 \right) \Lambda_n \leqslant C_n + 43 \Lambda_n,$$ and Lemma \[l2\] is proved for $B_n=1$. If $B_n \neq 1$, then we apply the latter inequality to $X_{ij}/\sqrt{B_n}$, $c_{ij}/\sqrt{B_n}$ and $\mu_{ij}/\sqrt{B_n}$. $\Box$
Assume that $B_n=1$.
If $\sqrt{\bar{B}_n} \leqslant 1/2$, then by Lemma \[l2\] $$\Delta_n \leqslant 1 \leqslant 2 |1-\sqrt{\bar{B}_n}|
\leqslant 2 A' (C_n+\Lambda_n).$$ It yields (\[be4\]) for $B_n=1$ in this case.
Assume now that $\sqrt{\bar{B}_n} \geqslant 1/2$. If $\sqrt{\bar{B}_n} > 1$, then we have by Lemma \[l2\] that $$\Upsilon_n = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2 \pi e}}
(\sqrt{\bar{B}_n}-1)
\leqslant \frac{A'}{\sqrt{2 \pi e}} (C_n+\Lambda_n).$$ For $\sqrt{\bar{B}_n} < 1$, we get by Lemma \[l2\] that $$\Upsilon_n = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2 \pi e}}
\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{\bar{B}_n}}-1\right)
\leqslant \frac{1}{\sqrt{2 \pi e}} 2
(1-\sqrt{\bar{B}_n})
\leqslant \frac{2 A'}{\sqrt{2 \pi e}} (C_n+\Lambda_n).$$
Note that $$\bar{X}_{ij} = (X_{ij} - \mu_{ij}) I\{ |X_{ij} - \mu_{ij}| < 1\}.$$ Put again $$\hat{X}_{ij} = (X_{ij} - \mu_{ij}) I\{ |X_{ij} - \mu_{ij}| \geqslant 1\}.$$
It is clear that $$\frac{1}{n} \sum\limits_{i,j=1}^n P(|X_{ij} - \mu_{ij}| \geqslant 1) =
\frac{1}{n} \sum\limits_{i,j=1}^n E I\{ |X_{ij} - \mu_{ij}| \geqslant 1\}
\leqslant \frac{1}{n} \sum\limits_{i,j=1}^n E \hat{X}_{ij}^2 = \Lambda_n.$$ Moreover, $$\begin{aligned}
&&
\Theta_n = \frac{|\bar{e}_n|}{\sqrt{2 \pi} \sqrt{\bar{B}_n}}=
\frac{1}{\sqrt{2 \pi} \sqrt{\bar{B}_n} n}
\left|\sum\limits_{i,j=1}^n \bar{a}_{ij} \right|
=
\frac{1}{\sqrt{2 \pi} \sqrt{\bar{B}_n} n}
\left|\sum\limits_{i,j=1}^n E \hat{X}_{ij}
\right|
\\ &&
\leqslant
\frac{1}{\sqrt{2 \pi} \sqrt{\bar{B}_n} n}
\sum\limits_{i,j=1}^n
E \hat{X}_{ij}^2 = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2 \pi} \sqrt{\bar{B}_n} } \Lambda_n
\leqslant \frac{\Lambda_n}{\sqrt{\pi}}.\end{aligned}$$
These bounds imply by (\[be3\]) that $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta_n \leqslant 2^{3/2} A (C_n + L_n)+
\frac{2 A'}{\sqrt{2 \pi e}} (C_n+\Lambda_n)+
\Lambda_n + \frac{\Lambda_n}{\sqrt{\pi}}.\end{aligned}$$ This inequality yields (\[be4\]) for $B_n=1$.
If $B_n \neq 1$, then we apply the result for $B_n=1$ to $X_{ij}/\sqrt{B_n}$, $c_{ij}/\sqrt{B_n}$ and $\mu_{ij}/\sqrt{B_n}$. $\Box$
Theorems \[th5\] and \[th6\] follow from Theorem \[th4\] in the same way as in Frolov (2014). Details are omitted.
Conditions 3) and 4) imply that $\Upsilon_n \rightarrow 0$ and $\Theta_n \rightarrow 0$ as $n \rightarrow \infty$, correspondingly.
Take $\varepsilon>0$. We have $$\begin{aligned}
&&
\hspace*{-1.2\parindent}
E|\bar{X}_{nij}|^3 = E|X_{nij}-c_{nij}|^3 I\{|X_{nij}-c_{nij}|< \varepsilon b_n\}+
E|X_{nij}-c_{nij}|^3
I\{\varepsilon b_n \leqslant |X_{nij}-c_{nij}| < b_n\}
\\ &&
\hspace*{-1.2\parindent}
\leqslant \varepsilon b_n
E|X_{nij}-c_{nij}|^2 I\{|X_{nij}-c_{nij}|< b_n\}
+ b_n^3 P(|X_{nij}-c_{nij}| \geqslant \varepsilon b_n)
\\ &&
\hspace*{-1.2\parindent}
=
\varepsilon b_n (\bar{\sigma}_{nij}^2 + \bar{a}_{nij}^2)+
b_n^3 P(|X_{nij}-c_{nij}| \geqslant \varepsilon b_n)
\leqslant
\varepsilon b_n \bar{\sigma}_{nij}^2 + \varepsilon b_n^2 |\bar{a}_{nij}|+
b_n^3 P(|X_{nij} - c_{nij}| \geqslant \varepsilon b_n),\end{aligned}$$ for all $i$ and $j$. Hence $$\frac{1}{n b_n^{3}} \sum\limits_{i,j=1}^n E|\bar{X}_{nij}|^3
\leqslant \varepsilon \frac{\bar{B}_n}{b_n^2} +
\varepsilon \frac{1}{b_n n}
\sum\limits_{i,j=1}^n |\bar{a}_{nij}|
+\frac{1}{n}
\sum\limits_{i,j=1}^n P(|X_{nij} - c_{nij}| \geqslant \varepsilon b_n).$$ This inequality and conditions 2), 3) and 4) yield that $$\frac{1}{n b_n^{3}} \sum\limits_{i,j=1}^n E|\bar{X}_{nij}|^3
\rightarrow 0\quad \mbox{as}\quad n \rightarrow \infty.$$ By inequality (\[be3\]), we arrive at the desired conclusion. $\Box$
[**References**]{}
0 mm
Bolthausen E. (1984) An estimate of the remainder in a combinatorial central limit theorem. Z. Wahrsch. verw. Geb. 66, 379-386.
Goldstein L. (2005) Berry-Esseen bounds for combinatorial central limit theorems and pattern occurrences, using zero and size biasing. J. Appl. Probab. 42, 661-683.
Chen L.H.Y., Fang X. (2012) 0n the error bound in a combinatorial central limit theorem. arXiv:1111.3159.
Chen L.H.Y., Goldstein L., Shao Q.M. (2011) Normal approximation by Stein’s method. Springer.
Ho S.T., Chen L.H.Y. (1978) An $L_p$ bounds for the remainder in a combinatorial central limit theorem. Ann. Probab. 6, 231-249.
Frolov A.N. (2014) Esseen type bounds of the remainder in a combinatorial CLT. J. Statist. Planning and Inference, 149, 90-97. Hoeffding W. (1951) A combinatorial central limit theorem. Ann. Math. Statist. 22, 558-566.
Kolchin V.F., Chistyakov V.P. (1973) On a combinatorial limit theorem. Theor. Probab. Appl. 18, 728-739.
Motoo M. (1957) On Hoeffding’s combinatorial central limit theorem. Ann. Inst. Statist. Math. 8, 145-154.
Neammanee K., Suntornchost J. (2005) A uniform bound on a combinatorial central limit theorem. Stoch. Anal. Appl. 3, 559-578.
Neammanee K., Rattanawong P. (2009) A constant on a uniform bound of a combinatorial central limit theorem. J. Math. Research 1, 91-103.
Noether G.E. (1949) On a theorem by Wald and Wolfowitz. Ann. Math. Statist. 20, 455-458.
Petrov V.V. (1995) Limit theorems of probability theory. Sequences of independent random variables. Clarendon press, Oxford.
von Bahr B. (1976) Remainder term estimate in a combinatorial central limit theorem. Z. Wahrsch. verw. Geb. 35, 131-139.
Wald A., Wolfowitz J. (1944) Statistical tests based on permutations of observations. Ann. Math. Statist. 15, 358-372.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
We study $M/L$ evolution of early-type galaxies using dynamical modeling of resolved internal kinematics. This makes fewer assumptions than Fundamental Plane (FP) studies and provides a powerful new approach for studying galaxy evolution. We focus on the sample of 25 galaxies in clusters at $z \approx 0.5$ modeled in Paper I. For comparison we compile and homogenize $M/L$ literature data for 60 nearby galaxies that were modeled in comparable detail. The nearby sample obeys $\log (M/L)_B = Z + S \log(\sigma_{\rm eff}/[200 {\>{\rm km}\,{\rm s}^{-1}}])$, with $Z = 0.896 \pm 0.010$, $S = 0.992 \pm 0.054$, and $\sigma_{\rm
eff}$ the effective velocity dispersion. The $z
\approx 0.5$ sample follows a similar relation but with lower zeropoint. The implied $M/L$ evolution is $\Delta \log(M/L) /
\Delta z = -0.457 \pm 0.046 \> {\rm (random)} \pm 0.078 \> {\rm
(systematic)}$, consistent with passive evolution following high-redshift formation. This agrees with the FP results for this sample by van Dokkum & van der Marel. This confirms that FP evolution tracks $M/L$ evolution, which is an important verification of the assumptions that underly FP studies. However, while we find more FP evolution for galaxies of low $\sigma_{\rm eff}$ (or low mass), the dynamical $M/L$ evolution instead shows little trend with $\sigma_{\rm
eff}$. We argue that this difference can be plausibly attributed to a combination of two effects: (a) evolution in structural galaxy properties other than $M/L$; and (b) the neglect of rotational support in studies of FP evolution. The results leave the question open whether the low-mass galaxies in the sample have younger population ages than the high-mass galaxies. This highlights the general importance in the study of population ages for complementing dynamical measurements with broad-band colors or spectroscopic population diagnostics.
author:
- 'Roeland P. van der Marel'
- 'Pieter G. van Dokkum'
title: |
Dynamical Models of Elliptical Galaxies in $z = 0.5$ Clusters:\
II. Mass-to-Light Ratio Evolution without Fundamental Plane Assumptions
---
Introduction {#s:intro}
============
A stellar population of fixed mass fades as it ages. The predicted mass-to-light ratio $M/L$ of a galaxy therefore depends strongly on its age (e.g., Bruzual & Charlot 2003) and $M/L$ measurements can constrain galaxy formation times. The $M/L$ of a galaxy cannot generally be accurately constrained from characteristics of the observed light (e.g., broad-band colors and line-strength indices) alone. This is because low-mass stars contribute the bulk of the mass, but only a small fraction of the light. Plausible variations in the assumed initial mass function (IMF) can therefore change the $M/L$ without affecting significantly the characteristics of the observed light (e.g., Bell & de Jong 2001). Accurate measurements of galaxy $M/L$ values therefore generally rely on dynamical properties. The speed at which stars or gas move probes directly the gravitational force to which they are subjected, and therefore the mass of the system.
The quality of the kinematical data for galaxies in the local Universe, as well as the methods by which their dynamics can be modeled, have steadily increased in sophistication over the years. Large samples of reliable $M/L$ measurements are now available from many studies, in particular for early-type galaxies (e.g., van der Marel 1991; Magorrian [[et al. ]{}]{}1998; Gebhardt [[et al. ]{}]{}2003; Cappellari [[et al. ]{}]{}2006a). For these galaxies it is well established that the $M/L$ inside an effective radius is relatively constant, and contains only a small contribution from the dark halo (e.g., Kronawitter [[et al. ]{}]{}2000). Therefore, the inferred $M/L$ values are primarily driven by the characteristics of the stellar population. This situation differs considerably from the case for spiral galaxies. While mass profiles have been derived for many spiral galaxies (e.g., Persic, Salucci & Stel 1996), these profiles constrain primarily the properties of the dark halo. Considerable uncertainty remains on the $M/L$ of the stellar population, or alternatively, on whether spiral galaxy disks are “maximal” or not (e.g., van Albada [[et al. ]{}]{}1985; Courteau & Rix 1999).
Uncertainties in the IMF for low-mass stars cause considerable uncertainty in the predicted $M/L$ at fixed age. So while accurate dynamical $M/L$ measurements are available for many early-type galaxies, these do not uniquely constrain the age of their stellar population. A more powerful constraint is provided by the [*relative*]{} rate at which the $M/L$ varies with time, or alternatively, redshift: $[d(M/L) / (M/L)] / dz \propto d \log (M/L) / dz$. Because this is a relative measure, it depends less strongly on uncertainties in the IMF for low-mass stars. Of course, a dependence does remain on the exact shape of the IMF for the higher-mass stars that produce most of the light. Nonetheless, $d \log (M/L) / dz$ can be used to meaningfully constrain the formation redshift of early-type galaxies (van Dokkum [[et al. ]{}]{}1998).
Studies of $d \log (M/L) / dz$ have so far relied primarily on measurements of the Fundamental Plane (FP) for galaxies in the nearby and distant Universe (van Dokkum & Franx 1996). The FP is a tight planar relation between the global properties of early-type galaxies in any three-dimensional parameter space spanned by quantities that measure the characteristic galaxy size, velocity dispersion, and surface brightness (Djorgovski & Davis 1987; Dressler [[et al. ]{}]{}1987). For example, one might take the effective radius $r_{\rm eff}$, the average velocity dispersion $\sigma_{\rm eff}$ inside the effective radius, and the average surface brightness $I_{\rm eff}$ inside the effective radius. The existence of the FP can be understood as a combination of the virial theorem and a power-law dependence of $M/L$ on global galaxy properties (Dressler [[et al. ]{}]{}1987; Cappellari [[et al. ]{}]{}2006a). A decrease in $M/L$ with redshift due to stellar population effects corresponds to an increase in $I_{\rm eff}$, and consequently, a measurable decrease in the zeropoint of the FP.
Studies of FP evolution have provided important new insights into the formation and evolution of early-type galaxies (see, e.g., the following recent papers and references therein: Wuyts [[et al. ]{}]{}2004; Woo [[et al. ]{}]{}2004; Moran [[et al. ]{}]{}2005; Treu [[et al. ]{}]{}2005a,b; van der Wel [[et al. ]{}]{}2004, 2005; di Serego Alighieri [[et al. ]{}]{}2005; Jorgensen [[et al. ]{}]{}2006). In van Dokkum & van der Marel (2006, hereafter vDvdM06), we presented spectroscopy with the Low Resolution Imager and Spectrograph (LRIS) on Keck of some two dozen galaxies in the intermediate-redshift ($z
\approx 0.5$) clusters CL3C295, CL0016+16 and CL1601+42. The sample galaxies were selected to be bright enough for spectroscopy, and visually classified from the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) images of Dressler [[et al. ]{}]{}(1997) and Smail [[et al. ]{}]{}(1997) as early-type (and in most cases elliptical) galaxies. We measured the integrated velocity dispersions of the galaxies and analyzed existing HST images to infer their characteristic photometric properties. This allowed a study of the FP evolution of the three sample clusters. We combined our new results with existing FP data for eleven additional clusters in the redshift range $0.18 \leq z \leq 1.28$ as well as samples of field early-type galaxies in the redshift range $0.32 \leq z \leq
1.14$. This provides the largest homogenized analysis of FP evolution to date and implies a luminosity-weighted mean star formation redshift $z_{*} = 2.01_{-0.17}^{+0.22}$ for massive ($M > 10^{11} {\>{\rm M_{\odot}}}$) early-type galaxies in clusters. Field early-type galaxies in the same mass range are only $4.1 \pm 2.0$% younger, with $z_{*} =
1.95_{-0.08}^{+0.10}$. (These results assume that the IMF has a “standard” form and that the progenitor bias described by van Dokkum & Franx (2001) does not depend on environment; see vDvdM06 for details).
The success and popularity of FP studies can be attributed at least in part to the relative ease with which such studies can be performed. Only global galaxy properties need to be measured, and modeling of the internal structure of the sample galaxies is not required. However, there are important caveats. In particular, values of $d \log (M/L) / dz$ determined from FP evolution are correct only if many simplifying assumptions are satisfied. Any potential evolution of global galaxy properties other than $M/L$ (i.e., $\sigma_{\rm
eff}$, $r_{\rm eff}$ and $\Sigma_{\rm eff} \equiv (M/L)\times I_{\rm
eff} (r)$, the latter quantity being the average projected surface mass density inside $r_{\rm eff}$) must either be absent or be such so as to not affect the inferred $M/L$ evolution. Also, galaxies must change homologously with redshift, if at all; they must not evolve in quantities such as the shape of their three-dimensional contours, the shape of their density profile with radius, or the shape of their intrinsic dynamical structure. The possibility that evolution in any of these quantities may in fact occur has left the interpretation of FP studies somewhat uncertain. This possibility has come into sharp focus through the fact that the inferred $M/L$ evolution of massive early-type galaxies is well fit by models of passive evolution following formation at high redshift, and by the fact that there appears to be only a small age difference between massive early-type galaxies in clusters and the field (vDvdM06). Although models can be constructed that reproduce these results (e.g., Nagamine [[et al. ]{}]{}2005; De Lucia [[et al. ]{}]{}2006), they do appear somewhat counter-intuitive given the paradigm of hierarchical structure formation in the Universe. Moreover, there exist sophisticated semi-analytical models in which the evolution of galaxy $M/L$ and FP zeropoint are actually quite different (Almeida, Baugh & Lacey 2006). So there are many reasons to critically question whether FP evolution does in fact uniquely trace $M/L$ evolution.
The most direct way to address this question is to determine $M/L$ values for individual distant galaxies in the same way as has been done locally, without resorting to FP assumptions. This requires construction of detailed dynamical models for high-quality spatially resolved photometric and kinematic data. With these goals in mind we obtained spectroscopic data in vDvdM06 that was deep enough to extract spatially resolved rotation curves and velocity dispersion profiles for the sample galaxies in CL3C295, CL0016+16 and CL1601+42. In van der Marel & van Dokkum (2006, hereafter Paper I) we presented the kinematical profiles and constructed detailed dynamical models to interpret them. The models are axisymmetric and are based on solving the Jeans equations of hydrostatic equilibrium under the assumption of a two-integral distribution function $f=f(E,L_z)$, where $E$ is the energy and $L_z$ the angular momentum around the symmetry axis. Fitting of the models to the available HST imaging and observed kinematical profiles yields two quantities: a normalized measure $k$ of the galaxy’s rotation rate and the $M/L$ of the stellar population (in rest-frame $B$ band solar units). The inferred values for these quantities and their formal uncertainties were presented in Paper I. The implications of the inferred rotation rates were also discussed in that paper. In the present paper we interpret the inferred $M/L$ values. To do this, we first compile and homogenize a comparison sample of galaxies in the local Universe with reliable $M/L$ determinations from the literature. We then compare the $M/L$ values for the intermediate-redshift cluster galaxies to those for the local comparison sample to obtain a direct measure of the $M/L$ evolution of elliptical galaxies.
[lclc]{} [ I & $\pm 0.003$ & effect of uncertainties in $\Omega_{\rm m}$ and $\Omega_{\Lambda}$ at $z \approx 0.5$ & \[s:intro\]\
II & $\pm 0.026$ & accuracy with which the SBF and Cepheid distance scales have been aligned & \[ss:dist\]\
III & $\pm 0.037$ & accuracy of the Cepheid distance scale for local galaxies & \[ss:dist\]\
IV & $\pm 0.009$ & cosmic variance in $H_0$ on the scale $z {\lesssim}0.1$ & \[ss:dist\]\
V & $\pm 0.023$ & random uncertainty in $H_0$ due to finite sample sizes & \[ss:dist\]\
VI & $\pm 0.020$ & difference in results from different dynamical modeling approaches & \[ss:MLerrors\]\
]{}
The layout of this paper is as follows. Section \[s:local\] discusses the compilation of the local comparison sample of galaxies with dynamically inferred $M/L$ values. Section \[s:MLevolution\] compares the $M/L$ values for the galaxies in the intermediate-redshift sample from Paper I to those from the local compilation. This yields $d \log (M/L) / dz$, which is compared to the FP evolution of the same sample derived in vDvdM06. Section \[s:slopeevol\] discusses how the $M/L$ evolution depends on galaxy dispersion (or similarly mass), both in the present study and in the FP analysis. The uncertainties in both methods are discussed, as well as the implications for the accuracies of the inferred $M/L$ evolution. Section \[s:conc\] presents a summary and discussion of the results.
The dynamically inferred $M/L$ of a galaxy is inversely proportional to the assumed distance. Throughout this paper (as in Paper I) we assume a cosmology with $\Omega_{\rm m} = 0.27$, $\Omega_{\Lambda} =
0.73$ (the values obtained by the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe; Spergel [[et al. ]{}]{}2003) and $H_0 = 71 {\>{\rm km}\,{\rm s}^{-1}}{\>{\rm Mpc}}^{-1}$ (the value obtained by the HST Cepheid Key Project; Section 7 of Freedman [[et al. ]{}]{}2001). The uncertainties in $\Omega_{\rm m}$, $\Omega_{\Lambda}$ can be estimated to be $\sim 0.02$ (Spergel [[et al. ]{}]{}2003). At $z \approx
0.5$ this introduces an uncertainty of only $\Delta_{\rm I} = \pm
0.003$ in $\log(M/L)$. (Here and henceforth we denote sources of systematic uncertainty in $\log(M/L)$ with a roman numeral subscript. A summary listing of all sources of systematic uncertainty encountered in this paper is presented in Table \[t:syserrors\].) The uncertainties in $H_0$ and their effect on $\log(M/L)$ will be addressed later.
Local Galaxy Mass-to-Light Ratio Comparison Sample {#s:local}
==================================================
Dynamical Modeling Sources {#ss:local}
--------------------------
To study the $M/L$ evolution with redshift we need a comparison sample of dynamically inferred $M/L$ values for [*nearby*]{} early-type galaxies. We restrict our attention here to five detailed dynamical modeling studies that addressed relatively large samples: van der Marel (1991, hereafter vdM91); Magorrian [[et al. ]{}]{}(1998, hereafter M98); Kronawitter [[et al. ]{}]{}(2000, hereafter K00); Gebhardt [[et al. ]{}]{}(2003, hereafter G03); and Cappellari [[et al. ]{}]{}(2006a, hereafter C06). These studies differ from each other in many ways, both in terms of the quality and nature of the data that were used, and in the methods and sophistication of the modeling. In particular:
- vdM91 and K00 used ground-based photometry, whereas M98, G03 and C06 used a combination of both HST and ground-based photometry;
- vdM91, M98, K00 and C06 used ground-based spectroscopy, whereas G03 used a combination of ground-based and HST spectroscopy;
- vdM91, M98, K00 and G03 used long-slit spectroscopy along one or more slit position angles, whereas C06 used fully two-dimensional integral-field spectroscopy;
- K03 constructed spherical dynamical models (they restricted their sample to galaxies that are almost circular in projection on the sky), whereas vdM91, M98, G03 and C06 constructed axisymmetric models;
- vdM91 and M98 constructed two-integral models using the Jeans equations, K00 constructed models using an expansion around a set of known basis distribution functions, and G03 and C06 constructed fully general models using numerical orbit superposition;
- K00 included kinematical data in the central few arcsec in their fits, but did not allow for the possible gravitational contribution of a central BH; vdM91 also did not include a BH in the models but excluded the central few arcsec from the fit; C06 included a BH of fixed mass in the models but still excluded the central few arcsec from the fit; and M98 and G03 included BHs in their models and fitted their masses by using the data in the central few arcsec;
- vdM91, M98, G03 and C06 assumed a constant value of $M/L$ with radius, whereas K03 explicitly included (and optimized) the contribution of a dark halo;
- K03 determined $M/L$ values in the $B$-band, M98 and G03 in the $V$-band,[^1] vdM91 in the Johnson $R_{\rm J}$ band, and C06 in the $I$-band.
We purposely included the results from all five studies, rather than to retain merely a smaller sample composed of the most recent or most accurate results. One advantage of this it that by comparing the results from the different studies we are able to put firm limits on various kinds of potential systematic uncertainties.
Distances {#ss:dist}
---------
It is important for our study to use a set of galaxy distances that is as accurate and homogeneous as possible. For this we follow the example of G03 and C06 by using the compilation of Tonry [[et al. ]{}]{}(2001, hereafter T01). They obtained distances to 300 nearby galaxies, mostly of early type, using the surface brightness fluctuation (SBF) method. We removed from our initial sample of 81 total galaxies in vdM91, M98, K00, G03 and C06 the 17 galaxies that are not part of the T01 sample. We rejected two more galaxies (M31 and NGC 4594) because they are not early-type galaxies (which we define here as Hubble type $T <
0$) and two other galaxies (NGC 3384 and NGC 7332) for the reasons discussed in Section \[ss:dispersions\]. Table \[t:local\] lists the final sample of 60 galaxies and includes for each galaxy, among other things, the Hubble type $T$ and the adopted distance modulus and its uncertainty. The average distance for the sample galaxies is $21.6
{\>{\rm Mpc}}$. This corresponds to $\langle z \rangle = 0.005$, given the Hubble constant listed in Section \[s:intro\].
There are 6 spiral galaxies with bulges in common between the SBF sample of T01 and the sample of galaxies for which Cepheid distances are available from the HST Cepheid Key Project. T01 calibrated the zeropoint of their SBF method so as to set to zero the [*median*]{} SBF vs. Cepheid distance modulus residual for these 6 galaxies (see Appendix B of Tonry [[et al. ]{}]{}2000). This was done using Cepheid results available in 2000. These Cepheid distances have since been improved (Freedman [[et al. ]{}]{}2001). Application of the same calibration methodology to the new Cepheid distances implies an SBF zeropoint that is larger by $+0.06$ mag (e.g., Mei [[et al. ]{}]{}2005). To account for this, we added a correction $\Delta_{\rm T01} = -0.06$ mag to all the distance moduli in T01 (i.e., moving the galaxies closer).
For the purposes of our study it is important to understand the accuracy with which the SBF and Cepheid distance scales have been aligned. If one uses the weighted average rather than the median statistic to align the 6 spiral galaxies, then the SBF zeropoint changes by $-0.12$. Alternatively, if one chooses not to align the distance scales using individual galaxies at all, but instead using distances to groups of galaxies (Ferrarese [[et al. ]{}]{}2000), then this yields a change of $-0.13$ to the SBF zeropoint (Tonry [[et al. ]{}]{}2000). And finally, if one changes the SBF zeropoint by $+0.10$, then better agreement is obtained with predictions of population synthesis models (Jensen [[et al. ]{}]{}2003).[^2] Based on these considerations we assume that the systematic uncertainty on $\Delta_{\rm T01}$ is $\pm 0.13$ mag. This corresponds to an uncertainty $\Delta_{\rm II} = \pm 0.026$ in $\log(M/L)$.
After its calibration to agree with Cepheids, the SBF distance scale is subject to all the same absolute distance scale uncertainties that are inherent to the Cepheid distance scale. These are summarized in Section 8 and Table 14 of Freedman [[et al. ]{}]{}(2001). Most of the uncertainties affect both the distances of local galaxies, as well as the inferred value of $H_0$. They include: the distance to the LMC, the photometric zeropoint of the HST/WFPC2 used for the Cepheid studies, the accuracy of the reddening and metallicity corrections applied to the Cepheids, and biases introduced by crowding and the magnitude limit of the sample. When added in quadrature, as in Freedman [[et al. ]{}]{}(2001), these effects introduce a 9% systematic uncertainty in the galaxy distances. This corresponds to a difference $\Delta_{\rm III} = \pm 0.037$ in $\log(M/L)$. This uncertainty must be taken into account, e.g., when comparing the $M/L$ values of local galaxies to the predictions of stellar population synthesis models.
The systematic Cepheid distance scale uncertainties listed in the previous paragraph do [*not*]{} affect a relative comparison of $M/L$ values of nearby and distant galaxies. Any shift in the overall distance scale of the Universe would affect both types of galaxies equally, and would therefore cancel out when evaluating a difference in $\log(M/L)$. The only distance scale uncertainties that do affect such a comparison are those that impact the estimate of $H_0$, but not the Cepheid distances to local galaxies. These uncertainties have both a systematic and a random component. The systematic component is due to cosmic variance, i.e., the effect that local samples of galaxies may yield an estimate of $H_0$ that differs from the true cosmic value as a result of bulk flows. Based on the discussion in Section 8.6 of Freedman [[et al. ]{}]{}(2001) we estimate this systematic component to be less than 2% on the scales $z {\lesssim}0.1$ over which Type Ia supernovae have been used to calibrate $H_0$. This corresponds to a difference $\Delta_{\rm IV} = \pm 0.009$ in $\log(M/L)$. Random uncertainties in $H_0$, as opposed to systematic ones, result from finite sample sizes and scatter between results from individual measurements. Based on Section 7 of Freedman [[et al. ]{}]{}(2001) we estimate the random uncertainty to be $\Delta H_0 = \pm 4 {\>{\rm km}\,{\rm s}^{-1}}{\>{\rm Mpc}}^{-1}$. This corresponds to $\Delta_{\rm V} = \pm 0.023$ in $\log(M/L)$.
[lccrcccccc]{} [ NGC 0221 & -6 & $24.49 \pm 0.08$ & -0.481 & $0.403 \pm 0.053$ & & X & & & X\
NGC 0524 & -1 & $31.84 \pm 0.20$ & 0.064 & $1.022 \pm 0.067$ & & & & & X\
NGC 0636 & -5 & $32.31 \pm 0.16$ & -0.134 & $0.694 \pm 0.116$ & X & & & &\
NGC 0720 & -5 & $32.15 \pm 0.17$ & 0.049 & $1.034 \pm 0.116$ & X & & & &\
NGC 0821 & -5 & $31.85 \pm 0.17$ & -0.022 & $0.881 \pm 0.049$ & & X & & X & X\
NGC 1052 & -5 & $31.38 \pm 0.27$ & -0.020 & $1.026 \pm 0.116$ & X & & & &\
NGC 1379 & -5 & $31.45 \pm 0.15$ & -0.212 & $0.582 \pm 0.116$ & X & & & &\
NGC 1395 & -5 & $31.85 \pm 0.16$ & 0.069 & $0.921 \pm 0.116$ & X & & & &\
NGC 1399 & -5 & $31.44 \pm 0.16$ & 0.155 & $1.024 \pm 0.059$ & X & X & X & &\
NGC 1404 & -5 & $31.55 \pm 0.19$ & 0.026 & $0.896 \pm 0.116$ & X & & & &\
NGC 1407 & -5 & $32.24 \pm 0.26$ & 0.097 & $1.057 \pm 0.116$ & X & & & &\
NGC 1439 & -5 & $32.07 \pm 0.15$ & -0.149 & $0.777 \pm 0.116$ & X & & & &\
NGC 1549 & -5 & $31.41 \pm 0.18$ & -0.027 & $0.763 \pm 0.116$ & X & & & &\
NGC 1700 & -5 & $33.17 \pm 0.16$ & 0.039 & $0.842 \pm 0.116$ & X & & & &\
NGC 2434 & -5 & $31.61 \pm 0.29$ & -0.026 & $0.938 \pm 0.117$ & & & X & &\
NGC 2778 & -5 & $31.74 \pm 0.30$ & -0.097 & $0.975 \pm 0.071$ & & X & & X &\
NGC 2974 & -5 & $31.60 \pm 0.24$ & 0.074 & $0.989 \pm 0.067$ & & & & & X\
NGC 3115 & -3 & $29.87 \pm 0.09$ & 0.109 & $0.995 \pm 0.085$ & & X & & &\
NGC 3156 & -2 & $31.69 \pm 0.14$ & -0.420 & $0.349 \pm 0.067$ & & & & & X\
NGC 3193 & -5 & $32.60 \pm 0.18$ & -0.025 & $0.711 \pm 0.117$ & & & X & &\
NGC 3377 & -5 & $30.19 \pm 0.09$ & -0.194 & $0.571 \pm 0.049$ & & X & & X & X\
NGC 3379 & -5 & $30.06 \pm 0.11$ & -0.009 & $0.821 \pm 0.044$ & X & X & X & & X\
NGC 3414 & -2 & $31.95 \pm 0.33$ & 0.002 & $0.925 \pm 0.067$ & & & & & X\
NGC 3557 & -5 & $33.24 \pm 0.22$ & 0.112 & $0.842 \pm 0.116$ & X & & & &\
NGC 3608 & -5 & $31.74 \pm 0.14$ & -0.058 & $0.851 \pm 0.045$ & X & X & & X & X\
NGC 3640 & -5 & $32.10 \pm 0.13$ & -0.092 & $0.694 \pm 0.117$ & & & X & &\
NGC 4150 & -2 & $30.63 \pm 0.24$ & -0.438 & $0.378 \pm 0.067$ & & & & & X\
NGC 4168 & -5 & $32.39 \pm 0.42$ & -0.089 & $0.929 \pm 0.069$ & & X & X & &\
NGC 4261 & -5 & $32.44 \pm 0.19$ & 0.123 & $1.146 \pm 0.116$ & X & & & &\
NGC 4278 & -5 & $30.97 \pm 0.20$ & 0.064 & $0.996 \pm 0.048$ & & X & X & & X\
NGC 4291 & -5 & $32.03 \pm 0.32$ & 0.095 & $0.943 \pm 0.071$ & & X & & X &\
NGC 4374 & -5 & $31.26 \pm 0.11$ & 0.151 & $0.992 \pm 0.052$ & X & & X & & X\
NGC 4406 & -5 & $31.11 \pm 0.14$ & 0.047 & $0.904 \pm 0.116$ & X & & & &\
NGC 4458 & -5 & $31.12 \pm 0.12$ & -0.403 & $0.638 \pm 0.067$ & & & & & X\
NGC 4459 & -1 & $30.98 \pm 0.22$ & -0.089 & $0.710 \pm 0.067$ & & & & & X\
NGC 4472 & -5 & $31.00 \pm 0.10$ & 0.105 & $1.029 \pm 0.059$ & X & X & X & &\
NGC 4473 & -5 & $30.92 \pm 0.13$ & -0.018 & $0.816 \pm 0.049$ & & X & & X & X\
NGC 4486 & -4 & $30.97 \pm 0.16$ & 0.208 & $1.139 \pm 0.044$ & X & X & X & & X\
NGC 4494 & -5 & $31.10 \pm 0.11$ & -0.239 & $0.719 \pm 0.082$ & X & & X & &\
NGC 4526 & -2 & $31.08 \pm 0.20$ & 0.051 & $0.836 \pm 0.067$ & & & & & X\
NGC 4550 & -2 & $30.94 \pm 0.20$ & -0.252 & $0.685 \pm 0.067$ & & & & & X\
NGC 4552 & -5 & $30.87 \pm 0.14$ & 0.099 & $0.986 \pm 0.053$ & & X & & & X\
NGC 4564 & -5 & $30.82 \pm 0.17$ & -0.129 & $0.792 \pm 0.071$ & & X & & X &\
NGC 4589 & -5 & $31.65 \pm 0.22$ & -0.006 & $1.071 \pm 0.117$ & & & X & &\
NGC 4621 & -5 & $31.25 \pm 0.20$ & 0.025 & $0.846 \pm 0.053$ & & X & & & X\
NGC 4636 & -5 & $30.77 \pm 0.13$ & -0.069 & $1.089 \pm 0.059$ & X & X & X & &\
NGC 4649 & -5 & $31.07 \pm 0.15$ & 0.188 & $1.053 \pm 0.060$ & X & X & & X &\
NGC 4660 & -5 & $30.48 \pm 0.19$ & -0.034 & $0.873 \pm 0.053$ & & X & & & X\
NGC 4697 & -5 & $30.29 \pm 0.14$ & -0.120 & $0.918 \pm 0.086$ & X & & & X &\
NGC 5813 & -5 & $32.48 \pm 0.18$ & 0.061 & $0.990 \pm 0.067$ & & & & & X\
NGC 5845 & -5 & $32.01 \pm 0.21$ & 0.077 & $0.872 \pm 0.060$ & & & & X & X\
NGC 5846 & -5 & $31.92 \pm 0.20$ & 0.104 & $1.115 \pm 0.052$ & X & & X & & X\
NGC 6703 & -3 & $32.07 \pm 0.29$ & -0.097 & $0.749 \pm 0.117$ & & & X & &\
NGC 7144 & -5 & $31.89 \pm 0.12$ & -0.074 & $0.840 \pm 0.116$ & X & & & &\
NGC 7145 & -5 & $31.79 \pm 0.21$ & -0.218 & $0.761 \pm 0.082$ & X & & X & &\
NGC 7192 & -4 & $32.83 \pm 0.32$ & -0.080 & $0.665 \pm 0.117$ & & & X & &\
IC 1459 & -5 & $32.27 \pm 0.28$ & 0.145 & $0.912 \pm 0.116$ & X & & & &\
NGC 7457 & -3 & $30.55 \pm 0.21$ & -0.444 & $0.550 \pm 0.060$ & & & & X & X\
NGC 7507 & -5 & $31.93 \pm 0.17$ & 0.042 & $0.801 \pm 0.082$ & X & & X & &\
NGC 7619 & -5 & $33.56 \pm 0.31$ & 0.175 & $1.002 \pm 0.116$ & X & & & &\
]{}
Transformations to the $B$-band {#ss:colors}
-------------------------------
For comparison to results at intermediate redshifts it is important to have access to $M/L$ values in the rest-frame $B$-band. We therefore took the published values[^3] and transformed them to $B$-band mass-to-light ratios $M/L_B$ for the distances $D$ discussed in Section \[ss:dist\] using $$\label{MLtrans}
M/L_B = (M/L_F) \> (D_{\rm orig}/D) \> 10^{0.4 [(B-F) - (B-F)_{\rm
\odot}]} .$$ Here $M/L_F$ is the mass-to-light ratio in some other band $F$ for the distance $D_{\rm orig}$, as given in the original literature source; $B-F$ is the relevant broad-band color of the galaxy, and $(B-F)_{\rm
\odot}$ is the color of the sun.
For the transformation in equation (\[MLtrans\]) we needed colors of the sample galaxies in various bands. For $B-V$ we used the data of Faber [[et al. ]{}]{}(1989, hereafter F89), who presented data for almost 600 nearby early-type galaxies. Their colors refer to apertures $\leq
30''$ in diameter around the galaxy center. The average color for the galaxies in our sample is $\langle B-V \rangle = 0.95$. We used this average color for the 8 galaxies in our final sample for which a $B-V$ was needed but for which none was available from F89. For those galaxies for which we needed the color $B-R_{\rm J}$ we used the transformation $B-R_{\rm J} = 1.839(B-V) + 0.064$. This was obtained from the equations $B-R_{\rm J} = 1.14 (B-R_{\rm C}) + 0.04$ and $V-R_{\rm C} = 0.613(B-V) + 0.021$ derived for early-type galaxies by Peletier [[et al. ]{}]{}(1990). The subscripts in these equations refer to the Johnson and the Cousins $R$-band, respectively. The implied average color of the sample is $\langle B-R_{\rm J} \rangle = 1.81$.
For the transformation of $M/L$ values in the $I$-band we needed the $B-I$ colors of the galaxies. We calculated those as the sum of $B-V$ and $V-I$, with the former from F89 and the latter from T01. However, a small correction was needed to the T01 colors because they apply to an annular region around the galaxy center. The dynamical $M/L$ determinations are therefore more heavily weighted towards the galaxy center than the T01 colors. The central region that was excluded by T01 has an average diameter of $24''$ for those galaxies in our sample for which the original $M/L$ was given in the $I$-band. The average color of these galaxies is $\langle (V-I)_{\rm T01} \rangle =
1.16$. Early-type galaxies become redder towards their centers, and this implies that the T01 colors are bluer than the ones that should be used in equation (\[MLtrans\]). As a simple correction for this we used $V-I = (V-I)_{\rm T01} + \epsilon$. We applied this equation on a galaxy-by-galaxy basis, but the small constant $\epsilon$ was chosen to be a fixed number. To set its value we compared to the predictions of stellar population synthesis models. The central colors $\langle B-V \rangle = 0.95$ and $\langle B-R_{\rm J} \rangle =
1.81$ of early-type galaxies in our sample are fit to within $0.01$ mag by a $10^{9.97}$ yr old single age stellar population with a Chabrier IMF of solar metallicity and solar abundances ratios (Bruzual & Charlot 2003).[^4] Such a population has $V-I = 1.20$ (Bruzual & Charlot 2003). To make the average T01 colors consistent with these stellar population predictions we therefore choose $\epsilon = 0.04$. The sign and size of this offset is consistent with our understanding of the $V-I$ color gradients in the centers of early-type galaxies (Lauer [[et al. ]{}]{}2005).
In equation (\[MLtrans\]) we also needed the colors of the sun. Throughout this paper we use the solar absolute magnitudes compiled by Binney & Merrifield (1998): $M_{\odot} = 5.48 (B), 4.83
(V), 4.42 (R_{\rm C})$, and $4.08 (I)$. For the transformation of the vdM91 results we needed also the solar absolute magnitude in the Johnson $R$-band. For this we used the color transformation $R_{\rm J}
= R_{\rm C} - 0.12 (B-R_{\rm C}) - 0.07$ (Davis [[et al. ]{}]{}1985) to obtain $M_{\odot} = 4.22 (R_{\rm J})$.[^5]
Velocity Dispersions {#ss:dispersions}
--------------------
For the analysis and interpretation of the results it is important to have access also to other characteristic quantities for the sample galaxies. The velocity dispersion is particularly useful, because it has been found to correlate strongly with the galaxy $M/L$ (C06). To characterize the dispersion we chose the value $\sigma_{\rm eff}$ inside an aperture of size equal to the effective radius $r_{\rm
eff}$. C06 directly measured this quantity for the galaxies in their sample from their own data, and we adopted their values for those galaxies. For the remainder of the galaxies in our sample we started from the values $\sigma_{\rm nuc}$ given by F89. These are averages of observed values from different observational setups, corrected to the size of a few-arcsec aperture at the distance of Coma. From these values we estimated the dispersion in an aperture of size $r_{\rm
eff}$, using the values of $r_{\rm eff}$ also given by F89 and the correction formulae given in Jorgensen [[et al. ]{}]{}(1995b). The two galaxies NGC 3384 and NGC 7332 did not have data available from either C06 or F89, and we removed these galaxies from the sample.
The uncertainties in $\sigma_{\rm eff}$ are probably not dominated by random uncertainties due to the finite $S/N$ of the spectroscopy, but by systematic uncertainties associated with template mismatch, continuum subtraction, and other issues. For the high-quality integral field data of C06 we followed those authors and estimated the uncertainties in $\sigma_{\rm eff}$, somewhat conservatively, to be $\sim 5$% (see also Tremaine [[et al. ]{}]{}2002). This implies $\Delta \log
\sigma_{\rm eff} = 0.021$. For those galaxies for which a dispersion estimate is available also from the F89 data we find that the residuals $\delta \log \sigma_{\rm eff}
\equiv \log \sigma_{\rm eff,F89} - \log \sigma_{\rm eff,C06}$ are on average consistent with zero: $\langle \delta \log \sigma_{\rm eff}
\rangle = -0.007 \pm 0.008$. The RMS scatter in the residuals is $0.031$.[^6] This is approximately what would be expected if the $\sigma_{\rm eff}$ values inferred from the F89 data also have uncertainties of $\sim 5$%, which is therefore what we assumed.
=0.8
Table \[t:local\] lists the inferred $\sigma_{\rm eff}$ for all galaxies. The table does not list other galaxy parameters that we will not use here. However, we note that various other quantities can be obtained relatively easily. Effective radii are available from C06 or F89. The latter authors also provide $I_{\rm eff}$, the average $B$-band surface brightness inside the effective radius. The total $B$-band luminosity can be estimated from $L = 2 \pi r_{\rm eff}^2
I_{\rm eff}$, or it can be obtained from the apparent $B$-band magnitudes listed in, e.g., the RC3 (de Vaucouleurs [[et al. ]{}]{}1991). A characteristic mass[^7] can be obtained upon multiplication by the $M/L$ listed in the table.
Mass-to-Light Ratio Accuracies and Correlations {#ss:MLerrors}
-----------------------------------------------
The random uncertainties on the $M/L$ estimates can be divided broadly in two components: distance uncertainties and dynamical uncertainties. The random distance uncertainties come from the finite accuracy of the SBF measurements. They contribute in quadrature $\Delta \log (M/L) = 0.2 \Delta (m-M)$, where $\Delta (m-M)$ is the uncertainty in the distance modulus from T01. The dynamical uncertainties can come from a large variety of sources, e.g., shortcomings in the kinematical data or their spatial coverage, or limitations in the modeling or its underlying assumptions. As a result, they are generally poorly quantified. We quantify the random dynamical uncertainties through a parameter $E$ which for simplicity we assume to be a constant for all the measurements in a given dynamical study. We then set the total random uncertainty $\Delta \log
(M/L)$ for a measurement in a given study equal to the sum of the random distance uncertainty for the galaxy in question and the value of $E$ for that study.
To estimate the random uncertainty $E$ for each study we use the fact that the $M/L$ correlates with other global galaxy properties. Previous work has shown that there are good correlations with either luminosity or mass (vdM91, M98), as expected to explain the “tilt” of the FP. More recently, C06 showed that the $M/L$ correlates even better, i.e., with lower scatter, with $\sigma_{\rm eff}$. This is the correlation that we will use here. For each individual dynamical study we selected the $M/L_B$ values for the galaxies in our final sample and then fitted a straight line of the form $$\label{fitCapel}
\log (M/L_B) = Z + S \log(\sigma_{\rm eff}/[200 {\>{\rm km}\,{\rm s}^{-1}}]) ;$$ here “Z” is short for zeropoint, and “S” is short for slope. We will refer to this as the $M/L$–$\sigma$ relation. The fit was performed with the routine fitexy of Press [[et al. ]{}]{}(1992), which takes into account the uncertainties in both independent variables. The value of $E$ for each study was then chosen so as to yield a $\chi^2$ of the fit that is equal to the number of degrees of freedom. This assumes implicitly that there is no intrinsic scatter in the correlation, which is conservative in the sense that it yields the largest possible random uncertainties. Application of this procedure yields $E=0.116$ dex for vdM91, $E = 0.085$ dex for M98, $E=0.117$ dex for K00, $E = 0.128$ for G03, and $E = 0.067$ dex for C06. Figure \[f:local\] shows the final $B$-band $M/L$ values and their random uncertainties as a function of $\sigma_{\rm eff}$ for all five of the individual dynamical studies.
To obtain a combined $M/L_B$ estimate and uncertainty for each individual galaxy we used a two-step procedure. First we took the weighted average of the $M/L_B$ values inferred from the different studies of that galaxy, using the uncertainties $E$ listed above to set the weights. Then we increased the uncertainty in the weighted average by adding in quadrature the random uncertainty $\Delta \log
(M/L) = 0.2 \Delta (m-M)$ introduced by distance uncertainties. Table \[t:local\] lists the final $M/L_B$ estimates thus obtained for all galaxies.
The bottom right panel of Figure \[f:local\] shows the best straight line fit to the final combined data set. It has parameters $Z = 0.896
\pm 0.010$ and $S = 0.992 \pm 0.054$. This same line is shown as a solid line in all panels of Figure \[f:local\]. The slope of the relation differs significantly from the best-fit slope $S_I
[{\rm C06}] = 0.82 \pm 0.06$ found by C06 for the $I$-band. This is not due to the use of a different galaxy sample. If we perform a linear fit to only the $M/L_B$ values derived from the C06 study we infer $S [{\rm C06}] = 0.991 \pm 0.076$, consistent with the value of $S$ inferred for the full sample. The difference in slope between the $I$- and $B$-bands is therefore real, and is due to the well-known fact that galaxies of low dispersion (or mass) tend to bluer than those of high dispersion.
Figure \[f:local\] shows that the different studies are all entirely consistent with each other. When the data from each study are fitted individually with a straight line, the best fit slope is always consistent with the value $S = 0.992 \pm 0.054$ inferred for the full sample to within $1.2\sigma$ or better. When the data from each study are fitted individually with a straight line of fixed slope $S =
0.992$, the inferred zeropoints are: $Z [{\rm vdM91}] = 0.914 \pm
0.023$, $Z [{\rm M98}] = 0.912 \pm 0.021$, $Z [{\rm K00}] = 0.897\pm
0.029$, $Z [{\rm G03}] = 0.894 \pm 0.040$, and $Z [{\rm C06}] = 0.876
\pm 0.017$. These zeropoints are all consistent with the value $Z = 0.896
\pm 0.010$ inferred for the full sample to within $1.2\sigma$ or better. The results from the C06 study have the smallest scatter in Figure \[f:local\], as quantified already by the parameter $E$. Judged also from the sophistication and homogeneity of their analysis, their results are probably the most reliable of the five studies that we have included in our sample. On the other hand, the color transformations that we had to apply to transform their $I$-band results to the $B$-band are probably more uncertain than the transformations that we had to apply to some of the other studies. This may be the root cause of the fact that the zeropoint for the C06 data is offset from that for the full sample by $-0.020$. Either way, the more important conclusion in this context is that the zeropoint of the relation is quite robust.[^8] The use of vastly different data and models among 5 different studies does not alter the zeropoint of the relation by more than $\Delta_{\rm VI} = \pm
0.020$. We adopt this as the systematic uncertainty in our knowledge of the zeropoint $Z$ from dynamical modeling limitations. The robustness of $M/L$ estimates from different modeling approaches is consistent with several findings reported by C06. For example, they find that the results of axisymmetric modeling generally do not depend strongly on the assumed inclination. They also find that even though two-integral and three-integral models yield subtly different $M/L$ estimates, there is little bias in the inferred average $M/L$ for a sample that has a typical range of $M/L$ values.[^9]
We are now in a position to combine all the various sources of systematic uncertainty that enter into the zeropoint $Z_B$ of equation (\[fitCapel\]). These are the uncertainties labeled II, III, and VI in Table \[t:syserrors\]. We assume that systematic uncertainties can be added in quadrature. The final estimate of the B-band zeropoint for local galaxies is then $$\label{Zlocal}
Z_{0.005} = 0.896 \pm 0.010 \> {\rm (random)}
\pm 0.049 \> {\rm (systematic)} ,$$ where the value $\langle z \rangle = 0.005$ listed in the subscript is the average redshift of the sample galaxies.
=0.85
Mass-to-Light Ratio Evolution {#s:MLevolution}
=============================
Intermediate-Redshift Cluster Galaxy Sample {#ss:sample}
-------------------------------------------
The sample of Paper I consists of 25 galaxies that reside in the clusters CL 3C295, CL 0016+1609, and CL 1601+4253, at redshifts $z =
0.456$, $0.546$, and $0.539$, respectively (Dressler & Gunn 1992; Dressler [[et al. ]{}]{}1999). The clusters were selected based on their visibility at the time of the Keck observations, and because they are among the most S0 deficient clusters in the MORPHS sample (Dressler [[et al. ]{}]{}1997). The latter criterion has little relevance for the results discussed in the present paper, but was relevant for the discussion of the rotation properties of the sample galaxies presented in Paper I. The MORPHS sample itself was not selected according to strict criteria. The galaxy selection was largely constrained by the geometry of the Keck/LRIS masks, and by the fact that sample galaxies should be bright enough for spectroscopy. Priority was given to galaxies classified from HST images as E or E/S0 by Smail [[et al. ]{}]{}(1999). The latest-type galaxy included in the sample was an S0/Sb galaxy. This galaxy 3C295-568 was included for the specific purpose to see if rotation could reliably measured (which is indeed the case, as demonstrated in Paper I).
The galaxy CL 3C295-2014 is the well-known AGN 3C295. There is the possibility that this galaxy contains a central non-thermal point source that could bias the analysis. However, the results for both the light profile of this galaxy and its $M/L$ (see Paper I and the discussion in Section \[ss:MLevol2I\] below) do not provide any evidence for deviations from the trends defined by the other galaxies in the sample. We therefore retained CL 3C295-2014 in our sample and did not treat it in any special way.
Evolution of the $M/L$–$\sigma$ relation {#ss:MLevol2I}
----------------------------------------
Figure \[f:MLevol\]b shows the $M/L$–$\sigma$ relation for our sample of intermediate-redshift cluster galaxies, using the data from Table 1 in Paper I. We estimate the systematic uncertainties in velocity dispersion estimates to be $\sim 5$%, as in Section \[ss:dispersions\] (i.e., $\Delta \log
\sigma_{\rm eff} = 0.021$). These uncertainties were added in quadrature to the random uncertainties from Paper I before plotting and analysis. For comparison, the left panel of Figure \[f:MLevol\]a shows the $M/L$–$\sigma$ relation for local galaxies, as in the bottom right panel of Figure \[f:local\].
The solid line in Figure \[f:MLevol\]b is the line with the fixed slope $S = 0.992$ (as inferred from the local galaxy sample) that best fits the intermediate redshift cluster galaxies. It has zeropoint $$\label{Zdistant}
Z_{0.528} = 0.657 \pm 0.022 \> {\rm (random)}
\pm 0.049 \> {\rm (systematic)} .$$ The value $\langle z \rangle = 0.528$ listed in the subscript is the average redshift of the galaxies. The random uncertainty in the zeropoint was determined as the ratio of the RMS residual with respect to the fit and $\sqrt{N}$, where $N = 24$ is the number of galaxies. This does not include the S0/Sb galaxy CL 3C295-568, which was excluded from the analysis because it is not an early-type galaxy (defined here as $T < 0$). By estimating the random zeropoint uncertainty in this way we do not use the random uncertainties $\Delta
\log(M/L)$ in the individual $M/L$ measurements listed in Paper I. The average of these uncertainties is actually smaller than the scatter around the best fit ($0.051$ vs. $0.108$, respectively). This may be due to the presence of additional random uncertainties in addition to those propagated from the observed kinematics, or it may be due to intrinsic scatter in the $M/L$–$\sigma$ relation. The systematic uncertainty listed in equation (\[Zdistant\]) is the quadrature sum of the relevant uncertainties, namely I, III, IV, V and VI in Table \[t:syserrors\]. This assumes, in analogy with the local sample, that the systematic uncertainty due to modeling limitations is $\Delta_{\rm VI} = \pm 0.020$. This is reasonable, because the two-integral modeling that we have used for the intermediate-redshift cluster sample was very similar to that used by vdM91 and M98 for local galaxies (and more generally, C06 found that two-integral models do not yield strongly biased $M/L$ estimates as compared to more sophisticated three-integral models).
The evolution of the $M/L$ between the two redshifts is obtained by subtracting the zeropoints of the $M/L$–$\sigma$ relations given by equations (\[Zlocal\]) and (\[Zdistant\]). This yields $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Zdiff}
\delta && \log(M/L) \equiv Z_{\rm distant} - Z_{\rm local} \nonumber \\
&& = -0.239 \pm 0.024 \> {\rm (random)}
\pm 0.041 \> {\rm (systematic)} ,
\end{aligned}$$ $$\label{Zdiff}
\delta \log(M/L) \equiv Z_{\rm distant} - Z_{\rm local}
= -0.239 \pm 0.024 \> {\rm (random)}
\pm 0.041 \> {\rm (systematic)} ,$$ where in this particular case the average redshifts for the distant and local samples are $\langle z \rangle = 0.528$ and $0.005$, respectively. The random uncertainty in $\delta \log(M/L)$ is simply the quadrature sum of the random uncertainties in $Z_{0.528}$ and $Z_{0.005}$. However, the systematic uncertainty is not the quadrature sum of the systematic uncertainties in those quantities. That is because source III of systematic uncertainty in Table \[t:syserrors\] is common to both zeropoints, and therefore drops out of their difference. So the systematic uncertainty listed in equation (\[Zdiff\]) is the quadrature sum of the uncertainties I, II, IV, V and VI in Table \[t:syserrors\]. We include source VI only once, because it was defined as a measure of the typical difference in the results from different dynamical modeling approaches.
As discussed in Paper I, the only parameter in our models that is not generally constrained by the data is the inclination, or alternatively, the intrinsic axial ratio $Q$. Equation (\[Zdiff\]) was derived from the results obtained in Paper I for our “standard inclination” models. These models use for each galaxy the most likely inclination, given the observed projected axial ratio. These models have the correct average intrinsic axial ratio when averaged over a large sample. For comparison we have also constructed two sets of alternative models, namely models that are edge-on (yielding the roundest possible intrinsic shape for each galaxy) and models that have intrinsic axial $Q_{\rm min} = 0.4$ (which is approximately the smallest intrinsic axial ratio found for early-type galaxies). The former yield an average $\delta \log(M/L)$ for the sample that is lower by $-0.008$ than for the standard inclination models. The latter yield a value that is higher by $0.053$. The assumptions that underly these models are clearly unrealistic for the sample as a whole, and either way do not change the result in equation (\[Zdiff\]) by much more than the listed uncertainties. Nonetheless, these numbers give some idea of the systematic uncertainty in the $M/L$ estimates [*for individual galaxies*]{} due to the unknown inclinations. In other words, variations in inclination between galaxies of the same projected axial ratio do not affect the average correlation in Figure \[f:MLevol\]b, but they do add to the scatter. However, the induced scatter is too small to account for the observed scatter of $0.108$ in $\log(M/L)$.
The change of $M/L$ with redshift is $\Delta \log(M/L) / \Delta z =
\delta \log(M/L) / (\langle z \rangle_{\rm distant} -
\langle z \rangle_{\rm local})$. Equation (\[Zdiff\]) thus gives $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Zevol}
\Delta && \log(M/L) / \Delta z \nonumber \\
&& = -0.457 \pm 0.046 \> {\rm (random)}
\pm 0.078 \> {\rm (systematic)} .
\end{aligned}$$ $$\label{Zevol}
\Delta \log(M/L) / \Delta z =
-0.457 \pm 0.046 \> {\rm (random)}
\pm 0.078 \> {\rm (systematic)} .$$ So far we have treated all intermediate redshift cluster galaxies as a single sample. It is of course also possible to calculate the zeropoint evolution for each cluster individually. This yields $\delta
\log(M/L)$ (CL 3C295) $= -0.180 \pm 0.065$ (random), $\Delta \log(M/L)$ (CL 1601+4253) $= -0.259 \pm 0.035$ (random), and $\Delta \log(M/L)$ (CL 0016+1609) $= -0.241 \pm 0.024$ (random). These values each have the same systematic uncertainty as listed for the combined sample in equation (\[Zdiff\]). The cluster [CL 3C295]{} has the smallest amount of evolution, as expected given its lower redshift. However, the differences between the clusters are not really significant given the random uncertainties. The clusters span a range $\Delta z = \pm 0.045$ (see Section \[ss:sample\]), which implies an expected variation $\Delta \log(M/L) = \pm 0.02$ on the basis of equation (\[Zevol\]). This is smaller than the average random error of $0.051$ in our $\log(M/L)$ measurements, and it is also smaller than the scatter of $0.108$ around the linear fit in Figure \[f:MLevol\]b. Correction for differential evolution between galaxies in our sample at slightly different redshifts would therefore not change any of the results. So it is justified to treat the galaxies as a single sample at an average redshift $\langle z
\rangle = 0.528$. This approach has the advantage that it doesn’t introduce any prior knowledge about evolution into the analysis of the sample.
[lclc]{} [ I & $\pm 0.003$ & effect of uncertainties in $\Omega_{\rm m}$ and $\Omega_{\Lambda}$ at $z \approx 0.5$ & \[s:intro\]\
III & $\pm 0.037$ & accuracy of the Cepheid distance scale for local galaxies & \[ss:dist\]\
IV & $\pm 0.009$ & cosmic variance in $H_0$ on the scale $z {\lesssim}0.1$ & \[ss:dist\]\
V & $\pm 0.023$ & random uncertainty in $H_0$ due to finite sample sizes & \[ss:dist\]\
VII & $\pm 0.013$ & uncertainty in Hubble flow velocity of Coma & \[ss:MLevolFP\]\
VIII& $\pm 0.020$ & difference in FP zeropoint determinations from different authors, at fixed distance & \[ss:MLevolFP\]\
IX & $\pm 0.018$ & cosmic variance in $H_0$ on the scale $z {\lesssim}0.025$ & \[ss:MLevolFP\]\
]{}
Comparison to Fundamental Plane evolution {#ss:MLevolFP}
-----------------------------------------
In vDvdM06 we studied the evolution of the FP of the sample clusters. The analysis used the relation $$\label{FPrel}
\log r_{\rm eff} = {\rm FP} - \zeta ,$$ where $$\label{FPdef}
{\rm FP} \equiv 1.20 \log \sigma_{\rm ap} - 0.83 \log I_{\rm eff} .$$ Here $\sigma_{\rm ap}$ is the dispersion in an aperture radius that spans $1.7''$ at the distance of the Coma cluster (this follows Jorgensen [[et al. ]{}]{}1995b) and $I_{\rm eff}$ is the average rest-frame $B$-band surface brightness inside $r_{\rm eff}$. From the shift in the zeropoint $\zeta$ of the relation with respect to the Coma cluster one infers an $M/L$ evolution of $$\begin{aligned}
\label{FPdiff}
\delta && \log(M/L) \equiv (\zeta_{\rm distant} - \zeta_{\rm coma})
/ 0.83 \nonumber \\
&& = -0.268 \pm 0.025 \> {\rm (random)}
\pm 0.036 \> {\rm (systematic)} .
\end{aligned}$$ $$\label{FPdiff}
\delta \log(M/L) \equiv (\zeta_{\rm distant} - \zeta_{\rm coma}) / 0.83
= -0.268 \pm 0.025 \> {\rm (random)}
\pm 0.036 \> {\rm (systematic)} .$$ This result uses only the same subset of $N=17$ galaxies that were included in the FP analysis in vDvdM06 (we discuss this selection further in Section \[s:slopeevol\] below). It treats all the intermediate-redshift cluster galaxies as a single sample, for consistency with Section \[ss:MLevol2I\]. The average redshift of this sample is $\langle z \rangle = 0.531$. The random uncertainty in $\delta \log(M/L)$ is $1/0.83$ times the quadrature sum of the random uncertainties in the FP zeropoints for Coma ($0.011$) and the intermediate-redshift cluster galaxy sample ($0.023$). For Coma we used the data for galaxies that have $B$-band photometry listed in Jorgensen [[et al. ]{}]{}(1995a) and velocity dispersions listed in Jorgensen [[et al. ]{}]{}(1995b). For each sample the random uncertainty was estimated as before as the ratio of the RMS residual with respect to the fit and $\sqrt{N}$.
The systematic uncertainty in equation (\[FPdiff\]) is due to a combination of the systematic uncertainties that affect $\zeta_{\rm
coma}$ and $\zeta_{\rm distant}$. We summarize these uncertainties in Table \[t:sysFPerrors\]. Sources that were already encountered previously are listed with the same roman numeral as in Table \[t:syserrors\]. Consider first the Coma FP zeropoint $\zeta_{\rm coma}$. Distance uncertainties affect $\log r_{\rm eff}$, and therefore the zeropoint of the FP relation. Distances in turn are estimated as the ratio of the Hubble flow velocity $v_{\rm flow}$ and the Hubble constant $H_0$. Uncertainties in both of these introduce FP zeropoint uncertainties. We have used in our analysis one of the most recent flow velocity estimates for Coma, namely $v_{\rm flow} = 7376
\pm 223 {\>{\rm km}\,{\rm s}^{-1}}$ from the SMAC survey (Smith, Lucey & Hudson 2006). This is consistent with several earlier results. For example, F89 obtained $v_{\rm flow} = 7461 \pm 273 {\>{\rm km}\,{\rm s}^{-1}}$ and Colless [[et al. ]{}]{}(2001) obtained $v_{\rm flow} = 7238 \pm 302 {\>{\rm km}\,{\rm s}^{-1}}$. The uncertainties in all these results are dominated by the modeling uncertainty in the peculiar velocity $v_{\rm pec} \equiv v_{\rm obs} - v_{\rm flow}$ of the Coma cluster, where $v_{\rm obs}$ is the observed systematic velocity. The uncertainty in $v_{\rm flow}$ introduces an uncertainty of $\Delta
\zeta_{\rm VII} = \pm 0.013$ in $\zeta$. The determination of the Hubble flow velocity also has a small dependence on the cosmological parameters $\Omega_{\rm m}$, $\Omega_{\Lambda}$. However, at the distance of Coma this dependence is small enough that the resulting uncertainties can be neglected. Uncertainties in $H_0$ include the uncertainties III and V in Table \[t:syserrors\], which introduce FP zeropoint uncertainties $\Delta \zeta_{\rm III} = \pm 0.037$ and $\zeta_{\rm III} = \pm 0.023$. The last systematic uncertainty that affects $\zeta_{\rm coma}$ stems from the fact that different authors get slightly different zeropoints, even if they assume exactly the same distance. Based on our own analysis of various literature sources, as well as the detailed analysis of Hudson [[et al. ]{}]{}(2001), we estimate this systematic zeropoint uncertainty to be $ \Delta
\zeta_{\rm VIII} = \pm 0.020$. Addition in quadrature of the uncertainties III, V, VII, and VIII yields a final systematic uncertainty in $\zeta_{\rm coma}$ of $\pm 0.050$. The FP zeropoint $\zeta_{\rm distant}$ of the intermediate-redshift cluster galaxy sample shares the systematic uncertainties III, V, and VIII with Coma. It also is subject to uncertainty I in Table \[t:syserrors\] that results from uncertainties in $\Omega_{\rm m}$ and $\Omega_{\Lambda}$, and uncertainty IV that results from cosmic variance in $H_0$. Addition in quadrature yields a final systematic uncertainty in $\zeta_{\rm distant}$ of $\pm 0.049$. To study $M/L$ evolution we are now interested in the difference $\zeta_{\rm coma} -
\zeta_{\rm distant}$. The uncertainties III, IV, and V in Table \[t:sysFPerrors\] drop out of this difference. However, the difference is subject to uncertainties I, VII and VIII. We include source VIII only once, because it was defined as a measure of the typical difference in zeropoint between different authors. There is also a new uncertainty due to cosmic variance in $H_0$ that is similar to source IV. However, the relevant scale is now the distance of the Coma cluster ($z = 0.025$), and not the scales $z
{\lesssim}0.1$ over which Type Ia supernovae have been used to calibrate $H_0$. Based on the discussion in Section 8.6 of Freedman [[et al. ]{}]{}(2001) we estimate this systematic component to be less than 4%. This corresponds to a FP zeropoint difference $\Delta
\zeta_{\rm IX} = \pm 0.018$. Addition in quadrature yields a final systematic uncertainty in $\zeta_{\rm coma} - \zeta_{\rm
distant}$ of $\pm 0.030$. Division by $0.83$ yields the systematic uncertainty in $\delta \log(M/L)$ listed in equation (\[FPdiff\]).
The change with redshift implied by the FP zeropoint evolution listed in equation (\[FPdiff\]) is $\Delta \log(M/L) / \Delta z = \delta
\log(M/L) / (\langle z \rangle_{\rm distant} - \langle z
\rangle_{\rm local})$, which gives $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ZevolFP}
\Delta && \log(M/L) / \Delta z = \nonumber \\
&& -0.529 \pm 0.049 \> {\rm (random)}
\pm 0.071 \> {\rm (systematic)} .
\end{aligned}$$ $$\label{ZevolFP}
\Delta \log(M/L) / \Delta z =
-0.529 \pm 0.049 \> {\rm (random)}
\pm 0.071 \> {\rm (systematic)} .$$ This FP result agrees with that of vDvdM06, which found $\Delta
\log(M/L) / \Delta z = -0.555 \pm 0.042 \> {\rm (random)}$ from a FP study of a larger sample of clusters that included the three clusters studied here.
The difference between the $M/L$ evolution derived from the $M/L$–$\sigma$ relation and dynamical modeling of internal kinematics, as reported in equation (\[Zevol\]), and that derived from FP evolution, as reported in equation (\[ZevolFP\]), is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{DynFPcomp}
[ \Delta && \log(M/L)_{\rm dyn} - \Delta \log(M/L)_{\rm FP} ] / \Delta z =
\nonumber \\
&& 0.072 \pm 0.067 \> {\rm (random)}
\pm 0.097 \> {\rm (systematic)} .
\end{aligned}$$ $$\label{DynFPcomp}
[ \Delta \log(M/L)_{\rm dyn} - \Delta \log(M/L)_{\rm FP} ] / \Delta z =
0.072 \pm 0.067 \> {\rm (random)}
\pm 0.097 \> {\rm (systematic)} .$$ The listed random uncertainty is the quadrature sum of the random uncertainties in equations (\[Zevol\]) and (\[ZevolFP\]). This might be a slight overestimate, because it ignores possible correlations between the residuals from both methods. The listed systematic uncertainty is the quadrature sum of all those uncertainties that do not drop out of the difference under consideration. This includes the systematic uncertainties II, V, and VI in Table \[t:syserrors\] and VII and VIII in Table \[t:sysFPerrors\]. There also is a systematic uncertainty due to the cosmic variance in $H_0$ when measured on scales of $z {\lesssim}0.025$ and $z {\lesssim}0.1$, respectively. Based on the discussion in Section 8.6 of Freedman [[et al. ]{}]{}(2001) we estimate this uncertainty to be $\Delta \log(M/L) = \pm 0.009$.
The upshot of equation (\[DynFPcomp\]) is that the $M/L$ evolution derived here from detailed dynamical models is consistent with that derived from FP analysis of global parameters. The present paper therefore supports the conclusions drawn in vDvdM06 (and summarized in Section \[s:intro\] of the present paper) about the star formation epoch of early type galaxies.
=0.93
Dependence of $M/L$ evolution on $\sigma$ {#s:slopeevol}
=========================================
Figure \[f:MLres\] shows the residuals with respect to the $M/L$–$\sigma$ relation (i.e., with respect to the solid line in Figure \[f:MLevol\]b) for the sample of intermediate redshift cluster galaxies. The $\log (M/L)$ residuals do not show a significant correlation with $\log \sigma_{\rm eff}$. For example, the average residual for galaxies with $\sigma_{\rm eff} < 200{\>{\rm km}\,{\rm s}^{-1}}$ is $-0.010 \pm
0.039$, while the average residual for galaxies with $\sigma_{\rm eff}
> 200{\>{\rm km}\,{\rm s}^{-1}}$ is $0.008 \pm 0.024$. These values are consistent at the 1-$\sigma$ level. This implies that the analysis yields the same evolution $\delta \log(M/L)$ (eq. \[\[Zdiff\]\]) independent of whether or not galaxies with low $\sigma$ are excluded from the statistics. Phrased differently, there is no evidence for evolution of the slope of the $M/L$–$\sigma$ relation out to $z \approx 0.5$. This can also be shown explicitly. A straight line fit to the data in Figure \[f:MLevol\]b yields slope $S = 1.117 \pm 0.113$, as compared to $S = 0.992 \pm 0.054$ for the sample of local galaxies in Figure \[f:MLevol\]a. Again, these values are consistent at the 1-$\sigma$ level.
The relative constancy of the slope of the $M/L$–$\sigma$ relation is consistent with some studies of FP evolution. For example, Kelson [[et al. ]{}]{}(2000) find no statistically significant change in the tilt of the FP between the local Universe and a cluster at $z=0.33$. However, many other FP studies, mostly towards higher redshifts, have recently found that the FP tilt does evolve (e.g., Wuyts [[et al. ]{}]{}2004; Treu [[et al. ]{}]{}2005a,b; van der Wel [[et al. ]{}]{}2004, 2005; di Serego Alighieri [[et al. ]{}]{}2005; and Jorgensen [[et al. ]{}]{}2006). In fact, we showed in vDvdM06 that the FP residuals for the same sample analyzed here show more evolution for galaxies with $\sigma {\lesssim}200 {\>{\rm km}\,{\rm s}^{-1}}$ (or similarly, $M{\lesssim}10^{11}
{\>{\rm M_{\odot}}}$) than for galaxies with $\sigma {\gtrsim}200 {\>{\rm km}\,{\rm s}^{-1}}$ (or similarly, $M{\gtrsim}10^{11} {\>{\rm M_{\odot}}}$). Based on these results, the FP analysis in vDvdM06 was restricted to galaxies with $M > 10^{11}
{\>{\rm M_{\odot}}}$. The same selection was applied in the derivation of equation (\[ZevolFP\]). With this FP selection criterion, the inferred $M/L$ evolution agrees with that derived from the dynamical models presented here (as quantified by eq. \[\[DynFPcomp\]\]). However, without this FP selection criterion the agreement is worse.
This issue is further illustrated in Figure \[f:DynFP\]. It shows for each galaxy the difference between the evolution in $\log(M/L)$ inferred either from the dynamically inferred $M/L$–$\sigma$ relation or from the FP. The differences are plotted as a function of $\log
\sigma_{\rm eff}$. There is a clear trend with $\sigma_{\rm eff}$. The results from the two methods agree only when the comparison is restricted to galaxies with $\sigma {\gtrsim}200 {\>{\rm km}\,{\rm s}^{-1}}$ (or similarly, $M{\gtrsim}10^{11} {\>{\rm M_{\odot}}}$). It is shown by equation (\[DynFPcomp\]) that the difference between the two methods might be affected by various systematic uncertainties. However, these uncertainties are mostly related to uncertainties in distance scales. They cannot introduce a dependence on $\log \sigma_{\rm eff}$. Therefore, the trend in Figure \[f:DynFP\] must have a different origin. We continue in the following subsections by exploring various possible explanations. This is an important issue, because differences in $M/L$ evolution between low-mass and high-mass galaxies are generally interpreted as due to differences in stellar population age. Such age differences have a direct bearing on our understanding of galaxy formation.
Structure Evolution {#ss:strucevol}
-------------------
If galaxies do not change their structure over time then any evolution in either the FP or the $M/L$–$\sigma$ relation must be due to $M/L$ evolution. In this case, a study of the evolution of these two relations always implies the same (correct) $M/L$ evolution. However, this equivalence ceases to exist when the structure of galaxies evolves with time.
As a simple illustration of the possible impact of structure evolution, consider the example in which some process changes the $r_{\rm eff}$ of a galaxy while $M/L$ and $\sigma_{\rm eff}$ remain constant. This will obviously not move the galaxy with respect to the $M/L$–$\sigma$ relation. However, the galaxy will move with respect to the FP. The virial theorem dictates that $$\label{virial}
(M/L)_{\rm vir} = K \sigma_{\rm eff}^2 / (2 \pi G r_{\rm eff}
I_{\rm eff}) ,$$ where $G$ is the gravitational constant and $K$ the structure constant, a scalar that depends on the structure of the galaxy (for example, a spherical model with a de Vaucouleurs $R^{1/4}$ surface brightness profile has $K=5.95$). If we assume in this example that the galaxy changes its structure homologously, then $K$ will remain constant. Equation (\[virial\]) then implies that $\Delta \log
I_{\rm eff} = - \Delta \log r_{\rm eff}$. Therefore, at its new $r_{\rm eff}$ the galaxy will be offset from the FP by an amount $\Delta \zeta = -0.17 \Delta \log r_{\rm eff}$. The customary assumptions for interpreting FP evolution (see e.g., eq. \[\[FPdiff\]\]) would then incorrectly suggest a mass-to-light ratio evolution of $\Delta \log(M/L) = -0.20 \Delta \log r_{\rm eff}$.
=0.8
It is equally possible to construct examples in which FP evolution properly measures $M/L$ evolution, whereas $M/L$–$\sigma$ evolution does not. To illustrate this, consider the situation in which due to some process a galaxy homologously changes its $r_{\rm eff}$, $\sigma_{\rm eff}$ and $I_{\rm eff}$ while $M/L$ remains constant. If $\Delta \log r_{\rm eff} = -2.71 \Delta \log
\sigma_{\rm eff}$ and $\Delta \log I_{\rm eff} = 4.71 \Delta \log
\sigma_{\rm eff}$, then the galaxy will continue to fall on the edge-on projection of the FP. The customary assumptions for interpreting FP evolution would then correctly suggest that there was no change in $M/L$. However, the galaxy will now be offset from the $M/L$–$\sigma$ relation by an amount $\Delta \log(M/L) = 0.37 \Delta
\log r_{\rm eff}$.
These examples show that whenever there is evolution in any of the structural quantities $\sigma_{\rm eff}$, $r_{\rm eff}$, $\Sigma_{\rm
eff} \equiv I_{\rm eff} (M/L)$, or $K$, then the $M/L$ evolution inferred from the FP and from the $M/L$–$\sigma$ relation will not generally agree with each other. One plausible explanation for the trend in Figure \[f:DynFP\] is therefore that galaxies undergo structural evolution with time, and that this evolution is different for galaxies of low and high $\sigma_{\rm eff}$.
The assessment of the importance of this effect is complicated by the fact that our analysis of the evolution of the $M/L$–$\sigma$ evolution has been based on rather different data than our analysis of the FP evolution. The former used spatially resolved brightness profiles and kinematics, whereas the latter used only the characteristic quantities $r_{\rm eff}$, $I_{\rm eff}$, and $\sigma_{\rm eff}$. A somewhat cleaner comparison can therefore be made through an analysis of $M/L$–$\sigma$ evolution based on virial estimates from equation (\[virial\]), which uses the same three characteristic quantities as FP studies. To this end, we first calculated the values of $(M/L)_{\rm vir}$ for the sample of Coma galaxies studied by Jorgensen [[et al. ]{}]{}(1995a,b). The values thus obtained were fit by a straight line of the form given by equation (\[fitCapel\]) which yields parameters $Z_{\rm coma} = \log
K + 0.163 \pm 0.015$ and $S_{\rm coma} = 0.887 \pm 0.095$. We then calculated $(M/L)_{\rm vir}$ for all of the intermediate-redshift cluster galaxies. The evolution for each galaxy was calculated by comparison to the $(M/L)_{\rm vir}$–$\sigma$ relation for Coma.
=0.8
Figure \[f:virial\] shows for each galaxy the difference between the evolution thus determined and the evolution determined from the FP evolution. By contrast to Figure \[f:DynFP\], both measures of evolution are now inferred entirely from the same global properties ($\sigma_{\rm eff}$, $r_{\rm eff}$, and $I_{\rm eff}$), and use exactly the same local comparison sample. However, there is a still a trend in the inferred $M/L$ evolution with $\sigma_{\rm eff}$, in the same sense as in Figure \[f:DynFP\]. This supports the view that structural quantities in addition to $M/L$ are probably evolving with time. Note that it is not possible to identify whether a more accurate estimate of $M/L$ evolution is obtained by studying FP evolution or $M/L$–$\sigma$ evolution. For this one would need to know exactly how the structural properties of individual elliptical galaxies change with redshift, which is not well constrained observationally.
Rotation {#ss:rotation}
--------
The trend in Figure \[f:virial\] is not as steep as that in Figure \[f:DynFP\]. This means that part of the trend in Figure \[f:DynFP\] must be due to differences in evolution between our $M/L$ values from dynamical modeling and the $(M/L)_{\rm vir}$ values determined from the virial theorem. Such differences are not necessarily unexpected, given that our models ought to be more accurate. They account for rotation and homological differences, between galaxies and as a function of redshift, whereas the virial analysis does not.
=0.8
In Paper I we determined for each galaxy the normalized rotation measure $k$, which is similar to the quantity $(v/\sigma)^*$ that is often used for local galaxies. For $k=0$ the galaxy is non-rotating, whereas for $|k|=1$ the velocity dispersion tensor is isotropic and the galaxy is a so-called “oblate isotropic rotator”. The quantity $k$ is reasonably well determined for the 15 galaxies in the sample for which a slit was placed within $45^{\circ}$ of the major axis, and which have projected ellipticity $\epsilon > 0.10$ (these galaxies are marked with an asterisk in Table 1 of Paper I). Figure \[f:rot\] shows for these 15 galaxies the differences between the following two quantities: (a) the evolution inferred from our dynamical models and the local comparison sample described in Section \[s:local\]; and (b) the evolution inferred from the $(M/L)_{\rm vir}$ estimates using Coma as comparison sample. Since both measures of evolution are based on an underlying relation between $M/L$ and $\sigma$, any effects introduced by structure evolution, such as those described in Section \[ss:strucevol\], are now removed from the comparison. The differences thus calculated (which are equal to the the differences between the residuals shown in Figures \[f:DynFP\] and \[f:virial\]) are shown as a function of the rotation parameter $k$. There is a significant trend for the residuals to be larger for galaxies that have more rotational support. For example, the quantity $\Delta \log(M/L)_{\rm dyn} - \Delta \log(M/L)_{\rm vir}$ has an average value of $0.095 \pm 0.011$ for galaxies with $k < 0.6$ and $0.138 \pm 0.026$ for galaxies with $k > 0.6$. By contrast, we have found no correlation with the observed axial ratio of each galaxy.
The dynamical models that we have used here explicitly account for the observed rotation of each galaxy, whereas studies based entirely on $\sigma_{\rm eff}$ do not. This causes $(M/L)_{\rm vir}$ or the FP to systematically underestimate the $M/L$ of rapidly rotating galaxies. It is not immediately obvious though that the inferred $M/L$ [*evolution*]{} would be impacted by this. Studies of FP evolution or $(M/L)_{\rm vir}$–$\sigma$ evolution ignore rotation both in the local Universe and at intermediate redshift, so any bias might cancel out when different redshifts are compared. On the other hand, observations in the local universe generally use small apertures that cover only the central part of the galaxy, whereas observations of distant galaxies generally use apertures that cover most of the galaxy. To enable meaningful comparison, observations at different redshifts are generally transformed to a common aperture size using transformations that themselves do not explicitly account for rotation (e.g., Jorgensen [[et al. ]{}]{}1995b). Therefore, observations at different redshifts may be impacted by rotation in different manner. So any bias introduced through the neglect of rotation in FP or $(M/L)_{\rm vir}$ calculations may not cancel out when samples at different redshifts are compared. This may bias the inferred evolution and could therefore affect the trend in Figure \[f:rot\]. The fact that the trend in Figure \[f:DynFP\] is steeper than that in Figure \[f:virial\] is related to the fact that galaxies of low $\sigma_{\rm eff}$ tend to have more rotational support than those of high $\sigma_{\rm eff}$ (both in the local universe and in the sample of intermediate-redshift cluster galaxies, see Paper I).
Figure \[f:rot\] shows that even at $k \approx 0$ there is a difference of $\sim 0.05$ dex between the evolution inferred from the dynamical and virial $M/L$ estimates. The significance of this offset is low, given the systematic error quoted in equation (\[DynFPcomp\]). The offset could be due to (a combination of) several different effects. For example: (a) systematic uncertainties in the relative distance scale between our local comparison sample of Section \[s:local\] and Coma; (b) systematic errors in the conversions of observed velocity dispersions in some fixed aperture to $\sigma_{\rm eff}$; or (c) redshift evolution of the structure constant $K$.
=0.8
On a separate note, we do not find a correlation between the residuals from the $M/L$–$\sigma$ relation inferred from our dynamical models (i.e., the offset of the points in Figure \[f:MLevol\]b from the solid straight line in that figure) and either the rotation parameter $k$ or the morphological types from Smail [[et al. ]{}]{}(1997). This is shown in Figure \[f:MLrotresids\]. We discussed in Paper I that some of the most rapidly rotating galaxies in the sample could be misclassified S0 galaxies. Such galaxies, or other galaxies of intermediate and late Hubble types, might have recently transformed from star-forming field galaxies. If so, one would expect their $M/L$ ratios to be smaller than for the true elliptical galaxies, which may have formed the bulk of their stars longer ago. Figure \[f:MLrotresids\] shows no obvious trends that would support this view. However, a sample with a larger number of S0 and later-type galaxies would obviously be more suited to address this issue.
Other Systematic Effects {#ss:other}
------------------------
The slope of the $M/L$–$\sigma$ relation does not change with redshift for our sample, despite the fact that the FP tilt does evolve with redshift. We have shown that this can be plausibly attributed to a combination of two effects: (a) evolution in structural properties; and (b) the neglect of rotational support in studies of FP evolution. Nonetheless, there are other systematic effects that may influence the comparison. In particular, it is worth considering potential systematic errors in the evolution inferred from our dynamical modeling approach. We discuss two possible effects, but conclude in the end that neither is likely to be a significant contributor to the trend seen in Figure \[f:DynFP\].
### Environment {#sss:environment}
It is possible that $M/L$ depends not only on $\sigma_{\rm eff}$, but also on environment. Our sample of intermediate redshift galaxies consists of galaxies in rich cluster environments. To study $M/L$ evolution one compares to local galaxies which generally reside in somewhat different environments. So any local dependence of $M/L$ on environment would bias the inferred $M/L$ evolution. If this is in fact an issue, then it is more likely to affect the evolution inferred from dynamical models and the $M/L$–$\sigma$ relation, than it is to affect FP studies. The latter generally use Coma as a local comparison sample. While Coma is not as rich as clusters studied at higher redshift, it is nonetheless a dense cluster environment. By contrast, the local comparison sample used to construct the $M/L$–$\sigma$ relation (Table \[t:local\]) contains an inhomogeneous mixture of galaxies in cluster, group and field environments. It has been suggested that field galaxies might typically be younger, and thus have lower $M/L$ values, than cluster galaxies (e.g., Diaferio [[et al. ]{}]{}2001; Bernardi [[et al. ]{}]{}2003; Annibali [[et al. ]{}]{}2006). If this were true, and in particular for galaxies of low $\sigma$ or mass, then this might explain part of the trend seen in Figure \[f:DynFP\]. However, there is little evidence that any dependence on environment would in fact be larger for galaxies of low $\sigma$ or mass (Clemens [[et al. ]{}]{}2006). Also, a significant fraction (25/60) of the galaxies in our local comparison sample (Table \[t:local\]) come from the work of C06. They explicitly studied the residuals of the $M/L$–$\sigma$ relation as a function of environment, and did not find any dependence.
To test directly for environmental effects we compared the $M/L$–$\sigma$ relation for our local comparison sample to the $(M/L)_{\rm vir}$–$\sigma$ relation for Coma. The zeropoint $Z_{\rm
coma}$ and slope $S_{\rm coma}$ of the latter relation are listed in Section \[ss:strucevol\]. The value of $S_{\rm coma}$ is consistent at the $\sim 1\sigma$ level with the slope $S = 0.992 \pm 0.054$ inferred for our local comparison sample. Also, the value of $Z_{\rm
coma}$ is consistent with the value $Z = 0.896 \pm 0.010$ for the local comparison sample if $K = 5.40 \pm 0.23$. This value can be compared to the average $K = 5.09 \pm 0.19$ for the galaxies in our local comparison sample, which can be determined directly by equating the dynamical $M/L$ to $(M/L)_{\rm vir}$ for these galaxies. These two estimates of $K$ are entirely consistent, especially when taking into account the previously discussed systematic uncertainties in the relative distance scales between our local comparison sample and the Coma cluster. For comparison, C06 found that for data in the $I$-band $K \approx 4.8 \pm 0.1$. In addition to being a useful consistency check, these results show that there is no evidence for a strong environmental dependence of the $M/L$–$\sigma$ relation in the local universe. The trend in Figure \[f:DynFP\] therefore cannot be attributed to environmental influences on the analysis.
### Spatial Resolution {#sss:resolution}
FP and dynamical modeling analyses rely in different manner on knowledge of the galaxy surface brightness profile. To calculate the FP position of a galaxy one needs to know only the integrated luminosity within the effective radius. By contrast, to perform the dynamical modeling one needs to model the surface brightness profile down to very small radii, which requires accurate PSF deconvolution. Any systematic errors introduced by this are likely to produce a relative difference between $M/L$ evolution inferred from FP analysis and dynamical modeling. This is likely to affect low-mass galaxies, which are smaller on average, more than high-mass galaxies. So potential PSF deconvolution errors in our dynamical modeling could in principle produce a trend such as that in Figure \[f:DynFP\]. While this issue may be a contributing factor to the results in Figure \[f:DynFP\], we do not believe that it can be the full explanation. The galaxies in our sample that provide evidence for evolution in the FP tilt have $r_{\rm eff}$ in the range $0.16''$–$0.80''$ (see fig. 5a of vDvdM06). Most of these galaxies are quite well resolved even with the $0.1''$ pixels of the HST/WFPC2. Nonetheless, future higher resolution imaging, such as now possible with the HST Advanced Camera for Surveys (ACS), would certainly decrease any sensitivity of the dynamical modeling on PSF deconvolution.
Even if limited spatial resolution were an issue for our models, it would not explain the entire trend in Figure \[f:DynFP\]. After all, a shallower trend is seen even in Figure \[virial\], which does not involve any dynamical modeling at all. The hypothesis of errors due to limited spatial resolution could at best explain the trend in Figure \[f:rot\]. Galaxies with more rotational support tend to have lower mass (see Paper I), therefore tend to be smaller on average, and therefore could in principle be more affected by spatial resolution issues.
Summary and Discussion {#s:conc}
======================
Many studies in the past decade have addressed the $M/L$ evolution of early-type galaxies using the FP. This uses only global photometric and kinematic quantities and is therefore relatively straightforward to explore. However, FP evolution equals $M/L$ evolution only if many simplifying assumptions are met, as discussed in Section \[s:intro\]. The validity of these assumptions has remained poorly verified. It is therefore important to address $M/L$ evolution more directly by using dynamical models for spatially resolved photometric and kinematic data. In Paper I we constructed two-integral $f(E,L_z)$ models for 25 visually-classified early type (and in most cases elliptical) galaxies in the intermediate-redshift ($z \approx
0.5$) clusters CL3C295, CL0016+16 and CL1601+42. Fitting of the models to surface photometry from HST and kinematics from Keck/LRIS yielded for each galaxy the average rest-frame $B$-band $M/L$ inside the spectroscopically explored region. The results allow a critical test of many of the assumptions that have underlied previous studies of FP evolution.
To study redshift evolution we needed a suitable comparison sample of $M/L$ values for local early-type galaxies. We therefore compiled a sample of 60 galaxies in the local Universe for which detailed dynamical models were previously constructed to fit spatially resolved kinematical data. Attention was restricted to galaxies in five specific modeling studies that addressed large samples. All inferred $M/L$ values were brought to a homogeneous distance scale, using distances obtained with the SBF method. Galaxies without SBF distances were excluded from the sample. All $M/L$ values were transformed to the $B$ band using either measured or estimated broad-band colors. C06 found that $M/L$ correlates tightly with velocity dispersion, $\log
(M/L) = Z + S \log(\sigma_{\rm eff}/[200 {\>{\rm km}\,{\rm s}^{-1}}])$, where $\sigma_{\rm
eff}$ is the velocity dispersion inside an aperture of size equal to the effective radius $r_{\rm eff}$. This refined previous work which had found that $M/L$ correlates (more loosely) with galaxy luminosity or mass. We confirm the finding of C06. Our larger, homogenized sample gives $Z = 0.896 \pm 0.010$ and $S = 0.992 \pm 0.054$. We estimate the systematic uncertainty in $Z$ due to modeling uncertainties to be $\Delta Z = \pm 0.02$, based on a comparison of $M/L$ results obtained from different dynamical modeling studies. The slope that we derive for the $B$ band differs from the best-fit slope $S = 0.82 \pm 0.06$ found by C06 for the $I$ band. This is due to the well-known fact that galaxies of low dispersion (or mass) tend to be bluer than those of high dispersion.
The $M/L$ values inferred for the intermediate-redshift cluster sample follow a similar relation with $\sigma_{\rm eff}$ as found for the local galaxies. However, the zeropoint $Z = 0.657 \pm 0.022$ is smaller than for the local sample. The measured change of zeropoint with redshift implies that $\Delta \log(M/L) / \Delta z = -0.457 \pm
0.046 \> {\rm (random)} \pm 0.078 \> {\rm (systematic)}$. A comparison of the FP defined by the high-mass galaxies with $M {\gtrsim}10^{11}
{\>{\rm M_{\odot}}}$ in the same sample with that measured for the nearby Coma cluster yields $\Delta \log(M/L) / \Delta z = -0.529 \pm 0.049 \>
{\rm (random)} \pm 0.071 \> {\rm (systematic)}$. The systematic uncertainties in these results are dominated by a variety of issues that affect our knowledge of the relative distance scale between local and distant galaxies. Although these systematic uncertainties are often not explicitly addressed, we stress that they are present in all studies of $M/L$ evolution that use either dynamical models or the FP. The results from both methods are consistent with passive evolution of high-mass galaxies following formation at high redshift, as quantified in vDvdM06.
Comparison of the $M/L$ evolution inferred from our dynamical modeling study and from the FP yields excellent agreement for massive galaxies. This is an important [*a posteriori*]{} verification of the assumptions that have underlied all previous FP evolution studies. It shows that to lowest order FP evolution does indeed measure $M/L$ evolution, as suggested also by the results of Treu & Koopmans (2004) for lensing galaxies. It also shows that the subset of hierarchical structure formation models in which FP zeropoint evolution does not track $M/L$ evolution (e.g., Almeida [[et al. ]{}]{}2006) is inconsistent with our observational understanding of early-type galaxies. Our results provide no evidence that the galaxies in the sample with the latest Hubble types (i.e., E/S0, S0/E, S0, or S0/Sb) or the galaxies with the highest rotation rates tend to have lower $M/L$ values. This might have been expected if such galaxies transformed recently from star-forming field galaxies.
While there is broad agreement between the dynamical modeling and the FP results, we find important differences in the behavior of $M/L$ evolution as a function of $\sigma_{\rm eff}$ (or similarly, mass). For the dynamically inferred $M/L$–$\sigma$ relation we find no evidence for a change of the slope with redshift, and therefore no dependence of $M/L$ evolution on $\sigma_{\rm eff}$. By contrast, our own work for this same sample and that of many previous authors on other samples has found that the FP tilt does evolve with redshift. We studied this difference by analyzing the residuals with respect to the fitted relations, and by considering also the evolution implied by $(M/L)_{\rm vir}$ estimates from the virial theorem. Based on this, we find that the difference between the results from FP evolution and dynamically determined $M/L$–$\sigma$ evolution can be plausibly attributed to a combination of two effects: (a) evolution in structural properties; and (b) the neglect of rotational support in studies of FP evolution. We investigated other potential explanations as well, including the possibility that our results may be biased due to unaccounted local dependencies of $M/L$ on environment, or the possibility that systematic errors may affect our results for the smallest galaxies due to the finite spatial resolution of the HST imaging data. However, we argue that neither of these latter issues significantly affects our analysis.
Both FP evolution and evolution of the $M/L$–$\sigma$ relation constrain the $M/L$ evolution of elliptical galaxies. However, these approaches need not give the same answer (or more generally, the correct answer) if the structure of galaxies evolves with time. We find some evidence for this from the fact that the results from FP evolution and $(M/L)_{\rm vir}$–$\sigma$ evolution differ (in the sense that there is a slight trend with $\sigma_{\rm eff}$), even when the analysis is in both cases based on exactly the same global properties ($\sigma_{\rm eff}$, $r_{\rm eff}$, and $I_{\rm eff}$) and uses exactly the same local comparison sample (Coma). In general, neither FP evolution nor evolution of the $M/L$–$\sigma$ relation can uniquely and correctly determine the amount of $M/L$ evolution, unless one knows (or correctly assumes) how the structural properties of the galaxies change with time. This is is not very well constrained observationally and one therefore has to rely on assumptions and theoretical insights. Translation of $M/L$–$\sigma$ evolution into $M/L$ evolution assumes only that the $\sigma_{\rm eff}$ of galaxies does not change over time. By contrast, translation of FP evolution into $M/L$ evolution assumes that none of the quantities $\sigma_{\rm
eff}$, $r_{\rm eff}$, $\Sigma_{\rm eff} \equiv I_{\rm eff} (M/L)$, or the structure constant $K$ change over time. Although elliptical galaxies are collisionless systems, all these structural quantities can in fact change through mergers. However, the inferred $M/L$ evolution is in practice used primarily to estimate the mean age of the stars under the assumption that only the luminosity is evolving (e.g., vDvdM06). This relaxes the underlying assumptions in the sense that the correct age is obtained (but not the correct $M/L$ evolution) as long as any evolution of structural parameters moves galaxies only along the $M/L$–$\sigma$ relation or along the edge-on projection of the FP. Models have suggested that structural changes induced by mergers do indeed approximately have this property (Gonzalez-Garcia & van Albada 2003; Boylan-Kolchin, Ma, & Quataert 2006; Robertson [[et al. ]{}]{}2006).
An approach that is based on dynamical models has less built-in assumptions than approaches (such as those using the FP or $(M/L)_{\rm
vir}$ values) that are based entirely on global or characteristic quantities. In particular, the $M/L$ values that we determined in Paper I account for several known non-homologies between galaxies, such as differences in axial ratio, brightness profile, rotational support, and internal velocity distribution. Moreover, kinematical profiles as a function of radius were calculated and fitted, instead of just a single characteristic dispersion. We found that the difference in the $M/L$ evolution inferred from either dynamical models or the virial theorem correlates with the galaxy rotation rate $k$. This suggests that the omission of rotation in studies of FP evolution may be an important oversimplification. Nonetheless, it is important to stress that many caveats remain even with the dynamical modeling approach explored here. For example, if the triaxiality or velocity dispersion anisotropy of early-type galaxies evolves with redshift then this might bias the results of our dynamical models (as it would for FP studies). Also, both FP studies and the present work may suffer from “progenitor bias”. This is the bias introduced by the fact that some of today’s early-type galaxies may not be identified as early-type galaxies in samples at higher redshifts (see vDvdM06 for a discussion of the size of this bias).
In vDvdM06 we reported a steeping of the FP tilt with redshift for our sample galaxies. This is generally interpreted to mean that low-mass galaxies have undergone more $M/L$ evolution than high-mass galaxies, and are therefore younger. However, the results presented here show that this conclusion need not necessarily be correct: the dynamical models provide little evidence for a difference in $M/L$ evolution between low-mass and high-mass galaxies; and the steepening of the FP tilt may be affected by other issues than $M/L$ evolution. This does not rule out the possibility that low-mass galaxies have younger population ages than high-mass galaxies. But it does mean than one should be careful in drawing conclusions of this nature entirely on the basis of FP data. In general it is important to test for differences in population age also on the basis of other considerations. For example, van der Wel [[et al. ]{}]{}(2005) and Treu [[et al. ]{}]{}(2005b) considered broad-band colors and spectroscopic diagnostics in combination with FP residuals to argue for age differences between field galaxies of different mass. Their results are not necessarily inconsistent with those presented here, because the situation may be different for galaxies in the field and in clusters and it may be different at different redshifts.
Our work shows that dynamical modeling of large samples of galaxies at intermediate redshifts provides a powerful new method for the study of galaxy evolution. It therefore seems useful to expand the present work to other samples that explore a wider range of redshifts, environments, and galaxy types.
We thank Michele Cappellari, Arjen van der Wel and Marijn Franx for useful discussions and suggestions. Part of this research was carried out at the Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics in Santa Barbara, supported in part by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. PHY99-07949.
Almeida, C., Baugh, C. M., & Lacey, C. G. 2006, MNRAS, submitted \[astro-ph/0608544\]
Annibali, F., Bressan, A., Rampazzo, R., Danese, L., & Zeilinger, W. W. 2006, A&A, in press \[astro-ph/0609175\]
Bell, E. F., & de Jong, R. S. 2001, ApJ, 550, 212
Bernardi, M., et al. 2003, AJ, 125, 1866
Binney, J. J., & Merrifield, M. 1998, Galactic Astronomy (Princeton: Princeton University Press)
Boylan-Kolchin, M., Ma, C.-P., & Quataert, E. 2006, MNRAS, 369, 1081
Bruzual, G, & Charlot, S. 2003, MNRAS, 344, 1000
Cappellari, M., et al. 2006a, MNRAS, 366, 1126 (C06)
Clemens, M. S., Bessan, A., Nikolic, B., Alexander, P., Annibali, F., Rampazzo, R. 2006, MNRAS, 2006, 370, 702
Colless, M., Saglia, R. P., Burstein, D., Davies, R. L., McMahan R. K., Wegner, G. 2001, MNRAS, 321, 277
Courteau, S., & Rix, H.-W. 1999, ApJ, 513, 561
Davis, L. E., Cawson, M., Davies, R. L., & Illingworth, G. 1985, AJ, 90, 169
De Lucia, G., Springel, V., White, S. D. M., Croton, D., & Kauffman, G. 2006, MNRAS, 366, 499
de Vaucouleurs, G., de Vaucouleurs, A., Corwin, H. G., Buta, R. J., Paturel, G., & Fouque, P. 1991, Third Reference Catalogue of Bright Galaxies (New York: Springer) (RC3)
Diaferio, A., Kauffmann, G., Balogh, M. L., White, S. D. M., Schade, D., & Ellingson, E. 2001, MNRAS, 323, 999
di Serego Alighieri, S., et al. 2005, A&A, 442, 125
Djorgovski, S., & Davis, M. 1987, ApJ, 313, 59
Dressler, A. 1980, ApJ, 236, 351
Dressler, A., Lynden-Bell, D., Burstein, D., Davies, R. L., Faber, S. M., Terlevich, R., Wegner, G. 1987, ApJ, 313, 42
Dressler, A., & Gunn, J. E. 1992, ApJS, 78, 1
Dressler, A., et al. 1997, ApJ, 490, 577
Dressler, A., Smail, I., Poggianti, B. M., Butcher, H., Couch, W. J., Ellis, R. S., Oemler, A. Jr. 1999, ApJS, 122, 51
Faber, S.M., Wegner, G., Burstein, D., Davies, R. L., Dressler, A., Lynden-Bell, D., & Terlevich, R. J. 1989, ApJS, 69, 763 (F89)
Ferrarese, L., et al. 2000, ApJ, 529, 745
Freedman, W. L., et al. 2001, ApJ, 553, 47
Gebhardt, K., et al. 2003, ApJ, 583, 92 (G03)
Gonzalez-Garcia, A. C., & van Albada, T. S. 2003, MNRAS, 342, L36
Hudson, M. J., Lucey, J. R., Smith, R. J., Schlegel, D. J., & Davies, R. L. 2001, 327, 265
Jensen, J. B., Tonry, J. L., Barris, B. J., Thompson, R. I., Liu, M. C., Rieke, M. J., Ajhar, E. A., & Blakeslee, J P. 2003, ApJ, 583, 712
Jorgensen, I., Franx, M., & Kjaergaard, P. 1995a, MNRAS, 273, 1097
Jorgensen, I., Franx, M., & Kjaergaard, P. 1995b, MNRAS, 276, 1341
Jorgensen, I., Chiboucas, K., Flint, K., Bergmann, M., Barr, J., Davies, R. L. 2006, ApJ, 639, L9
Kelson, D. D., Illingworth, G. D., van Dokkum, P. G., & Franx, M. 2000, ApJ, 531, 184
Kronawitter, A., Saglia, R. P., Gerhard, O., & Bender, R. 2000, A&AS, 144, 53 (K00)
Lauer, T., et al. 2005, AJ, 129, 2138
Magorrian, J., et al. 1998, AJ, 115, 2285 (M98)
Mei, S., et al. 2005, ApJ, 625, 121
Moran, S. M., Ellis, R. S., Treu, T., Smail, I., Dressler, A., Coil, A. L., & Smith, G. P. 2005, ApJ, 634, 977
Nagamine, K., Cen, R., Hernquist, L., Ostriker, J. P., Springel, V. 2005, ApJ, 627, 608
Peletier, R. F., Davies, R. L., Illingworth, G. D., Davis, L. E., & Cawson, M. 1990, AJ, 100, 1091
Persic, M., Salucci, P., & Stel, F. 1996, MNRAS, 281, 27
Press, W. H., Teukolsky, S. A., Vetterling, W. T., & Flannery, B. P. 1992, Numerical Recipes (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)
Robertson, B., Cox, T. J., Hernquist, L., Franx, M., Hopkins, P. F., Martini, P., Springel, V. 2006, ApJ, 641, 21
Sakai, S., Ferrarese, L., Kennicutt, R. C. Jr., & Saha, A. 2004, ApJ, 608, 42
Smail, I., Dressler, A., Couch, W. J., Ellis, R. S., Oemler, A., Jr., Butcher, H., Sharples, R. M. 1997, ApJS, 110, 213
Smith, R. J., Lucey, J. R., & Hudson, M. J. 2006, MNRAS, submitted
Spergel, D. N., et al. 2003, ApJS, 148, 175
Tonry, J. L., Blakeslee, J P., Ajhar, E. A., & Dressler, A. 2000, ApJ, 530, 625
Tonry, J. L., Dressler, A., Blakeslee, J P., Ajhar, E. A., Fletcher, A. B., Luppino, G. A., Metzger, M. R., & Moore, C. B. 2001, ApJ, 546, 681 (T01)
Tremaine, S., et al. 2002, ApJ, 574, 740
Treu, T., & Koopmans, L. V. E. 2004, ApJ, 611, 739
Treu, T., Ellis, R. S., Liao, T. X., & van Dokkum, P. G. 2005a, ApJ, 622, L5
Treu, T., et al. 2005b, ApJ, 633, 174
van Albada, T. S., Bahcall, J. N., Begeman, K., & Sancisi, R. 1985, ApJ, 295, 305
van der Marel, R. P. 1991, MNRAS, 248, 515 (vdM91)
van der Marel, R. P., & van Dokkum, P. G. 2006, ApJ, submitted (Paper I)
van der Wel, A., Franx, M., van Dokkum, P. G., & Rix, H.-W. 2004, ApJ, 601, L5
van der Wel, A., Franx, M., van Dokkum, P. G., Rix, H.-W., Illingworth, G. D., & Rosati, P. 2005, ApJ, 631, 145
van Dokkum, P. G., & Franx, M. 1996, MNRAS, 281, 985
van Dokkum, P. G., Franx, M., Kelson, D. D., & Illingworth, G. D. 1998, ApJ, 504, L17
van Dokkum, P. G., & van der Marel, R. P. 2006, ApJ, in press (vDvdM06) \[astro-ph/0609587\]
Woo, J.-H., Urry, C. M., Lira, P., van der Marel, R. P., & Maza, J. 2004, ApJ, 617, 903
Wuyts, S., van Dokkum, P. G., Kelson, D. D., Franx, M., & Illingworth, G. D. 2004, ApJ, 605, 677
=0.8
3.0truecm
Figure
=0.8
3.0truecm
Figure
=0.4
3.0truecm
Figure
=0.4
3.0truecm
Figure
=0.4
3.0truecm
Figure
=0.4
3.0truecm
Figure
=0.8
3.0truecm
Figure
[lclc]{} [ I & $\pm 0.003$ & effect of uncertainties in $\Omega_{\rm m}$ and $\Omega_{\Lambda}$ at $z \approx 0.5$ & \[s:intro\]\
II & $\pm 0.026$ & accuracy with which the SBF and Cepheid distance scales have been aligned & \[ss:dist\]\
III & $\pm 0.037$ & accuracy of the Cepheid distance scale for local galaxies & \[ss:dist\]\
IV & $\pm 0.009$ & cosmic variance in $H_0$ on the scale $z {\lesssim}0.1$ & \[ss:dist\]\
V & $\pm 0.023$ & random uncertainty in $H_0$ due to finite sample sizes & \[ss:dist\]\
VI & $\pm 0.020$ & difference in results from different dynamical modeling approaches & \[ss:MLerrors\]\
]{}
[lccrcccccc]{} [ NGC 0221 & -6 & $24.49 \pm 0.08$ & -0.481 & $0.403 \pm 0.053$ & & X & & & X\
NGC 0524 & -1 & $31.84 \pm 0.20$ & 0.064 & $1.022 \pm 0.067$ & & & & & X\
NGC 0636 & -5 & $32.31 \pm 0.16$ & -0.134 & $0.694 \pm 0.116$ & X & & & &\
NGC 0720 & -5 & $32.15 \pm 0.17$ & 0.049 & $1.034 \pm 0.116$ & X & & & &\
NGC 0821 & -5 & $31.85 \pm 0.17$ & -0.022 & $0.881 \pm 0.049$ & & X & & X & X\
NGC 1052 & -5 & $31.38 \pm 0.27$ & -0.020 & $1.026 \pm 0.116$ & X & & & &\
NGC 1379 & -5 & $31.45 \pm 0.15$ & -0.212 & $0.582 \pm 0.116$ & X & & & &\
NGC 1395 & -5 & $31.85 \pm 0.16$ & 0.069 & $0.921 \pm 0.116$ & X & & & &\
NGC 1399 & -5 & $31.44 \pm 0.16$ & 0.155 & $1.024 \pm 0.059$ & X & X & X & &\
NGC 1404 & -5 & $31.55 \pm 0.19$ & 0.026 & $0.896 \pm 0.116$ & X & & & &\
NGC 1407 & -5 & $32.24 \pm 0.26$ & 0.097 & $1.057 \pm 0.116$ & X & & & &\
NGC 1439 & -5 & $32.07 \pm 0.15$ & -0.149 & $0.777 \pm 0.116$ & X & & & &\
NGC 1549 & -5 & $31.41 \pm 0.18$ & -0.027 & $0.763 \pm 0.116$ & X & & & &\
NGC 1700 & -5 & $33.17 \pm 0.16$ & 0.039 & $0.842 \pm 0.116$ & X & & & &\
NGC 2434 & -5 & $31.61 \pm 0.29$ & -0.026 & $0.938 \pm 0.117$ & & & X & &\
NGC 2778 & -5 & $31.74 \pm 0.30$ & -0.097 & $0.975 \pm 0.071$ & & X & & X &\
NGC 2974 & -5 & $31.60 \pm 0.24$ & 0.074 & $0.989 \pm 0.067$ & & & & & X\
NGC 3115 & -3 & $29.87 \pm 0.09$ & 0.109 & $0.995 \pm 0.085$ & & X & & &\
NGC 3156 & -2 & $31.69 \pm 0.14$ & -0.420 & $0.349 \pm 0.067$ & & & & & X\
NGC 3193 & -5 & $32.60 \pm 0.18$ & -0.025 & $0.711 \pm 0.117$ & & & X & &\
NGC 3377 & -5 & $30.19 \pm 0.09$ & -0.194 & $0.571 \pm 0.049$ & & X & & X & X\
NGC 3379 & -5 & $30.06 \pm 0.11$ & -0.009 & $0.821 \pm 0.044$ & X & X & X & & X\
NGC 3414 & -2 & $31.95 \pm 0.33$ & 0.002 & $0.925 \pm 0.067$ & & & & & X\
NGC 3557 & -5 & $33.24 \pm 0.22$ & 0.112 & $0.842 \pm 0.116$ & X & & & &\
NGC 3608 & -5 & $31.74 \pm 0.14$ & -0.058 & $0.851 \pm 0.045$ & X & X & & X & X\
NGC 3640 & -5 & $32.10 \pm 0.13$ & -0.092 & $0.694 \pm 0.117$ & & & X & &\
NGC 4150 & -2 & $30.63 \pm 0.24$ & -0.438 & $0.378 \pm 0.067$ & & & & & X\
NGC 4168 & -5 & $32.39 \pm 0.42$ & -0.089 & $0.929 \pm 0.069$ & & X & X & &\
NGC 4261 & -5 & $32.44 \pm 0.19$ & 0.123 & $1.146 \pm 0.116$ & X & & & &\
NGC 4278 & -5 & $30.97 \pm 0.20$ & 0.064 & $0.996 \pm 0.048$ & & X & X & & X\
NGC 4291 & -5 & $32.03 \pm 0.32$ & 0.095 & $0.943 \pm 0.071$ & & X & & X &\
NGC 4374 & -5 & $31.26 \pm 0.11$ & 0.151 & $0.992 \pm 0.052$ & X & & X & & X\
NGC 4406 & -5 & $31.11 \pm 0.14$ & 0.047 & $0.904 \pm 0.116$ & X & & & &\
NGC 4458 & -5 & $31.12 \pm 0.12$ & -0.403 & $0.638 \pm 0.067$ & & & & & X\
NGC 4459 & -1 & $30.98 \pm 0.22$ & -0.089 & $0.710 \pm 0.067$ & & & & & X\
NGC 4472 & -5 & $31.00 \pm 0.10$ & 0.105 & $1.029 \pm 0.059$ & X & X & X & &\
NGC 4473 & -5 & $30.92 \pm 0.13$ & -0.018 & $0.816 \pm 0.049$ & & X & & X & X\
NGC 4486 & -4 & $30.97 \pm 0.16$ & 0.208 & $1.139 \pm 0.044$ & X & X & X & & X\
NGC 4494 & -5 & $31.10 \pm 0.11$ & -0.239 & $0.719 \pm 0.082$ & X & & X & &\
NGC 4526 & -2 & $31.08 \pm 0.20$ & 0.051 & $0.836 \pm 0.067$ & & & & & X\
NGC 4550 & -2 & $30.94 \pm 0.20$ & -0.252 & $0.685 \pm 0.067$ & & & & & X\
NGC 4552 & -5 & $30.87 \pm 0.14$ & 0.099 & $0.986 \pm 0.053$ & & X & & & X\
NGC 4564 & -5 & $30.82 \pm 0.17$ & -0.129 & $0.792 \pm 0.071$ & & X & & X &\
NGC 4589 & -5 & $31.65 \pm 0.22$ & -0.006 & $1.071 \pm 0.117$ & & & X & &\
NGC 4621 & -5 & $31.25 \pm 0.20$ & 0.025 & $0.846 \pm 0.053$ & & X & & & X\
NGC 4636 & -5 & $30.77 \pm 0.13$ & -0.069 & $1.089 \pm 0.059$ & X & X & X & &\
NGC 4649 & -5 & $31.07 \pm 0.15$ & 0.188 & $1.053 \pm 0.060$ & X & X & & X &\
NGC 4660 & -5 & $30.48 \pm 0.19$ & -0.034 & $0.873 \pm 0.053$ & & X & & & X\
NGC 4697 & -5 & $30.29 \pm 0.14$ & -0.120 & $0.918 \pm 0.086$ & X & & & X &\
NGC 5813 & -5 & $32.48 \pm 0.18$ & 0.061 & $0.990 \pm 0.067$ & & & & & X\
NGC 5845 & -5 & $32.01 \pm 0.21$ & 0.077 & $0.872 \pm 0.060$ & & & & X & X\
NGC 5846 & -5 & $31.92 \pm 0.20$ & 0.104 & $1.115 \pm 0.052$ & X & & X & & X\
NGC 6703 & -3 & $32.07 \pm 0.29$ & -0.097 & $0.749 \pm 0.117$ & & & X & &\
NGC 7144 & -5 & $31.89 \pm 0.12$ & -0.074 & $0.840 \pm 0.116$ & X & & & &\
NGC 7145 & -5 & $31.79 \pm 0.21$ & -0.218 & $0.761 \pm 0.082$ & X & & X & &\
NGC 7192 & -4 & $32.83 \pm 0.32$ & -0.080 & $0.665 \pm 0.117$ & & & X & &\
IC 1459 & -5 & $32.27 \pm 0.28$ & 0.145 & $0.912 \pm 0.116$ & X & & & &\
NGC 7457 & -3 & $30.55 \pm 0.21$ & -0.444 & $0.550 \pm 0.060$ & & & & X & X\
NGC 7507 & -5 & $31.93 \pm 0.17$ & 0.042 & $0.801 \pm 0.082$ & X & & X & &\
NGC 7619 & -5 & $33.56 \pm 0.31$ & 0.175 & $1.002 \pm 0.116$ & X & & & &\
]{}
[lclc]{} [ I & $\pm 0.003$ & effect of uncertainties in $\Omega_{\rm m}$ and $\Omega_{\Lambda}$ at $z \approx 0.5$ & \[s:intro\]\
III & $\pm 0.037$ & accuracy of the Cepheid distance scale for local galaxies & \[ss:dist\]\
IV & $\pm 0.009$ & cosmic variance in $H_0$ on the scale $z {\lesssim}0.1$ & \[ss:dist\]\
V & $\pm 0.023$ & random uncertainty in $H_0$ due to finite sample sizes & \[ss:dist\]\
VII & $\pm 0.013$ & uncertainty in Hubble flow velocity of Coma & \[ss:MLevolFP\]\
VIII& $\pm 0.020$ & difference in FP zeropoint determinations from different authors, at fixed distance & \[ss:MLevolFP\]\
IX & $\pm 0.018$ & cosmic variance in $H_0$ on the scale $z {\lesssim}0.025$ & \[ss:MLevolFP\]\
]{}
[^1]: G03 reported the $M/L$ for one galaxy, NGC 4564, in the $I$-band.
[^2]: This zeropoint also happens to align the SBF distance scale with the Cepheid distance scale [*if*]{} one assumes that the Cepheid properties have no metallicity dependence. But that is not what Freedman [[et al. ]{}]{}(2001) assumed in their final calibration. Comparisons of TRGB and Cepheid distances also indicate a Cepheid metallicity dependence (Sakai [[et al. ]{}]{}2004). The shift advocated by Jensen [[et al. ]{}]{}(2003) was used by C06 in their study of $M/L$ values of nearby galaxies.
[^3]: Some studies list multiple values of the $M/L$ obtained under slightly different assumptions. For vdM91 we take the values labeled $\Upsilon_R^{\rm imp}$ in his Table 2. For K00 we take the central value labeled “best $M/L_B^c$” in their Table 7. For C06 we take the values from their Schwarzschild models, labeled $(M/L)_{\rm Schw}$ in their Table 1, as opposed to the values from their two-integral models.
[^4]: This does not necessarily mean that the stellar populations are indeed on average $10^{9.97}$ yr old, and have solar metallicity and solar abundances ratios. But it does mean that such models predict the correct continuum slope when compared to observations of the centers of nearby early-type galaxies. The models can therefore be used to estimate the broad-band colors in filter combinations for which observations are not directly available.
[^5]: vdM91 had used $M_{\odot} =
4.31 (R_{\rm J})$, so we corrected his results to $M_{\odot} = 4.22
(R_{\rm J})$ before application of equation (\[MLtrans\]).
[^6]: This scatter was obtained by comparing only galaxies with $\sigma_{\rm eff} > 100 {\>{\rm km}\,{\rm s}^{-1}}$, as appropriate for all the galaxies in our sample for which we actually use the F89 data. We did find larger residuals of $\sim 0.1$ dex for the few galaxies with $\sigma_{\rm eff} < 100 {\>{\rm km}\,{\rm s}^{-1}}$.
[^7]: The mass $M \equiv (M/L) \times L$ is smaller than the total galaxy mass, because it doesn’t include all the contribution from a dark halo. However, it may contain some contribution from dark matter (K00, C06), so it is probably larger than the total mass in stars.
[^8]: An alternative way to assess differences in zeropoint between different studies is to analyze the $M/L$ values for those galaxies that have measurements from more than one study. We have performed such an analysis and found zeropoint differences that are consistent with those obtained from the $M/L$–$\sigma$ relation.
[^9]: The averages of all the $\log M/L$ estimates in the C06 sample for two- and three-integral models respectively agree to within $0.003$.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
Ivory’s Lemma is a geometrical statement in the heart of J. Ivory’s calculation of the gravitational potential of a homeoidal shell. In the simplest planar case, it claims that the diagonals of a curvilinear quadrilateral made by arcs of confocal ellipses and hyperbolas are equal.
In the first part of this paper, we deduce Ivory’s Lemma and its numerous generalizations from complete integrability of billiards on conics and quadrics. In the second part, we study analogs of Ivory’s Lemma in Liouville and Stäckel metrics. Our main focus is on the results of the German school of differential geometry obtained in the late 19 – early 20th centuries that might be lesser know today.
In the third part, we generalize Newton’s, Laplace’s, and Ivory’s theorems on gravitational and Coulomb potential of spheres and ellipsoids to the spherical and hyperbolic spaces. V. Arnold extended the results of Newton, Laplace, and Ivory to algebraic hypersurfaces in Euclidean space; we generalize Arnold’s theorem to the spaces of constant curvature.
author:
- 'Ivan Izmestiev[^1]'
- 'Serge Tabachnikov[^2]'
title: 'Ivory’s Theorem revisited'
---
Introduction {#intro}
============
Theorems XXX and XXXI of I. Newton’s “Principia" assert that [*the gravitational field created by a spherical shell is zero in the region bounded by the shell, whereas, in the exterior region, the field is the same as the one created by the total mass of the shell concentrated at its center.*]{}
P.-S. Laplace extended Newton’s theorem to ellipsoids. A *homeoid* is the domain bounded by two homothetic ellipsoids with a common center. Laplace proved the following theorem: [*the gravitational field of a homogeneous homeoidal shell equals zero in the region bounded by the shell. If the shell is infinitely thin, then the equipotential surfaces in its exterior are the confocal ellipsoids.*]{}
Laplace’s proof was computational. J. Ivory’s gave a different proof [@Iv09] that used a geometric argument based on the lemma that now carries his name.
Let $E_1$ and $E_2$ be origin-centered confocal ellipsoids in ${{\mathbb R}}^3$, and let $A$ be a linear map that takes $E_1$ to $E_2$. Let $P_1$ and $Q_1$ be points of $E_1$, and $P_2=A(P_1), Q_2=A(Q_2)$ be the corresponding points of $E_2$. The statement of Ivory’s Lemma is as follows: $|P_1 Q_2|=|Q_1 P_2|$.
Ivory’s Lemma is valid in all dimensions. In the simplest case of dimension two, the pairs of corresponding points lie on confocal hyperbolas, and the statement can be formulated as follows: [*the diagonals of a quadrilateral made by arcs of confocal ellipses and hyperbolas are equal*]{}, see Figure \[Ivst\].
![Ivory’s Lemma: $|P_1 Q_2|=|Q_1 P_2|$[]{data-label="Ivst"}](Ivst.pdf){height="1.8in"}
The theorems of Newton and of Laplace, and Ivory’s Lemma, have numerous generalizations, old and new. The reader interested in the history of this topic is referred to [@Tod].
This paper consists of three main parts.
In Section \[bconics\], we relate two subjects: Ivory’s Lemma and billiard dynamics in domains bounded by quadrics. In particular, in Theorem \[IvGenPlane\], we deduce planar Ivory’s Lemma from complete integrability of billiards bounded by confocal conics. In this approach, Ivory’s Lemma follows from a version of the Poncelet Porism (discovered at about the same time, in 1813). This approach extends to numerous generalizations of Ivory’s Lemma, including its multi-dimensional versions in the spherical and hyperbolic geometries.
One of our main inspirations in Section \[bconics\] were recent results of A. Akopyan and A. Bobenko [@AB15] on the nets of lines whose quadrilaterals admit inscribed circles. In this direction, our billiard approach gives a proof of a theorem of Reye and Chasles (Theorem \[inscribed\]) and provides a configuration of circles associated with a periodic billiard trajectory in an ellipse (Figure \[grid1\]).
Section \[LSmetr\] concerns more general metrics, Liouville (in dimension 2) and Stäckel (in higher dimensions), in which an analog of Ivory’s Lemma holds. Our main goal here is to bring back to the contemporary reader somewhat lesser-known results of the German school obtained in the late 19th and early 20th centuries (Blaschke, Stäckel, Weihnacht, Zwirner).
One of these results (Theorem \[thm:LiouvIvory\]), due to Blaschke and Zwirner, is that the Ivory property (the diagonals of the coordinate quadrilaterals have equal geodesic lengths) is equivalent to the metric having a Liouville form. In Section \[sec:StBill\], we return back to billiards and show that the billiard bounded by coordinate hypersurfaces of a Stäckel metric is integrable.
Section \[NIcurv\] concerns generalizations of Newton’s and Ivory’s theorems to the spherical and hyperbolic spaces. This subject was relatively recently investigated by V. Kozlov [@Koz00].
We define gravitational (or Coulomb) potential of a point as the function that is harmonic and rotationally invariant. We prove the spherical and hyperbolic version of Newton’s theorem (Theorem \[thm:NewtonSph\]) by a geometric argument, close to Newton’s original one.
Next, we define a homeoid in the $n$-dimensional spherical and hyperbolic space as the shell between two level sets of a quadratic form defined in the ambient $n+1$-dimensional space. Theorem \[LIconst\] provides a spherical and hyperbolic version of the Laplace theorem on the potential of a homeoid. Our arguments are again geometric and close to the proof of the Laplace theorem given by Ivory and Chasles.
The theorems of Newton and Laplace were extended by V. Arnold [@Arn82; @Arn83] to algebraic hypersurfaces in ${{\mathbb R}}^n$. In Theorem \[Arnconst\], we generalize Arnold’s result to the spherical and hyperbolic spaces.
Let us mention another generalization of Newton’s and Ivory’s theorems, to magnetic fields and quadrics of all signatures, which also goes back to Arnold [@Arn84; @VS85]. We believe that these results should also have spherical and hyperbolic versions.
[**Acknowledgments**]{}. We are grateful to A. Akopyan, A. Bobenko, V. Dragovic, D. Khavinson, E. Lundberg, Yu. Suris, A. Veselov for stimulating discussions and advice. Part of this work was done at ICERM, Brown University, during the second’s author 2-year stay there and the first author visit at the institute. We are grateful to ICERM for its inspiring and encouraging atmosphere. The second author was supported by the NSF grant DMS-1510055.
Billiards, conics, and quadratic surfaces {#bconics}
=========================================
Billiards in confocal conics {#bconf}
----------------------------
In this section, we recall some basic facts about billiards and conics; see, e.g., [@DR11; @FT07; @KT91; @Tab95; @Tab05] and, specifically, [@LT07].
We consider billiards as a discrete-time dynamical system acting on oriented lines: an incoming billiard trajectory hits the billiard curve and reflects so that the angle of incidence equals the angle of reflection. Equivalently, one may think in terms of geometrical optics: oriented lines are rays of light, and the billiard curve is an ideal mirror.
### Invariant area form {#invarea}
The space of oriented lines has an area form that is preserved by the optical reflections (independently of the shape of the mirror).
Choose an origin, and introduce coordinates $(\alpha,p)$ on the space of rays: $\alpha$ is the direction of the ray, and $p$ is its signed distance to the origin, see Figure \[coord\]. Then the invariant area form is as follows: $\omega=d\alpha\wedge d p$.
![Coordinates on the space of rays[]{data-label="coord"}](lines.pdf){height="1.2in"}
This symplectic structure is obtained by symplectic reduction from the canonical symplectic structure of the cotangent bundle $T^* {{\mathbb R}}^2$. This construction is quite general, and it yields a symplectic structure on the space of oriented non-parameterized geodesics of a Riemannian manifold (assuming that this space is a smooth manifold). For example, this is the case in the spherical and hyperbolic geometries. See, e.g., [@Ar89; @Tab95; @Tab05] for details.
### Caustics and string construction {#caust}
A caustic of a billiard is a curve $\gamma$ with the following property: if a segment of a billiard trajectory is tangent to $\gamma$ then so is each reflected segment.
Consider an oval (closed smooth strictly convex curve) and fix a point $C$ on it. For a point $X$ outside of the oval, consider two functions: $$f(X)=|XA|+\stackrel{\smile}{|AC|},\ g(X)=|XB|+\stackrel{\smile}{|BC|},$$ see Figure \[string\].
![String construction[]{data-label="string"}](string.pdf){height="2in"}
The gradients of these functions are the unit vectors along the lines $AX$ and $BX$, respectively. It follows that these two lines make equal angles with the level curves of the functions $f+g$ and $f-g$, and that these level curves are orthogonal to each other.
The function $f+g$ does not depend on the choice of the reference point $C$. Its level curves are given by the string construction: wrap a closed nonelastic string around an oval, pull it tight at a point, and move this point around the oval. This construction recovers a 1-parameter family of billiard curves from a common caustic (the length of the string is a parameter).
### Billiard properties of conics {#conics}
The interior of an ellipse is foliated by confocal ellipses. These are caustics of the billiard inside an ellipse, see, e.g., [@FT07 Theorem 28.2]. Thus one has Graves’s theorem: wrapping a closed nonelastic string around an ellipse produces a confocal ellipse. Since confocal ellipses and hyperbolas are orthogonal, an ellipse is also a caustic for reflection in a confocal hyperbola, see Figure \[reflection\].
![Reflection in confocal conics[]{data-label="reflection"}](reflection.pdf){height="2in"}
If a ray passes between the foci of an ellipse then it is tangent to a confocal hyperbola, and all the reflected rays are tangent to the same confocal hyperbola which, in this case, is a caustic.
### Complete integrability and its consequences {#complint}
The space of rays $A$ that intersect an ellipse is topologically a cylinder, and the billiard system inside the ellipse is an area preserving transformation $T: A\to A$. The cylinder is foliated by the invariant curves of the map $T$ consisting of the rays tangent to confocal conics, see Figure \[portrait\].
![Phase portrait of the billiard map in an ellipse[]{data-label="portrait"}](portrait.png){height="1.7in"}
The curves that go around the cylinder correspond to the rays that are tangent to confocal ellipses, and the curves that form ‘the eyes’ to the rays that are tangent to confocal hyperbolas. A singular curve consists of the rays through the foci, and the two dots to the 2-periodic back and forth orbit along the minor axis of the ellipse.
One can choose a cyclic parameter, say, $x$ modulo 1, on each invariant curve such that the map $T$ becomes a shift $x \mapsto x+c$, where the constant $c$ depends on the invariant curve. This is a manifestation of the Arnold-Liouville theorem in the theory of completely integrable systems, see [@Ar89].
The construction is as follows. Choose a function $H$ whose level curves are the invariant curves that foliate $A$, and consider its Hamiltonian vector field sgrad $H$ with respect to the area form $\omega$. This vector field is tangent to the invariant curves, and the desired coordinate $x$ on these curves is the one in which sgrad $H$ is a constant vector field $d/dx$. Changing $H$ scales the coordinate $x$ on each invariant curve and, normalizing the ‘length’ of the invariant curves to 1, fixes $x$ uniquely up to an additive constant. In other words, the 1-form $dx$ is well defined on each invariant curve.
The billiard map $T$ preserves the area form and the invariant curves, therefore its restriction to each curve preserves the measure $dx$, hence, is a shift $x \mapsto x+c$.
An immediate consequence is the Poncelet Porism: if a billiard trajectory in an ellipse closes up after a number of reflections then all trajectories with the same caustic close up after the same number of reflections (the general form of the Poncelet Porism is obtained by applying a projective transformation to a pair of confocal conics).
Note that the invariant measure $dx$ on the invariant curves does not depend on the choice of the billiard curve from a confocal family: all confocal ellipses share their caustics. This implies that the billiard transformations with respect to two confocal ellipses commute: restricted to a common caustic, both are shifts in the same coordinate system. See Figure \[commute\].
![Left: the billiard reflections of the rays from a focus in two confocal ellipses commute. Right: the general case.[]{data-label="commute"}](commute "fig:"){height="2in"} ![Left: the billiard reflections of the rays from a focus in two confocal ellipses commute. Right: the general case.[]{data-label="commute"}](commute1 "fig:"){height="2in"}
We identify the invariant curves with the respective conics and refer to the coordinate $x$ as the canonical coordinate.
### Coordinates in the exterior of a conic {#coordext}
Consider an ellipse $\gamma$, and let $x$ be the canonical coordinate on it. This makes it possible to define coordinates in the exterior of the ellipse: the coordinates of a point $X$ outside of $\gamma$ are the coordinates $x_1$ and $x_2$ of the tangency points of the tangent lines from $X$ to $\gamma$ (points $A$ and $B$ in Figure \[string\]).
The above discussion implies that the confocal ellipses are given by the equations $x_2-x_1=$ const. Not surprisingly, the confocal hyperbolas have the equations $x_2+x_1=$ const. We repeat an argument from [@LT07] here.
![Proving that points $A$ and $C$ lie on a confocal hyperbola.[]{data-label="coordinates"}](coordinates){height="2.3in"}
Let the coordinates of the tangency points on the inner ellipse, from left to right, be $x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4$, so that $$A(x_1,x_4),\ B(x_2,x_4),\ C(x_2,x_3),\ D(x_1,x_3),$$ see Figure \[coordinates\]. Since $B$ and $D$ are on a confocal ellipse, $x_4-x_2=x_3-x_1$, and hence $x_2+x_3=x_1+x_4$.
By the billiard property, the arc of an ellipse $BD$ bisects the angles $ABC$ and $ADC$. Therefore, in the limit $D\to B$, the infinitesimal quadrilateral $ABCD$ becomes a kite: the diagonal $BD$ is its axis of symmetry. Hence $AC \perp BD$, and the locus of points given by the equation $x_1+x_4=$ const and containing points $A$ and $C$ is orthogonal to the ellipse through points $B$ and $D$. Therefore this locus is a confocal hyperbola.
Let us summarize. Consider Figure \[reflection\] again. In the coordinate $x$ on the inner ellipse, the billiard reflections in a confocal ellipse and a confocal hyperbola are given, respectively, by the formulas $$\label{tworefl}
x \mapsto x + a,\quad x\mapsto b-x,$$ where the constants $a$ and $b$ depend on the choice of the outer ellipse and the hyperbola.
Ivory’s Lemma in the plane {#plane}
--------------------------
### Proof by billiards {#pfbill}
Recall the statement of Ivory’s Lemma: the diagonals of a quadrilateral made by arcs of confocal ellipses and hyperbolas are equal: in Figure \[IvL\], $|AC|=|BD|$.
The idea of the proof is very simple. Imagine that we need to prove that the diagonals of a rectangle are equal. Let us consider a diagonal as a 4-periodic billiard trajectory.
![Reflection in a right angle[]{data-label="corner"}](corner){height="0.8in"}
In general, a billiard trajectory that hits a corner cannot be continuously extended, but if the angle is $90^{\circ}$, such an extension is possible. Indeed, an infinitesimally close parallel trajectory, entering an angle, makes two reflections and exits in the opposite direction, see Figure \[corner\]. This holds both for the trajectories on the right and on the left of the ‘dangerous’ trajectory that goes directly to the corner. This makes it possible to define reflection in a right angle as the direction reversal of the ray.
To conclude that the diagonals are equal, include a diagonal into a 1-parameter family of 4-periodic trajectories, interpolating between the two diagonals, and observe that these trajectories have the same perimeter lengths, see Figure \[rectangle\].
![The diagonals of a rectangle include in a family of 4-periodic billiard trajectories[]{data-label="rectangle"}](rectangle){height="0.8in"}
We use a similar argument with the curvilinear quadrilateral $ABCD$ made of confocal conics. The following porism implies Ivory’s Lemma.
\[IvGenPlane\] Let $\gamma$ be the conic from the confocal family that is tangent to the line $BD$ (the inner ellipse in Figure \[IvL\]). There exists a 1-parameter family of 4-periodic billiard trajectories in the quadrilateral $ABCD$, interpolating between the diagonals $BD$ and $AC$, and consisting of rays tangent to $\gamma$ (such as the quadrilateral $PQRS$ in Figure \[IvL\]). In particular, the line $AC$ is also tangent to $\gamma$. These 4-periodic trajectories have the same perimeter lengths, and hence, $|AC|=|BD|$.
![Proof of Ivory’s Lemma[]{data-label="IvL"}](conics1.pdf){height="2.3in"}
We consider the case when the line $BD$ is tangent to a confocal ellipse, as in Figure \[IvL\]. The case of a confocal hyperbola is similar, and the intermediate case when the line passes through a focus is obtained as a limit.
Consider a ray tangent to $\gamma$ and its four consecutive reflections in the sides of the quadrilateral $ABCD$. According to the discussion in Section \[bconics\], each reflected ray is again tangent to $\gamma$.
Let $x$ be the canonical coordinate on $\gamma$. According to (\[tworefl\]), these reflections are given by formulas $$x \mapsto x + a,\quad x\mapsto b-x, \quad x \mapsto x + c,\quad x\mapsto d-x,$$ where the constants depend on the conics that form the quadrilateral.
The composition of these maps is a shift $x\mapsto x+(a-b-c+d)$, and if it has a fixed point then it is the identity. But the 4-periodic trajectory $BD$ provides a fixed point, whence a 1-parameter family of 4-periodic trajectories.
An $n$-periodic billiard trajectory is a critical point of the perimeter length function $L$ on the space of inscribed $n$-gons. A 1-parameter family of such trajectories is a curve consisting of critical points of $L$. It follows that $dL$ vanishes on this curve, and hence the value of $L$ remains constant. [$\Box$]{}
### Inscribed circles {#inscrcirc}
Using results from Section \[bconics\], we obtain the following theorem that goes back to Reye and Chasles, see also [@AB15].
\[inscribed\] Let $A$ and $B$ be two points on an ellipse. Consider the quadrilateral $ABCD$, made by the pairs of tangent lines from $A$ and $B$ to a confocal ellipse. Then its other vertices, $C$ and $D$, lie on a confocal hyperbola, and the quadrilateral is circumscribed about a circle, see Figure \[circlequad\].
![Circumscribed quadrilateral[]{data-label="circlequad"}](circlequad){height="2.5in"}
Let $x_1, x_2, y_1, y_2$ be the canonical coordinates of the tangency points of the lines $AD, BC, AC, BD$ with the inner ellipse. Since points $A$ and $B$ lie on a confocal ellipse, $y_1-x_1=y_2-x_2$, see Section \[coordext\]. Then $y_1+x_2=y_2+x_1$, and hence points $C$ and $D$ lie on a confocal hyperbola.
Choose a point $O$ on the inner ellipse and consider the respective functions $f$ and $g$ introduced in Section \[caust\]. Then $$f(A)+g(A)=f(B)+g(B),\ \ f(C)-g(C)=f(D)-g(D),$$ hence $$f(D)-f(A) - g(A)+g(C)+f(B)-f(C)-g(D)+g(B)=0,$$ or $$\label{perimeter}
|AD|-|AC|+|BC|-|BD|=0.$$ This is necessary and sufficient for the quadrilateral $ABCD$ to be circumscribed. [$\Box$]{}
### Poncelet grid of circles {#grid}
Poncelet grid consists of the intersection points of the sides of a Poncelet polygon, that is, a polygon which is inscribed into an ellipse and circumscribed about an ellipse. The points of this grid can be arranged into ‘concentric’ subsets that lie on ellipses and into ‘radial’ subsets that lie on hyperbolas . See [@Sch07].
A pair of nested ellipses is projectively equivalent to a pair of confocal ones; this was used to prove the properties of the Poncelet grid in [@LT07]. In this confocal case, each concentric set lies on a confocal ellipse, and hence each quadrilateral of the grid is circumscribed, see Figure \[grid1\].
![Poncelet grid, $n=9$[]{data-label="grid1"}](grid9-1){height="3in"}
Ivory’s Lemma on quadratic surfaces {#surf}
-----------------------------------
### On ellipsoids {#ellipsoids}
Consider a 3-axial ellipsoid $$\label{ellpsd}
\frac{x^2}{a} + \frac{y^2}{b}+ \frac{z^2}{c} =1,\quad a>b>c>0,$$ included into the confocal family of quadrics $$\label{conf}
\frac{x^2}{a-\lambda} + \frac{y^2}{b-\lambda}+ \frac{z^2}{c-\lambda} =1.$$ Let us recall some classical facts about geometry of quadrics; see, e.g., [@Ber87; @HC52] and the previously cited books.
The curves of intersection of the ellipsoid with the confocal quadrics are its lines of curvature, see Figure \[ellipsoid\] (borrowed from [@HC52]). The singular points of this orthogonal system of curves are the four umbilical points. These points play the role of foci, and the lines of curvature the role of confocal ellipses and hyperbolas. In particular, the lines of curvature are the loci of points whose sum of geodesic distances to a pair of non-antipodal umbilical points is constant.
![Lines of curvature on an ellipsoid[]{data-label="ellipsoid"}](ellipsoid){height="2in"}
Consider the billiard inside a domain bounded by a line of curvature (the rays being geodesic and the reflection optical). This system is completely integrable, as we describe below. See [@AF06; @ChSh89; @GKhT07; @Ves90; @Ves91] concerning billiards on quadratic surfaces.
According to a Chasles theorem, a generic line is tangent to two quadrics from the confocal family (\[conf\]). The geodesic flow on the ellipsoid has the following property: the tangent lines to a geodesic curve remain tangent to a fixed confocal quadric. The billiard reflection from a quadric in ${{\mathbb R}}^3$ has the property that the incoming and the outgoing rays are tangent to the same pair of confocal quadrics.
Combined, these facts imply that the consecutive geodesic segments of a billiard trajectory remain tangent to the same line of curvature, which serves as a billiard caustic. Thus the situation is similar to the planar one, as described in Section \[bconics\]. In particular, one has an ellipsoid version of the Graves theorem: wrapping a closed nonelastic string around a line of curvature produces a line of curvature.
The area-preserving (symplectic) property of the billiard map holds as well: the space of geodesic chords of the billiard table has a canonical area form, invariant under the billiard reflection. The arguments from Section \[plane\] apply with minimal adjustments, yielding the next result.
\[IvCurved\] For a quadrilateral made of lines of curvature of a triaxial ellipsoid, the two pairs of opposite vertices are at equal geodesic distances.
\[hyperboloid\]
The hyperboloid of one sheet is a doubly ruled surface, and the rulings are geodesics. One has a variant of Theorem \[IvCurved\], see [@AB15]: [*Consider a curvilinear quadrilateral $ABCD$ on a hyperboloid of one sheet whose sides are curvature lines, and points $A$ and $C$ lie on a ruling. Then points $B$ and $D$ lie on a ruling from a different family, and $|AC|=|BD|$.*]{}
This can be proved using the same billiard approach: the rulings, being asymptotic lines, make equal angles with the curvature lines, and hence form segments of billiard trajectory in a table bounded by curvature lines.
Likewise for another doubly ruled surface, the hyperbolic paraboloid.
### On the sphere and in the hyperbolic plane {#spherehyp}
The notion of confocal spherical conics is classical, see [@Da]: these are the intersections of the unit sphere with the confocal family of quadratic cones $$\label{cone}
\frac{x^2}{a-\lambda} + \frac{y^2}{b-\lambda}+ \frac{z^2}{c-\lambda} =0,\quad a>b>c,\ a>\lambda>c.$$ Here $a,b$ and $c$ are fixed, and $\lambda$ is a parameter in the family.
Formula (\[cone\]) is obtained from (\[conf\]) in the limit $a,b,c \to 1$. For the confocal quadrics (\[conf\]) to intersect the ellipsoid (\[ellpsd\]), one must have $a>\lambda>c$, and hence $\lambda \to 1$ as well. In the limit, the ellipsoid (\[ellpsd\]) becomes the unit sphere $x^2+y^2+z^2=1$, and its intersections with the confocal quadrics become the curves given by (\[cone\]).
The spherical billiard inside a domain, bounded by a spherical conic, is integrable in the same way as in the plane, see [@ChSh89; @Ves90].
A similar approach works in the case of the hyperbolic plane, realized as the pseudosphere $x^2+y^2-z^2=-1$ in the pseudo-Euclidean space ${{\mathbb R}}^{2,1}$.
Replace the ellipsoid (\[ellpsd\]) in ${{\mathbb R}}^3$ by the hyperboloid of two sheets in ${{\mathbb R}}^{2,1}$ $$\label{hyperb}
-\frac{x^2}{a} - \frac{y^2}{b}+ \frac{z^2}{c} =1,$$ with distinct positive $a,b,c$. The respective (pseudo)confocal family is $$\label{pseconf}
-\frac{x^2}{a-\lambda} - \frac{y^2}{b-\lambda}+ \frac{z^2}{c-\lambda} =1,$$ whose intersections with the hyperboloid (\[hyperb\]) are its lines of curvature. The billiard inside a domain, bounded by a line of curvature, is integrable, with lines of curvature serving as caustics.
Next, one considers the limit $a,b,c\to 1$ that yields the pseudosphere. Again, $\lambda\to 1$ as well, and one defines hyperbolic confocal conics as the intersections of the pseudosphere with the family of quadratic cones $$\frac{x^2}{a-\lambda} + \frac{y^2}{b-\lambda}- \frac{z^2}{c-\lambda} =0,$$ where $a,b,c$ are fixed and $\lambda$ is a parameter. See [@ChSh89; @Ves90], and [@DR12; @KhT09] for general information about confocal quadrics in pseudo-Euclidean spaces.
The billiard inside a domain bounded by a hyperbolic conic is integrable as well. As before, this yields spherical and hyperbolic versions of Ivory’s Lemma:
\[IvSphHyp\] The diagonals of a quadrilateral made of confocal spherical or hyperbolic conics are equal.
An analog of Theorem \[inscribed\] holds true in the spherical or hyperbolic cases as well. Equation (\[perimeter\]) is deduced the same way as before, and it is still necessary and sufficient for a quadrilateral to be circumscribed.
See [@SW04; @Hor11] for Ivory’s Lemma in the hyperbolic geometry and, more generally, in Lorentzian space-forms.
In higher dimensions {#multidim}
--------------------
In this section, we discuss multi-dimensional versions of Ivory’s Lemma.
An ellipsoid with distinct axes in ${{\mathbb R}}^n$ $$\label{ellmult}
\frac{x_1^2}{a_1} +\frac{x_2^2}{a_2}+ \ldots + \frac{x_n^2}{a_n} =1,\quad a_1>a_2>\ldots >a_n>0,$$ is included into the family of confocal quadrics $$\label{conffam}
\frac{x_1^2}{a_1-\lambda} +\frac{x_2^2}{a_2-\lambda}+ \ldots + \frac{x_n^2}{a_n-\lambda} =1.$$
The theory of confocal quadrics comprises the following results, see, e.g., [@Ar89; @Ber87; @DR11; @Mos80; @Tab95; @Tab05]:
- The space of oriented lines in ${{\mathbb R}}^n$ is a symplectic $2n-2$-dimensional manifold, symplectomorphic to $T^* S^{n-1}$. The billiard reflection in a smooth hypersurface is a symplectic transformation.
- Through a generic point in space there pass $n$ pairwise orthogonal confocal quadrics (Jacobi). These $n$ quadrics have different topology (for $n=3$, ellipsoid, hyperboloid of one sheet, and hyperboloid of two sheets).
- A generic line is tangent to $n -1$ confocal quadrics whose tangent hyperplanes at the points of tangency with the line are pairwise orthogonal (Chasles).
- The set of oriented lines tangent to $n-1$ fixed confocal quadrics is a Lagrangian submanifold of the space of lines.
- Consider the billiard reflection in one of the confocal quadrics (\[conffam\]). Then the incoming and outgoing rays are tangent to the same $n-1$ quadrics from the confocal family.
- The tangent lines to a geodesic on an ellipsoid are tangent to fixed $n -2$ confocal quadrics (Jacobi-Chasles).
As a result, the billiard map inside a quadric and the geodesic flow on a quadric are completely integrable systems that share the integrals.
The space of rays is foliated by invariant Lagrangian submanifolds, and the leaves carry a canonical flat structure (as asserted by the Arnold-Liouville theorem). The billiard map and the geodesic flow preserve this flat structure; in particular, the geodesic flow is a constant vector field in appropriate coordinates on each invariant manifold. This is a multi-dimensional version of the planar results, described in detail in Section \[bconics\].
Consider a ‘parallelepiped’ $\Pi$ bounded by confocal quadrics.
\[Ivmulti\] The great diagonals of $\Pi$ are equal.
The argument is similar to the one in Section \[plane\]; we present the main steps.
Since the facets of $\Pi$ are orthogonal, one can define the billiard reflection at non-smooth points of the boundary of $\Pi$. In particular, a ray that hits a vertex exits in the opposite direction after $n$ (infinitesimal) reflections.[^3] Thus a diagonal of $\Pi$ is a $2n$-periodic billiard trajectory.
The diagonal is tangent to $n-1$ confocal quadrics. Consider the Lagrangian submanifold $L$ consisting of the lines that are tangent to these $n-1$ quadrics. $L$ is invariant under the billiard reflections in the facets of $\Pi$, and the composition of these $2n$ reflections is a parallel translation on $L$. Since the composition has a fixed point, the diagonal, it is the identity. As a result, one has an $n-1$-parameter family of $2n$-periodic billiard trajectories that includes the diagonal.
The combinatorics of this family is the same as if $\Pi$ was a Euclidean cube (compare with Figure \[rectangle\]). In particular, this family includes all great diagonals of $\Pi$. Since the length of periodic billiard trajectories in a family is constant, the great diagonals of $\Pi$ have the same lengths. [$\Box$]{}
\[rem:LinearMap\] [The Ivory Lemma, as formulated in Section \[intro\], follows from the 3-dimensional case of Theorem \[Ivmulti\] and the next additional statement. Let $E_1$ and $E_2$ be two confocal ellipsoids, and let $A$ be a linear map that takes $E_1$ to $E_2$. Let $P_1\in E_1$ and $P_2=A(P_1)\in E_2$ be two corresponding points. Then $P_1$ and $P_2$ lie on the same $n-1$ confocal quadrics, and likewise for a pair of points $Q_1$ and $Q_2$. ]{}
\[rem:ExtrIntrDiag\] Consider Figure \[ellipsoid\] again. By Theorem \[IvCurved\], the lengths of geodesic diagonals in each coordinate quadrilateral are equal. On the other hand, the lengths of extrinsic diagonals (segments in ${{\mathbb R}}^3$) are also equal. This is a limit case of Theorem \[Ivmulti\] when the two ellipsoids bounding the parallelepiped $\Pi$ coincide.
Theorem \[IvCurved\] also has a multi-dimensional generalization, proved in the same way. Consider an ellipsoid (\[ellmult\]), and let $\Pi$ be an $n-1$-dimensional parallelepiped on it, bounded by confocal quadrics.
\[IvCurvedmulti\] All pairs of opposite vertices of $\Pi$ are at equal geodesic distances.
Similarly, one can also prove multi-dimensional versions of the spherical and hyperbolic Ivory Lemmas, see [@SW04; @Hor11]. We do not dwell on it here.
Ivory’s Lemma for Liouville and Stäckel nets {#LSmetr}
============================================
Liouville nets
--------------
A Riemannian metric in a domain $U \subset {{\mathbb R}}^2$ is called a *Liouville metric* if in coordinates $(q_1, q_2)$ of ${{\mathbb R}}^2$ it has the form $$\label{eqn:Liou}
ds^2 = (u_1 - u_2)(v_1 dq_1^2 + v_2 dq_2^2)$$ for some smooth functions $u_i = u_i(q_i)$, $v_i = v_i(q_i)$, $i = 1,2$. Liouville gave an explicit form of the geodesics of the metric . His work was a straightforward generalization of Jacobi’s description of geodesics on an ellipsoid.
Note that any coordinate change $q_1 = f_1(q'_1)$, $q_2 = f_2(q'_2)$ transforms a Liouville metric element to a Liouville metric element. Any coordinate change for which coordinate lines remain coordinate lines is of that form. Therefore it is possible to speak of a *Liouville net* instead of a Liouville metric.
It turns out that Liouville nets are characterized by the Ivory property.
\[thm:LiouvIvory\] Liouville nets satisfy the Ivory property: the lengths of the geodesic diagonals in all net quadrilaterals are equal. Conversely, if the lengths of the geodesic diagonals in all net quadrilaterals are equal, then the metric has a Liouville form in any coordinate system for which the net lines are coordinate lines.
The first part of Theorem \[thm:LiouvIvory\] was proved by Zwirner [@Zw], who gave credit to van der Waerden. Zwirner proved the second part under the assumption of analyticity of the metric. A different proof was given by Blaschke [@Bla28] (see also [@Bla50 §56]), who at the same time generalized Theorem \[thm:LiouvIvory\] to higher dimensions, see Section \[sec:Sta\] below. Thimm in his PhD thesis [@Thimm78] gave a modern account of Blaschke’s argument and filled a gap in the proof of the second part.
We reproduce below the Blaschke-Thimm’s proof of the first part of Theorem \[thm:LiouvIvory\].
### Geodesics of Liouville metrics
A coordinate change $dq'_i = \sqrt{v_i} dq_i$ transforms the metric element to $$\label{eqn:LiouSpec}
ds^2 = (u_1 - u_2)(dq_1^2 + dq_2^2).$$ We will describe the geodesics of the metrics in the above form.
For every Riemannian metric there is the associated Hamiltonian system on $T^*U$ with the energy function equal to half the square norm of a cotangent vector. Constant speed geodesics in $U$ are projections of the integral curves of the corresponding Hamiltonian flow.
The Hamiltonian $$H(q, p) = \frac12 \frac{p_1^2 + p_2^2}{u_1 - u_2}$$ has a first integral $$f(q, p) = \frac12 \frac{u_2 p_1^2 + u_1 p_2^2}{u_1 - u_2}.$$
The Poisson bracket $\{H, f\}$ vanishes, namely $$\frac{\partial H}{\partial p_1} \frac{\partial f}{\partial q_1} + \frac{\partial H}{\partial p_2} \frac{\partial f}{\partial q_2}= \frac{\partial H}{\partial q_1} \frac{\partial f}{\partial p_1}+\frac{\partial H}{\partial q_2} \frac{\partial f}{\partial p_2},$$ as needed.
\[thm:GeodParam\] The geodesics of the metric are given by $$\int \frac{dq_1}{\sqrt{u_1 - 2\alpha_2}} \pm \int \frac{dq_2}{\sqrt{2\alpha_2 - u_2}} = \const.$$ The unit speed parametrization is determined (up to a time shift and time reversal) by $$\int \frac{u_1\, dq_1}{\sqrt{u_1 - 2\alpha_2}} \pm \int \frac{u_2\, dq_2}{\sqrt{2\alpha_2 - u_2}} = t,$$ where the choice of the sign agrees with that in the first formula.
Solving the system $$H(q, p) = \frac12 \frac{p_1^2 + p_2^2}{u_1 - u_2} = \alpha_1, \quad f(q, p) = \frac12 \frac{u_2 p_1^2 + u_1 p_2^2}{u_1 - u_2} = \alpha_2,$$ we obtain $$p_1 = \pm \sqrt{2(\alpha_1 u_1 - \alpha_2)}, \quad p_2 = \pm \sqrt{2(\alpha_2 - \alpha_1 u_2)}.$$ For arbitrary choices of constants $\alpha_i$, these equations describe the lifts to $T^*M$ of geodesics of constant speed $2\alpha_1$.
To describe the geodesics explicitly, use the Hamilton-Jacobi approach. Namely, the equation $$H(q, \grad W) = \alpha_1$$ can be integrated due to the above separation of variables: $$W(q, \alpha) = \pm \int \sqrt{2(\alpha_1 u_1 - \alpha_2)}\, dq_1 \pm \int \sqrt{2(\alpha_2 - \alpha_1 u_2)}\, dq_2.$$ Then the relations $$\frac{\partial W}{\partial \alpha_2} = \const, \qquad \frac{\partial W}{\partial \alpha_1} = t$$ yield unparametrized equations of constant speed geodesics and their parameterizations, respectively. Remembering that $2\alpha_1$ is the speed, we obtain formulas stated in the theorem.
### Ivory’s lemma for Liouville nets {#sec:LiouvIvory}
Consider the coordinate quadrilateral $[q_1^0, q_1^1] \times [q_2^0, q_2^1]$. Let $\gamma$ be the unit speed parametrized diagonal from $(q_1^0, q_2^0)$ to $(q_1^1, q_2^1)$: $$\gamma(t) = (q_1(t), q_2(t)), \quad \gamma(t_0) = (q_1^0, q_2^0), \quad \gamma(t_1) = (q_1^1, q_2^1).$$ Without loss of generality, assume that the equations in Theorem \[thm:GeodParam\] for $\gamma$ have the plus sign between the integrals. Then, for every $t \in [t_0,t_1]$, we have $$\int\limits_{q_1^0}^{q_1(t)} \frac{dq_1}{\sqrt{u_1-2\alpha_2}} + \int\limits_{q_2^0}^{q_2(t)} \frac{dq_2}{\sqrt{2\alpha_2-u_2}} = 0,$$ and the length of this diagonal equals $$t_1 - t_0 = \left| \int\limits_{q_1^0}^{q_1^1} \frac{u_1\, dq_1}{\sqrt{u_1-2\alpha_2}} + \int\limits_{q_2^0}^{q_2^1} \frac{u_2\, dq_2}{\sqrt{2\alpha_2-u_2}} \right|.$$
Let $\overline{\gamma}$ be the unit speed geodesic with $\overline{\gamma}(t_0) = (q_1^0, q_2^1)$, with the same $\alpha_2$-value as $\gamma$, but with the minus sign between the integrals in Theorem \[thm:GeodParam\]. We claim that $$\overline{\gamma}(t_1) = (q_1^1, q_2^0),$$ that is, $\gamma$ passes through the opposite corner of the quadrilateral, and its segment between the corners has the same length as the first diagonal.
Indeed, interchanging the integration limits in the second integral in the two equations above yields $$\int\limits_{q_1^0}^{q_1^1} \frac{dq_1}{\sqrt{u_1-2\alpha_2}} - \int\limits_{q_2^1}^{q_2^0} \frac{dq_2}{\sqrt{2\alpha_2-u_2}} = 0,$$ which implies that $\overline{\gamma}$ passes through $(q_1^1, q_2^0)$, and $$t_1 - t_0 = \int\limits_{q_1^0}^{q_1^1} \frac{u_1\, dq_1}{\sqrt{u_1-2\alpha_2}} - \int\limits_{q_2^1}^{q_2^0} \frac{u_2\, dq_2}{\sqrt{2\alpha_2-u_2}},$$ which implies, in its turn, that $\overline{\gamma}$ attains $(q_1^0, q_2^1)$ at the time $t = t_1$. This completes the proof of the first part of Theorem \[thm:LiouvIvory\].
### Ivory implies Liouville
The second part of Theorem \[thm:LiouvIvory\] states that every Ivory net is a Liouville net. We give only an idea of the proof of this statement.
First, it follows easily from consideration of infinitesimally thin net quadrilaterals that an Ivory net is orthogonal. Second, one can show that the unit tangent vectors of the diagonals in a net quadrilateral have equal or opposite covariant components at the corresponding points. (Here Blaschke’s argument contains a gap filled by Thimm.) This implies that the geodesic flow allows separation of variables with respect to the net. Finally, separation of variables, together with orthogonality of the net, implies that the metric has the Liouville form.
Higher dimensions: Stäckel metrics {#sec:Sta}
----------------------------------
### Stäckel’s metric element
Stäckel introduced in [@Sta93] the following class of metric tensors.
A Riemannian metric $ds^2$ on a domain $U \subset {{\mathbb R}}^n$ is called *Stäckel metric* if there is a $\GL(n)$-valued function $$M \colon U \to \GL(n), \quad M(q) = \big(u_{ij}(q_i)\big)_{i,j=1}^n$$ with the $i$-th row depending only on the $i$-th coordinate of ${{\mathbb R}}^n$, and such that $$\label{eqn:StaMet}
ds^2 = \sum_{i=1}^n g_{ii}(q)\, dq_i^2, \quad g_{ii}(q) = (-1)^{1+i} \frac{\det M}{\det M_{i1}},$$ where $M_{i1}$ is the minor obtained by deleting from $M$ the $i$-th row and the first column.
In particular, the coordinate vector fields of ${{\mathbb R}}^n$ are pairwise orthogonal with respect to a Stäckel metric.
For $n=2$, Stäckel metrics are exactly those of Liouville: the metric element corresponds to $M = \begin{pmatrix} u_1 v_1 & v_1\\ -u_2 v_2 & -v_2 \end{pmatrix}$.
A *Stäckel net* is the net of coordinate hyperplanes of a Stäckel metric. A net determines the coordinates only up to coordinate change $q_i = f_i(q'_i)$ but, as in the Liouville case, this transforms a Stäckel metric element to a Stäckel metric element.
### Separation of variables and the Ivory property {#sec:StaeckelSeparation}
The kinetic energy Hamiltonian on $T^*U$ corresponding to has the form $$\label{eqn:HamSta}
H(q,p) = \frac12 \sum_{i=1}^n (-1)^{1+i} \frac{\det M_{i1}}{\det M}\, p_i^2.$$
By generalizing the Jacobi-Liouville method, Stäckel has proved the following theorem.
Let $U \subset {{\mathbb R}}^n$ be an open domain and $$ds^2 = \sum_{i=1}^n g_{ii}(q)\, dq_i^2$$ be a Riemannian metric on $U$ with pairwise orthogonal coordinate vector fields. Then the Hamilton-Jacobi equation for the associated kinetic energy on the cotangent bundle $T^*U$ can be completely solved through separation of variables if and only if $ds^2$ is of the form .
First, one shows that the functions $\alpha_2, \ldots, \alpha_n$ defined by $$\begin{pmatrix} \alpha_1\\ \vdots\\ \alpha_n \end{pmatrix} = \frac12 M^{-1} \begin{pmatrix} p_1^2\\ \vdots\\ p_n^2 \end{pmatrix}$$ are pairwise commuting first integrals of the Hamiltonian (note that $\alpha_1 = H$). This implies that the constant speed geodesics satisfy the system of equations $$\begin{pmatrix} p_1^2\\ \vdots\\ p_n^2 \end{pmatrix} = 2M \begin{pmatrix} \alpha_1\\ \vdots\\ \alpha_n \end{pmatrix}.$$ As the $i$-th row of matrix $M$ depends only on $q_i$, we have $$p_i^2 = h_i(q_i, \alpha), \quad \alpha = (\alpha_1, \ldots, \alpha_n),$$ which allows to integrate the equation $H(q, \grad W) = \alpha_1$: $$\label{eqn:WSt}
W(q, \alpha) = \sum_{i=1}^n \int \pm \sqrt{h_i(q_i, \alpha)} \, dq_i,$$ and to obtain equations of the geodesics: $$\begin{aligned}
\int \frac{u_{1i} dq_1}{\sqrt{h_1(q_1, \alpha)}} \pm \cdots \pm \int \frac{u_{ni} dq_n}{\sqrt{h_n(q_n, \alpha)}} &= \const, \quad i = 2, \ldots, n, \label{eqn:StNonparam}\\
\int \frac{u_{11} dq_1}{\sqrt{h_1(q_1, \alpha)}} \pm \cdots \pm \int \frac{u_{n1} dq_n}{\sqrt{h_n(q_n, \alpha)}} &= t, \label{eqn:StTime}\end{aligned}$$ where $\alpha_1$ is set to $\frac12$ and, for each $j$, the $j$-th summands in all equations have the same sign.
Take a coordinate parallelepiped on a Riemannian manifold with a Stäckel metric element. Exactly as in Section \[sec:LiouvIvory\], one can show that its $2^{n-1}$ great geodesic diagonals correspond to the same value of $\alpha$ but to different choices of the $\pm$ signs in the integrals , , and that all these diagonals have the same length.
Stäckel metrics possess the Ivory property: in every parallelepiped bounded by the coordinate hypersurfaces all great geodesic diagonals have equal lengths. Vice versa, if coordinate parallelepipeds have diagonals of equal lengths, then the metric has a Stäckel form, after possibly an independent coordinate change.
Geometric properties of Stäckel metrics
---------------------------------------
Stäckel nets share many properties with confocal quadrics.
### Stäckel nets induced on coordinate hypersurfaces
Blaschke [@Bla28] proved the following theorem.
\[thm:CoordStaeckel\] The restriction of a Stäckel metric element to any coordinate hypersurface $q_i = \const$ is again a Stäckel metric element. That is, a Stäckel net induces on all of its coordinate hypersurfaces Stäckel nets of one dimension lower.
By induction, the same is true for intersection of any number of coordinate hypersurfaces.
In the submanifold $q_1 = c_1, \ldots, q_k = c_k$ of an $n$-dimensional Stäckel net there are two ways of measuring distances: extrinsically and intrinsically. Similarly to Remark \[rem:ExtrIntrDiag\], we have the following.
Let $Q$ be a coordinate parallelepiped of a Stäckel metric, and let $F$ be a face of $Q$. Then all great intrinsic diagonals of $F$ have the same length, and all great extrinsic diagonals of $F$ have the same length as well.
The intrinsic diagonals are equal because the metric in the coordinate subspace spanned by $F$ is Stäckel. The extrinsic diagonals are equal because $F$ can be viewed as a limit of $n$-dimensional parallelepipeds, and the great diagonals of these parallelepipeds converge to the extrinsic diagonals of $F$.
### Examples
The simplest examples of Liouville metrics are surfaces of revolution. The Ivory lemma holds for them trivially by symmetry reasons. Clairaut’s theorem and the resulting equations of geodesics can be viewed as a special case of integration of geodesics on Liouville surfaces.
In the elliptic coordinates associated with the ellipse $$\left\{ \frac{x^2}{a} + \frac{y^2}{b} = 1 \right\}, \quad a > b > 0,$$ the Euclidean metric in ${{\mathbb R}}^2$ has the form $$dx^2 + dy^2 = (\lambda - \mu) \left( -\frac{d\lambda^2}{4(a-\lambda)(b-\lambda)} + \frac{d\mu^2}{4(a-\mu)(b-\mu)} \right),$$ which is Liouville.
\[exl:Ell3\] The Euclidean metric in ${{\mathbb R}}^3$ has in the ellipsoidal coordinates the form $$\begin{gathered}
dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2 = \frac{(\lambda-\mu)(\lambda-\nu)}{4(a-\lambda)(b-\lambda)(c-\lambda)} d\lambda^2 \\
- \frac{(\lambda-\mu)(\mu-\nu)}{4(a-\mu)(b-\mu)(c-\mu)} d\mu^2 + \frac{(\lambda-\nu)(\mu-\nu)}{4(a-\nu)(b-\nu)(c-\nu)} d\nu^2.\end{gathered}$$ Here $a > \lambda > b > \mu > c > \nu$. This is a Stäckel metric with $$M =
\begin{pmatrix}
\frac{\lambda^2}{h(\lambda)} & \frac{\lambda}{h(\lambda)} & \frac{1}{h(\lambda)}\\
\frac{\mu^2}{h(\mu)} & \frac{\mu}{h(\mu)} & \frac{1}{h(\mu)}\\
\frac{\nu^2}{h(\nu)} & \frac{\nu}{h(\nu)} & \frac{1}{h(\nu)}
\end{pmatrix},$$ where $h(\lambda) = 4(a-\lambda)(b-\lambda)(c-\lambda)$.
The sphero-conical coordinates are $(r,\lambda,\mu)$, where $r^2 = x^2 + y^2 + z^2$, and $\lambda$ and $\mu$ are determined by equation , $a > \lambda > b > \mu > c$. The Euclidean metric has the form $$dr^2 + r^2(\lambda - \mu) \left( \frac{d\lambda^2}{4(a-\lambda)(b-\lambda)(c-\lambda)} - \frac{d\mu^2}{4(a-\mu)(b-\mu)(c-\mu)} \right),$$ which is Stäckel for $$M =
\begin{pmatrix}
1 & -\frac{1}{r^2} & 0\\
0 & \frac{\lambda}{h(\lambda)} & \frac{1}{h(\lambda)}\\
0 & \frac{\mu}{h(\mu)} & \frac{1}{h(\mu)}
\end{pmatrix}.$$
Any Stäckel net in ${{\mathbb R}}^n$ (with the Euclidean metric) consists of quadrics (and, at least for $n=2,3$, forms a confocal system or one of its degenerations). This is a result of Weihnacht [@Wei24], reproved in a simpler way by Blaschke in [@Bla28] using the Ivory property of the Stäckel metrics.
The ellipsoid $\frac{x^2}{a} + \frac{y^2}{b} + \frac{z^2}{c} = 1$ can be viewed as the level surface $\nu = 0$ in the ellipsoidal coordinates, Example \[exl:Ell3\]. Thus its intrinsic metric is given in the $(\lambda, \mu)$-coordinates by the formula $$ds^2 = (\lambda-\mu) \left( \frac{\lambda\, d\lambda^2}{4(a-\lambda)(b-\lambda)(c-\lambda)} - \frac{\mu\, d\mu^2}{4(a-\mu)(b-\mu)(c-\mu)} \right),$$ which is of Liouville form.
Similarly, the unit sphere $r=1$ has in the conical coordinates the metric $$ds^2 = (\lambda - \mu) \left( \frac{d\lambda^2}{4(a-\lambda)(b-\lambda)(c-\lambda)} - \frac{d\mu^2}{4(a-\mu)(b-\mu)(c-\mu)} \right),$$ which is also of Liouville form.
Confocal quadrics form a Stäckel net with respect to the Euclidean metric in any dimension. Therefore, by Theorem \[thm:CoordStaeckel\], the intersection of any number of confocal quadrics is a Riemannian manifold with a Stäckel net. For example, the intersection of two confocal quadrics in ${{\mathbb R}}^4$ carries a Liouville net.
Theorem \[thm:CoordStaeckel\] allows to derive the Ivory lemma on the sphere and in the hyperbolic plane from the Ivory lemma in the Euclidean space. Indeed, the Euclidean metric is Stäckel with respect to the conical coordinates, and the unit sphere is a coordinate hypersurface of the conical coordinate system. The other coordinate hypersurfaces (quadratic cones) intersect the sphere along the “spherical conics”, see Section \[spherehyp\]. Thus the great diagonals of the parallelepipeds cut out by spherical conics have the same length in the spherical metric.
The same argument works for the hyperbolic space, realized as a component of a two-sheeted hyperboloid in ${{\mathbb R}}^{n+1}$ equipped with the Lorentzian metric tensor $-dq_0^2 + dq_1^2 + \cdots + dq_n^2$. The Lorentzian metric has a Stäckel form with respect to the appropriate analog of the conical coordinate system. It follows that the induced metric on the two-sheeted hyperboloid is also Stäckel, and hence has the Ivory property.
### Families of geodesics {#sec:GeodFam}
Call a family of geodesics with fixed values of $\alpha_2, \ldots, \alpha_n$ an *$\alpha$-family*. (Recall that $2\alpha_1$ is the speed, so we fix $\alpha_1 = \frac12$.) Locally, the geodesics in an $\alpha$-family are split into $2^{n-1}$ subfamilies (*signed $\alpha$-families*) corresponding to different choices of the $\pm$-signs; each subfamily is parametrized by $n-1$ parameters, the constants on the right hand side of equations .
Locally, each signed $\alpha$-family is orthogonal to the same family of hypersurfaces.
Indeed, a signed $\alpha$-family is the gradient flow of the function (\[eqn:WSt\]). Hence, the level hypersurfaces of $W$ are orthogonal to all curves of this family.
However, a geodesic can contain arcs from different signed subfamilies of the same $\alpha$-family. Sign changes occur at the points of tangency with the coordinate hypersurfaces. Note that in and we have $h_i(q_i(t), \alpha) > 0$. Now, if $h_i(a_i, \alpha) = 0$ and $q_i(t)$ approaches $a_i$, then there are two possibilities:
- $q_i(t)$ tends to $a_i$ as $t$ tends to infinity. The geodesic is asymptotic to the coordinate hypersurface $q_i = a_i$;
- $q_i(t)$ attains $a_i$ in finite time and then “bounces back”. The geodesic is tangent to the coordinate hypersurface $q_i = a_i$; the signs of $\sqrt{h_i(q_i,\alpha)}$ change in all equations.
In the latter case all geodesics which are close to the chosen one and belong to the same $\alpha$-family are tangent to the same coordinate hypersurfaces.
In particular, on Liouville surfaces, $\alpha$-families are tangent to the coordinate curves, and hence orthogonal to their involutes. Thus these involutes are the level curves of the function .
### Billiard integrability, Ivory, and Poncelet {#sec:StBill}
Consider the billiard inside a coordinate parallelepiped of a Stäckel net. Equations and the diagonality of the Stäckel metric imply that a reflection in a coordinate hypersurface $q_i = a_i$ preserves all integrals $\alpha_1, \ldots, \alpha_n$, and changes only the sign of $\sqrt{h_i(q_i,\alpha)}$. This is an analog of the billiard property of confocal quadrics: the incoming and the outgoing rays are tangent to the same $n-1$ confocal quadrics.
As a result, a billiard trajectory inside a Stäckel parallelepiped behaves similarly to that inside a parallelepiped bounded by confocal quadrics, compare with Section \[multidim\]. Let us repeat the arguments in a slightly different way.
The reflection in a coordinate hypersurface transforms the constants on the right hand side of linearly, and this linear transformation depends only on $\alpha$. It follows that if the billiard inside a domain bounded by coordinate hypersurfaces has a periodic trajectory, then all nearby trajectories in the same $\alpha$-family are periodic.
Note that, for a trajectory to be periodic, it is necessary that it reflects an even number of times from each coordinate hypersurface (including tangency to coordinate hypersurfaces, which can be viewed as a limit case of reflection). It follows from that all periodic trajectories from the same $\alpha$-family have the same length.
In particular, this implies the periodicity and constant length for trajectories inside a coordinate parallelepiped “parallel” to a big diagonal. This also implies the Poncelet theorem for Stäckel metrics: here the billiard table is bounded by $q_i=a$ and $q_i=b$ for the same $i$, and the trajectory is chosen to be tangent to one of these hypersurfaces (by the results in the previous section, all geodesics from the same family are tangent to the same hypersurface).
### Graves’ theorem and Staude’s construction
Darboux [@Da1 Livre VI, Chapitre I] proved that the Graves theorem (see Figure \[string\]) holds also for coordinate curves of Liouville metrics. The argument is implicit in our Section \[sec:GeodFam\].
A higher-dimensional analog of the Graves theorem is the string construction of confocal quadrics described by Staude [@Sta82]. Blaschke [@Bla28] used his representation of geodesics of a Stäckel metric to show that Staude’s result holds for all Stäckel metrics. Usually one cites a very elegant special case of Staude’s string construction which involves the focal ellipse and focal hyperbola, see [@HC52 §I.4] for an illustration.
In the general Staude’s construction in dimension $3$, the string first wraps along the intersection curve of two confocal quadrics $F_1$ and $F_2$, and then along the quadric $F_2$. Pulling the string tight at a point, this point will describe a confocal quadric “parallel” to $F_1$. (More generally, for Stäckel nets, the string first wraps along a coordinate line and then along a coordinate surface.)
Newton and Ivory theorems in spaces of constant curvature {#NIcurv}
=========================================================
The gravitational potential on the sphere and in the hyperbolic space {#sec:GravPot}
---------------------------------------------------------------------
First of all, we need to describe the law of attraction on the sphere and in the hyperbolic space.
The attraction between two points at distance $r$ in ${{\mathbb S}}^n$, respectively in ${{\mathbb H}}^n$, is inversely proportional to $\sin^{n-1} r$, respectively to $\sinh^{n-1} r$, and is directed along the geodesic (shortest, in the spherical case) connecting these points.
As the following lemma shows, this law is the only one for which the force field of a point is divergence-free and rotationally invariant or, equivalently, the potential of a point mass is harmonic and rotationally invariant.
\[lem:GravSphHyp\] Every rotationally symmetric harmonic function on the sphere or in the hyperbolic space is, up to a constant factor, equal to $$\label{eqn:FundSol}
u(r) =
\begin{cases}
\int_r^{\frac{\pi}2} \frac{dx}{\sin^{n-1}x} &\text{ in } {{\mathbb S}}^n,\\
\int_r^\infty \frac{dx}{\sinh^{n-1}x} &\text{ in }{{\mathbb H}}^n,
\end{cases}$$ where $r$ denotes the distance from the point mass.
The gradient of a harmonic function is a divergence-free vector field. Hence the flux of $\nabla u$ through a sphere centered at the point mass is independent of the radius of the sphere. Since $\nabla u$ is orthogonal to the sphere and has a constant norm over the sphere, it follows that $\|\nabla u(r)\|$ is inversely proportional to the area of the sphere of radius $r$. The latter is proportional to $\sin^{n-1}r$, in the spherical, and to $\sinh^{n-1}r$, in the hyperbolic case. Integration in the radial directions produces the desired formulas.
The spherical and the hyperbolic metrics have, in the polar coordinates, the form $$g =
\begin{cases}
dr^2 + \sin^2 r \cdot h &\text{ in }{{\mathbb S}}^n,\\
dr^2 + \sinh^2 r \cdot h &\text{ in }{{\mathbb H}}^n,
\end{cases}$$ where $h$ is the metric tensor on ${{\mathbb S}}^{n-1}$. It is a general fact that, with respect to a warped product metric $dr^2 + \phi^2(r) h$, the $(1,1)$-Hessian of a function, that depends only on $r$, equals $$\Hess u(r) = u'' \cdot d\rho + u' \frac{\phi'}{\phi} \cdot d\sigma$$ (here $d\rho$ is the “vertical component”, that is, the $r$-component of a vector, and $d\sigma$ is the “horizontal component”). Taking the trace, we obtain $$\Delta u = {{\rm Tr\ }}\Hess u = u'' + (n-1)u' \frac{\phi'}{\phi}.$$ Hence a harmonic function, depending only on the $r$-coordinate, must satisfy $$u'' + (n-1)u \frac{\phi'}{\phi} = 0.$$ This can be integrated to $\log u' = -(n-1) \log \phi + \const$, that is, $u'$ is a multiple of $\phi^{-(n-1)}$.
Applying this to $\phi(r) = \sin r$ or to $\sinh r$, we obtain formula .
For $n=3$, the integral in can be computed explicitly: $u(r) = \cot r$ and $u(r) = \coth r$, respectively.
A body $D \subset {{\mathbb S}}^n$ with a continuous mass density $\rho$ exerts at a point $p$ the gravitational potential $\int_D u(\|x-p\|)\, \rho(x) dx$, and similarly for ${{\mathbb H}}^n$. Instead of a gravitational potential, sometimes it is convenient to speak about an electrostatic potential. In particular, a negative mass can be interpreted as a negative charge.
In the spherical case, the potential satisfies $u(\pi-r) = -u(r)$. Thus a negative unit charge at the south pole has the same effect as a positive unit charge at the north pole. Also, any electrostatic potential on the sphere is antisymmetric, and any charge distribution is equivalent to a distribution with the support in a hemisphere.
Newton’s theorem {#sec:Newton}
----------------
Figure \[fig:NewtonToIvory\], left, illustrates a proof of Newton’s theorem in the Euclidean case. Take a point $p$ inside a spherical shell and consider a thin two-sided cone with apex $p$. The intersection of the cone with the shell consists of two opposite truncated cones. If we show that the forces exerted on $p$ by these two components compensate each other, then Newton’s theorem will follow. The norm of the gravitational field at distance $r$ from $p$ is inversely proportional to $r^{n-1}$, and the width of the cone with apex at $p$ is proportional to $r^{n-1}$. Therefore the force exerted by a thin truncated cone is proportional to its height. Since every line through $p$ intersects the shell in two segments of equal length, the forces exerted by opposite truncated cones compensate each other.
In a formal way: $$\int_D \frac{v}{\|x-p\|^{n-1}}\, dx = \int_{{{\mathbb S}}^{n-1}} \int_{a(v)}^{b(v)} v\, dr\, d\phi = \int_{{{\mathbb S}}^{n-1}} (b(v) - a(v))v\, dr\, d\phi = 0$$ because $b(-v) - a(-v) = b(v) - a(v)$. Here $v = \frac{x-p}{\|x-p\|}$, and $[a(v),b(v)]$ is the interval of intersection of the ray in direction $v$ with the shell $D$.
The form of the gravitational field outside of the shell follows by symmetry arguments.
The following is an analog of Newton’s theorem for spaces of constant curvature. In the case of $3$-dimensional sphere, it was proved by V. Kozlov [@Koz00] by way of a direct computation.
\[thm:NewtonSph\] The gravitational field created by a spherical shell in the hyperbolic space equals zero in the region bounded by the shell. Outside of the shell, it is the same as the field created by the total mass of the shell concentrated at the center.
In the spherical space, a spherical shell exerts no force in the smaller of the two regions bounded by it, as well as inside the antipodal region. Between the sphere and its antipode, the field is the same as the one created by the total mass of the spherical shell concentrated at the center.
The vanishing of the field inside the shell (and its antipode, in the spherical case) can be proved by Newton’s argument. Again, there are two main points. First, every line through an interior point intersects the shell in two segments of equal lengths. Second, the norm of the field ($\sinh^{-(n-1)} r$, respectively $\sin^{-(n-1)} r$) cancels the proportionality factor of the area element of the sphere at distance $r$.
The force field outside the shell is a rotationally symmetric divergence free vector field. Hence, by Lemma \[lem:GravSphHyp\], it is proportional to the field created by a certain mass concentrated at the center. In the hyperbolic case, the asymptotics of the force field at infinity implies that this mass equals the total mass of the spherical shell.
In the spherical case we cannot use the asymptotics in order to determine this mass. Instead, it can be computed by integrating the fundamental solution over the mass distribution, as it is done in [@Koz00]. Alternatively, since we know the result of this integration in the hyperbolic case (the mass of the point equals to the mass of the shell), the same result holds in the spherical case, because the only difference between the integrals is in substituting $\sin$ for $\sinh$.
![Vanishing of the force field inside spherical and homeoidal shells.[]{data-label="fig:NewtonToIvory"}](NewtonToIvory.pdf)
Homeoids and homeoidal densities
--------------------------------
The argument from Section \[sec:Newton\] also proves the vanishing of the gravitational force inside a homeoidal shell: since a homeoidal shell in ${{\mathbb R}}^n$ is an affine image of a spherical shell, each line through an interior point $p$ intersects it in two segments of equal lengths, see Figure \[fig:NewtonToIvory\], right. For hyperbolic and spherical analogs of the Ivory theorem we have to find non-spherical shells in ${{\mathbb H}}^n$ and ${{\mathbb S}}^n$ with the same property.
Let $C$ be an elliptic cone in ${{\mathbb R}}^{n+1}$, that is the zero set of a quadratic form of index $1$: $$C = \{x \in {{\mathbb R}}^{n+1} \mid q(x) = 0\}, \quad \sign q = (-, +, \ldots, +).$$ The cone $C$ intersects the unit sphere ${{\mathbb S}}^n = \{\|x\| = 1\} \subset {{\mathbb R}}^{n+1}$ along two diametrically opposite components: $$C \cap {{\mathbb S}}^n = E \cup -E.$$ Each component is called a *spherical ellipsoid*.
If an elliptic cone $C$ is contained in the standard light-cone $\{x \in {{\mathbb R}}^{n+1} \mid \|x\|^2_{n,1} < 0\}$ (where $\|x\|^2_{n,1} = -x_0^2 + x_1^2 + \cdots + x_n^2$), then its intersection with the upper sheet ${{\mathbb H}}^n$ of the hyperboloid $\|x\|^2_{n,1} = -1$ is called a *hyperbolic ellipsoid*.
Let $q$ be a quadratic form defining a spherical or hyperbolic ellipsoid $E$. The shell between two level sets $\{\epsilon_1 \le q(x) \le \epsilon_2\}$ of $q$, intersected with ${{\mathbb S}}^n$ or ${{\mathbb H}}^n$, is called a *homeoid* with the core $E$. The level sets are assumed to lie sufficiently close to $E$, so that the shell is homeomorphic to a cylinder over $E$. On the other hand, we allow the numbers $\epsilon_1$ and $\epsilon_2$ to be of the same sign, so that the core $E$ may lie outside of the shell.
\[lem:EqualHeights\] If a geodesic intersects a spherical or hyperbolic homeoid in two segments, then these two segments have equal lengths.
A geodesic is an intersection of ${{\mathbb S}}^n$ or ${{\mathbb H}}^n$ with a two-dimensional vector space $L$. The segments inside a homeoidal shell are circular or hyperbolic arcs enclosed between two level sets of the quadratic form $q$ restricted to $L$. The restriction has one of the signatures $(+,+)$, $(+,0)$, or $(+,-)$ (the first two possibilities can occur when both boundaries of the homeoid are exterior to the core). Possible views of the plane $L$ in the spherical case are depicted on Figure \[fig:EqualHeights\]. The thick arcs have equal lengths by symmetry reasons.
![Geodesics intersecting a spherical homeoid.[]{data-label="fig:EqualHeights"}](EqualHeights.pdf){width=".9\textwidth"}
In the hyperbolic case, the pictures are not necessarily symmetric, but can be made symmetric by applying a hyperbolic isometry (that does not change hyperbolic lengths of the segments). Figure \[fig:EqualHeightsHyp\] illustrates the case when the restriction of $q$ to $L$ has signature $(+,0)$.
Alternatively, the hyperbolic case can be proved by a direct computation, see Lemma \[lem:ArnSph\].
![Geodesic intersecting a hyperbolic homeoid: applying a hyperbolic isometry.[]{data-label="fig:EqualHeightsHyp"}](EqualHeightsHyp.pdf){width=".8\textwidth"}
Up to now we have discussed the potentials and fields created by uniformly dense full-dimensional objects. When a shell becomes infinitely thin, we can view it as a hypersurface equipped with a variable (mass or charge) density. The field created by a charged hypersurface has a discontinuity along the hypersurface. The difference between the one-sided limits is a vector field that is orthogonal to the hypersurface (provided that the charge is Hölder continuous) and has the norm proportional to the charge density, see [@Kel67].
The *homeoidal density* is the renormalized limit of the thickness of a homeoidal shell.
\[lem:HomDens\] A homeoidal density on a spherical ellipsoid is inversely proportional to $\|\grad q\|$, where $q$ is a quadratic form defining the ellipsoid.
A homeoidal density on an ellipsoid in the hyperbolic space is inversely proportional to the Minkowski norm of the gradient $\|\grad q\|_{n,1}$.
The distance between level sets of a function is inversely proportional, up to terms of higher order, to the norm of the gradient of the function. Hence the spherical homeoidal density is inversely proportional to the gradient of the restriction of $q$ to ${{\mathbb S}}^n$. Since the cone $\{q(x) = 0\}$ intersects ${{\mathbb S}}^n$ orthogonally, the gradient of $q$ and the gradient of $q|_{{{\mathbb S}}^n}$ coincide.
In the hyperbolic case the argument is the same, except that the orthogonality should be understood with respect to the Minkowski scalar product. In particular, the gradient of a function $q$ in the Minkowski space has the coordinates $\left( -\frac{\partial q}{\partial x_0}, \frac{\partial q}{\partial x_1}, \ldots, \frac{\partial q}{\partial x_n} \right)$.
A charge distributed with a homeoidal density creates zero potential in the interior of the ellipsoid; hence the electrostatic field is orthogonal to the surface of the ellipsoid. In other words, if the charged particles are allowed to move freely within the surface, a homeoidal density will put them in equilibrium. The same happens in a solid conductor: free charges inside a body bounded by a surface concentrate on this surface according to its equilibrium density, see [@Kel67 Section VII.1].
Ivory’s theorem {#sec:IvoryThm}
---------------
Let us consider the spherical case first. Choose an orthonormal basis for the quadratic form $q$ and write it as $$\label{eqn:qDiag}
q(x) = \frac{x_1^2}{a_1} + \cdots + \frac{x_n^2}{a_n} - \frac{x_0^2}{b} = 0, \quad a_1, \ldots, a_n, b > 0.$$ Consider the ellipsoid in the upper hemisphere: $$E = q^{-1}(0) \cap {{\mathbb S}}^n_+,$$ where ${{\mathbb S}}^n_+ = {{\mathbb S}}^n \cap \{x_0 > 0\}$. Assume that all $a_i$ are distinct; without loss of generality, $a_1 > a_2 > \cdots > a_n > 0$. Then the associated quadratic forms $$q_\lambda(x) = \frac{x_1^2}{a_1-\lambda} + \cdots + \frac{x_n^2}{a_n-\lambda} - \frac{x_0^2}{b+\lambda}, \quad a_1 > \lambda > -b, \lambda \ne a_i$$ give rise to a confocal family of spherical quadrics $$E_\lambda = q_\lambda^{-1}(0) \cap {{\mathbb S}}^n_+$$ that split into $n$ subfamilies. Similarly to the Euclidean case, every point on the $n$-sphere with $x_i \ne 0$ for all $i$ lies on $n$ confocal quadrics from different subfamilies; this gives rise to ellipsoidal coordinates on the sphere. At the same time, the cones $q_\lambda^{-1} (0)$, together with the spheres centered at the origin, can be viewed as a degeneration of a confocal family in ${{\mathbb R}}^{n+1}$; this gives rise to the so-called sphero-conical coordinates in ${{\mathbb R}}^{n+1}$.
The following lemma gives a spherical analog of classical facts concerning confocal families in the Euclidean space.
\[lem:FLambda\] Let $\lambda \in (-b, a_n)$. The linear map $f_\lambda \colon {{\mathbb R}}^{n+1} \to {{\mathbb R}}^{n+1}$ given by a diagonal matrix $$f_\lambda = \diag \left( \sqrt{\frac{a_1-\lambda}{a_1}}, \ldots, \sqrt{\frac{a_n-\lambda}{a_n}}, \sqrt{\frac{b+\lambda}b} \right)$$ has the following properties:
1. It maps the spherical ellipsoid $E$ to the spherical ellipsoid $E_\lambda$;
2. The points $x \in E$ and $f_\lambda(x) \in E_\lambda$ lie on the same $n-1$ spherical quadrics confocal to $E$;
3. The pull-back by $f_\lambda$ of a homeoidal measure on $E_\lambda$ is a homeoidal measure on $E$.
Since $q_\lambda = q \circ f_\lambda^{-1}$, the map $f_\lambda$ sends the cone $q^{-1}(0)$ to the cone $q_\lambda^{-1}(0)$. Besides $$\left.
\begin{matrix}
x_1^2 + \cdots + x_n^2 + x_0^2 = 1\\
\frac{x_1^2}{a_1} + \cdots + \frac{x_n^2}{a_n} - \frac{x_0^2}{b} = 0
\end{matrix}
\right\}
\Rightarrow \frac{a_1-\lambda}{a_1} x_1^2 + \cdots + \frac{a_n-\lambda}{a_n} x_n^2 + \frac{b+\lambda}b x_0^2 = 1,$$ which implies that the image of $E$ is contained in the unit sphere. Thus $f_\lambda(E) = E_\lambda$.
For the second part it suffices to prove that $$\left.
\begin{matrix}
q(x) = 0\\
q_\mu(x) = 0
\end{matrix}
\right\}
\Rightarrow q_\mu(f_\lambda(x)) = 0.$$ This follows from the linear relation $$\frac\lambda\mu q + \left( 1 - \frac\lambda\mu \right) q_\mu = q_\mu \circ f_\lambda,$$ which can be checked by a direct computation.
Let $\omega_E$ and $\omega_{E_\lambda}$ denote the volume elements on $E$ and $E_\lambda$, respectively. By Lemma \[lem:HomDens\], $\frac{\omega_E}{\|\grad q\|}$ is a homeoidal measure on $E$, hence we need to show that $$\label{eqn:Pullback}
f_\lambda^*\left(\frac{\omega_{E_\lambda}}{\|\grad q_\lambda\|}\right) = c \cdot \frac{\omega_E}{\|\grad q\|}$$ for some constant $c$. We have $$dr \wedge \frac{dq}{\|\grad q\|} \wedge \omega_E = \omega = dr \wedge \frac{dq_\lambda}{\|\grad q_\lambda\|} \wedge \omega_{E_\lambda},$$ where $\omega$ denotes the volume element of ${{\mathbb R}}^{n+1}$. On the other hand, since $f_\lambda$ is a linear map, $f_\lambda^*(\omega) = c \cdot \omega$ for some constant $c$. Taking into account that $f_\lambda^*(dr) = dr$ when restricted to $E$ and $E_\lambda$, and that $f_\lambda^*(dq_\lambda) = dq$, we obtain equation .
The second part of Lemma \[lem:FLambda\] immediately implies the spherical Ivory lemma in some special cases. Take a parallelepiped with one vertex $x \in E$ and the opposite vertex $y \in E_\lambda$. Then one of the diagonals opposite to $xy$ is $f_\lambda(x) f_\lambda^{-1}(y)$. These two diagonals have equal lengths because $$\langle x, y \rangle = \langle f_\lambda(x), f_\lambda^{-1}(y) \rangle,$$ due to the fact that the operator $f_\lambda$ is self-adjoint. On ${{\mathbb S}}^2$, this proves the Ivory lemma in full generality. In higher dimensions, there are other diagonals opposite to $xy$. In order to prove that they have the same length one needs a generalization of Lemma \[lem:FLambda\] to linear maps within subfamilies of confocal quadrics other than ellipsoids.
In the hyperbolic case, the following modifications are needed. First, we need to diagonalize the quadratic form $q$ simultaneously with the Minkowski scalar product. The simultaneous diagonalization of indefinite quadratic forms is not possible in general (a simple example: $x^2 - y^2$ and $xy$). However, since $q$ defines an ellipsoid in the hyperbolic space, we can use the following lemma.
Let $p$ and $q$ be two non-degenerate quadratic forms of index $1$ such that the light cone of $q$ lies inside the light cone of $p$. Then $p$ and $q$ can be simultaneously diagonalized.
Let $L_p$ and $L_q$ be the interiors of the light cones, that is, the sets of vectors whose $p$- and $q$-norms squared are non-positive. For $v \in L_p$, the orthogonal complement $v^{\perp_p}$ is disjoint with the interior of $L_p$, and likewise for $L_q$.
Therefore we have a map $$L_p \to L_q, \quad v \mapsto (v^{\perp_p})^{\perp_q}$$ whose projectivization has a fixed point by Brouwer’s theorem. Choose it as the first basis direction. The restrictions of $p$ and $q$ to the common orthogonal complement are positive definite, hence simultaneously diagonalizable.
Due to the above lemma, we can assume that $q$ has the form with $a_i < b$ for all $i$ (which ensures that the light cone of $q$ lies within the light cone of the Minkowski scalar product). The associated quadratic forms are $$q_\lambda(x) = \frac{x_1^2}{a_1-\lambda} + \cdots + \frac{x_n^2}{a_n-\lambda} - \frac{x_0^2}{b-\lambda}, \quad a_1 > \lambda \ne a_i$$ (their duals form a pencil spanned by the duals of $q$ and of the Minkowski scalar product). A hyperbolic analog of Lemma \[lem:FLambda\] holds; the argument remains the same.
\[LIconst\] A spherical or hyperbolic ellipsoid $E$ charged with a homeoidal density creates an electrostatic force field that vanishes inside $E$ (and $-E$, in the spherical case) and has the confocal ellipsoids $E_\lambda$ (and $-E_\lambda$, in the spherical case) as equipotential surfaces.
Lemma \[lem:EqualHeights\] implies that the field inside an arbitrary homeoidal shell vanishes: the forces exerted on a point inside of a homeoid by two diametrally opposite truncated cones compensate each other, see Figure \[fig:NewtonToIvory\] and the first part of the proof of Theorem \[thm:NewtonSph\]. In the limit, as a homeoid around $E$ becomes infinitely thin, its electrostatic field tends to the field created by a homeoidal density on $E$ and thus vanishes inside $E$.
Take a point $x$ outside $E$. The potential created at a point $x$ by a homeoidal density on $E$ equals $$U(x) = \int_E u \, do,$$ where $u(y) = u(\|x-y\|)$ is the potential of a point charge at $x$ described in Section \[sec:GravPot\], and $o$ is a homeoidal measure on $E$.
(0,0)![Proof of the Ivory theorem.[]{data-label="Iproof"}](IvoryThmProof.pdf "fig:")
\#1\#2\#3\#4\#5[ @font ]{}
(2780,2025)(-264,-540) (1640,593)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (883,661)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (1960,1194)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (1324,1362)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (519, 57)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{} (498,-375)[(0,0)\[lb\]]{}
Let $E_\lambda$ be a confocal ellipsoid through $x$, see Figure \[Iproof\]. Using the map $f_\lambda$ from Lemma \[lem:FLambda\], one transforms the above integral to an integral over $E_\lambda$: $$\int_E u\, do = \int_{E_\lambda} u \circ f_\lambda^{-1} \, do_\lambda,$$ where $o_\lambda$ is a homeoidal measure on $E_\lambda$, due to the third part of Lemma \[lem:FLambda\]. For every $z \in E_\lambda$, we have $$u \circ f_\lambda^{-1}(z) = u(\|x - f_\lambda^{-1}(z)\|) = u(\|f_\lambda^{-1}(x) - z\|).$$ Indeed, by the second part of Lemma \[lem:FLambda\], the geodesic segments $x f_\lambda^{-1}(z)$ and $f_\lambda(x)z$ span the same coordinate parallelepiped; they are of the same length by the Ivory lemma. It follows that $u \circ f_\lambda^{-1}$ is the potential of a point charge at $f_\lambda^{-1}(x)$. Hence $$\int_{E_\lambda} u \circ f_\lambda^{-1} \, do_\lambda = U_\lambda(f_\lambda^{-1}(x))$$ is the potential created at point $f_\lambda^{-1}(x)$ by the measure $o_\lambda$ on $E_\lambda$. But the point $f_\lambda^{-1}(x)$ lies inside the ellipsoid $E_\lambda$. Since by the first part of the theorem the potential of $o_\lambda$ is constant inside $E_\lambda$, the potential of the measure $o$ is the same at all points $x \in E_\lambda$.
Arnold’s theorem
----------------
### Hyperbolic surfaces {#sec:HypSurf}
An algebraic surface $M$ of degree $d$ in ${{\mathbb R}}^n$ is called *strictly hyperbolic* with respect to a point $x \in {{\mathbb R}}^n$ if $x \notin M$ and every line through $x$ intersects the projective closure of $M$ in $d$ distinct points. If every line through $x$ intersects $M$ in $d$ not necessarily distinct points (but counting the algebraic multiplicities) then $M$ is called *hyperbolic* with respect to $x$. The *hyperbolicity domain* of $M$ is the union of points $x$ such that $M$ is (strictly) hyperbolic with respect to $x$. A surface is called (strictly) hyperbolic if its hyperbolicity domain is non-empty.
By a result of Nuij [@Nuij68], the space of strictly hyperbolic surfaces is open and contractible. This implies [@HW07] that every strictly hyperbolic surface consists of $\lfloor \frac{d}{2} \rfloor$ nested projective ovaloids (that is hypersurfaces whose projective closure is isotopic to a sphere) and (for $d$ odd) one more component isotopic to ${{\mathbb R}}P^{n-1} \subset {{\mathbb R}}P^n$. The innermost ovaloid is projectively convex, and its interior is the hyperbolicity domain of the surface. See Figure \[fig:HypDeg3\] for examples of hyperbolic curves of degree $3$. Also by [@Nuij68], every hyperbolic surface is a limit of strongly hyperbolic ones.
![Hyperbolic curves of degree $3$. The hyperbolicity domain is shaded.[]{data-label="fig:HypDeg3"}](HypDeg3a.png "fig:"){height="4cm"} ![Hyperbolic curves of degree $3$. The hyperbolicity domain is shaded.[]{data-label="fig:HypDeg3"}](HypDeg3b.png "fig:"){height="4cm"} ![Hyperbolic curves of degree $3$. The hyperbolicity domain is shaded.[]{data-label="fig:HypDeg3"}](HypDeg3c.png "fig:"){height="4cm"}
The curve $x^4 + y^4 = 1$ is not hyperbolic.
Ellipsoids and hyperboloids of two sheet are strictly hyperbolic; hyperboloids of one sheet are not.
The union of $d$ hyperplanes is hyperbolic, although not strictly. Its hyperbolicity domain is the complement to the hyperplanes.
Hyperbolic polynomials appeared in the works of Petrovsky [@Pet45] and Gårding [@Gar51] on partial differential equations. In the recent decades they found applications in various other domains of mathematics, see [@Pem12].
### Arnold’s theorem: Euclidean case {#sec:Layer}
In the following we assume that the degree $d$ is at least $2$. For a strictly hyperbolic surface $M = p^{-1}(0)$, a *standard layer* is the shell $$\{x \in {{\mathbb R}}^n \mid 0 \le p(x) \le \epsilon\},$$ where $\epsilon$ is small enough for the surface $p^{-1}(\epsilon)$ to be also strictly hyperbolic. Fix a point $x$ in the hyperbolicity domain of $M$. Charge a component of the standard layer positively if the corresponding component of $p^{-1}(0)$ lies “closer” to $x$ than the corresponding component of $p^{-1}(\epsilon)$, and negatively otherwise. For example, if $M$ is a hyperbola, then the layers along its branches get different signs. The intersection of the hyperbolicity domains of $p^{-1}(0)$ and $p^{-1}(\epsilon)$ will be called the hyperbolicity domain of the layer.
For every hyperbolic surface, a charged standard layer creates a zero electrostatic field in its hyperbolicity domain.
As in the case of homeoids and homeoidal charges, in the limit $\epsilon \to 0$ we obtain a hyperbolic surface charged with the density $\frac{1}{\|\grad p\|}$ (and with the sign of the charge on different components subject to the same rule as above).
A standard charge on a hyperbolic surface creates a zero electrostatic field in its hyperbolicity domain.
Exactly as in the Newton-Ivory situation (see Figure \[fig:NewtonToIvory\]), Arnold’s theorem follows from the lemma below.
\[lem:Arnold\] Let $p$ be a polynomial of degree $d \ge 2$ in one variable with $d$ roots $t_1, \ldots, t_d$, and let $t_1^\epsilon, \ldots, t_d^\epsilon$ be the roots of $p(t) - \epsilon$. Then $$\sum_{i=1}^d (t_i - t_i^\epsilon) = 0.$$
By Vieta’s formula, $$t_1 + \cdots + t_d = -\frac{a_{d-1}}{a_d} = t_1^\epsilon + \cdots + t_d^\epsilon,$$ where $p(t) = a_d t^d + a_{d-1} t^{d-1} + \cdots$. The lemma follows.
Arnold’s theorem holds for non-strictly hyperbolic surfaces as well, since these can be approximated by strictly hyperbolic ones. The sign rule of the charge and the domain of the vanishing electrostatic field depend on the choice of approximation (there can be topologically different choices). For example, the coordinate axes in ${{\mathbb R}}^2$ charged by $\frac1y$, respectively $\frac1x$, create a zero electrostatic field in the domain $xy>0$.
V. Vassiliev and W. Ebeling [@Vas98] have shown that, outside of the hyperbolicity domain, the force field is algebraic if $d=2$ or $n=2$, and non-algebraic otherwise. See [@Vas02; @KhL14] for surveys.
### Extension of Arnold’s theorem to spaces of constant curvature
An algebraic surface of degree $d$ in ${{\mathbb S}}^n \subset {{\mathbb R}}^{n+1}$ or ${{\mathbb H}}^n \subset {{\mathbb R}}^{n,1}$ is the zero set of a homogeneous polynomial of degree $d$ in $n+1$ variables. Similarly to Section \[sec:HypSurf\], we call an algebraic surface $M$ hyperbolic with respect to a point $x$ if every great circle through $x$ intersects $M$ in $d$ distinct pairs of antipodal points (for $M \subset {{\mathbb S}}^n$) or if every geodesic through $x$ intersects $M$ in $d$ distinct points.
An algebraic surface $p^{-1}(0) \cap {{\mathbb S}}^n$ is hyperbolic if and only if the corresponding affine algebraic surface $p^{-1}(0) \cap \{x_0 = 1\}$ is hyperbolic. Topologically, a hyperbolic surface in ${{\mathbb S}}^n$ consists of $\lfloor \frac{d}2 \rfloor$ antipodal pairs of nested ovaloids and (for $d$ odd) one additional centrally symmetric ovaloid.
An algebraic surface in $p^{-1}(0) \cap {{\mathbb H}}^n$ is hyperbolic if and only if the surface $p^{-1}(0) \cap \{x_0 = 1\}$ is hyperbolic and is contained in the Cayley-Klein ball $x_1^2 + \cdots + x_n^2 < 1$. (Otherwise through every point in ${{\mathbb H}}^n$ there is a line that intersects the surface outside of the ball; hence the hyperbolicity domain is empty.) This implies that in the hyperbolic space there are no hyperbolic surfaces of odd degree (an odd degree affine hyperbolic hypersurface has a component isotopic to the projective hyperplane, hence must leave the Cayley-Klein ball). A hyperbolic surface of an even degree $d$ in ${{\mathbb H}}^n$ consists of $d$ nested ovaloids.
A spherical or hyperbolic *standard layer* is the shell between two level sets $\epsilon_1 \le p(x) \le \epsilon_2$ intersected with ${{\mathbb S}}^n$ or with ${{\mathbb H}}^n$. Put on the components of a standard layer charges of a constant density and with plus or minus signs according to the rule described in Section \[sec:Layer\].
On ${{\mathbb S}}^n$, every standard layer is symmetric with respect to the center of the sphere. For surfaces of even degree, the charges at the opposite points have different signs, while for surfaces of odd degree they have the same sign, and therefore the resulting electrostatic field vanishes everywhere.
\[Arnconst\] For every hyperbolic surface in ${{\mathbb S}}^n$ or ${{\mathbb H}}^n$, a charged standard layer creates a zero electrostatic field in its hyperbolicity domain.
For surfaces of even degree this follows from the first part of Lemma \[lem:ArnSph\] below. In ${{\mathbb H}}^n$ there are no hyperbolic surfaces of odd degree. In ${{\mathbb S}}^n$ a standard layer at a surface of odd degree creates a zero field everywhere for trivial reasons.
An infinitesimally thin standard layer is equivalent to a surface charged with the density $\frac{1}{\|\grad p\|}$, where in the ${{\mathbb H}}^n$ case the norm of the gradient is the Minkowski norm.
A standard charge on a hyperbolic surface in ${{\mathbb S}}^n$ or ${{\mathbb H}}^n$ creates a zero electrostatic field in its hyperbolicity domain.
\[lem:ArnSph\] Let $p$ be a homogeneous polynomial of degree $d$ in two variables. Assume that the cone $p^{-1}(0)$ intersects an open unit half-circle ${{\mathbb S}}^1_+$ (or, respectively, a branch ${{\mathbb H}}^1$ of the hyperbola) in $d$ distinct points, and let $t_1, \ldots, t_d$ be the coordinates of these points in an arc-length parametrization of ${{\mathbb S}}^1$ (respectively, in a hyperbolic arc-length parametrization of ${{\mathbb H}}^1$). For $\epsilon$ small enough, let $t_1^\epsilon, \ldots, t_d^\epsilon$ be the coordinates of the intersection of ${{\mathbb S}}^1_+$ (respectively ${{\mathbb H}}^1$) with the curve $p^{-1}(\epsilon)$. Then the following holds:
1. If $d$ is even, then $\sum_{i=1}^d (t_i - t_i^\epsilon) = 0$;
2. If $d$ is odd, then $\sum_{i=1}^d \left(t_i - \frac{t_i^{-\epsilon} + t_i^\epsilon}2\right) = 0$.
Let us discuss the hyperbolic case first. Choose coordinates $x,y$ in ${{\mathbb R}}^2$ so that ${{\mathbb H}}^1 = \{(x,y) \mid xy = 1, x > 0\}$. Let $(x_i, y_i)$ be the coordinates of the $i$-th intersection point. We have $$p(x_i,y_i) = 0, \quad x_iy_i = 1.$$ Consider the degree $2d$ polynomial $$P(x) = x^d p\left(x, \frac1x\right).$$ By construction, $x_1, \ldots, x_d$ are roots of $P$. Since $P$ contains only even degree monomials, its other $d$ roots are $-x_1, \ldots, -x_d$. Hence we have $$x_1 \cdot \ldots \cdot x_d = \sqrt{(-1)^d\frac{a_{0}}{a_{2d}}},$$ where $a_0$ is the constant term of $P$, and $a_{2d}$ is the leading coefficient.
Let $d$ be even. Then, similarly to the above, $\pm x^\epsilon_1, \ldots, \pm x^\epsilon_d$ are the roots of the polynomial $P(x) - \epsilon x^d$, and we have $$x^\epsilon_1 \cdot \ldots \cdot x^\epsilon_d = \sqrt{(-1)^d\frac{a_{0}}{a_{2d}}} = x_1 \cdot \ldots \cdot x_d.$$ A hyperbolic arc length parmetrization of ${{\mathbb H}}^1$ is given by $t = \log x$. Hence we have $$x^\epsilon_1 \cdot \ldots \cdot x^\epsilon_d = x_1 \cdot \ldots \cdot x_d \Rightarrow \sum_{i=1}^d (t_i - t_i^\epsilon) = 0.$$
Now let $d$ be odd. Then the $d$ intersection points of the hyperbola with $p^{-1}(\epsilon)$ correspond to $d$ roots $x^\epsilon_1, \ldots, x^\epsilon_n$ of the polynomial $P(x) - \epsilon x^d$. This polynomial contains a monomial of odd degree $x^d$. Due to $$P(-x) - \epsilon (-x)^d = P(x) + \epsilon x^d,$$ its other $d$ roots are $-x^{-\epsilon}_1, \ldots, -x^{-\epsilon}_n$. It follows that $$x^\epsilon_1 \cdot \ldots \cdot x^\epsilon_n \cdot x^{-\epsilon}_1 \cdot \ldots \cdot x^{-\epsilon}_n = -\frac{a_{0}}{a_{2d}} = (x_1 \cdot \ldots \cdot x_{d})^2,$$ and hence $$\sum_{i=1}^d \left(t_i - \frac{t_i^{-\epsilon} + t_i^\epsilon}2\right) = \sum_{i=1}^d \left(\log(x_i) - \log\sqrt{x^\epsilon_i x^{-\epsilon}_i}\right) = 0.$$
In the spherical case we change the Euclidean coordinates $(x,y)$, to $$u = x+iy,\ v = x-iy,$$ so that $x^2 + y^2 = uv$. The rest of the proof is the same, with $u$ substituted for $x$.
A final remark
--------------
The Ivory lemma holds on ellipsoids and, in the full generality, in Riemannian manifolds with Stäckel nets. Is there an analog of the Ivory theorem for Stäckel nets? Building on the fact that the gravitational potential is a harmonic function, one could conjecture that every Stäckel net is compatible with a harmonic coordinate system. This seems to be false in general, but is true in a special case. With the help of the ellipsoidal coordinates, one can construct harmonic functions on an ellipsoid whose level sets are the intersections of the ellipsoid with confocal quadrics. However, there is no evident relation with the Ivory lemma: the proof of the Ivory theorem (Figure \[Iproof\]) relies on the fact that the potential of a point is rotationally symmetric, and there is no rotational symmetry on the ellipsoid.
[99]{}
S. Abenda, Yu. Fedorov. [*Closed geodesics and billiards on quadrics re- lated to elliptic KdV solutions.*]{} Lett. Math. Phys. [**76**]{} (2006), 111–134.
A. Akopyan, A. Bobenko. [*Incircular nets and confocal conics*]{}. arXiv:1602.04637.
V. Arnold. [*The Newton potential of hyperbolic layers*]{}. Trudy Tbiliss. Univ. [**232/233**]{} (1982), 23–29.
V. Arnold. [*Some algebro-geometrical aspects of the Newton attraction theory.*]{} Arithmetic and geometry, Vol. II, 1–3, Progr. Math., 36, Birkhäuser Boston, Boston, MA, 1983.
V. Arnold. [*Magnetic analogs of the theorems of Newton and Ivory.*]{} Uspekhi Mat. Nauk [**38**]{} (1984), no. 5, 253–254 (Russian).
V. Arnold. [*Mathematical Methods of Classical Mechanics*]{}. Springer-Verlag, New York, 1989.
M. Berger. [*Geometry.*]{} Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1987.
W. Blaschke. [*Eine Verallgemeinerung der Theorie der konfokalen $F_2$.*]{} Math. Z. [**27**]{} (1928), 653–668.
W. Blaschke. [*Einführung in die [D]{}ifferentialgeometrie*]{}. Springer-Verlag, Berlin-Göttingen-Heidelberg, 1950.
W. Böhm. [*Ein geometrischer Beweis des Satzes von Ivory*]{}. Arch. Math. (Basel) [**16**]{} (1965), 135–137.
S.-J. Chang, K. Shi. [*Billiard systems on quadric surfaces and the Poncelet theorem.*]{} J. Math. Phys. [**30**]{} (1989), 798–804.
G. Darboux. [*Leçons sur la théorie génerale des surfaces et les applications géométriques du calcul infinitésimal*]{}, Vol. 2 and 3, Gauthier-Villars, Paris, 1914.
G. Darboux. [*Principes de géométrie analytique*]{}. Gauthier-Villars, Paris, 1917.
V. Dragović, M. Radnović. [*Poncelet porisms and beyond. Integrable billiards, hyperelliptic Jacobians and pencils of quadrics.*]{} Birkhäuser/Springer, Basel, 2011.
V. Dragović, M. Radnović. [*Ellipsoidal billiards in pseudo-Euclidean spaces and relativistic quadrics.*]{} Adv. Math. [**231**]{} (2012), 1173–1201.
D. Fuchs, S. Tabachnikov. [*Mathematical omnibus. Thirty lectures on classic mathematics.*]{} Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2007.
L. Gårding. [*Linear hyperbolic partial differential operators with constant coefficients.*]{} Acta Math. [**85**]{} (1951), 1–62.
D. Genin, B. Khesin, S. Tabachnikov. [*Geodesics on an ellipsoid in Minkowski space.*]{} Enseign. Math. [**53**]{} (2007), 307–331.
J. W. Helton, V. Vinnikov. [*Linear matrix inequality representation of sets.*]{} Comm. Pure Appl. Math. [**60**]{} (2007), 654–674.
D. Hilbert, S. Cohn-Vossen. [*Geometry and the imagination.*]{} Chelsea Publ. Co., New York, N. Y., 1952.
Á. Horváth. [*Projection pencils of quadrics and Ivory’s theorem.*]{} J. Geom. [**102**]{} (2011), 85–101.
M. Iarov-Iarovoi. [*Integration of the Hamilton-Jacobi equation by the method of separation of variables.*]{} J. Appl. Math. Mech. [**27**]{} (1963), 1499–1520.
J. Ivory. [*On the attraction of homogeneous ellipsoids*]{}. Phil. Trans. Royal Soc. London [**99**]{} (1809), 345–372.
O. Kellogg. [*Foundations of potential theory*]{}. Springer-Verlag, Berlin-New York, 1967.
D. Khavinson, E. Lundberg. [*A tale of ellipsoids in potential theory.*]{} Notices Amer. Math. Soc. [**61**]{} (2014), 148–156.
B. Khesin, S. Tabachnikov. [*Pseudo-Riemannian geodesics and billiards.*]{} Adv. Math. [**221**]{} (2009), 1364–1396.
V. Kozlov. [*Newton and Ivory attraction theorems in spaces of constant curvature.*]{} Vestnik Moskov. Univ. Ser. I Mat. Mekh. 2000, no. 5, 43–47.
V. Kozlov and D. Treshchev. [*Billiards. A Genetic Introduction to the Dynamics of Systems with Impacts.*]{} Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 1991.
M. Levi, S. Tabachnikov. [*The Poncelet grid and billiards in ellipses*]{}. Amer. Math. Monthly [**114**]{} (2007), 895–908.
J. Moser. [*Geometry of quadrics and spectral theory.*]{} Chern Symp. 1979, 147–188, Springer, New York-Berlin, 1980.
W. Nuij. [*A note on hyperbolic polynomials.*]{} Math. Scand. [**23**]{} (1968), 69–72.
R. Pemantle. [*Hyperbolicity and stable polynomials in combinatorics and probability.*]{} Current developments in mathematics, 2011, 57–123, Int. Press, Somerville, MA, 2012.
I. Petrovsky. [*On the diffusion of waves and lacunas for hyperbolic equations.*]{} Mat. Sb. [**17(59)**]{} (1945), 289–370.
R. Schwartz. [*The Poncelet grid.*]{} Adv. Geom. [**7**]{} (2007), 157–175.
H. Stachel, J. Wallner. [*Ivory’s theorem in hyperbolic spaces.*]{} Siberian Math. J. [**45**]{} (2004), 785–794.
P. Stäckel. [*Ueber die Bewegung eines Punktes in einer $n$-fachen Mannigfaltigkeit.*]{} Mathematische Annalen [**42**]{} (1893), 537–563.
O. Staude. [*Ueber Fadenconstructionen des Ellipsoides.*]{} Mathematische Annalen [**20**]{} (1882), 147–185.
S. Tabachnikov. [*Billiards.*]{} Panor. Synth. No. 1, SMF, 1995.
S. Tabachnikov. [*Geometry and billiards.*]{} Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2005.
A. Thimm. [*Integrabilität beim geodätischen Fluß*]{}. In Beiträge zur Differentialgeometrie, Heft 2, Bonner Math. Schriften 103, Univ. Bonn, Bonn, 1978.
I. Todhunter. [*A history of the mathematical theories of attraction and the figure of the earth from the time of Newton to that of Laplace*]{}, v, 1,2. London: Macmillan and Co, 1873.
A. Vainshtein, B. Shapiro. [*Multidimensional analogues of the Newton and Ivory theorems.*]{} Funktsional. Anal. i Prilozhen. [**19**]{} (1985), no. 1, 20–24.
V. Vassiliev. [*Monodromy of complete intersections and surface potentials*]{}. With an appendix by W. Ebeling. Progr. Math., 162, Singularities (Oberwolfach, 1996), 205–237, Birkhäuser, Basel, 1998.
V. Vassiliev [*Applied Picard-Lefschetz theory.*]{} Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2002.
A. Veselov. [*Confocal surfaces and integrable billiards on the sphere and in the Lobachevsky space.*]{} J. Geom. Phys. [**7**]{} (1990), 81–107.
A. Veselov. [*Complex geometry of the billiard on the ellipsoid and quasicrystallic curves.*]{} Seminar on Dynamical Systems (St. Petersburg, 1991), 277–283, Progr. Nonlinear Differential Equations Appl., 12, Birkhäuser, Basel, 1994.
J. Weihnacht. [*Über die bedingt-periodische Bewegung eines Massenpunktes.*]{} Mathematische Annalen [**91**]{} (1924), 279–299.
K. Zwirner. [*Orthogonalsysteme, in denen Ivorys Theorem gilt*]{}. Abh. Math. Sem. Univ. Hamburg [**5**]{} (1927), 313–336
[^1]: Université de Fribourg, Département de mathématiques, Chemin du Musée 23, CH-1700 Fribourg; [email protected]
[^2]: Department of Mathematics, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802; [email protected]
[^3]: This is how corner reflectors work; see <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corner_reflector>.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'It is suggested that there is an interesting transition in double helices. The transition is between a helix, which has maximal torsion for the constituting helical strands, and a double helix which is nearly optimally packed illustrated by corresponding dual points on the rope curve. The possible physical relevance for denaturation and renaturation of DNA is discussed.'
---
[ **Duality of maximal-torsion and close-packing in double helices** ]{}\
[Kasper W. Olsen[^1]\
Department of Mathematical Sciences, University of Copenhagen\
Universitetsparken 5, 2100 Copenhagen Ø, Denmark\
Jakob Bohr[^2]\
DTU Nanotech, Technical University of Denmark\
[Ø]{}rsteds Plads, 2800 Kongens Lyngby, Denmark]{}\
Introduction
============
Essentially, there are three distinct mechanisms for holding together a double helical structure (a rope, DNA, etc...). Double helices can be held together by forces which are tensile in origin, i.e. geometrically expressed as fixed boundary conditions in combination with maximising the length. This leads to a solution on the upper branch of the “rope curve”. The rope curve is the generic curve that shows the total length of a double helix as a function of the number of turns [@bohr2011a]. Another type of interactions that hold a double helix together is molecular forces which typically favours a relatively even distribution of electronic density and hence close-packing of the strands. This condition appears on the lower branch of the rope curve. The close-packed structure is the idealised “natured” state [@olsen2009]. A third mechanism not considered here is through capillary forces, i.e. through a thin fluid layer between the strands.
In this letter, we discuss an effect which describes a transition between the first and the second type of helices on the rope curve. The rope curve defines the limiting cases where the two strands are in direct contact, while the inner points defines all “denatured” states, i.e. where the strands are not in contact. Denatured states with the same amount of twist lies on a vertical line. For all practical purposes, the close-packed structure and a maximal-torsion structure are on the same vertical line, and are therefore connected by denaturing and renaturing through constant twist.
The thermodynamics of bubble denaturing, i.e. local opening, of DNA has been subject to various studies, e.g. [@hanke2003; @hanke2008; @hanke2013; @peyrard2004; @cocco1999]. Bubble denaturing of DNA studied in fluid channel systems are free to rotate with no fixtures of the ends, see e.g. [@marie2013]. In biological systems local denaturing can occur without the presence of linking-number changing enzymes, leading to rotationally fixed ends. In a simplified form, this is what is studied in the present letter.
Method
======
Our starting point is helices modelled as flexible tubes with hard walls, and work on the packing of such helices is e.g. [@pieranski1998; @gonzalez1999; @maritan2000; @stasiak2000; @przybyl2001; @neukirch2002; @bruss2012]. Consider a helix made from circular strands of length $L_M$ and diameter $D$ (any number of strands, $N$, will do). The length of the helix is $H_M=L_M \sin v_\bot$, where $v_\bot$ is the pitch angle, and its total twist is $\Theta_M=L_M \cos v_\bot/a$. Geometrically, the pitch angle is the angle between a tangent of the helix and the horizontal plane. The pitch angle is determined by the relation, $\tan v_\bot = h/a$, where $h$ is the reduced helical pitch and $a$ is the helical cylinder radius. Therefore the total twist can be written as $$\Theta_M = L_M \frac{\sin v_\bot}{h}\, .$$ The total torsion is the integral $$\Omega_M = \int_0^{L_M}\tau(s) ds = \frac{h}{a^2+h^2}L_M = L_M \frac{(\sin v_\bot)^2}{h}$$ I.e. $$\Omega_M = \sin v_\bot \Theta_M$$ Imagine an experiment where $H_M$ is changed by pulling. Then, the length changes by an amount, $$dH_M = L_M \cos v_\bot dv_\bot,$$ and the torsion changes by $$d\Omega_M = \Theta_M\cos v_\bot dv_\bot + \sin v_\bot d\Theta_M,$$ so that $$\frac{d\Omega_M}{dH_M} = \frac{\Theta_M}{L_M}+\sin v_\bot \frac{d\Theta_M}{dH_M}\, .$$ The scale-invariant quantity obtained by multiplying this expression with the radius of the tubes, i.e. $$\frac{D}{2}\frac{d\Omega_M}{dH_M} = \frac{D}{2a} \frac{\cos 2v_\bot}{\cos v_\bot}
+\sin v_\bot \frac{d}{d v_\bot}(\frac{D}{2a}),$$ is evidently a function of $v_\bot$ that measures how the torsion changes under strain. We define the [*differential torsion*]{} as, $$f_\Omega (v_\bot)= \frac{D}{2}\frac{d\Omega_M}{dH_M} \, .$$ Similarly, the [*differential twist*]{}, $f_\Theta$, is defined as, $$f_\Theta (v_\bot)= \frac{D}{2}\frac{d\Theta_M}{dH_M} \, ,$$ and its significance for the strain-twist coupling of double helices is discussed in [@olsen2011].
Results
=======
Consider the double helix, i.e. $N=2$. The differential twist, $f_\Theta$, is zero at $v_\bot=39.4^\circ$ (Fig. 1A), which was observed in [@olsen2011], and this specific angle has earlier been denoted the zero-twist angle. The differential torsion, $f_\Omega$, is maximal at about $v_\bot=29^\circ$, and is zero at the non-trivial value $v_\bot=45^\circ$ (Fig. 1B). For a double helix, the configuration with $v_\bot=45^\circ$ has been designated as the tightly-packed double helix [@olsen2009]. It is also an angle, where the strand has maximal torsion, and we therefore identify it as the maximal-torsion angle (labeled MT). The maximal-torsion angle corresponding to $f_\Omega =0$ can be shown to approach $55^\circ$ for large $N$.
{width="6.0cm"} {width="6.0cm"}
If we assume, that the number of turns, $n=\Theta_M/2\pi$, in the double helix is kept constant, we can imagine a situation where there is a transition between states having the same number of turns. The transition under conserved twist is shown on the rope curve as taking place between two “dual” points. On the rope curve, these are points defined to be at opposite locations in the vertical direction, see Fig. 2.
For a double helix with maximal torsion, the dual configuration is found numerically to have a pitch angle of $v_\bot= 32.9^\circ$. The $v_\bot=32.9^\circ$ geometry (labeled CP$^*$) is virtually identical to the actual close-packed structure at $v_\bot=32.5^\circ$ (labeled CP). The close-packed structure optimises a volume fraction [@olsen2009] defined as the volume of the two strands divided by the volume of a smallest cylinder enclosing them, i.e. $f_V=2V_S/V_E$ (the volume fraction at the CP structure is 0.7694, at the CP$^*$ structure it is 0.7693, and at the MT structure it is 0.7071). Conversely, the dual state of this close-packed structure is a state with pitch angle $v_\bot = 45.3^\circ$. [*We conclude, that for any symmetric double helix, there is a near perfect duality between the maximal-torsion and the close-packed state*]{}.
It should be noted that the maximal-torsion geometry has no inner channel, while its dual CP configuration does have a channel, as discussed in detail in [@olsen2009]. This happens at the “expense” of being a much shorter configuration: The corresponding factor is $0.768$, see table 1.
{width="6.0cm"} {height="6.0cm"}MT {height="5.0cm"}CP
$N$ $f_\Theta=0$ $f_\Omega = 0$ Dual angle Length factor
----- -------------- ---------------- -------------- ---------------
2 $39.4^\circ$ $45.0^\circ$ $32.9^\circ$ $0.768$
: *Maximum-twist and maximum-torsion structures for double helix. The “dual angle” is the opposite point on the rope curve with the same number of turns as the maximum torsion angle. The “length factor” is the fraction between the length of these two geometrical structures (MT/CP) while the length of the individual strands is conserved.*
\[default\]
Discussion
==========
Total torsion and total twist are two geometrical quantities which can be computed for space-curves. Their behaviour under strain lead us to define the functions, $f_\Omega$ and $f_\Theta$. The condition $f_\Theta=0$ defines the zero-twist structures, which have been studied before in the context of overwinding of DNA, and rope-making (see [@bohr2011a; @olsen2011]). The condition $f_\Omega = 0$ is apparently new. For a space curve, the two quantities are the same assuming that the Frenet-Serret frame is used. For a space curve on a ribbon, or surface, the two quantities are distinct. For the double helix, it is two different curves, namely the centreline on a helicoid surface, and the space curve (i.e. helix) defining one of the two strands.
Maximumly twisting both strands collectively in a double helix leads to the zero-twist structure, or the apex of the rope curve. Maximumly twisting an individual strand leads to the maximal-torsion solution at $45^\circ$. As shown above, approaching the maximal torsion configuration is a way to attain the dual of the close-packed structure. Hence, one can wonder whether this duality principle has been utilised in Nature?
An obvious molecular candidate is that of DNA, more specifically in relation to replication and transcription. In [@olsen2009] it was shown that the geometry of double-stranded DNA is determined by close-packing, i.e. that it optimises a volume fraction and is a CP structure to a very good approximation. Initially, the denaturation of double-stranded DNA (dsDNA) takes place in isolated bubbles along the molecule [@hanke2003; @hwa2003]. A mechanism that maintains the twist over long distances is therefore advantageous. To a large extend this mechanism avoids the presence of enzymes that modify the linking-number of DNA. It is not clear that the maximal-torsion state can be reached by dsDNA in vivo as the full effect of the base-pairs [@manghi2016] is not described in this letter. If the maximal-torsion state can be reached, we can write the denaturation and renaturation of DNA as a reaction equation, i.e. $$dsDNA \longleftrightarrow dsMT
\longleftrightarrow ssDNA \, ,$$ where MT is the maximal-torsion state, and ssDNA implies single-stranded DNA. This should be contrasted with the usual picture, i.e. $$dsDNA
\longleftrightarrow ssDNA \, .$$
Perhaps biochemical studies, as for example Raman spectroscopy [@barhoumi2008], can detect the difference between a double-stranded maximal-torsion state, or two separated strands. It remains to be seen whether the maximal-torsion state plays a role in denaturing/renaturing of DNA. Even if the MT state is not fully expressed in dsDNA, there is one denaturing path that is more advantageous than any other.
Another area, where the suggested duality might be at play, is within DNA supercoils [@irobalieva2015]. Often DNA finds itself in a supercoiled structure, i.e. for example plectonemic DNA. Such superstructures, which are effectively a double helix, can be subject to the same kind of analysis but generally has much larger pitch angles than the maximal-torsion structure.
J. Bohr and K. Olsen, “The ancient art of laying rope”, [*EPL*]{} [**93**]{}, 60004 (2011).
K. Olsen and J. Bohr, “The generic geometry of helices and their close-packed structures”, [*Theor. Chem. Acc.*]{} [**125**]{}, 207-215 (2010).
A. Hanke and R. Metzler, “Bubble dynamics in DNA”, [*J. Phys. A*]{} [**36**]{}, L473 (2003).
A. Hanke, M.G. Ochoa and R. Metzler, “Denaturation transition of stretched DNA”, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**100**]{} 018106 (2008).
A. Hanke, “Denaturation transition of stretched DNA”, [*Biochem. Soc. Trans.*]{} 41, 639-645 (2013).
M. Peyrard, “Nonlinear dynamics and statistical physics of DNA.” [*Nonlinearity*]{} 17.2 (2004): R1.
S. Cocco and R. Monasson, “Statistical mechanics of torque induced denaturation of DNA”, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**83**]{} 5178 (1999).
R. Marie et al., “Integrated view of genome structure and sequence of a single DNA molecule in a nanofluidic device.” [*PNAS*]{} [**110**]{}, 4893-4898 (2013).
See discussion of work by S. Przybyłin article by P. Pierański, [*In search of ideal knots*]{}, in “Ideal Knots”, pp 22–41, Editors A Stasiak, V. Katritch, and L.H. Kauffman, World Scientific, Singapore, ISBN 981-02-3530-5 (1998).
O. Gonzalez, J.H. Maddocks, “Global curvature, thickness and the ideal shapes of knots”, [*PNAS*]{} [**96**]{}, 4769 (1999).
A. Maritan, C. Micheletti, A. Trovato, R. Banavar, “Optimal shapes of compact strings”, [*Nature*]{} [**406**]{}, 287 (2000).
A. Stasiak, J.H. Maddocks, “Mathematics: Best packing in proteins and DNA” [*Nature*]{} [**406**]{}, 251 (2000).
S. Przyby[ł]{} and P. Pierański, “Helical close packings of ideal ropes”, [*Eur. Phys. J. E*]{} [**4**]{}, 445-449 (2001).
S. Neukirch, G.H.M. van der Heijden, “Geometry and mechanics of uniform $n$-plies: from engineering ropes to biological filaments”, [*Journal of Elasticity*]{} [**69**]{}, 41 (2002).
I.R. Bruss and M.G. Grason, “Non-Euclidean geometry of twisted filament bundle packing.” [*PNAS*]{} [**109**]{}, 10781-10786 (2012).
K. Olsen and J. Bohr, “The geometrical origin of the strain-twist coupling in double helices”, [*AIP Advances*]{} [**1**]{} 012108 (2011).
T. Hwa, E. Marinari, K. Sneppen, and L.H. Tang, “Localization of denaturation bubbles in random DNA sequences”, [*PNAS*]{} [**100**]{}, 4411-4416 (2003).
M. Manghi and N. Destainville, “Physics of base-pairing dynamics in DNA”, [*Physics Reports*]{} [**631**]{}, 1-41 (2016).
A. Barhoumi, D. Zhang, F. Tam, and N.J. Halas, “Surface-enhanced Raman spectroscopy of DNA”, [*J. Am. Chem. Soc.*]{}, [**130**]{}, 5523-5529 (2008).
R. N. Irobalieva, et al., “Structural diversity of supercoiled DNA”, Nature communications [**6**]{}, 8440 (2015).
[^1]: [email protected]
[^2]: [email protected]
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
author:
- Federico Mazzola
- 'Chin-Yi Chen'
- Rajib Rahman
- 'Xie-Gang Zhu'
- 'Craig M. Polley'
- Thiagarajan Balasubramanian
- 'Phil D. C. King'
- Philip Hofmann
- 'Jill A. Miwa'
- 'Justin W. Wells'
title: 'The Sub-band Structure of Atomically Sharp Dopant Profiles in Silicon'
---
**The downscaling of silicon-based structures and proto-devices has now reached the single atom scale, representing an important milestone for the development of a silicon-based quantum computer [@Fuechsle:2012; @Weber:2012; @Zwanenburg:2013; @Watson:2018]. One especially notable platform for atomic scale device fabrication is the so-called Si:P $\delta$-layer, consisting of an ultra dense and sharp layer of dopants within a semiconductor host. Whilst several alternatives exist, phosphorus dopants in silicon have drawn the most interest, and it is on this platform that many quantum proto-devices have been successfully demonstrated [@Fuechsle:2010; @Tettamanzi:2017; @Broome:2018; @Koch:2019]. Motivated by this, both calculations and experiments have been dedicated to understanding the electronic structure of the Si:P $\delta$-layer platform [@Carter:2009; @Lee:2011b; @Carter:2011; @Drumm:2013a; @Miwa:2013; @Miwa:2014a; @Mazzola:2014a; @Mazzola:2014b]. In this work, we use high resolution angle-resolved photoemission spectroscopy (ARPES) to reveal the structure of the electronic states which exist because of the high dopant density of the Si:P $\delta$-layer. In contrast to published theoretical work, we resolve three distinct bands, the most occupied of which shows a large anisotropy and significant deviation from simple parabolic behaviour. We investigate the possible origins of this fine structure, and conclude that it is primarily a consequence of the dielectric constant being large (ca. double that of bulk Si) [@Ristic:2004]. Incorporating this factor into tight binding calculations leads to a major revision of band structure; specifically, the existence of a third band, the separation of the bands, and the departure from purely parabolic behaviour. This new understanding of the bandstructure has important implications for quantum proto-devices which are built on the Si:P $\delta$-layer platform.**
Si:P $\delta$-doping offers potential for the realization of true atomic-scale components for quantum computer applications, whilst retaining compatibility with the simple processing, stability and technological relevance of silicon. Understanding, manipulating and controlling the properties of Si:P $\delta$-layers, has therefore been the centre of an intense research effort, however, a real understanding of the electronic structure has remained elusive. Density functional theory (DFT) calculations and ARPES recently shed new light on these systems, giving the first glimpse of their electronic structure [@Carter:2009; @Drumm:2013a; @Carter:2013; @Miwa:2013]: the metallic nature of Si:P $\delta$-layers was believed to originate from two nearly-parabolic states, called $1\Gamma$ and $2\Gamma$, dispersing across the Fermi level ($E_{F}$) as a consequence of the strong electronic confinement created by the P dopants in the semiconducting Si bulk (see Fig. \[Fig1\](a)). The energy separation of these states, which is called valley-splitting [@Miwa:2014a], together with their many-body interactions [@Mazzola:2014a] is responsible for transport properties in this material system and ultimately the function of Si:P $\delta$-layer based quantum electronic devices.
{width="5in"}
In this work, we show that important details of the electronic bandstructure were previously reported incorrectly. We reveal the presence of additional anisotropic electronic states crossing $E_F$, resolved only for specific directions in the BZ (see Fig. \[Fig1\](b)-(d)). Whilst in the diagonal direction ($k_{xy}$) only two electronic states can be seen, along the axial directions ($k_x$ and $k_y$), a clear $3$-band structure is resolved which has not been predicted. The original $1\Gamma$ appears to actually consist of two sub-bands, indicated by the red and yellow parabolae in Fig. \[Fig1\](d). The presence of three states across $E_F$ cannot be reconciled with published DFT [@Carter:2009; @Carter:2011; @Drumm:2013a]. and tight-binding (TB) calculations [@Lee:2011b]. This discrepancy is also seen in our TB calculations (Fig. \[Fig1\](e) plus details in the Methods section [@suppl]), where only two bands, instead of three, are responsible for the metallic properties of the system. This opens an interesting question about the origin of the sub-band structure resolved by ARPES, as all the states which contribute to this sub-band structure are expected to contribute to the transport properties of Si:P $\delta$-layers.
We examine some ingredients which have previously been ignored, such as spin orbit coupling (SOC), the role of the dielectric constant, $\epsilon$, and an asymmetric doping profile, to explain the origin of this sub-band structure. We show that $\epsilon$ is dramatically increased in the vicinity of the high density dopant layer, and that this causes additional states originally predicted to be well above $E_F$ (as in Fig. \[Fig1\](e)) to become occupied.
{width="4.5in"}
Before further discussing the origin of the fine structure of Si:P $\delta$-layers, we first present a qualitative discussion of the electronic structure and the parameters to which it is sensitive. First of all, the available calculations have predicted two nearly parabolic bands with a valley splitting of $\approx$30 meV [@Carter:2009; @Lee:2011b; @Carter:2011; @Drumm:2013a]. It is worth noting that this value is somewhat controversial, and depends on a number of parameters within the model, such as the order/disorder of the dopants [@Carter:2011]. Our measurements reveal the presence of *three* bands, of which the most occupied bands have a valley splitting which is too small to resolve experimentally (i.e. $<35$ meV). In other words, the observed valley splitting is either small, or zero. Furthermore, in the axial $k_x$ and $k_y$ directions, the dispersion of the most occupied band deviates significantly from parabolic behaviour, whereas in the diagonal direction (labelled $k_{xy}$) the dispersion of these bands is very close to parabolic, and they appear to either be degenerate, or to have a very small separation. The state with its minimum closest to the Fermi level (i.e. the blue parabola in Fig. \[Fig1\](c,d)) is separated from the other bands by $\approx$220 meV, which is very large compared to our TB calculated valley splitting. In other words, it is unclear which of the three bands (if any) correspond to the calculated $1\Gamma$ and $2\Gamma$. It is especially unclear whether the additional band is split off from $1\Gamma$, or whether it actually corresponds to the calculated $2\Gamma$ (thereby implying that the least occupied band actually has another origin). In any case, it is clear that the calculated bandstructure deviates significantly from the experimentally observed bandstructure.
{width="7in"}
In principle, symmetry breaking in one form or another could give rise to additional bands. More specifically, the in-plane dopant order/disorder is not well known in practice, but *is* thought to influence the electronic structure [@Carter:2013]. In any case, whilst the electronic structure is clearly influenced by the symmetry and ordering of the dopants, this is not able to account for the observed bandstructure [@suppl].
This notion that dopant ordering is not a significant factor is supported empirically: We have prepared three different $\delta$-layer samples, in which the dopant ordering is dissimilar, however the electronic structure remains very similar. The spectra in Fig. \[Fig2\](a) correspond to a ‘standard’ single-dose Si:P $\delta$-layer with $<$$1/4$ of a monolayer (ML) of P dopants in an almost atomically sharp plane. Fig. \[Fig2\](b) corresponds to a similarly sharp ‘double dose’ with dopant density $>$$1/4$ ML and increased disorder [@McKibbin:2014]. Fig. \[Fig2\](c) corresponds to a ‘thick’ (1.5 nm) region with a similar (i.e. $\approx$25$\%$) doping concentration (see Supplementary Material for further details [@suppl]).
The measured band structure is very similar for all three preparations: The electronic structures of Fig. \[Fig2\] map onto each other very well, needing only a small shift of the bands, to account for the different degrees of doping. Perhaps the most significant difference is that the least occupied band is shifted above the Fermi level when the doping density is lowest. The similarity of the bandstructure for these three different growth methods indicates that dopant ordering cannot be responsible for the mysterious 3rd band.
Symmetry breaking (specifically, the breaking of in-plane inversion symmetry by the dopants in the $\delta$-layer) together with spin-orbit coupling (SOC) will lift degeneracy and thus give rise to bands which are non-degenerate with respect to their spin [@winklerbook; @Rotenberg:1999]. This could lead to $1\Gamma$ having two branches, with no splitting at $k_{\parallel}=0$, anisotropic splitting at larger $k_{\parallel}$, and a bandstructure which qualitatively matches the ARPES measurements. However, the expected energy splitting due to SOC is about $120\times$ smaller than the observed energy separation of the two most occupied bands [@suppl; @Ferdous:2018; @Ferdous:2018a]. We therefore discount SOC as a possible origin of the observed bandstructure.
The modification of $\epsilon$ in the vicinity of the $\delta$-layer is surprisingly important and can significantly influence the electronic structure. For the moderate doping densities found in semiconducting Si wafers, $\epsilon$ is typically considered to be independent of dopant concentration, but for the extreme doping around the $\delta$-layer, this view is no longer valid [@Ristic:2004].
For degenerately doped semiconductors, as the dopant density is increased, a subsequent increase in the susceptibility of the material, and thus in its dielectric constant, can be expected [@Bethin:1974; @Masumi:1978; @Dhar:1985]. Following the method of Ristić *et al.* [@Ristic:2004], it is possible to estimate $\epsilon$ as a function of dopant density ($N_D$, in units of cm$^{-3}$), for phosphorous dopants in Si: $$\label{Eq_2}
\epsilon(N_D)=\epsilon_{intrinsic}+\frac{1.6\times10^{âˆ-19}N_D}{1+1.2\times10^{âˆ-21}N_D}$$
For the case of Si:P $\delta$-layers, the 2D doping concentration is known to be close to $1/4$ ML. Whilst there is some uncertainty involved in converting the 2D concentration to a 3D concentration, this problem has been addressed previously (see, for example Refs. ). Previous works suggest that in the vicinity of the $\delta$-layer $N_D$ is $2\times10^{20}$ cm$^{-3}$ [@McKibbin:2014; @Suzuki:2007], and our own previous work [@Polley:2013a] suggests that whilst the peak concentration is $\approx 6\times10^{20}$ cm$^{-3}$, we agree that the average concentration within 2-4 nm of the layer is $\approx2\times10^{20}$ cm$^{-3}$. Using Eqn. \[Eq\_2\], we can therefore estimate that for $N_D=2\times10^{20}$ cm$^{-3}$, $\epsilon\approx38$, however at the peak of $N_D\approx6\times10^{20}$ cm$^{-3}$ it is conceivable that near to the dopant plane, $\epsilon$ could be as high as 70. In any case, it is clear that the dielectric constant maybe be several times higher than the value for weakly doped bulk Si.
The dependence of the band structure on $\epsilon$ can be understood in terms of screening: If we consider the $\delta$-layer as a metal sheet sandwiched within a semiconducting host, then the out-of-plane electric field in the vicinity of the dopant plane will depend on $\epsilon$ because a larger dielectric constant is associated with more efficient screening. This means that the quantum well is less confined than previously thought (for example, Ref. ) and as a result, the splitting between some of the bands is reduced. This qualitative understanding is readily confirmed by TB calculations (see Fig. \[Fig3new\]). Interestingly, by increasing $\epsilon$ the $1\Gamma-2\Gamma$ valley-splitting stays roughly constant. However, an additional parabolic band minimum (identified from the calculations as $3\Gamma$) is pulled down towards the Fermi level. For $\epsilon >16$, $3\Gamma$ starts to become occupied, and TB calculation looks more similar to the measured bandstructure. As $\epsilon$ continues to increase, additional parabolic band minima may also be pulled below the Fermi level, and for $\epsilon>40$, a 4th state also becomes partially occupied.
The energy of the $1\Gamma$, $2\Gamma$ and $3\Gamma$ minima are plotted in Fig. \[Fig3new\](a). By comparison with our experimental data, we find best agreement for $\epsilon \approx 20$: i.e. depending on the preparation, we generally observe the minimum of the most occupied state ($1\Gamma$) to be at $E_B\approx220$ meV, and the minimum of the least occupied state (now assigned as $3\Gamma$) to be at $E_B\approx40$ meV. We also find good agreement with the TB electronic dispersions of Fig. \[Fig3new\](b)-(d); The TB calculation indicates that the two most occupied bands (now assigned as $1\Gamma$ and $2\Gamma$) are parabolic, with a small energy separation (30 meV) at $k_\parallel$=0 and in the diagonal $k_{xy}$ direction, but have an increasing non-parabolic behaviour with increasing $k$ in the axial $x$ and $y$ directions.
Based on ARPES measurements and TB calculations, we conclude that the enhancement of $\epsilon$ due to the high dopant density is the origin of the additional electronic structure, however, some discrepancies with previous work remain. In previous studies on similar samples [@Miwa:2014a], the 1$\Gamma$-2$\Gamma$ valley-splitting was reported to be $\approx 130$ meV, whereas in this work, we conclude that the 1$\Gamma$-2$\Gamma$ splitting is $<$30 meV. Due to the lower sample quality and data quality in the earlier work, this was unresolvable and mistaken for a single band, and therefore the previously reported splitting of 130 meV presumably corresponded instead to the 1$\Gamma$ (or 2$\Gamma$) to 3$\Gamma$ splitting. On the other hand, this splitting is still small compared to the TB calculations and ARPES measurements here in which the 2$\Gamma$-3$\Gamma$ splitting is $\approx$200 meV. Whilst it is not possible to give a definitive explanation for this, we propose that it is most likely also a consequence of poorer sample quality; it is known that 1/4 ML dopant activation is only achievable when the Si surface is pristine, and that imperfections act to reduce this number. We therefore consider that the previously reported 130 meV valley splitting presumably corresponds to the (1$\Gamma$ or 2$\Gamma$) to 3$\Gamma$ splitting of a sample with a lower doping concentration that used in the current work.
Finally, we reiterate that a revision of the electronic structure of Si:P is necessary in which three nearly parabolic bands, $1\Gamma$, $2\Gamma$ and $3\Gamma$ all cross $E_F$, contrary to only two bands as previously thought. Jointly, all three of these bands must be responsible for the transport properties of the system [@Polley:2012a; @Polley:2013a] and carrier density. Importantly, the valley-splitting, i.e. separation between $1\Gamma$ and $2\Gamma$ seems to be relatively robust against variations in the sample preparation and can be estimated to be $\le35$ meV. This is an important result which also shows how the properties of a device built upon a Si:P $\delta$-layer platform are not dramatically affected by changes in the growth, but instead are reliable due to the robustness of the valley-splitting. Indeed, since the valley-splitting in devices built from the Si:P $\delta$-layer platform affects the lifetime of carriers [@Hsueh:2014], its correct value and interpretation is important for quantum device performance. Similarly, the presence of a third band crossing $E_F$ will have significant consequences for Si:P $\delta$-layer based quantum devices, and hence it is important that this is taken into consideration when developing device structures.
**Acknowledgements:** This work was partly supported by the Research Council of Norway through its Centres of Excellence funding scheme, project number 262633, ‘QuSpin’, and through the Fripro program, project number 250985 ‘FunTopoMat’ the by the VILLUM FONDEN through the Centre of Excellence for Dirac Materials (Grant No. 11744). J. A. M. acknowledges funding support from the Danish Council for Independent Research, Natural Sciences under the Sapere Aude program (Grant No. DFF-6108-00409) and the Aarhus University Research Foundation. P. D. C. K. acknowledges financial support from The Royal Society.
[31]{}ifxundefined \[1\][ ifx[\#1]{} ]{}ifnum \[1\][ \#1firstoftwo secondoftwo ]{}ifx \[1\][ \#1firstoftwo secondoftwo ]{}““\#1””@noop \[0\][secondoftwo]{}sanitize@url \[0\][‘\
12‘\$12 ‘&12‘\#12‘12‘\_12‘%12]{}@startlink\[1\]@endlink\[0\]@bib@innerbibempty @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/RevModPhys.85.961) [****, ()](http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature25766) @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase
10.1021/acsnano.6b06362) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1038/s41467-018-02982-x) [ (), 10.1038/s41565-018-0338-1](\doibase
10.1038/s41565-018-0338-1) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.80.049901) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevB.84.205309) @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase 10.1186/1556-276X-8-111) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.136801) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1021/nl404738j) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1021/nn5045239) [****, ()](\doibase
http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.4874651) @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.87.045204) @noop [“,” ]{} [****, ()](\doibase 10.1063/1.4869111) @noop [**]{} (, ) @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase
10.1038/s41534-018-0075-1) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.97.241401) [****, ()](\doibase http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0038-1098(74)90657-7) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.17.3996) [****, ()](\doibase https://doi.org/10.1016/0038-1101(85)90061-9) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1021/nn4016407) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1109/TED.2007.901157) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1063/1.4773485) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.246406)
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'The brain interprets ambiguous sensory information faster and more reliably than modern computers, using neurons that are slower and less reliable than logic gates. But Bayesian inference, which underpins many computational models of perception and cognition, appears computationally challenging even given modern transistor speeds and energy budgets. The computational principles and structures needed to narrow this gap are unknown. Here we show how to build fast Bayesian computing machines using intentionally stochastic, digital parts, narrowing this efficiency gap by multiple orders of magnitude. We find that by connecting stochastic digital components according to simple mathematical rules, one can build massively parallel, low precision circuits that solve Bayesian inference problems and are compatible with the Poisson firing statistics of cortical neurons. We evaluate circuits for depth and motion perception, perceptual learning and causal reasoning, each performing inference over 10,000+ latent variables in real time — a 1,000x speed advantage over commodity microprocessors. These results suggest a new role for randomness in the engineering and reverse-engineering of intelligent computation.'
author:
- 'Vikash Mansinghka$^{1,2,3}$ and Eric Jonas$^{1,3}$'
bibliography:
- 'VMEJ-circuits-arxiv.bib'
title: 'Building fast Bayesian computing machines out of intentionally stochastic, digital parts.'
---
The authors contributed equally to this work.
Computer Science & Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, MIT
Department of Brain & Cognitive Sciences, MIT
Our ability to see, think and act all depend on our mind’s ability to process uncertain information and identify probable explanations for inherently ambiguous data. Many computational models of the perception of motion[@weissmotion], motor learning[@kordinbayesian], higher-level cognition[@griffithsoptimal; @blaisdellcausal] and cognitive development[@tenenbaumgrow] are based on Bayesian inference in rich, flexible probabilistic models of the world. Machine intelligence systems, including Watson[@ferruccibuilding], autonomous vehicles[@thrunprobabilisticarticle] and other robots[@thrunprobabilisticbook] and the Kinect[@shottonreal] system for gestural control of video games, also all depend on probabilistic inference to resolve ambiguities in their sensory input. But brains solve these problems with greater speed than modern computers, using information processing units that are orders of magnitude slower and less reliable than the switching elements in the earliest electronic computers. The original UNIVAC I ran at 2.25 MHz[@univac], and RAM from twenty years ago had one bit error per 256 MB per month[@shivakumar2002modeling]. In contrast, the fastest neurons in human brains operate at less than 1 kHz, and synaptic transmission can completely fail up to 50% of the time[@synapticfailure].
This efficiency gap presents a fundamental challenge for computer science. How is it possible to solve problems of probabilistic inference with an efficiency that begins to approach that of the brain? Here we introduce intentionally stochastic but still digital circuit elements, along with composition laws and design rules, that together narrow the efficiency gap by multiple orders of magnitude.
Our approach both builds on and departs from the principles behind digital logic. Like traditional digital gates, stochastic digital gates consume and produce discrete symbols, which can be represented via binary numbers. Also like digital logic gates, our circuit elements can be composed and abstracted via simple mathematical rules, yielding larger computational units that whose behavior can be analyzed in terms of their constituents. We describe primitives and design rules for both stateless and synchronously clocked circuits. But unlike digital gates and circuits, our gates and circuits are intentionally stochastic: each output is a sample from a probability distribution conditioned on the inputs, and (except in degenerate cases) simulating a circuit twice will produce different results. The numerical probability distributions themselves are implicit, though they can be estimated via the circuits’ long-run time-averaged behavior. And also unlike digital gates and circuits, Bayesian reasoning arises naturally via the dynamics of our synchronously clocked circuits, simply by fixing the values of the circuit elements representing the data.
We have built prototype circuits that solve problems of depth and motion perception and perceptual learning, plus a compiler that can automatically generate circuits for solving causal reasoning problems given a description of the underlying causal model. Each of these systems illustrates the use of stochastic digital circuits to accelerate Bayesian inference an important class of probabilistic models, including Markov Random Fields, nonparametric Bayesian mixture models, and Bayesian networks. Our prototypes show that this combination of simple choices at the hardware level — a discrete, digital representation for information, coupled with intentionally stochastic rather than ideally deterministic elements — has far reaching architectural consequences. For example, software implementations of approximate Bayesian reasoning typically rely on high-precision arithmetic and serial computation. We show that our synchronous stochastic circuits can be implemented at very low bit precision, incurring only a negligible decrease in accuracy. This low precision enables us to make fast, small, power-efficient circuits at the core of our designs. We also show that these reductions in computing unit size are sufficient to let us exploit the massive parallelism that has always been inherent in complex probabilistic models at a granularity that has been previously impossible to exploit. The resulting high computation density drives the performance gains we see from stochastic digital circuits, narrowing the efficiency gap with neural computation by multiple orders of magnitude.
Our approach is fundamentally different from existing approaches for reliable computation with unreliable components[@neumanncomputer; @akgulprobabilistic; @gaines1969stochastic], which view randomness as either a source of error whose impact needs to be mitigated or as a mechanism for approximating arithmetic calculations. Our combinational circuits are intentionally stochastic, and we depend on them to produce exact samples from the probability distributions they represent. Our approach is also different from and complementary to classic analog[@mead1990neuromorphic] and modern mixed-signal[@choudhary2012silicon] neuromorphic computing approaches: stochastic digital primitives and architectures could potentially be implemented using neuromorphic techniques, providing a means of applying these designs to problems of Bayesian inference.
In theory, stochastic digital circuits could be used to solve any computable Bayesian inference problem with a computable likelihood[@afrcomputable] by implementing a Markov chain for inference in a Turing-complete probabilistic programming language[@mansinghka2009natively; @Goodman:2008tb]. Stochastic ciruits can thus implement inference and learning techniques for diverse intelligent computing architectures, including both probabilistic models defined over structured, symbolic representations[@tenenbaumgrow] as well as sparse, distributed, connectionist representations[@SalHinton07]. In contrast, hardware accelerators for belief propagation algorithms[@pearlprobabilistic; @linhigh; @vigodacontinuous] can only answer queries about marginal probabilities or most probable configurations, only apply to finite graphical models with discrete or binary nodes, and cannot be used to learn model parameters from data. For example, the formulation of perceptual learning we present here is based on inference in a nonparametric Bayesian model to which belief propagation does not apply. Additionally, because stochastic digital circuits produce samples rather than probabilities, their results capture the complex dependencies between variables in multi-modal probability distributions, and can also be used to solve otherwise intractable problems in decision theory by estimating expected utilities.
Stochastic Digital Gates and Stateless Stochastic Circuits {#stochastic-digital-gates-and-stateless-stochastic-circuits .unnumbered}
==========================================================
[**(Figure 1 about here)**]{} \[fig:combinational\] Digital logic circuits are based on a gate abstraction defined by Boolean functions: deterministic mappings from input bit values to output bit values[@shannonsymbolic]. For elementary gates, such as the AND gate, these are given by truth tables; see Figure 1A. Their power and flexibility comes in part from the composition laws that they support, shown in Figure 1B. The output from one gate can be connected to the input of another, yielding a circuit that samples from the composition of the Boolean functions represented by each gate. The compound circuit can also be treated as a new primitive, abstracting away its internal structure. These simple laws have proved surprisingly powerful: they enable complex circuits to be built up out of reusable pieces.
[*Stochastic digital gates*]{} (see Figure 1C) are similar to Boolean gates, but consume a source of random bits to generate samples from conditional probability distributions. Stochastic gates are specified by conditional probability tables; these give the probability that a given output will result from a given input. Digital logic corresponds to the degenerate case where all the probabilities are 0 or 1; see Figure 1D for the conditional probability table for an AND gate. Many stochastic gates with m input bits and n output bits are possible. Figure 1E shows one central example, the THETA gate, which generates draws from a biased coin whose bias is specified on the input. Supplementary material outlining serial and parallel implementations is available at [@VMEJ-circuits-supplemental]. Crucially, stochastic gates support generalizations of the composition laws from digital logic, shown in Figure 1F. The output of one stochastic gate can be fed as the input to another, yielding samples from the joint probability distribution over the random variables simulated by each gate. The compound circuit can also be treated as a new primitive that generates samples from the marginal distribution of the final output given the first input. As with digital gates, an enormous variety of circuits can be constructed using these simple rules.
Fast Bayesian Inference via Massively Parallel Stochastic Transition Circuits {#fast-bayesian-inference-via-massively-parallel-stochastic-transition-circuits .unnumbered}
=============================================================================
Most digital systems are based on deterministic finite state machines; the template for these machines is shown in Figure 2A. A stateless digital circuit encodes the transition function that calculates the next state from the previous state, and the clocking machinery (not shown) iterates the transition function repeatedly. This abstraction has proved enormously fruitful; the first microprocessors had roughly $2^{20}$ distinct states. In Figure 2B, we show the stochastic analogue of this synchronous state machine: a [*stochastic transition circuit*]{}.
Instead of the combinational logic circuit implementing a deterministic transition function, it contains a combinational stochastic circuit implementing a stochastic transition operator that samples the next state from a probability distribution that depends on the current state. It thus corresponds to a Markov chain in hardware. To be a valid transition circuit, this transition operator must have a unique stationary distribution $P(S|X)$ to which it ergodically converges. A number of recipes for suitable transition operators can be constructed, such as Metropolis sampling [@metropolisequation] and Gibbs sampling[@gemanstochastic]; most of the results we present rely on variations on Gibbs sampling. More details on efficient implementations of stochastic transition circuits for Gibbs sampling and Metropolis-Hastings can be found elsewhere [@VMEJ-circuits-supplemental]. Note that if the input $X$ represents observed data and the state $S$ represents a hypothesis, then the transition circuit implements Bayesian inference.
We can scale up to challenging problems by exploiting the composition laws that stochastic transition circuits support. Consider a probability distribution defined over three variables $P(A,B,C) =
P(A)P(B|A)P(C|A)$. We can construct a transition circuit that samples from the overall state $(A,B,C)$ by composing transition circuits for updating $A|BC$, $B|A$ and $C|A$; this assembly is shown in Figure 2C. As long as the underlying probability model does not have any zero-probability states, ergodic convergence of each constituent transition circuit then implies ergodic convergence of the whole assembly[@andrieuintroduction]. The only requirement for scheduling transitions is that each circuit must be left fixed while circuits for variables that interact with it are transitioning. This scheduling requirement — that a transition circuit’s value be held fixed while others that read from its internal state or serve as inputs to its next transition are updating — is analogous to the so-called “dynamic discipline” that defines valid clock schedules for traditional sequential logic[@ward1990computation]. Deterministic and stochastic schedules, implementing cycle or mixture hybrid kernels[@andrieuintroduction], are both possible. This simple rule also implies a tremendous amount of exploitable parallelism in stochastic transition circuits: if two variables are independently caused given the current setting of all others, they can be updated at the same time.
Assemblies of stochastic transition circuits implement Bayesian reasoning in a straightforward way: by fixing, or “clamping” some of the variables in the assembly. If no variables are fixed, the circuit explores the full joint distribution, as shown in Figure 2E and 2F. If a variable is fixed, the circuit explores the conditional distribution on the remaining variables, as shown in Figure 2G and 2H. Simply by changing which transition circuits are updated, the circuit can be used to answer different probabilistic queries; these can be varied online based on the needs of the application.
[**(Figure 2 about here.)**]{} \[fig:transition\]
The accuracy of ultra-low-precision stochastic transition circuits. {#the-accuracy-of-ultra-low-precision-stochastic-transition-circuits. .unnumbered}
===================================================================
The central operation in many Markov chain techniques for inference is called DISCRETE-SAMPLE, which generates draws from a discrete-output probability distribution whose weights are specified on its input. For example, in Gibbs sampling, this distribution is the conditional probability of one variable given the current value of all other variables that directly depend on it. One implementation of this operation is shown in Figure 3A; each stochastic transition circuit from Figure 2 could be implemented by one such circuit, with multiplexers to select log-probability values based on the neighbors of each random variable. Because only the ratios of the raw probabilities matter, and the probabilities themselves naturally vary on a log scale, extremely low precision representations can still provide accurate results. High entropy (i.e. nearly uniform) distributions are resilient to truncation because their values are nearly equal to begin with, differing only slightly in terms of their low-order bits. Low entropy (i.e. nearly deterministic) distributions are resilient because truncation is unlikely to change which outcomes have nonzero probability. Figure 3B quantifies this low-precision property, showing the relative entropy (a canonical information theoretic measure of the difference between two distributions) between the output distributions of low precision implementations of the circuit from Figure 3A and an accurate floating-point implementation. Discrete distributions on 1000 outcomes were used, spanning the full range of possible entropies, from almost 10 bits (for a uniform distribution on 1000 outcomes) to 0 bits (for a deterministic distribution), with error nearly undetectable until fewer than 8 bits are used. Figure 3C shows example distributions on 10 outcomes, and Figure 3D shows the resulting impact on computing element size. Extensive quantitative assessments of the impact of low bit precision have also been performed, providing additional evidence that only very low precision is required [@VMEJ-circuits-supplemental]. [**(Figure 3 about here.)**]{} \[fig:MULTINOMIAL\]
Efficiency gains on depth and motion perception and perceptual learning problems {#efficiency-gains-on-depth-and-motion-perception-and-perceptual-learning-problems .unnumbered}
================================================================================
Our main results are based on an implementation where each stochastic gate is simulated using digital logic, consuming entropy from an internal pseudorandom number generator[@marsagliaxorshift]. This allows us to measure the performance and fault-tolerance improvements that flow from stochastic architectures, independent of physical implementation. We find that stochastic circuits make it practical to perform stochastic inference over several probabilistic models with 10,000+ latent variables in real time and at low power on a single chip. These designs achieve a 1,000x speed advantage over commodity microprocessors, despite using gates that are 10x slower. In [@VMEJ-circuits-supplemental], we also show architectures that exhibit minimal degradation of accuracy in the presence of fault rates as high as one bit error for every 100 state transitions, in contrast to conventional architectures where failure rates are measured in bit errors (failures) per billion hours of operation[@bertrillions].
Our first application is to depth and motion perception, via Bayesian inference in lattice Markov Random Field models[@gemanstochastic]. The core problem is matching pixels from two images of the same scene, taken at distinct but nearby points in space or in time. The matching is ambiguous on the basis of the images alone, as multiple pixels might share the same value[@marrcooperative]; prior knowledge about the structure of the scene must be applied, which is often cast in terms of Bayesian inference[@szeliskicomparative]. Figure 4A illustrates the template probabilistic model most commonly used. The X variables contain the unknown displacement vectors. Each Y variable contains a vector of pixel similarity measurements, one per possible pair of matched pixels based on X. The pairwise potentials between the X variables encode scene structure assumptions; in typical problems, unknown values are assumed to vary smoothly across the scene, with a small number of discontinuities at the boundaries of objects. Figure 4B shows the conditional independence structure in this problem: every other X variable is independent from one another, allowing the entire Markov chain over the X variables to be updated in a two-phase clock, independent of lattice size. Figure 4C shows the dataflow for the software-reprogrammable probabilistic video processor we developed to solve this family of problems; this processor takes a problem specification based on pairwise potentials and Y values, and produces a stream of posterior samples. When comparing the hardware to hand-optimized C versions on a commodity workstation, we see a 500x performance improvement.
[**(Figure 4 about here.)**]{} \[fig:VISION\] We have also built stochastic architectures for solving perceptual learning problems, based on fully Bayesian inference in Dirichlet process mixture models[@fergusonbayesian; @rasmusseninfinite]. Dirichlet process mixtures allow the number of clusters in a perceptual dataset to be automatically discovered during inference, without assuming an a priori limit on the models’ complexity, and form the basis of many models of human categorization[@andersonrational; @griffithscategorization]. We tested our prototype on the problem of discovering and classifying handwritten digits from binary input images. Our circuit for solving this problem operates on an online data stream, and efficiently tracks the number of perceptual clusters this input; see [@VMEJ-circuits-supplemental] for architectural and implementation details and additional characterizations of performance. As with our depth and motion perception architecture, we observe over $\sim$2,000x speedups as compared to a highly optimized software implementation. Of the $\sim$2000x difference in speed, roughly $\sim$256x is directly due to parallelism — all of the pixels are independent dimensions, and can therefore be updated simultaneously.
[**(Figure 5 about here.)**]{} \[fig:learning\]
Automatically generated causal reasoning circuits and spiking implementations {#automatically-generated-causal-reasoning-circuits-and-spiking-implementations .unnumbered}
=============================================================================
Digital logic gates and their associated design rules are so simple that circuits for many problems can be generated automatically. Digital logic also provides a common target for device engineers, and have been implemented using many different physical mechanisms – classically with vaccum tubes, then with MOSFETS in silicon, and even on spintronic devices[@spintronicnand]. Here we provide two illustrations of the analogous simplicity and generality of stochastic digital circuits, both relevant for the reverse-engineering of intelligent computation in the brain.
We have built a compiler that can automatically generate circuits for solving arbitrary causal reasoning problems in Bayesian network models. Bayesian network formulations of causal reasoning have played central roles in machine intelligence[@pearlprobabilistic] and computational models of cognition in both humans and rodents[@blaisdellcausal]. Figure \[fig:COMPILER\]A shows a Bayesian network for diagnosing the behavior of an intensive care unit monitoring system. Bayesian inference within this network can be used to infer probable states of the ICU given ambiguous patterns of evidence — that is, reason from observed effects back to their probable causes. Figure \[fig:COMPILER\]B shows a factor graph representation of this model[@kschischangfactor]; this more general data structure is used as the input to our compiler. Figure \[fig:COMPILER\]C shows inference results from three representative queries, each corresponding to a different pattern of observed data.
We have also explored implementations of stochastic transition circuits in terms of spiking elements governed by Poisson firing statistics. Figure \[fig:COMPILER\]D shows a spiking network that implements the Markov chain from Figure \[fig:transition\]. The stochastic transition circuit corresopnding to a latent variable $X$ is implemented via a bank of Poisson-spiking elements $\{X_i\}$ with one unit $X_i$ per possible value of the variable. The rate for each spiking element $X_i$ is determined by the unnormalized conditional log probability of the variable setting it corresponds to, following the discrete-sample gate from Figure \[fig:MULTINOMIAL\] the time to first spike $\mathrm{t}(X_i) \sim Exp(e_i)$, with $e_i$ obtained by summing energy contributions from all connected variables. The output value of $X$ is determined by $\mathrm{argmin}_i \{\mathrm{t}(X_i)\}$, i.e. the element that spiked first, implemented by fast lateral inhibition between the $X_i$s. It is easy to show that this implements exponentiation and normalization of the energies, leading to a correct implementation of a stochastic transition circuit for Gibbs sampling; see [@VMEJ-circuits-supplemental] for more information. Elements are clocked quasi-synchronously, reflecting the conditional independence structure and parallel update scheme from Figure \[fig:transition\]D, and yields samples from the correct equilibrium distribution.
This spiking implementation helps to narrow the gap with recent theories in computational neuroscience. For example, there have been recent proposals that neural spikes correspond to samples[@fiser2010statistically], and that some spontaneous spiking activity corresponds to sampling from the brain’s unclamped prior distribution[@berkes2011spontaneous]. Combining these local elements using our composition and abstraction laws into massively parallel, low-precision, intentionally stochastic circuits may help to bridge the gap between probabilistic theories of neural computation and the computational demands of complex probabilistic models and approximate inference[@probbrains]. [**(Figure 6 about here.)**]{} \[fig:COMPILER\]
Discussion {#discussion .unnumbered}
==========
To further narrow the efficiency gap with the brain, and scale to more challenging Bayesian inference problems, we need to improve the convergence rate of our architectures. One approach would be to initialize the state in a transition circuit via a separate, feed-forward, combinational circuit that approximates the equilibrium distribution of the Markov chain. Machine perception software that uses machine learning to construct fast, compact initializers is already in use[@shottonreal]. Analyzing the number of transitions needed to close the gap between a good initialization and the target distribution may be harder[@diaconismarkov]. However, some feedforward Monte Carlo inference strategies for Bayesian networks provably yield precise estimates of probabilities in polynomial time if the underlying probability model is sufficiently stochastic[@dagum1997optimal]; it remains to be seen if similar conditions apply to stateful stochastic transition circuits.
It may also be fruitful to search for novel electronic devices — or previously unusable dynamical regimes of existing devices — that are as well matched to the needs of intentionally stochastic circuits as transistors are to logical inverters, potentially even via a spiking implementation. Physical phenomena that proved too unreliable for implementing Boolean logic gates may be viable building blocks for machines that perform Bayesian inference.
Computer engineering has thus far focused on deterministic mechanisms of remarkable scale and complexity: billlions of parts that are expected to make trillions of state transitions with perfect repeatability[@intelInstructionErrors]. But we are now engineering computing systems to exhibit more intelligence than they once did, and identify probable explanations for noisy, ambiguous data, drawn from large spaces of possibilities, rather than calculate the definite consequences of perfectly known assumptions with high precision. The apparent intractability of probabilistic inference has complicated these efforts, and challenged the viability of Bayesian reasoning as a foundation for engineering intelligent computation and for reverse-engineering the mind and brain.
At the same time, maintaining the illusion of rock-solid determinism has become increasingly costly. Engineers now attempt to build digital logic circuits in the deep sub-micron regime[@shepardnoise] and even inside cells[@elowitzsynthetic]; in both these settings, the underlying physics has stochasticity that is difficult to suppress. Energy budgets have grown increasingly restricted, from the scale of the datacenter[@barroso2007case] to the mobile device[@flinn1999energy], yet we spend substantial energy to operate transistors in deterministic regimes. And efforts to understand the dynamics of biological computation — from biological neural networks to gene expression networks[@mcadams1997stochastic] — have all encountered stochastic behavior that is hard to explain in deterministic, digital terms. Our intentionally stochastic digital circuit elements and stochastic computing architectures suggest a new direction for reconciling these trends, and enables the design of a new class of fast, Bayesian digital computing machines.
The authors would like to acknowledge Tomaso Poggio, Thomas Knight, Gerald Sussman, Rakesh Kumar and Joshua Tenenbaum for numerous helpful discussions and comments on early drafts, and Tejas Kulkarni for contributions to the spiking implementation.
[**Figure 1.**]{} [(A) Boolean gates, such as the AND gate, are mathematically specified by truth tables: deterministic mappings from binary inputs to binary outputs. (B) Compound Boolean circuits can be synthesized out of sub-circuits that each calculate different sub-functions, and treated as a single gate that implements the composite function, without reference to its internal details. (C) Each stochastic gate samples from a discrete probability distribution conditioned on an input; for clarity, we show an external source of random bits driving the stochastic behavior. (D) Composing gates that sample B given A and C given B yields a network that samples from the joint distribution over B and C given A; abstraction yields a gate that samples from the marginal distribution C|A. When only one sample path has nonzero probability, this recovers the composition of Boolean functions. (E) The THETA gate is a stochastic gate that generates samples from a Bernoulli distribution whose parameter theta is specified via the $m$ input bits. Like all stochastic digital gates, it can be specified by a conditional probability table, analogously to how Boolean gates can be specified via a truth table. (F) When each new output sample is triggered (e.g. because its internal randomness source updates), a different output sample is generated; time-averaging the output makes it possible to estimate the entries in the probability table, which are otherwise implicit. (G) The THETA gate can be implemented by comparing the output of a source of (pseudo)random bits to the input coin weight. (H) Deterministic gates, such as the AND gate shown here, can be viewed as degenerate stochastic gates specified by conditional probability tables whose entries are either 0 or 1. This permits fluid interoperation of deterministic and stochastic gates in compound circuits. (I) A parallel circuit implementing a Binomial random variable can be implemented by combining THETA gates and adders using the composition laws from (D).]{}
{width="\textwidth"}
[**Figure 2.**]{} [Stochastic transition circuits and massively parallel Bayesian inference. (A) A deterministic finite state machine consists of a register and a transition function implemented via combinational logic. (B) A stochastic transition circuit consists of a register and a stochastic transition operator implemented by a combinational stochastic circuit. Each stochastic transition circuit is $T_{S|X}$ is parameterized by some input $X$, and its internal combinational stochastic block $P(S_{t+1}|S_t,X)$ must ergodically converge to a unique stationary distribution $P(S|X)$ for all $X$. (C) Stochastic transition circuits can be composed to construct samplers for probabilistic models over multiple variables by wiring together stochastic transition circuits for each variable based on their interactions. This circuit samples from a distribution $P(A,B,C) = P(A)P(B|A)P(C|A)$. (D) Each network of stochastic transition circuits can be scheduled in many ways; here we show one serial schedule and one parallel schedule for the transition circuit from (C). Convergence depends only on respecting the invariant that no stochastic transition circuit transitions while other circuits that interact with it are transitioning. (E) The Markov chain implemented by this transition circuit. (F) Typical stochastic evolutions of the state in this circuit. (G) Inference can be implemented by clamping state variables to specific values; this yields a restricted Markov chain that converges to the conditional distribution over the unclamped variables given the clamped ones. Here we show the chain obtained by fixing $C=1$. (H) Typical stochastic evolutions of the state in this clamped transition circuit. Changing which variables are fixed allows the inference problem to be changed dynamically as the circuit is running.]{}
{height="\textheight"}
[ (A) The discrete-sample gate is a central building block for stochastic transition circuits, used to implement Gibbs transition operators that update a variable by sampling from its conditional distribution given the variables it interacts with. The gate renormalizes the input log probabilities it is given, converts them to probabilities (by exponentiation), and then samples from the resulting distribution. Input energies are specified via a custom fixed-point coding scheme. (B) Discrete-sample gates remain accurate even when implemented at extremely low bit-precision. Here we show the relative entropy between true distributions and their low-precision implementations, for millions of distributions over discrete sets with 1000 elements; accuracy loss is negligible even when only 8 bits of precision are used. (C) The accuracy of low-precision discrete-sample gates can be understood by considering multinomial distributions with high, medium and low entropy. High entropy distributions involve outcomes with very similar probability, insensitive to ratios, while low entropy distributions are dominated by the location of the most probable outcome. (D) Low-precision transition circuits save area as compared to high-precision floating point alternatives; these area savings make it possible to economically exploit massive parallelism, by fitting many sampling units on a single chip.]{}
{width="\textwidth"}
[ (A) A Markov Random Field for solving depth and motion perception, as well as other dense matching problems. Each $X_{i,j}$ node stores the hidden quantity to be estimated, e.g. the disparity of a pixel. Each $f_{LP}$ ensures adjacent $X$s are either similar or very different, i.e. that depth and motion fields vary smoothly on objects but can contain discontinuities at object boundaries. Each $Y_{i,j}$ node stores a per-latent-pixel vector of similarity information for a range of candidate matches, linked to the $X$s by the $f_E$ potentials. (B) The conditional independencies in this model permit many different parallelization strategies, from fully space-parallel implementations to virtualized implementations where blocks of pixels are updated in parallel. (C) Depth perception results. The left input image, plus the depth maps obtained by software (middle) and hardware (right) engines for solving the Markov Random Field. (D) Motion perception results. One input frame, plus the motion flow vector fields for software (middle) and hardware (right) solutions. (E) Energy versus time for software and hardware solutions to depth perception, including both 8-bit and 12-bit hardware. Note that the hardware is roughly 500x faster than the software on this frame. (F) Energy versus time for software and hardware solutions to motion perception.]{}
{width="\textwidth"}
[**Figure 5.**]{} [(A) Example samples from the posterior distribution of cluster assignments for a nonparametric mixture model. The two samples show posterior variance, reflecting the uncertainty between three and four source clusters. (B) Typical handwritten digit images from the MNIST corpus[@lecun1998mnist], showing a high degree of variation across digits of the same type. (C) The digit clusters discovered automatically by a stochastic digital circuit for inference in Dirichlet process mixture models. Each image represents a cluster; each pixel represents the probability that the corresponding image pixel is black. Clusters are sorted according to the most probable true digit label of the images in the cluster. Note that these cluster labels were not provided to the circuit. Both the clusters and the number of clusters were discovered automatically by the circuit over the course of inference. (D) The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves that result from classifying digits using the learned clusters; quantitative results are competitive with state-of-the-art classifiers. (E) The time required for one cycle through the outermost transition circuit in hardware, versus the corresponding time for one sweep of a highly optimized software implementation of the same sampler, which is $\sim$2000x slower.]{}
{width="\textwidth"}
[**Figure 6.**]{} [(A) A Bayesian network model for ICU alarm monitoring, showing measurable variables, hidden variables, and diagnostic variables of interest. (B) A factor graph representation of this Bayesian network, rendered by the input stage for our stochastic transition circuit synthesis software. (C) A representation of the factor graph showing evidence variables as well as a parallel schedule for the transition circuits automatically extracted by our compiler: all nodes of the same color can be transitioned simultaneously. (D) Three diagnosis results from Bayesian inference in the alarm network, showing high accuracy diagnoses (with some posterior uncertainty) from an automatically generated circuit. E) The schematic of a spiking neural implementation of a stochastic transition circuit assembly for sampling from the three-variable probabilistic model from Figure 2. (F) The spike raster (black) and state sequence (blue) that result from simulating the circuit. (G) The spiking simulation yields state distributions that agree with exact simulation of the underlying Markov chain.]{}
{width="\textwidth"}
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
epsf.sty
[SLAC–PUB–7766\
April 1998\
]{}
[**PRODUCTION OF $\pi^+$, $K^+$, $K^0$, $K^{*0}$, $\phi$, p and $\Lambda^0$ IN HADRONIC $Z^0$ DECAYS[^1]**]{}
[**The SLD Collaboration$^{**}$**]{}\
Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94309
[ **Abstract** ]{}
We have measured the differential production cross sections as a function of scaled momentum $x_p=2p/E_{cm}$ of the identified hadron species $\pi^+$, $K^+$, $K^0$, $K^{*0}$, $\phi$, p, $\Lambda^0$, and of the corresponding antihadron species in inclusive hadronic $Z^0$ decays, as well as separately for $Z^0$ decays into light ($u$, $d$, $s$), $c$ and $b$ flavors. Clear flavor dependences are observed, consistent with expectations based upon previously measured production and decay properties of heavy hadrons. These results were used to test the QCD predictions of Gribov and Lipatov, the predictions of QCD in the Modified Leading Logarithm Approximation with the ansatz of Local Parton-Hadron Duality, and the predictions of three fragmentation models. Ratios of production of different hadron species were also measured as a function of $x_p$ and were used to study the suppression of strange meson, strange and non-strange baryon, and vector meson production in the jet fragmentation process. The light-flavor results provide improved tests of the above predictions, as they remove the contribution of heavy hadron production and decay from that of the rest of the fragmentation process. In addition we have compared hadron and antihadron production as a function of $x_p$ in light quark (as opposed to antiquark) jets. Differences are observed at high $x_p$, providing direct evidence that higher-momentum hadrons are more likely to contain a primary quark or antiquark. The differences for pseudoscalar and vector kaons provide new measurements of strangeness suppression for high-$x_p$ fragmentation products.
Submitted to [*Phys. Rev. D*]{}\
Introduction
============
The production of jets of hadrons from hard partons produced in high energy collisions is believed to proceed in three stages. Considering the process $e^+e^- \rightarrow q\bar{q}$, the first stage involves the radiation of gluons from the primary quark and antiquark, which in turn may radiate gluons or split into $q\bar{q}$ pairs until their virtuality approaches the hadron mass scale. This process is in principle calculable in perturbative QCD, and three approaches have been taken so far: i) differential cross sections have been calculated [@ert] for the production of up to 4 partons to second order in the strong coupling $\alpha_s$, and leading order calculations have been performed recently for as many as 6 partons (see e.g. [@moretti]); ii) certain parton distributions have been calculated to all orders in $\alpha_s$ in the Modified Leading Logarithm Approximation (MLLA) [@mlla]; iii) “parton shower" calculations [@nlla] have been implemented numerically; these consist of an arbitrary number of $q\!\rightarrow \! qg$, $g\! \rightarrow \! gg$ and $g\! \rightarrow \! q\bar{q}$ branchings, with each branching probability determined from QCD in the Leading Logarithm Approximation.
In the second stage these partons transform into “primary" hadrons. This “fragmentation" process is not understood quantitatively and there are few theoretical predictions that do not explicitly involve heavy ($c$ or $b$) quarks. Using perturbative QCD, Gribov and Lipatov have studied [@glip] the fragmentation of quarks produced in $e^+e^-$ collisions in the limit of high hadron momentum fraction $x_p=p_{hadron}/E_{beam}$, and have related it to the proton structure function at high $x=E_{quark}/E_{proton}$. They predict that as $x_p \rightarrow 1$ the distribution of $x_p$ for baryons is proportional to $(1-x_p)^3$, and that for mesons is proportional to $(1-x_p)^2$. Another approach is to make the ansatz of local parton-hadron duality (LPHD) [@mlla], that inclusive distributions of primary hadrons are the same, up to a normalization factor, as those for partons. Calculations using MLLA QCD, cut off at a virtual parton mass comparable with the mass of the hadron in question, have been used in combination with LPHD to predict that the shape of the distribution of $\xi=\ln (1/x_p)$ for a given primary hadron species is approximately Gaussian within about one unit of the peak, that the shape can be approximated over a wider $\xi$ range by a Gaussian with the addition of small distortion terms, and that the peak position depends inversely on the hadron mass and logarithmically on the center-of-mass (c.m.) energy. It is desirable to test the existing calculations experimentally and to encourage deeper theoretical understanding of the fragmentation process.
In the third stage unstable primary hadrons decay into the stable particles that traverse particle detectors. This stage is understood inasmuch as proper lifetimes and decay branching ratios have been measured for many hadron species. However, these decays complicate fundamental fragmentation measurements because a sizable fraction of the stable particles are decay products rather than primary hadrons, and it is typically not possible to determine the origin of each detected hadron. Previous measurements at $e^+e^-$ colliders (see e.g. [@saxon; @bohrer]) indicate that decays of vector mesons, strange baryons and decuplet baryons produce roughly two-thirds of the stable particles; scalar mesons, tensor mesons and radially excited baryons have also been observed [@bohrer], and there are large uncertainties on their contributions. Ideally one would measure every possible hadron species and distinguish primary hadrons from decay products on a statistical basis. A body of knowledge could be assembled by reconstructing heavier and heavier states, and subtracting their known decay products from the measured [differential cross section]{}s of lighter hadrons.
Additional complications arise in jets initiated by heavy quarks, since the leading heavy hadrons carry a large fraction of the beam energy, restricting that available to other primary hadrons, and their decays produce a sizable fraction of the stable particles in the jet. Although decays of some $B$ and $D$ hadrons have been studied inclusively, there are large uncertainties in heavy hadron production, $B^0_s$ and heavy baryon decay, and the suppression of gluon radiation from heavy quarks. The removal of heavy flavor events will therefore simplify the study of the fragmentation of light quarks into hadrons.
A particularly interesting aspect of fragmentation is the question of what happens to the quark or antiquark that initiated the jet. A common prejudice is that the initial quark is “contained" as a valence constituent of a particular hadron, and that this “leading" hadron has on average a higher momentum than the other hadrons in the jet. The highly polarized electron beam delivered by the SLAC Linear Collider (SLC) gives a unique, high purity, unbiased tag of quark vs. antiquark jets, via the large electroweak forward-backward quark production asymmetry at the $Z^0$ resonance. We have previously observed [@lpprl] evidence for the production of leading baryons, $K^\pm$ and [$K^{*0}/\bar{K}^{*0}$]{} in light-flavor jets. The quantification of leading particle effects could lead to methods for identifying jets of specific light flavors, which could have a number of applications in $ep$ and hadron-hadron collisions as well as in $e^+e^-$ annihilations.
There are several phenomenological models of jet fragmentation, which combine modelling of all three stages of particle production; it is important to test their predictions. To simulate the parton production stage, the HERWIG [@herwig], JETSET [@jetset74] and UCLA [@ucla] event generators use a combination of first order matrix elements and a parton shower. To simulate the fragmentation stage, the HERWIG model splits the gluons produced in the first stage into $q\bar{q}$ pairs, and these quarks and antiquarks are paired up locally to form colorless clusters that decay into the primary hadrons. The JETSET model takes a different approach, representing the color field between the partons by a semi-classical string, which is broken, according to an iterative algorithm, into several pieces that correspond to primary hadrons. In the UCLA model, whole events are generated according to weights derived from the phase space available to their final states and the relevant Clebsch-Gordan coefficients. Each of these models contains arbitrary parameters that control various aspects of fragmentation and have been tuned to reproduce data from $e^+e^-$ annihilations. The JETSET model includes a large number of parameters that control, on average, the species of primary hadron produced at each string break, giving it the potential to model the observed properties of identified hadron species in great detail. In the HERWIG model, clusters are decayed into pairs of primary hadrons according to phase space, and the relative production of different hadrons is effectively governed by two parameters controlling the distribution of cluster masses. In the UCLA model, there is only one such free parameter, which controls the degree of locality of baryon-antibaryon pair formation.
In this paper we present an analysis of $\pi^{\pm}$, $K^{\pm}$, $K^0/\bar{K}^0$, $K^{*0}/\bar{K}^{*0}$, $\phi$, p/$\bar{\rm p}$, and $\Lambda^0/\bar{\Lambda}^0$ production in hadronic $Z^0$ decays collected by the SLC Large Detector (SLD). The analysis is based upon the approximately 150,000 hadronic events obtained in runs of the SLC between 1993 and 1995. We measure differential production cross sections for these seven hadron species in an inclusive sample of hadronic $Z^0$ decays and use the results to test the QCD predictions of Gribov and Lipatov, the predictions of MLLA QCD$+$LPHD, and the predictions of the three fragmentation models just described, as well as to study the suppression of strange hadrons, baryons, and vector mesons in the fragmentation process. We also measure these [differential cross section]{}s separately in $Z^0$ decays into light flavors ($u\bar{u}$, $d\bar{d}$ and $s\bar{s}$), $c\bar{c}$ and $b\bar{b}$, which provide improved tests of the QCD predictions, new tests of the fragmentation models that separate the heavy hadron production and decay modelling from that of the rest of the fragmentation process, and cleaner measurements of strangeness, baryon and vector-meson suppression. In addition we update our measurements of hadron and antihadron [differential cross section]{}s in light quark jets, and use the results to make additional new tests of the fragmentation models and to make two new measurements of strangeness suppression at high $x_p$.
In section 2 we describe the SLD, including a detailed description of the Cherenkov Ring Imaging Detector, which is used to identify charged hadrons. In section 3 we describe the selection of hadronic events of different primary flavor, using impact parameters of charged tracks measured in the Vertex Detector, and the selection of light quark and antiquark hemispheres, using the large production asymmetry in polar angle induced by the polarization of the SLC electron beam. In section 4 we describe the hadron identification analyses and present results for flavor-inclusive events. In section 5 we present results separately for light- ([$Z^0 \rightarrow u\bar{u},d\bar{d},s\bar{s}$]{}), $c$- ([$Z^0 \rightarrow c\bar{c}$]{}) and $b$-flavor ([$Z^0 \rightarrow b\bar{b}$]{}) events. In section 6 we use the flavor-inclusive and light-flavor results to test the QCD predictions of Gribov and Lipatov, and of MLLA QCD$+$LPHD. In section 7 we extract total production cross sections of each hadron species per hadronic event. In section 8 we update our measurements of leading particle production in light-flavor jets. In section 9 we present ratios of production of pairs of hadrons, and discuss the suppression of strange hadrons, baryons, and vector mesons in the fragmentation process.
The SLD
=======
This analysis of data from the SLD [@sld] used charged tracks measured in the Central Drift Chamber (CDC) [@cdc] and silicon Vertex Detector (VXD) [@vxd], and identified in the Cherenkov Ring Imaging Detector (CRID) [@crid]. The CDC consists of 80 layers of sense wires arranged in 10 axial or stereo superlayers between 24 and 96 cm from the beam axis. The outermost layer covers the solid angle range $|\cos\theta | < 0.68$. The average spatial resolution for hits attached to charged tracks is 92 $\mu$m. Momentum measurement is provided by a uniform axial magnetic field of 0.6 T. The VXD and CRID are described in the following subsections.
Energy deposits reconstructed in the Liquid Argon Calorimeter (LAC) [@lac] were used in the initial hadronic event selection and in the calculation of the event thrust [@thrust] axis. The LAC is a lead-liquid argon sampling calorimeter covering the solid angle range $|\cos\theta | < 0.98$, which is segmented into 33$\times$36 mrad projective towers, each comprising two electromagnetic sections and two hadronic sections, for a total thickness of 2.8 interaction lengths. The energy resolution is measured to be $\sigma = 15\% \sqrt{E}$ for electromagnetic showers and $60\% \sqrt{E}$ for hadronic showers, where $E$ is the energy in GeV.
The SLD Vertex Detector
-----------------------
Flavor tagging of events for this analysis was accomplished with the original SLD Vertex Detector [@vxd], which was composed of 480 charge-coupled devices containing a total of 120 million 22$\times$22 $\mu$m$^2$ pixels, arranged in four concentric layers of radius between 2.9 and 4.2 cm. The outermost layer covered the solid angle range $|\cos\theta | < 0.75$, and the azimuthal arrangement was such that a track would always encounter one of the two innermost layers and one of the two outermost layers; the average number of reconstructed hits per track was 2.3. The 3-D spatial resolution for these hits was measured to be 5.5 $\mu$m.
Here we used only the information in the plane transverse to the beam axis. The impact parameter resolution in this plane was measured [@homer] from the distribution of miss distances between the two tracks in $Z^0 \rightarrow \mu^+ \mu^-$ events to be 11 $\mu$m for 45.6 GeV/c muons reconstructed including at least one hit in the VXD. The transverse position of the primary interaction point (IP) was measured using tracks in sets of $\sim$30 sequential hadronic $Z^0$ decays, with a resolution measured from the distribution of impact parameters in the statistically independent $\mu$-pair event sample (see fig. \[vxdfig\]) of $7\pm 2 \, \mu$m. The impact parameter resolution for lower momentum tracks was determined using tracks in hadronic $Z^0$ decays, corrected for the contributions from decays of heavy hadrons. Including the uncertainty on the IP, a resolution of 11$\oplus$70/$(p_{\perp} \sin^{3/2}\theta)$ $\mu$m was obtained, where $p_{\perp}$ is the track momentum transverse to the beam axis in GeV/c and $\theta$ is the polar angle of the track with respect to the beam axis.
=4.0in
The SLD Cherenkov Ring Imaging Detector
---------------------------------------
Identification of charged tracks is accomplished with the barrel CRID [@crid], which covers the solid angle range $|\cos\theta|<0.68$. Through the combined use of liquid C$_6$F$_{14}$ and gaseous C$_5$F$_{12}+$N$_2$ radiators, the barrel CRID is designed to perform efficient separation of charged pions, kaons and protons over most of the momentum range in $e^+e^-$ annihilations at the $Z^0$, $0.3<p<46$ GeV/c. A charged particle that passes through a radiator of refractive index $n$ with velocity $\beta$ above Cherenkov threshold, $\beta > \beta_0 = 1/n$, emits photons at an angle $\theta_c = \cos^{-1} (1/\beta n)$ with respect to its flight direction. In the SLD, a charged particle exiting the CDC encounters a 1 cm thick liquid radiator, contained in one of 40 radiator trays. If the momentum of the particle is above its liquid Cherenkov threshold, UV photons are emitted in a cone about the particle flight direction. This 1-cm thick cone expands over a standoff distance of $\sim$12 cm and each photon can enter one of 40 time projection chambers (TPCs) through an inner quartz window.
The TPCs contain a photosensitive gas, ethane with $\sim$0.1% TMAE [@crid]. The resulting single photoelectrons drift along the beam direction to a wire chamber where the conversion point of each Cherenkov photon is measured in three dimensions using drift time, wire address and charge division. These positions are used to reconstruct a Cherenkov angle with respect to the extrapolated charged track. Liquid rings span 2–3 TPCs in azimuth and can be split between TPCs in the forward and backward hemispheres.
The particle may then continue through a TPC, where it ionizes the drift gas, saturating the readout electronics, which were designed for single-electron detection, on 2–7 anode wires and effectively deadening $\sim$5 cm$^2$ of detection area. Following the TPC, the particle passes through $\sim$40 cm of the gas radiator volume. Radiated Cherenkov photons are focussed by one of 400 spherical mirrors onto the outer quartz window of a TPC. Gas rings are typically 2.5 cm in radius at the TPC surface, and the mirrors are positioned such that no ring is focussed near an edge of a TPC or near the region saturated by its own track. The mirror arrangement and the large size of the liquid rings make the identification performance largely independent of the proximity of the track to any jet axis.
The average liquid (gas) Cherenkov angle resolution was measured from the data to be 16 (4.5) mrad, including the effects of residual misalignments of the TPCs, radiator trays and mirrors, and track extrapolation resolution. The local or intrinsic resolution was measured to be 13 (3.8) mrad, consistent with the design value. The average number of detected photons per full ring for tracks with $\beta=1$ was measured in $\mu$-pair events to be 16.1 (10.0). For hadronic events, a set of cuts was applied to reduce backgrounds from spurious hits and cross-talk from saturating hits, resulting in an average of 12.8 (9.2) accepted hits per ring. The average reconstructed Cherenkov angle for $\beta=1$ tracks was 675 (58.6) mrad, corresponding to an index of refraction of 1.281 (1.00172), and Cherenkov thresholds of 0.17 (2.4) GeV/c for charged pions, 0.62 (8.4) GeV/c for kaons and 1.17 (16.0) GeV/c for protons. This index was found to be independent of position within the CRID and the liquid index was found to be constant in time. Time variations in the gas index of up to $\pm0.00007$ were tracked with an online monitor and verified in the data.
Tracks were identified using a likelihood technique [@davea]. For each of the five stable charged particle hypotheses $i=e,\mu,\pi,K$, p, a likelihood $L_i$ was calculated based upon the number of detected photoelectrons and their measured angles, the expected number of photons, the expected Cherenkov angle, and a background term. The background included the effects of overlapping Cherenkov radiation from other tracks in the event as well as a constant term normalized to the number of hits in the TPC in question that were not associated with any track. Particle separation was based upon differences between logarithms of these likelihoods, ${\cal L}_i = \ln L_i$.
The particle identification performance of the CRID depends on the track selection and likelihood difference requirements for a given analysis. Here we discuss the example of the hadron fractions analysis described in section 4.1, where we consider only the three charged hadron hypotheses $i=\pi$,$K$,p. For tracks with $p<2.5$ ($p>2.5$) GeV/c, a particle was identified as species $j$ if ${\cal L}_j$ exceeded both of the other log-likelihoods by at least 5 (3) units. We quantify the performance in terms of a momentum-dependent identification efficiency matrix [**E**]{}, each element $E_{ij}$ of which represents the probability that a selected track from a true $i$-hadron is identified as a $j$-hadron, with $i,j=\pi$,$K$,p. The elements of this matrix were determined where possible from the data [@tomp]. For example, tracks from selected $K_s^0$ and $\tau$ decays were used as “pion" test samples, having estimated kaon plus proton contents of 0.3% and 1.7% respectively. Figure \[effmlk\] shows the probability for these tracks to be identified as pions, kaons and protons as a function of momentum. Also shown are results of the same analysis of corresponding samples from a detailed Monte Carlo (MC) simulation of the detector. The MC describes the momentum dependence well and reproduces the efficiencies to within $\pm$0.03. Functional forms were fitted to the data, chosen to describe the momentum dependence of both data and simulated test samples, as well as that of simulated true pions in hadronic events. The simulation was used to correct the fitted parameters for non-pion content in the $K_s^0$ and $\tau$ samples and differences in tracking performance between tracks in these samples and those from the IP in hadronic events. The resulting identification efficiency functions, $E_{\pi \pi}$, $E_{\pi K}$ and $E_{\pi {\rm p}}$, are shown in the leftmost column of fig. \[effpar\].
A similar procedure using only $\pi$ and p likelihoods was used to measure the $\pi$-p separation in the liquid (gas) system for $p>2$ (17) GeV/c, and the simulation was used to convert that into $E_{\rm pp}$, shown in the bottom right of fig. \[effpar\]. $E_{\rm pp}$ over the remaining momentum range, as well as the $\pi$-$K$ separation in the gas system below and near kaon threshold ($p<10$ GeV/c), was measured using protons from decays of tagged lambda hyperons [@tomp]. The remaining efficiencies in fig. \[effpar\] were derived from those measured, using the simulation. For example, $E_{KK}$ is equal to $E_{\pi \pi}$ for momenta in the ranges $1.5<p<2.5$ and $15<p<25$ GeV/c, since both species are well above the relevant Cherenkov threshold and their expected Cherenkov angles differ from that of the proton by an amount large compared with the angular resolution. Outside these ranges, $E_{KK}$ was related to $E_{\pi \pi}$ by a function derived from the simulation to account for the effects of the reduced photon yield near the kaon Cherenkov threshold and the fact that the expected kaon ring radius lies between those of the pion and proton.
The bands in fig. \[effpar\] encompass the upper and lower systematic error bounds on the efficiencies. The discontinuities correspond to the $\pi$ and $K$ Cherenkov thresholds in the gas radiator. For the diagonal elements, the systematic errors correspond to errors on the fitted parameters and are strongly positively correlated across each of the three momentum regions. For the off-diagonal elements, representing misidentification rates, a more conservative 25% relative error was assigned at all points to account for the limited experimental constraints on the momentum dependence. These errors are also strongly positively correlated among momenta. The identification efficiencies in fig. \[effpar\] peak near or above 0.9 and the pion coverage is continuous from 0.3 GeV/c up to approximately 35 GeV/c. There is a gap in the kaon-proton separation between about 7 and 10 GeV/c due to the limited resolution of the liquid system and the fact that neither species is far above Cherenkov threshold in the gas system. The proton coverage extends to the beam momentum. Misidentification rates are typically less than 0.03, with peak values of up to 0.07.
=4.4in
=6.5in
Event Selection
===============
The trigger and initial selection of hadronic events are described in [@alr]. The analysis presented here is based on charged tracks measured in the CDC and VXD. A set of cuts was applied in order to select events well-contained within the detector acceptance. Tracks were required to have (i) a closest approach to the beam axis within 5 cm, and within 10 cm along the beam axis of the measured IP, (ii) a polar angle $\theta$ with respect to the beam axis with $|\cos\theta|$ $<$ 0.80, (iii) a momentum transverse to this axis $p_{\perp}$ $>$ 150 MeV/$c$, and (iv) a momentum $p$ $<$ 50 GeV/c. Events were required: to contain a minimum of seven such tracks; to contain a minimum visible energy $E_{vis} > 18$ GeV, calculated from the accepted tracks, assigned the charged pion mass; to have a thrust axis polar angle $\theta_t$ with respect to the beam axis, calculated from calorimeter clusters, with $|\cos\theta_t|$ $<$ 0.71; and to have good VXD data [@homer] and a well-measured IP position. A sample of 90,213 events passed these cuts. For the analyses using the CRID, the additional requirements were made that the CRID high voltage was on and that there was a good drift velocity measurement, resulting in a sample of 79,711 events. The non-hadronic background was estimated to be 0.1%, dominated by $Z^0\rightarrow \tau^+ \tau^-$ events.
Samples of events enriched in light and $b$ primary flavors were selected based on signed impact parameters $\delta$ of charged tracks with respect to the IP in the plane transverse to the beam. For each event we define $n_{sig}$ to be the number of tracks passing a set of impact-parameter quality cuts [@homer] that have impact parameter greater than three times its estimated error, $\delta > 3 \sigma_{\delta}$. Events with $n_{sig}=0$ were assigned to the light-tagged sample and those with $n_{sig} \geq 3$ were assigned to the $b$-tagged sample. The remaining events were classified as a $c$-tagged sample. The light-, $c$- and $b$-tagged samples comprised 60.4%, 24.5% and 15.2% of the selected hadronic events, respectively. The tagging efficiencies and sample purities were estimated from our Monte Carlo simulation and are listed in table \[tlveff\].
--------------------- ------------------------------ ------------ ------------ ------------------------------ ------------ ------------
\[-.3cm\]
$u\bar{u},d\bar{d},s\bar{s}$ $c\bar{c}$ $b\bar{b}$ $u\bar{u},d\bar{d},s\bar{s}$ $c\bar{c}$ $b\bar{b}$
\[.1cm\]
\[-.3cm\] light-tag 0.845 0.438 0.075 0.849 0.124 0.027
$c$-tag 0.153 0.478 0.331 0.378 0.333 0.290
$b$-tag 0.002 0.084 0.594 0.009 0.100 0.891
\[.1cm\]
--------------------- ------------------------------ ------------ ------------ ------------------------------ ------------ ------------
: \[tlveff\] Efficiencies for simulated events in the three flavor categories to be tagged as light, $c$ or $b$ events. The three rightmost columns indicate the composition of each simulated tagged sample assuming the Standard Model relative flavor production.
Separate samples of hemispheres enriched in light-quark and light-antiquark jets were selected from the light-tagged event sample by exploiting the large electroweak forward-backward production asymmetry with respect to the beam direction. The event thrust axis was used to approximate the initial $q\bar{q}$ axis and was signed such that its $z$-component was along the electron beam direction, $\hat{t}_z>0$. Events in the central region of the detector, where the production asymmetry is small, were removed by the requirement $|\hat{t}_z|>0.2$, leaving 74% of the light-tagged events. The quark-tagged hemisphere in events with left- (right-)handed electron beam polarization was defined to comprise the set of tracks with positive (negative) momentum projection along the signed thrust axis. The remaining tracks in each event were defined to be in the antiquark-tagged hemisphere. For the selected event sample, the average magnitude of the polarization was 0.73. Using this value and assuming Standard Model couplings, a tree-level calculation gives a quark (antiquark) purity of 0.73 in the quark-(antiquark-)tagged sample.
Hadron Identification Analysis
==============================
In the following subsections we discuss details of the analysis for three categories of identified hadrons: charged tracks identified as $\pi^\pm$, $K^\pm$ or p/$\bar{\rm p}$ in the CRID; $K^0_s$ and [$\Lambda^0/\bar{\Lambda}^0$]{} reconstructed in their charged decay modes and tagged by their long flight distance; and [$K^{*0}/\bar{K}^{*0}$]{} and $\phi$ reconstructed in charged decay modes including one and two identified $K^\pm$, respectively. The resulting [differential cross section]{}s for these seven hadron species in inclusive hadronic $Z^0$ decays are presented in the last subsection.
Charged Hadron Fractions
------------------------
Reconstructed charged tracks were identified as charged pions, kaons or protons using information from only the CRID liquid (gas) radiator for tracks with $p<2.5$ ($p>7.5$) GeV/c; in the overlap region, $2.5<p<7.5$ GeV/c, liquid and gas information was combined. Additional track selection cuts [@tomp] were applied to remove tracks that interacted or scattered through large angles before exiting the CRID and to ensure that the CRID performance was well-modelled by the simulation. Tracks were required to have at least 40 CDC hits, at least one of which was at a radius of at least 92 cm, to extrapolate through an active region of the appropriate radiator(s), and to have at least 80 (100)% of their expected liquid (gas) ring contained within a sensitive region of the CRID TPCs. The latter requirement included rejection of tracks with $p>2.5$ GeV/c for which there was a saturated CRID hit within a 5 cm radius (twice the maximum ring radius) of the expected gas ring center. Tracks with $p<7.5$ GeV/c were required to have a saturated hit within 1 cm of the extrapolated track, and tracks with $p>2.5$ GeV/c were required to have either such a saturated hit or the presence of at least four hits consistent with a liquid ring. These cuts accepted 47%, 28% and 43% of the tracks within the CRID acceptance in the momentum ranges $p<2.5$, $2.5<p<7.5$ and $p>7.5$ GeV/c, respectively. For momenta below 2 GeV/c, only negatively charged tracks were used in order to reduce the background from protons produced in particle interactions with the detector material.
In each momentum bin we measured the fractions of the selected tracks that were identified as pions, kaons and protons. The observed fractions were related to the true production fractions by an efficiency matrix, composed of the values shown in fig. \[effpar\]. This matrix was inverted and used to unfold our observed identified hadron fractions. This analysis procedure does not require that the sum of the charged hadron fractions be unity; instead the sum was used as a consistency check, which was found to be satisfied at all momenta (see fig. \[fraxg\]). In some momentum regions we cannot distinguish two of the three hadron species, so the procedure was reduced to a 2$\times$2 matrix analysis and we present only the fraction of the identified species, i.e. protons above 35 GeV/c and pions below 0.75 GeV/c and between 7.5 and 9.5 GeV/c.
Electrons and muons were not distinguished from pions; this background was estimated from the simulation to be about 5% of the tracks in the inclusive flavor sample, predominantly from $c$- and $b$-flavor events. The fractions were corrected using the simulation for the lepton backgrounds, as well as for the effects of beam-related backgrounds, particles interacting in the detector material, and particles decaying outside the tracking volume. The conventional definition of a final-state charged hadron was used, namely a charged pion, kaon or proton that is either from the primary interaction or a direct decay product of a hadron that has proper lifetime less than 3$\times10^{-10}$s and is itself a primary or a decay product of a primary hadron.
=6.5in
The measured charged hadron fractions in inclusive hadronic $Z^0$ decays are shown in fig. \[fraxg\] and listed in tables \[pifraxa\]–\[pfraxa\]. The systematic errors were determined by propagating the errors on the calibrated efficiency matrix (see sec. 2.2) and correspond to uncertainties in the average number of photons detected per track and the average resolution on the measured Cherenkov angles. They are therefore strongly positively correlated across each of the three momentum regions, $p<2.5$, $2.5<p<7.5$ and $p>7.5$ GeV/c, and are indicated by the pairs of dashed lines in fig. \[fraxg\]. The errors on the points below $\sim$6 GeV/c are dominated by the systematic uncertainties; for the points above $\sim$15 GeV/c the errors have roughly equal statistical and systematic contributions.
$<\! x_p \!>$
------- --------------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------
0.008 0.010 0.009 0.963 0.004 0.014 482.3 2.3 7.2
0.010 0.012 0.011 0.924 0.004 0.006 439.0 2.3 3.7
0.012 0.014 0.013 0.921 0.003 0.006 400.5 2.0 3.3
0.014 0.016 0.015 0.906 0.004 0.006 356.1 1.9 3.0
0.016 0.022 0.019 0.886 0.002 0.006 292.8 1.0 2.4
0.022 0.027 0.025 0.872 0.003 0.006 228.5 1.0 1.9
0.027 0.033 0.030 0.831 0.003 0.006 176.6 0.9 1.4
0.033 0.038 0.036 0.820 0.004 0.006 144.4 0.8 1.2
0.038 0.044 0.041 0.823 0.004 0.010 121.7 0.8 1.6
0.044 0.049 0.047 0.806 0.006 0.015 102.5 0.9 1.9
0.049 0.055 0.052 0.812 0.008 0.020 89.2 0.9 2.2
0.055 0.060 0.058 0.788 0.007 0.029 75.3 0.8 2.8
0.060 0.066 0.063 0.779 0.007 0.016 66.0 0.7 1.4
0.066 0.071 0.069 0.763 0.007 0.010 57.81 0.60 0.81
0.071 0.077 0.074 0.767 0.007 0.009 51.63 0.56 0.60
0.077 0.082 0.079 0.761 0.007 0.009 45.95 0.52 0.54
0.082 0.088 0.085 0.750 0.007 0.008 41.35 0.49 0.49
0.088 0.099 0.093 0.743 0.006 0.008 35.24 0.32 0.42
0.099 0.110 0.104 0.714 0.006 0.008 28.12 0.29 0.35
0.110 0.121 0.115 0.705 0.007 0.009 23.57 0.27 0.30
0.121 0.143 0.131 0.695 0.005 0.009 18.32 0.17 0.24
0.143 0.164 0.153 0.670 0.006 0.009 13.22 0.14 0.19
0.164 0.186 0.175 0.651 0.006 0.009 9.84 0.11 0.15
0.186 0.208 0.197 0.644 0.007 0.008 7.47 0.09 0.11
0.208 0.230 0.219 0.625 0.008 0.007 5.711 0.083 0.080
0.230 0.252 0.241 0.611 0.009 0.006 4.414 0.074 0.063
0.252 0.274 0.263 0.618 0.010 0.010 3.612 0.068 0.072
0.274 0.296 0.285 0.608 0.011 0.010 2.886 0.061 0.060
0.296 0.318 0.307 0.583 0.012 0.011 2.206 0.054 0.049
0.318 0.351 0.334 0.578 0.012 0.012 1.739 0.040 0.044
0.351 0.384 0.366 0.603 0.014 0.015 1.350 0.036 0.040
0.384 0.417 0.400 0.523 0.017 0.016 0.874 0.031 0.032
0.417 0.450 0.432 0.520 0.021 0.020 0.670 0.029 0.029
0.450 0.482 0.465 0.534 0.024 0.024 0.520 0.026 0.025
0.482 0.526 0.503 0.508 0.028 0.027 0.355 0.021 0.020
0.526 0.570 0.547 0.514 0.036 0.031 0.248 0.018 0.016
0.570 0.658 0.609 0.501 0.040 0.038 0.146 0.012 0.012
0.658 0.768 0.704 0.580 0.076 0.053 0.071 0.009 0.007
14.52 0.02 0.27
: \[pifraxa\] Charged pion fraction $f_{\pi}$ and differential cross section (1/N)d$n_{\pi}$/d$x_p$ per hadronic $Z^0$ decay. $<\!\! x_p\!\!>$ is the average $x_p$-value of charged tracks in each bin. The last row gives the integral over the $x_p$ range of the measurement. The first error is statistical, the second systematic. A 1.7% normalization uncertainty is included in the systematic error on the integral, but not in those on the cross section.
$x_p$ Range $<\! x_p\! >$
----------------------- --------------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------
\[-.3cm\] 0.016–0.022 0.019 0.067 0.001 0.002 22.28 0.47 0.53
0.022–0.027 0.025 0.081 0.002 0.002 21.22 0.45 0.62
0.027–0.033 0.030 0.090 0.002 0.003 19.10 0.43 0.64
0.033–0.038 0.036 0.102 0.002 0.005 18.02 0.43 0.80
0.038–0.044 0.041 0.111 0.003 0.006 16.45 0.45 0.94
0.044–0.049 0.047 0.127 0.004 0.008 16.13 0.49 1.03
0.049–0.055 0.052 0.127 0.005 0.010 13.98 0.53 1.14
0.055–0.060 0.058 0.125 0.006 0.022 11.96 0.54 2.11
0.060–0.066 0.063 0.130 0.006 0.015 11.03 0.49 1.27
0.066–0.071 0.069 0.150 0.006 0.012 11.37 0.46 0.87
0.071–0.077 0.074 0.139 0.007 0.012 9.38 0.44 0.79
0.077–0.082 0.079 0.157 0.007 0.013 9.51 0.44 0.76
0.082–0.088 0.085 0.157 0.008 0.013 8.68 0.44 0.72
0.088–0.099 0.093 0.168 0.007 0.014 7.96 0.31 0.68
0.099–0.110 0.104 0.187 0.009 0.016 7.37 0.34 0.63
0.110–0.121 0.115 0.202 0.011 0.018 6.74 0.37 0.60
0.121–0.143 0.131 0.199 0.011 0.023 5.24 0.29 0.61
0.143–0.164 0.153 0.207 0.020 0.041 4.08 0.40 0.80
0.208–0.230 0.219 0.256 0.009 0.033 2.34 0.08 0.30
0.230–0.252 0.241 0.269 0.009 0.007 1.947 0.065 0.057
0.252–0.274 0.263 0.274 0.009 0.007 1.603 0.057 0.042
0.274–0.296 0.285 0.270 0.010 0.006 1.281 0.050 0.034
0.296–0.318 0.307 0.298 0.011 0.007 1.127 0.045 0.030
0.318–0.351 0.334 0.310 0.011 0.008 0.933 0.034 0.027
0.351–0.384 0.366 0.299 0.012 0.009 0.669 0.029 0.023
0.384–0.417 0.400 0.324 0.015 0.012 0.541 0.026 0.023
0.417–0.450 0.432 0.383 0.019 0.016 0.493 0.026 0.023
0.450–0.482 0.465 0.366 0.022 0.019 0.357 0.023 0.020
0.482–0.526 0.503 0.391 0.025 0.023 0.273 0.019 0.018
0.526–0.570 0.547 0.374 0.032 0.028 0.180 0.016 0.014
0.570–0.658 0.609 0.420 0.037 0.036 0.122 0.011 0.011
0.658–0.768 0.704 0.392 0.070 0.049 0.048 0.009 0.006
\[.1cm\]
\[-.3cm\] 1.800 0.016 0.124
\[.1cm\]
: \[kafraxa\] Charged kaon fraction and differential cross section per hadronic $Z^0$ decay.
$x_p$ Range $<\! x_p\! >$
----------------------- --------------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------
\[-.3cm\] 0.016–0.022 0.019 0.029 0.005 0.013 9.55 1.55 4.33
0.022–0.027 0.025 0.041 0.003 0.008 10.79 0.84 2.09
0.027–0.033 0.030 0.064 0.002 0.005 13.56 0.47 0.98
0.033–0.038 0.036 0.065 0.002 0.004 11.54 0.35 0.63
0.038–0.044 0.041 0.061 0.002 0.002 9.03 0.30 0.25
0.044–0.049 0.047 0.067 0.002 0.002 8.52 0.29 0.23
0.049–0.055 0.052 0.062 0.002 0.002 6.83 0.26 0.22
0.055–0.060 0.058 0.072 0.003 0.005 6.85 0.28 0.48
0.060–0.066 0.063 0.074 0.003 0.005 6.70 0.28 0.42
0.066–0.071 0.069 0.075 0.004 0.005 5.69 0.27 0.40
0.071–0.077 0.074 0.075 0.004 0.006 5.03 0.27 0.38
0.077–0.082 0.079 0.072 0.004 0.006 4.33 0.27 0.38
0.082–0.088 0.085 0.085 0.005 0.007 4.65 0.29 0.39
0.088–0.099 0.093 0.077 0.004 0.009 3.64 0.20 0.41
0.099–0.110 0.104 0.087 0.006 0.012 3.42 0.23 0.45
0.110–0.121 0.115 0.084 0.007 0.015 2.80 0.25 0.49
0.121–0.143 0.131 0.085 0.008 0.021 2.22 0.21 0.54
0.143–0.164 0.153 0.123 0.016 0.039 2.42 0.32 0.77
0.230–0.252 0.241 0.106 0.007 0.010 0.767 0.048 0.074
0.252–0.274 0.263 0.114 0.007 0.010 0.668 0.043 0.059
0.274–0.296 0.285 0.105 0.008 0.009 0.497 0.036 0.044
0.296–0.318 0.307 0.109 0.008 0.009 0.413 0.032 0.035
0.318–0.351 0.334 0.099 0.007 0.009 0.296 0.022 0.026
0.351–0.384 0.366 0.098 0.008 0.008 0.219 0.018 0.019
0.384–0.417 0.400 0.105 0.009 0.007 0.175 0.015 0.013
0.417–0.450 0.432 0.104 0.010 0.007 0.134 0.013 0.009
0.450–0.482 0.465 0.103 0.011 0.006 0.101 0.011 0.006
0.482–0.526 0.503 0.095 0.011 0.006 0.066 0.008 0.004
0.526–0.570 0.547 0.110 0.013 0.006 0.053 0.006 0.003
0.570–0.658 0.609 0.066 0.010 0.006 0.019 0.003 0.002
0.658–0.768 0.704 0.107 0.016 0.007 0.013 0.002 0.001
0.768–0.987 0.836 0.087 0.027 0.012 0.002 0.001 0.000
\[.1cm\]
\[-.3cm\] 0.864 0.015 0.106
\[.1cm\]
: \[pfraxa\] Proton fraction and differential cross section per hadronic $Z^0$ decay.
Pions are seen to dominate the charged hadron production at low momentum, and to decline steadily in fraction as momentum increases. The kaon fraction rises steadily to about one-third at high momentum. The proton fraction rises to a plateau value of about one-tenth at about 10 GeV/c. Where the momentum coverage overlaps, these measured fractions were found to be consistent with an average of previous measurements at the $Z^0$ [@delphi; @opal; @aleph]. Measurements based on ring imaging and those based on ionization energy loss rates cover complementary momentum ranges and can be combined to provide continuous coverage over the range $0.22<p<45.6$ GeV/c.
Differential production cross sections were obtained by multiplying these fractions by our measured inclusive charged particle [differential cross section]{}, corrected, using our simulation, for the contribution from leptons. The integral of this cross section was constrained to be 20.95 tracks per event, an average [@dcone] of charged multiplicity measurements in $Z^0$ decays, and the momentum-dependence of our track reconstruction efficiency was checked by comparing the momentum distributions of charged tracks in data and simulated $\tau^\pm$ decays. We include a 1.7% error on the average multiplicity as a systematic normalization uncertainty, as well as a momentum-dependent uncertainty of 0.11$\times |p-3.8$ GeV/c$|$%, derived from the study of $\tau^\pm$ decays. The inclusive charged particle [differential cross section]{} is listed in table \[chgxs\], and the resulting [differential cross section]{}s per hadronic event per unit $x_p$ for the identified hadrons are listed in tables \[pifraxa\]–\[pfraxa\]. The 1.7% normalization uncertainty is not included in the systematic error listed for any of the identified hadrons, nor is it included in the error bars in any of the figures.
---------------- --------------- ------- ------- ------- -------
\[-.4cm\] $<\! x_p \!>$
\[.1cm\] 0.008 0.010 0.009 509.6 1.6 8.9
0.010 0.012 0.011 481.9 1.6 8.4
0.012 0.014 0.013 440.9 1.5 7.7
0.014 0.016 0.015 398.0 1.4 6.9
0.016 0.022 0.019 334.6 0.9 5.8
0.022 0.027 0.025 265.2 0.8 4.6
0.027 0.033 0.030 215.2 0.7 3.7
0.033 0.038 0.036 178.6 0.6 3.1
0.038 0.044 0.041 150.0 0.6 2.6
0.044 0.049 0.047 129.2 0.5 2.2
0.049 0.055 0.052 111.7 0.5 1.9
0.055 0.060 0.058 97.2 0.5 1.7
0.060 0.066 0.063 86.3 0.4 1.5
0.066 0.071 0.069 77.2 0.4 1.3
0.071 0.077 0.074 68.7 0.4 1.2
0.077 0.082 0.079 61.6 0.4 1.0
0.082 0.088 0.085 56.35 0.35 0.96
0.088 0.099 0.093 48.53 0.23 0.83
0.099 0.110 0.104 40.40 0.21 0.69
0.110 0.121 0.115 34.32 0.20 0.59
0.121 0.143 0.131 27.12 0.12 0.47
0.143 0.164 0.153 20.35 0.11 0.35
0.164 0.186 0.175 15.65 0.09 0.28
0.186 0.208 0.197 12.05 0.08 0.22
0.208 0.230 0.219 9.50 0.07 0.17
0.230 0.252 0.241 7.54 0.07 0.14
0.252 0.274 0.263 6.11 0.06 0.12
0.274 0.296 0.285 4.969 0.053 0.098
0.296 0.318 0.307 3.978 0.048 0.081
0.318 0.351 0.334 3.163 0.035 0.067
0.351 0.384 0.366 2.367 0.030 0.052
0.384 0.417 0.400 1.767 0.026 0.041
0.417 0.450 0.432 1.359 0.023 0.033
0.450 0.482 0.465 1.028 0.019 0.026
0.482 0.526 0.503 0.735 0.014 0.020
0.526 0.570 0.547 0.503 0.012 0.015
0.570 0.658 0.609 0.300 0.006 0.009
0.658 0.768 0.704 0.123 0.003 0.004
0.768 0.987 0.836 0.027 0.001 0.001
---------------- --------------- ------- ------- ------- -------
: \[chgxs\] Differential cross section (1/N)d$n_{chg}$/d$x_p$ for inclusive charged particle production per hadronic $Z^0$ decay. The first error is statistical, the second systematic.
Neutral $K^0/\bar{K}^0$ and [$\Lambda^0/\bar{\Lambda}^0$]{} Production
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We reconstructed the charged decay modes $K_s^0 \rightarrow
\pi^+\pi^-$ and $\Lambda^0(\bar{\Lambda}^0) \rightarrow $p$\pi^- (\bar{\rm p}\pi^+)$ [@kenb], collectively referred to as $V^0$ decays. In order to ensure good invariant mass resolution tracks were required to have a minimum transverse momentum of 150 MeV/c with respect to the beam direction, at least 40 hits measured in the CDC, and a polar angle satisfying $\left|\cos\theta\right|<0.8$.
Pairs of oppositely charged tracks satisfying these requirements were combined to form $V^0$s if their separation was less than 15 mm at their point of closest approach in 3 dimensions. A $\chi^2$ fit of the two tracks to a common vertex was performed, and to reject combinatoric background we required: the confidence level of the $\chi^2$ to be greater than 2%; the vertex to be separated from the IP by at least 1 mm, and by at least $5\sigma_l$, where $\sigma_l$ is the calculated error on the separation length of the $V^0$; and vertices reconstructed outside the Vertex Detector to have at most one VXD hit assigned to each track.
The two invariant masses $m_{\pi\pi}$ and $m_{{\rm p}\pi}$ were calculated for each $V^0$ with, in the latter case, the proton (charged pion) mass assigned to the higher-(lower)-momentum track. In the plane perpendicular to the beam, the angle between the vector sum of the momenta of the two charged tracks and the line joining the IP to the vertex was required to be less than both 60 mrad and $k\cdot(2 + 20/p_{\perp} + 5/p_{\perp}^2)$ mrad. Here, $p_{\perp}$ is the component of the vector sum momentum transverse to the beam in units of GeV/c and $k$=1.75 for [$\Lambda^0/\bar{\Lambda}^0$]{} candidates and 2.5 for $K_s^0$ candidates. For [$\Lambda^0/\bar{\Lambda}^0$]{} candidates, a minimum vector-sum momentum of 500 MeV/c was required.
Note that it is possible for one $V^0$ to be considered a candidate for both the $K_s^0$ and [$\Lambda^0/\bar{\Lambda}^0$]{} hypotheses. Kinematic regions exist where the two hypotheses cannot be distinguished without particle identification. In addition there is background from other processes that occur away from the IP, most notably $\gamma$-conversions into $e^+e^-$ pairs. Depending upon the type of analysis, such “kinematic-overlaps” may introduce important biases. In this analysis, the kinematic-overlap region was removed only when it distorted the relevant invariant mass distribution. For the $K_s^0$ analysis, the [$\Lambda^0/\bar{\Lambda}^0$]{} background causes an asymmetric bump in the $m_{\pi\pi}$ distribution, which complicated the subsequent fitting procedure. A cut on the $\pi^+$ helicity angle $\theta^*_{\pi}$, defined as the angle between the $\pi^+$ momentum vector in the $K_s^0$ rest frame and the $K_s^0$ flight direction, of $\left|\cos\theta^*_{\pi}\right| \leq 0.8$ was used to remove the $\Lambda^0$, $\bar{\Lambda}^0$ and $\gamma$-conversion contamination.
For the [$\Lambda^0/\bar{\Lambda}^0$]{} analysis, the shape of the $K_s^0$ background depends strongly on momentum. Above a $V^0$ momentum of a few GeV/c, the $K_s^0 \rightarrow \pi^+\pi^-$ background is essentially uniform in the peak region of the $m_{{\rm p}\pi}$ distribution and no cuts were made to remove the $K_s^0$ overlap. At sufficiently low momentum, the $K_s^0$ background becomes asymmetric under the [$\Lambda^0/\bar{\Lambda}^0$]{} peak due to detector acceptance; the softer $\pi$ fails to be reconstructed and thus the $K_s^0$ is not found. Therefore, [$\Lambda^0/\bar{\Lambda}^0$]{} candidates with total momentum below 1.8 GeV/c were required to have $m_{\pi\pi}$ more than $3\sigma$ away from the $K_s^0$ mass, where $\sigma$ is the measured resolution on $m_{\pi\pi}$, parameterized as $\sigma_{\pi\pi}(p) = 4.6 - 0.27p +0.21p^2 - 0.01p^3$ MeV/c$^2$, and $p$ is the $V^0$ momentum in GeV/c. In order to remove $\gamma$ conversions, the proton helicity angle was required to satisfy $\cos \theta^*_{\rm p} \geq -0.95$.
=13.1cm
=13.1cm
The $m_{\pi\pi}$ and $m_{{\rm p}\pi}$ distributions for the remaining candidates are shown in figs. \[kspk\] and \[lampk\], respectively. The $V^0$ candidates were binned in $x_p$, and the resulting invariant mass distributions were fitted using a sum of signal and background functions. The function used for the signal peak was a Gaussian or a sum of two or three Gaussians of common center, depending on $x_p$. A single Gaussian was sufficient to describe the $K_s^0$ data in the lowest-$x_p$ bin and the [$\Lambda^0/\bar{\Lambda}^0$]{} data in the three lowest-$x_p$ bins. However, the mass resolution is momentum-dependent and varies substantially over the width of a typical $x_p$ bin; two Gaussians were sufficient in most cases, with three being needed for both the $K_s^0$ and [$\Lambda^0/\bar{\Lambda}^0$]{}data in the highest-$x_p$ bin. The relative fractions and nominal widths of the Gaussians in the sum were fixed from the MC simulation. The normalization, common center, and a resolution scale-factor were free parameters of the fit. The fitted centers were consistent with world average mass values [@pdg], and the fitted scale factor was typically 1.1. The background shape used for the $K_s^0$ fits was a quadratic polynomial; for the [$\Lambda^0/\bar{\Lambda}^0$]{} fits a more complicated function was required due to the proximity of the kinematic edge to the signal peak. The function $P_{bkg}(m) = a + b(m-m_\Lambda) + c(1-e^{d((m-m_\Lambda)-0.038)})$ was found to be adequate in Monte Carlo studies, where $a$,$b$,$c$,$d$ were free parameters.
The efficiencies for reconstructing true $K_s^0$ and [$\Lambda^0/\bar{\Lambda}^0$]{} decays were calculated, using the simulation, by repeating the full selection and analysis on the simulated sample and dividing by the number of generated $K_s^0$ or [$\Lambda^0/\bar{\Lambda}^0$]{}. Several checks were performed to verify the MC simulation, and thus the $V^0$ reconstruction efficiency. In particular, the proper lifetimes of the $K_s^0$ and $\Lambda^0$ were measured, yielding values consistent with the respective world averages. The simulated reconstruction efficiencies are shown in fig. \[receff\], and were parametrized as functions of $x_p$. The reconstruction efficiency is limited by the detector acceptance of $\sim$0.67 and the charged decay branching fractions of 0.64 for [$\Lambda^0/\bar{\Lambda}^0$]{} and 0.68 for $K_s^0$. The efficiency at high momentum decreases due to finite detector size and two-track detector resolution, and the efficiency at low-momentum is limited by the minimum $p_{\perp}$ and flight distance requirements. The discontinuity in the $\Lambda^0/\bar{\Lambda}^0$ reconstruction efficiency is due to the imposed $K_s^0$ mass cut for low-$x_p$ candidates.
=13.5cm
The differential cross section 1/N d$n$/d$x_p$ per hadronic $Z^0$ decay was then calculated in each bin by dividing the integrated area under the fitted mass peak by the efficiency, the bin width and the number of observed hadronic events corrected for trigger and selection efficiency. As is conventional, the $K^0/\bar{K}^0$ cross section was obtained by multiplying the measured $K_s^0$ cross section by a factor of 2 to account for the undetected $K^0_L$ component. The resulting [differential cross section]{}s, including point-to-point systematic errors, discussed below, are shown in fig. \[xsall\] and listed in table \[xsgvee\].
[|c||c|r@[$\pm$]{}l@[$\pm$]{}l||c|r@[$\pm$]{}l@[$\pm$]{}l|]{}\
\
&& &&\
$x_p$ Range & $<x_p>$ & & $<x_p>$ &\
&& &&\
0.009–0.011 & 0.010 & 18.1 & 1.7 & 2.4 &&\
0.011–0.014 & 0.013 & 19.1 & 1.2 & 1.1 &&\
0.014–0.018 & 0.016 & 20.44 & 0.91 & 0.67 & 0.015 & 2.99 & 0.45 & 1.22\
0.018–0.022 & 0.020 & 21.74 & 0.85 & 0.72 & 0.020 & 3.90 & 0.42 & 0.58\
0.022–0.027 & 0.025 & 20.51 & 0.70 & 0.53 & 0.025 & 4.10 & 0.30 & 0.23\
0.027–0.033 & 0.030 & 17.73 & 0.55 & 0.41 & 0.030 & 3.54 & 0.23 & 0.16\
0.033–0.041 & 0.037 & 16.20 & 0.46 & 0.34 & 0.037 & 3.34 & 0.20 & 0.14\
0.041–0.050 & 0.045 & 13.48 & 0.38 & 0.27 & 0.045 & 2.86 & 0.14 & 0.13\
0.050–0.061 & 0.055 & 11.40 & 0.31 & 0.21 & 0.055 & 2.39 & 0.11 & 0.13\
0.061–0.074 & 0.067 & 10.09 & 0.27 & 0.18 & 0.067 & 2.20 & 0.10 & 0.09\
0.074–0.091 & 0.082 & 8.12 & 0.23 & 0.15 & 0.082 & 1.63 & 0.08 & 0.06\
0.091–0.111 & 0.100 & 6.41 & 0.20 & 0.12 & 0.100 & 1.31 & 0.08 & 0.08\
0.111–0.142 & 0.126 & 4.95 & 0.16 & 0.09 & 0.125 & 0.98 & 0.06 & 0.05\
0.142–0.183 & 0.161 & 3.66 & 0.16 & 0.08 & 0.160 & 0.68 & 0.05 & 0.04\
0.183–0.235 & 0.206 & 2.53 & 0.17 & 0.07 & 0.205 & 0.51 & 0.05 & 0.04\
0.235–0.301 & 0.262 & 1.52 & 0.08 & 0.05 & 0.262 & 0.30 & 0.04 & 0.04\
0.301–0.497 & 0.371 & 0.60 & 0.05 & 0.02 & 0.368 & 0.15 & 0.02 & 0.03\
& &&\
& 1.90 & 0.02 & 0.07 & & 0.37 & 0.01 & 0.02\
Several sources of systematic uncertainty were investigated for the $K_s^0$ and [$\Lambda^0/\bar{\Lambda}^0$]{} analysis. An important contribution to the overall $V^0$ spectrum is the track reconstruction efficiency of the detector, which was tuned using the world average measured charged multiplicity in hadronic $Z^0$ decays. We take the $\pm$1.7% normalization uncertainty discussed above (sec. 4.1) as the uncertainty on our reconstruction efficiency, which corresponds to a normalization error on the $K^0/\bar{K}^0$ and [$\Lambda^0/\bar{\Lambda}^0$]{} [differential cross section]{}s of 3.4%. This uncertainty is independent of momentum and is not shown in any of the figures or included in the errors listed in table \[xsgvee\]. The momentum-dependent term discussed above and a conservative 50% variation of an ad hoc correction [@kenb] to the simulated efficiency for $V^0$s that decayed near the outer layers of the VXD were also included as systematic uncertainties due to detector modelling.
Each of the cuts used to select $V^0$ candidates was varied independently [@kenb] and the analysis repeated. For each bin the $rms$ of this set of measurements was calculated and assigned as the systematic uncertainty due to modelling of the acceptance. For both the $K^0/\bar{K}^0$ and the [$\Lambda^0/\bar{\Lambda}^0$]{} candidates, the signal and background shapes used in the fits were varied. Single and multiple independent Gaussians, without common centers or fixed widths, were used for the signal. Alternative background shapes included constants and polynomials of differing orders. In each case the fits were repeated on both data and simulated invariant mass distributions and the $rms$ of the resulting [differential cross section]{}s was assigned as a systematic uncertainty. The MC statistical error on the calculated reconstruction efficiency was also assigned as a systematic error. These errors were added in quadrature to give the total systematic error.
Neutral [$K^{*0}/\bar{K}^{*0}$]{} and $\phi$ Production
-------------------------------------------------------
We reconstructed the strange vector mesons $\phi$ and [$K^{*0}/\bar{K}^{*0}$]{} in the charged decay modes $\phi \rightarrow K^+K^-$ and $K^{*0}/\bar{K}^{*0} \rightarrow K^{\pm}\pi^{\mp}$ [@mihaid]. In order to ensure good invariant mass resolution, tracks were required to have at least 40 hits measured in the CDC, a track fit quality of $\chi^2$/dof$<7$, and a polar angle satisfying $\left|\cos\theta\right|<0.8$. Pairs of oppositely charged tracks satisfying these requirements were combined to form neutral candidates if a $\chi^2$ fit of the two tracks to a common vertex converged. The background from long-lived species was rejected by requiring the fitted vertex to be within 10 cm or 9$\sigma_l$ of the IP in three dimensions, and within 4 cm or 6$\sigma_l$ in the plane transverse to the beam direction. The background from $\gamma$-conversions was rejected by assigning the electron mass to both tracks and requiring $m_{ee}$ to be greater than 70 MeV/c$^2$.
To reject the high combinatoric background from $\pi^+\pi^-$ pairs we used the CRID to identify charged kaon candidate tracks. Only liquid (gas) information was used for tracks with $p<2.5 \, (>3.5)$ GeV/c, and liquid and gas information was combined for the remaining tracks. For this analysis a track was considered “identifiable" if it extrapolated through an active region of the appropriate CRID radiator(s); it was considered identified as a kaon if the log-likelihood difference between the kaon and pion hypotheses, ${\cal L}_K - {\cal L}_\pi$, exceeded 3. These cuts are considerably looser than those used in section 4.1, in order to maximize the acceptance for the neutral vector mesons. Efficiencies for identifying selected tracks as kaons by this definition were calibrated using the data in a manner similar to that described in section 2.2. The $K \rightarrow K$ efficiency was found to have a momentum dependence very similar to the $\pi \rightarrow \pi$ efficiency shown in the upper left plot of fig. \[effpar\], with about 12% lower amplitude. There is no dip in the 5–10 GeV/c region since no cut was made against protons. The $\pi \rightarrow K$ misidentification rate averages 10% and is roughly independent of momentum; the p $\rightarrow K$ misidentification rate is substantial, especially in the 3–10 GeV/c region, but protons constitute only a small part of the combinatoric background.
A track pair was accepted as a $\phi \rightarrow K^+K^-$ candidate if both tracks were identified as kaons. A pair was accepted as a $K^{*0} \rightarrow K^+\pi^-$ candidate if one track was identified as a kaon and the other was not. Thus a track pair cannot be both a [$K^{*0}/\bar{K}^{*0}$]{} and $\phi$ candidate.
The $\phi$ candidates were binned in $x_p$, and the resulting $m_{KK}$ distributions were fitted in a manner similar to that described above for the $V^0$ candidates. The signal shape was a sum of Gaussians of common center; the center was fixed at the world-average mass value [@pdg], and the amplitude and a resolution scale factor were free parameters. A typical fitted scale factor was 1.08. The background shape was parametrized as a threshold term multiplied by a slowly decreasing exponential: $$P_{bkg}(x) = N x^\gamma e^{c_1 x + c_2 x^2
+c_3 x^3 + c_4 x^4 +c_5 x^5}
\label{eq:FBG}$$ where $x = m_{KK} - 2m_K$, $N$ is an overall normalization factor, and $\gamma$ and $c_{1...5}$ are free parameters. Initial values of the background parameters were determined from fits to the $m_{KK}$ distributions for simulated true combinatorial background and for same-sign track pairs in the data. The resulting parameters were consistent with each other and the functions described the shape of the distribution for candidates in the data in the region away from the signal peak. The measured $m_{KK}$ distributions for the six $x_p$ bins are shown in fig. \[phipks\], along with the results of the fits.
=7.2cm
The case of the [$K^{*0}/\bar{K}^{*0}$]{} is considerably more complicated due to the natural width of the $K^{*0}$ and the presence of many reflections of resonances decaying into $\pi^+\pi^-(\pi^0)$. The [$K^{*0}/\bar{K}^{*0}$]{} signal was parametrized using a relativistic Breit-Wigner with the amplitude free and the center and width fixed to world-average values [@pdg]. The background was divided into combinatorial and resonant pieces. The combinatorial piece was described by a polynomial parametrization similar to that of the $\phi$ but with seven parameters. Parameter values derived from fits to simulated combinatorial background and a same-sign data test sample were found not to agree with each other or with the opposite-sign data away from the peak, and a search over a space of initial values was required in order to find the best fit.
Knowledge of the resonant contributions to the background is essential, since the $K^{*0}$ is a wide state and non-monotonic background variation within its width can lead to systematic errors in the measured cross section. We considered four classes of reflections:
- $\rho^0 \rightarrow \pi^+\pi^-$, $K_s^0\rightarrow \pi^+\pi^-$, and $\omega^0, \eta, \eta' \rightarrow N\pi$, where one of the charged pions is misidentified as a $K^\pm$. These backgrounds are large, even after reduction by a factor of about 5 by the particle identification. They are particularly important since the combination of $\rho$ and $\omega$ decays gives rise to a dip in the total background near the center of the signal peak, and there is some uncertainty as to the shape of the $\rho$ resonance in $Z^0$ decays (see ref. [@alephkst]).
- $\gamma$ conversions where one electron is misidentified as a kaon. These are removed effectively by the $m_{ee}$ cut against $\gamma$ conversions noted above.
- $\phi \rightarrow K^+K^-$, where one track is identified as a kaon but the other is not. This background is reduced substantially by the requirement that only one of the tracks in the pair is identified as a kaon.
- $\Lambda^0 \rightarrow p\pi$, where the proton is misidentified as a kaon. These are removed effectively by the cut against long-lived species noted above. This and the last two categories give rise to a more pronounced shoulder in the background just below the signal peak, so their removal is quite useful in obtaining a robust fit.
The shape of the $m_{K\pi}$ distribution for each reflection was parametrized by a smooth function fitted to its simulated $m_{K\pi}$ distribution, and its total production cross section was set to the world average value [@pdg] for $Z^0$ decays. Figure \[reson\] shows the simulated relative contributions from the main resonant backgrounds along with the simulated signal, which was scaled to match our measured total cross section (see below). The set of reflection functions was added to the combinatorial function to give the total background function. A scale factor for each of the four categories of reflections was included as a free parameter in the fit to account for possible mismodelling of the misidentification rates; their fitted values were consistent with unity. Figure \[kstpks\] shows the $m_{K\pi}$ distribution for each momentum bin, along with the results of the fits.
As for the $K_s^0$ and [$\Lambda^0/\bar{\Lambda}^0$]{} analysis, the $\phi$ and $K^{*0}/\bar{K}^{*0}$ reconstruction efficiencies were determined using the simulation, and are shown in fig. \[effsksphi\]. Differential cross sections were calculated in the same way as for the $K^0_s$ and [$\Lambda^0/\bar{\Lambda}^0$]{}, and the results are shown in fig. \[xsall\] and listed in table \[xsgneu\].
=9.0cm
=14.9cm
=13.5cm
[|c|c|l@[$\pm$]{}l@[$\pm$]{}l||c|c|l@[$\pm$]{}l@[$\pm$]{}l|]{}\
\
&& & &&\
$x_p$ Range & $<\! x_p\! >$ & & $x_p$ Range & $<\! x_p\! >$ &\
&& & &&\
0.018–0.048 & 0.033&4.69 &0.56 &0.33 & 0.018–0.057 & 0.037&0.744 &0.074 &0.048\
0.048–0.088 & 0.068&3.79 &0.21 &0.17 & 0.057–0.079 & 0.068&0.411 &0.055 &0.033\
0.088–0.149 & 0.118&2.23 &0.13 &0.14 & 0.079–0.175 & 0.127&0.255 &0.026 &0.021\
0.149–0.263 & 0.206&1.012&0.056&0.062 & 0.175–0.263 & 0.215&0.167 &0.018 &0.020\
0.263–0.483 & 0.342&0.343&0.019&0.019 & 0.263–0.483 & 0.357&0.0739&0.0068&0.0085\
0.483–1.000 & 0.607&0.051&0.004&0.004 & 0.483–1.000 & 0.689&0.0089&0.0015&0.0011\
& & &&\
& 0.647 & 0.022 & 0.029 & & &0.0985&0.0046&0.0055\
Systematic uncertainties for this analysis were grouped into efficiency and fit-related categories. The dominant contributions to the efficiency category were the uncertainty in the track-finding efficiency (see above) and the uncertainty in kaon identification efficiency, for which the statistical error on the calibration from the data was used. The total uncertainties on the reconstruction efficiencies were 4–6% for [$K^{*0}/\bar{K}^{*0}$]{} and 6–11% for $\phi$, depending on momentum.
In the case of the $\phi$, fitting systematics were evaluated by varying the signal shape as in the $V^0$ analysis. In addition, fits were performed with the signal center shifted by plus and minus the error on the world-average mass value. The effect of background fluctuations was evaluated by taking the largest variation in the result over a set of fits done with the background shape parameters $c_i$ fixed to all combinations of their fitted values $\pm$1$\sigma$. The total fitting uncertainties were 2–8%.
In the case of the [$K^{*0}/\bar{K}^{*0}$]{}, we considered the same variations, as well as variation of the signal width by $\pm$1$\sigma$ from the world-average value and several variations of the resonant background. Fits were performed with the misidentification scale factors fixed to their fitted values $\pm$50% for the $\pi\pi$ category and $\pm$15% for the others, corresponding to roughly twice the error on our measured misidentification rates. All 16 combinations were considered, and the largest variation taken as a systematic error. The cross section for production of each resonance was varied by the error on the world-average value. The sizes of the $\rho$ and $\omega$ contributions were varied in all four combinations of $\pm$30% and $\pm$10%, respectively, and the largest variation was taken as a systematic error. Following [@alephkst] an error due to the uncertainty in the $\rho^0$ lineshape was evaluated by shifting the $\rho$ reflection function down by 40 MeV/c$^2$. The total fitting uncertainties were 2–6%.
Hadron Production in Inclusive Hadronic $Z^0$ Decays
----------------------------------------------------
Our measured [differential cross section]{}s per hadronic event of the seven hadron species are shown as a function of $x_p$ in fig. \[xsall\], along with that of inclusive charged particles. At low $x_p$ pions are seen to dominate the hadrons produced in hadronic $Z^0$ decays. For example, at $x_p \approx 0.03$, pseudoscalar $K^{\pm}$ and $K^0/\bar{K}^0$ are produced at a rate about ten times lower than pions, vector $K^{*0}$ are suppressed by an additional factor of $\sim$4, and the doubly strange vector $\phi$ by another factor of $\sim$12. The most commonly produced baryons, protons, are suppressed by a factor of $\sim$25 relative to pions, and the strange baryon [$\Lambda^0/\bar{\Lambda}^0$]{} by an additional factor of $\sim$3.
=4.0in
These results are in general consistent with previous measurements from experiments at LEP [@bohrer], provided that the point-to-point correlations in the systematic errors are taken into account. However, although our proton [differential cross section]{} for $x_p>0.35$ is consistent with that measured by ALEPH [@aleph], it is not consistent with that measured by OPAL [@opal].
=6.45in
=4.3in
We compared our results with the predictions of the JETSET 7.4, UCLA 4.1 and HERWIG 5.8 event generators described in section 1, using in all cases the default parameters. Figures \[fallmc\] and \[xsallmc\] show the charged fractions and the neutral [differential cross section]{}s, respectively, along with the predictions of these three models. The momentum dependence for each of the seven hadron species is reproduced qualitatively by all models. For momenta below about 1.5 GeV/c, all models overestimate the kaon fraction significantly and all except UCLA underestimate the pion fraction by about 2$\sigma$ (taking into account the correlation in the experimental errors). In the 5–10 GeV/c range UCLA and HERWIG overestimate the pion fraction by 2–3$\sigma$. For $p>10$ GeV/c, JETSET overestimates the proton fraction, but describes the momentum dependence. In this momentum region, HERWIG and UCLA predict a momentum dependence in the proton fraction that is inconsistent with the data.
In the case of $K^0/\bar{K}^0$, all models describe the data well at high $x_p$, but overestimate the cross section at low $x_p$ by as much as 50%. A similar excess was seen in the charged kaon fraction (see fig \[fallmc\]). In the case of [$\Lambda^0/\bar{\Lambda}^0$]{}, JETSET and UCLA describe the data well except for a 10% shortfall near $x_p=0.02$. HERWIG describes the data well except for the lowest and highest $x_p$ points, where it overestimates the production. The structure in the HERWIG prediction at very high $x_p$ is similar to that seen in the proton fraction, and is also visible to varying degrees in the predictions for the neutral strange mesons. In the case of [$K^{*0}/\bar{K}^{*0}$]{}, JETSET is high by a roughly constant factor of 1.5 across the $x_p$ range; HERWIG and UCLA reproduce the data except at the lowest $x_p$ point. In the case of $\phi$, JETSET is high by a factor of two over all $x_p$, UCLA is high for $x_p>0.06$, and HERWIG describes the data except at the highest $x_p$ point.
Flavor-Dependent Analysis
=========================
The analyses described above were repeated on the light-, $c$- and $b$-tagged event samples described in section 3, to yield [differential cross section]{}s $R^{ktag}_h$ for each hadron species $h$ in each tagged sample. True [differential cross section]{}s $R^m_h$ in events of the three flavor types, $k,m=l$, $c$, $b$, representing events of the types [$Z^0 \rightarrow u\bar{u},d\bar{d},s\bar{s}$]{}, [$Z^0 \rightarrow c\bar{c}$]{}, and [$Z^0 \rightarrow b\bar{b}$]{}, respectively, were extracted by solving for each species $h$ the relations: $$R^{ktag}_h = \frac{\Sigma_m B^h_{mk} \epsilon_{mk} F_m R^m_h}
{\Sigma_m \epsilon_{mk} F_m} .$$ Here, $F_m$ is the fraction of hadronic $Z^0$ decays of flavor type $m$, taken from the Standard Model, $\epsilon_{mk}$ is the event tagging efficiency matrix (see table \[tlveff\]), and $B_{mk}^h$ represents the momentum-dependent bias of tag $k$ toward selecting events of flavor $m$ that contain hadrons of species $h$. Ideally all biases would be unity in this formulation. The biases were calculated from the MC simulation as $B^h_{mk}=(n^h_{m,ktag}/N_{m,ktag})/(n^h_m/N_m)$, where $N_m$ $(n^h_m)$ is the number of simulated events (hadrons of species $h$ in events) of true flavor $m$ and $N_{m,ktag}$ $(n^h_{m,ktag})$ is the number of ($h$-hadrons in) those events that are tagged as flavor $k$. The diagonal bias values [@tomp; @kenb; @mihaid] are within a few percent of unity for the charged hadrons, $\phi$ and $K^{*0}$, reflecting a small multiplicity dependence of the flavor tags. They deviate by as much as 10% from unity for the $K^0/\bar{K}^0$ and [$\Lambda^0/\bar{\Lambda}^0$]{}, since some tracks from $V^0$ decays are included in the tagging track sample and have large impact parameter. The off-diagonal bias values deviate from unity by a larger amount, but these have little effect on the unfolded results.
---------------- --------------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------ ------ ------ ------
\[-.3cm\]
$<\! x_p\! >$
\[.1cm\] 0.008 0.010 0.009 467.2 9.0 493. 37. 508.1 10.6 1.05 0.09 1.09 0.03
0.010 0.012 0.011 428.1 8.2 413. 34. 481.2 9.7 0.96 0.09 1.12 0.03
0.012 0.014 0.013 383.2 7.3 403. 30. 441.3 8.6 1.05 0.09 1.15 0.03
0.014 0.016 0.015 337.1 6.6 375. 27. 388.4 7.9 1.11 0.09 1.15 0.03
0.016 0.022 0.019 274.7 4.6 301. 19. 333.6 4.8 1.10 0.08 1.21 0.02
0.022 0.027 0.025 214.5 3.7 230. 15. 264.4 4.1 1.07 0.08 1.23 0.03
0.027 0.033 0.030 165.5 3.1 178. 13. 205.4 3.6 1.08 0.09 1.24 0.03
0.033 0.038 0.036 137.2 2.7 141. 11. 166.9 3.3 1.03 0.09 1.22 0.03
0.038 0.044 0.041 117.2 2.5 111. 10. 141.4 3.2 0.95 0.10 1.21 0.04
0.044 0.049 0.047 98.4 2.4 96. 10. 118.6 3.3 0.97 0.11 1.20 0.04
0.049 0.055 0.052 83.6 2.4 86. 10. 106.3 3.5 1.03 0.13 1.27 0.06
0.055 0.066 0.060 66.9 1.4 65.8 5.9 84.2 2.0 0.98 0.10 1.26 0.04
0.066 0.077 0.071 52.8 1.1 48.8 4.8 64.0 1.6 0.93 0.10 1.21 0.04
0.077 0.088 0.082 41.61 0.95 43.4 4.0 49.2 1.4 1.04 0.11 1.18 0.04
0.088 0.099 0.093 34.11 0.81 32.3 3.5 40.6 1.2 0.95 0.11 1.19 0.04
0.099 0.110 0.104 28.74 0.72 23.6 3.1 30.1 1.1 0.82 0.11 1.05 0.04
0.110 0.132 0.120 21.64 0.46 21.3 2.1 22.72 0.76 0.99 0.10 1.05 0.04
0.132 0.164 0.147 15.26 0.31 12.4 1.4 13.54 0.51 0.81 0.10 0.89 0.04
0.164 0.186 0.175 10.76 0.26 8.8 1.1 8.26 0.42 0.82 0.11 0.77 0.04
0.186 0.208 0.197 8.44 0.22 6.66 0.90 5.57 0.34 0.79 0.11 0.66 0.04
0.208 0.230 0.219 6.29 0.19 6.03 0.77 3.93 0.29 0.96 0.13 0.62 0.05
0.230 0.274 0.251 4.81 0.12 3.77 0.48 2.52 0.18 0.78 0.11 0.52 0.04
0.274 0.318 0.294 2.932 0.090 2.62 0.36 1.39 0.13 0.89 0.13 0.47 0.05
0.318 0.384 0.348 1.815 0.059 1.69 0.23 0.695 0.084 0.93 0.14 0.38 0.05
0.384 0.471 0.421 0.915 0.037 0.42 0.14 0.380 0.053 0.46 0.16 0.42 0.06
0.471 0.603 0.529 0.376 0.023 0.146 0.084 0.108 0.031 0.39 0.22 0.29 0.08
0.603 0.768 0.654 0.145 0.017 0.027 0.054 0.006 0.015 0.18 0.37 0.04 0.10
\[.1cm\]
---------------- --------------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------ ------ ------ ------
: \[xsfpi\] Measured [differential cross section]{}s (1/N)d$n_{\pi^{\pm}}$/d$x_p$ for the production of charged pions per $Z^0$ decay into light ($u$, $d$, $s$), $c$ and $b$ primary flavors. The errors are the sum in quadrature of statistical errors and those systematic uncertainties arising from the unfolding procedure. Systematic errors common to the three flavors are not included. The $<\! x_p \!>$ values for the three flavor samples are consistent in each bin, and have been averaged.
---------------- ------------------- ------- ------- ------- -------- ------- ------- ------- ------ ------ ------ ------
\[-.3cm\]
$<\!\! x_p\!\! >$
\[.1cm\] 0.016 0.022 0.019 22.6 1.2 19.5 5.0 24.3 1.7 1.08 0.09
0.022 0.027 0.025 19.2 1.1 26.8 4.7 22.3 1.6 1.11 0.18 1.16 0.11
0.027 0.033 0.030 18.6 1.1 16.4 4.4 22.3 1.6 1.20 0.11
0.033 0.038 0.036 17.0 1.0 14.9 4.4 22.8 1.6 0.88 0.19 1.34 0.12
0.038 0.044 0.041 14.6 1.1 18.5 4.5 19.7 1.6 1.35 0.15
0.044 0.049 0.047 15.3 1.2 13.6 4.9 19.9 1.8 1.08 0.24 1.30 0.15
0.049 0.055 0.052 14.5 1.3 6.1 5.2 18.3 1.9 1.26 0.17
0.055 0.066 0.060 10.29 0.85 10.7 3.6 15.2 1.4 0.78 0.26 1.48 0.18
0.066 0.077 0.071 9.00 0.73 9.5 3.1 14.5 1.2 1.61 0.19
0.077 0.088 0.082 7.38 0.70 8.9 3.0 13.4 1.2 1.13 0.28 1.82 0.23
0.088 0.099 0.093 6.12 0.70 10.5 3.0 10.6 1.1 1.73 0.27
0.099 0.110 0.104 6.00 0.75 10.2 3.2 8.4 1.2 1.72 0.40 1.40 0.26
0.110 0.132 0.120 4.78 0.57 8.1 2.5 8.71 0.98 1.82 0.30
0.132 0.164 0.147 3.30 0.61 8.0 2.6 3.65 0.94 2.06 0.54 1.11 0.35
0.208 0.230 0.219 2.29 0.17 2.64 0.70 2.01 0.27 1.16 0.32 0.88 0.13
0.230 0.274 0.251 1.498 0.089 3.29 0.37 1.18 0.14 0.79 0.10
0.274 0.318 0.294 1.272 0.068 1.30 0.27 0.811 0.098 1.66 0.19 0.64 0.08
0.318 0.384 0.348 0.925 0.046 0.66 0.17 0.496 0.060 0.54 0.07
0.384 0.471 0.421 0.548 0.032 0.65 0.12 0.113 0.035 0.92 0.15 0.21 0.06
0.471 0.603 0.529 0.266 0.020 0.229 0.073 0.043 0.021 0.16 0.08
0.603 0.768 0.654 0.101 0.015 –0.003 0.046 0.020 0.014 0.57 0.24 0.20 0.14
\[.1cm\]
---------------- ------------------- ------- ------- ------- -------- ------- ------- ------- ------ ------ ------ ------
: \[xsfka\] Differential cross sections for the production of $K^\pm$ mesons per $Z^0$ decay into light, $c$ and $b$ primary flavors.
---------------- --------------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------ ------ ------ ------
\[-.3cm\]
$<\! x_p\! >$
\[.1cm\] 0.018 0.048 0.033 5.2 1.3 7.8 5.6 1.3 2.1 1.51 1.15 0.25 0.41
0.048 0.088 0.068 4.28 0.52 1.0 2.6 4.53 0.83 0.23 0.60 1.06 0.23
0.088 0.149 0.118 2.14 0.29 0.5 1.6 3.64 0.47 0.23 0.73 1.70 0.31
0.149 0.263 0.206 0.81 0.12 1.10 0.59 1.43 0.24 1.35 0.76 1.75 0.40
0.263 0.483 0.342 0.345 0.042 0.29 0.20 0.400 0.078 0.85 0.58 1.16 0.27
0.483 1.000 0.607 0.076 0.010 0.026 0.034 0.012 0.009 0.36 0.45 0.15 0.11
\[.1cm\]
---------------- --------------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------ ------ ------ ------
: \[xsfkstar\] Differential cross sections for the production of [$K^{*0}/\bar{K}^{*0}$]{} mesons per $Z^0$ decay into light, $c$ and $b$ primary flavors.
---------------- --------------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------- ------- ------ ------ ------ ------
\[-.3cm\]
$<\! x_p\! >$
\[.1cm\] 0.016 0.022 0.019 8.55 1.31 17.6 5.5 6.3 1.8 0.74 0.24
0.022 0.027 0.025 10.88 0.96 12.9 4.0 9.0 1.3 1.57 0.38 0.83 0.14
0.027 0.033 0.030 12.52 0.87 15.2 3.7 14.9 1.3 1.19 0.13
0.033 0.038 0.036 11.22 0.79 13.6 3.3 10.6 1.1 1.21 0.23 0.94 0.12
0.038 0.044 0.041 8.65 0.73 10.7 3.1 8.7 1.1 1.00 0.15
0.044 0.049 0.047 8.87 0.72 8.0 3.0 7.9 1.02 1.07 0.26 0.89 0.13
0.049 0.055 0.052 6.16 0.65 10.8 2.8 5.48 0.92 0.89 0.18
0.055 0.066 0.060 7.09 0.50 5.1 2.1 5.97 0.75 1.04 0.27 0.84 0.12
0.066 0.077 0.071 4.91 0.49 7.7 2.2 4.60 0.74 0.94 0.18
0.077 0.088 0.082 4.71 0.49 3.6 2.1 4.37 0.76 1.18 0.34 0.93 0.19
0.088 0.099 0.093 3.43 0.51 4.2 2.2 3.49 0.80 1.02 0.28
0.099 0.110 0.104 2.72 0.58 6.2 2.6 2.99 0.88 1.72 0.61 1.10 0.40
0.110 0.132 0.120 2.98 0.46 0.9 1.9 1.77 0.68 0.59 0.25
0.132 0.164 0.147 3.16 0.59 –0.2 2.5 2.93 0.86 0.07 0.54 0.93 0.32
0.230 0.274 0.251 0.738 0.085 0.84 0.34 0.506 0.098 0.69 0.15
0.274 0.318 0.294 0.514 0.062 0.46 0.24 0.241 0.065 1.04 0.35 0.47 0.14
0.318 0.384 0.348 0.338 0.037 0.16 0.14 0.093 0.034 0.27 0.10
0.384 0.471 0.421 0.141 0.021 0.277 0.079 0.012 0.016 1.02 0.35 0.09 0.12
0.471 0.603 0.529 0.088 0.010 0.040 0.034 –0.002 0.006 –.02 0.07
0.603 0.768 0.654 0.020 0.004 0.004 0.014 0.001 0.003 0.40 0.35 0.04 0.13
\[.1cm\]
---------------- --------------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------- ------- ------ ------ ------ ------
: \[xsfpr\] Differential cross sections for the production of p/$\bar{\rm p}$ per $Z^0$ decay into light, $c$ and $b$ primary flavors.
---------------- --------------- ------- ------ ------ ------- ------ ------ ------ ------- ------ ------ ------
\[-.3cm\]
$<\! x_p\! >$
\[.1cm\] 0.011 0.020 0.016 4.72 0.87 1.5 3.3 2.8 1.2 0.32 0.70 0.59 0.27
0.020 0.030 0.025 3.87 0.49 2.5 2.0 4.19 0.79 0.66 0.53 1.08 0.24
0.030 0.045 0.038 3.41 0.35 4.5 1.5 2.39 0.50 1.32 0.46 0.70 0.16
0.045 0.067 0.056 2.21 0.22 3.56 0.97 2.47 0.34 1.61 0.46 1.12 0.19
0.067 0.100 0.082 1.14 0.16 2.89 0.72 1.44 0.25 2.11 0.58 1.05 0.22
0.100 0.150 0.122 1.15 0.13 0.54 0.54 1.10 0.17 0.47 0.48 0.96 0.18
0.150 0.247 0.189 0.52 0.08 0.56 0.32 0.60 0.09 1.08 0.64 1.15 0.25
0.247 0.497 0.319 0.24 0.05 –0.13 0.19 0.20 0.04 –0.54 0.81 0.83 0.25
\[.1cm\]
---------------- --------------- ------- ------ ------ ------- ------ ------ ------ ------- ------ ------ ------
: \[xsflam\] Differential cross sections for the production of [$\Lambda^0/\bar{\Lambda}^0$]{}per $Z^0$ decay into light, $c$ and $b$ primary flavors.
---------------- --------------- ------- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------- ------ ------ ------
\[-.3cm\]
$<\! x_p\! >$
\[.1cm\] 0.009 0.011 0.010 19.0 4.4 6. 19. 6.1 3.1 0.29 0.99 0.32 0.17
0.011 0.011 0.013 23.2 3.2 –3. 15. 23.1 5.6 –0.14 0.64 0.99 0.39
0.014 0.018 0.016 20.4 2.4 15. 10. 25.8 4.4 0.72 0.52 1.27 0.25
0.018 0.022 0.020 21.2 2.3 22.7 9.7 21.7 3.3 1.07 0.47 1.02 0.18
0.022 0.027 0.025 20.5 1.8 17.4 7.8 21.4 2.6 0.85 0.39 1.04 0.15
0.027 0.033 0.030 17.3 1.4 12.8 6.2 20.7 2.2 0.74 0.36 1.20 0.15
0.033 0.041 0.037 14.1 1.2 12.8 5.1 19.3 1.9 0.91 0.37 1.37 0.17
0.041 0.050 0.045 12.0 1.0 13.2 4.4 15.6 1.5 1.10 0.38 1.30 0.16
0.050 0.061 0.055 10.1 0.8 10.9 3.5 13.2 1.2 1.08 0.36 1.31 0.15
0.061 0.074 0.067 7.73 0.69 12.8 3.2 13.5 1.1 1.66 0.43 1.75 0.20
0.074 0.091 0.082 7.07 0.52 3.0 2.4 12.3 0.9 0.42 0.33 1.74 0.17
0.091 0.111 0.100 5.33 0.44 7.0 2.0 8.35 0.81 1.31 0.39 1.57 0.19
0.111 0.142 0.126 4.17 0.34 4.6 1.5 5.85 0.57 1.10 0.37 1.40 0.17
0.142 0.183 0.161 3.17 0.30 3.7 1.6 4.26 0.55 1.18 0.53 1.35 0.21
0.183 0.235 0.206 2.16 0.22 2.68 0.97 1.99 0.48 1.24 0.46 0.92 0.24
0.235 0.301 0.262 1.12 0.16 2.62 0.72 0.09 0.24 2.15 0.66 0.71 0.22
0.301 0.497 0.371 0.69 0.10 0.79 0.45 0.10 0.10 1.44 0.70 0.14 0.14
\[.1cm\]
---------------- --------------- ------- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------- ------ ------ ------
: \[xsfkzero\] Differential cross sections for the production of $K^0/\bar{K}^0$ mesons per $Z^0$ decay into light, $c$ and $b$ primary flavors.
---------------- --------------- ------- ------- ------- -------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------ ------ ------
\[-.3cm\]
$<\! x_p\! >$
\[.1cm\] 0.018 0.057 0.037 0.64 0.18 1.08 0.77 0.73 0.28 1.67 1.28 1.13 0.53
0.057 0.079 0.068 0.48 0.18 0.31 1.02 0.37 0.31 0.64 2.15 0.78 0.70
0.079 0.175 0.127 0.222 0.073 0.12 0.39 0.42 0.11 0.56 1.75 1.88 0.81
0.175 0.263 0.215 0.091 0.052 0.35 0.23 0.228 0.068 3.85 3.32 2.51 1.61
0.263 0.483 0.357 0.052 0.021 0.185 0.085 0.054 0.023 3.58 2.17 1.05 0.61
0.483 1.000 0.689 0.017 0.004 –0.016 0.013 0.007 0.004 –0.96 0.78 0.43 0.27
\[.1cm\]
---------------- --------------- ------- ------- ------- -------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------ ------ ------
: \[xsfphi\] Differential cross sections for the production of $\phi$ mesons per $Z^0$ decay into light, $c$ and $b$ primary flavors.
The resulting [differential cross section]{}s are listed in tables \[xsfpi\]–\[xsfphi\]. The systematic errors listed are only those relevant for the comparison of different flavors, namely those due to uncertainties in the unfolding procedure; the systematic errors given in the preceding section are also applicable, but are common to all three flavor categories. The flavor unfolding systematic errors were evaluated by varying each element of the event tagging efficiency matrix $\epsilon_{ii}$ by $\pm$0.01 [@mikeh], varying the heavy quark production fractions $R_b$ and $R_c$ by the errors on their respective world averages, and varying each diagonal bias value $B_{ii}^h$ by the larger of $\pm$0.005 and $\pm$20% of its difference from unity. Since the lepton background is strongly flavor-dependent, the photon conversion rate in the simulation was varied by $\pm$15%, and the simulated rates of lepton production from other sources in light-, $c$, and $b$-flavor events were varied by $\pm$50%, $\pm$10% and $\pm$5%, respectively. The unfolding systematic errors are typically small compared with the statistical errors, and are dominated by the variation in the bias.
In figure \[xsudsmc\] we show the [differential cross section]{}s for the seven hadron species in light-flavor $Z^0$ decays. Qualitatively these are similar to those in flavor-inclusive decays (fig. \[xsall\]), although all [differential cross section]{}s are larger at high $x_p$ in light flavor events. The same general features of $\pi$-$K$ and p-$\Lambda^0$ convergence at high $x_p$ are visible, and the relative suppressions of hadron species with respect to one another are similar in magnitude and momentum dependence.
Also shown in fig. \[xsudsmc\] are the predictions of the three simulation programs. All models reproduce the shape of each [differential cross section]{} qualitatively. The JETSET prediction for charged pions is smaller than the data in the range $x_p<0.015$, and those for the pseudoscalar kaons are larger than the data for $0.015<x_p<0.03$; those for the vector mesons and protons reproduce the $x_p$ dependence but show a larger normalization than the data. These differences were all seen in the flavor-inclusive results (figs. \[fallmc\], \[xsallmc\]), and we can now conclude that they all indicate problems with the modelling of light-flavor fragmentation, and cannot be due entirely to mismodelling of heavy hadron production and decay. The HERWIG prediction for pseudoscalar kaons is also larger than the data at low $x_p$ and is slightly smaller than the data in the range $0.15<x_p<0.25$. For all hadron species the HERWIG prediction is larger than the data for $x_p>0.4$, showing a characteristic shoulder structure. The UCLA predictions for the baryons and the vector mesons show a similar but less pronounced structure that is inconsistent with the proton and [$K^{*0}/\bar{K}^{*0}$]{}data. Otherwise UCLA reproduces the data except for pseudoscalar kaons in the range $0.015<x_p<0.03$.
=3.95in
In fig. \[xsrbumc\] and tables \[xsfpi\]–\[xsfphi\] we give the ratios of production in $b$-flavor to light-flavor events for the seven species. The systematic errors on the hadron reconstruction and identification largely cancel in these ratios, and the total errors are predominantly statistical. There is higher production of charged pions in $b$-flavor events than in light-flavor events at low $x_p$, with the ratio rising with $x_p$ for $0.008<x_p<0.03$ to a plateau value of about 1.25. The production of both charged and neutral kaons is approximately equal in the two samples for $x_p<0.03$, but the relative production in $b$-flavor events then increases with $x_p$, peaking at a value of about 1.7 at $x_p \approx 0.09$. The errors on the [$K^{*0}/\bar{K}^{*0}$]{} and $\phi$ ratios are large, but the data are consistent with behavior similar to that of the pseudoscalar kaon ratios. There is approximately equal production of baryons in $b$-flavor and light-flavor events for $x_p<0.15$. The production of pions and pseudoscalar kaons in $b$-flavor events falls rapidly with $x_p$ for $x_p>0.1$ relative to that in light-flavor events. The relative production of the vector mesons and protons also falls at high $x_p$.
=6.55in
These features are consistent with expectations based on the known properties of $e^+e^- \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ events, namely that a large fraction of the event energy (on average about 70% [@bohrer]) is carried by the leading $B$- and $\bar{B}$-hadrons, leaving little energy available to produce high momentum fragmentation hadrons. The $B$ hadrons decay into a large number of lighter particles, including on average 5.5 stable charged hadrons [@pdg], which are expected to populate primarily the region $0.02<x_p<0.2$. Also shown in fig. \[xsrbumc\] are the predictions of the three fragmentation models, all of which reproduce these features qualitatively, although HERWIG overestimates the ratio for pions in the range $x_p<0.05$ and that for kaons for $x_p<0.3$. The values of these ratios depend on details of the $B$ and $D$ hadron energy spectra and decay properties, and so provide information complementary to that in fig. \[xsudsmc\]. However, in drawing conclusions regarding heavy flavor modelling from these ratios, one must consider how well the model in question reproduces the light flavor results. For example, the HERWIG prediction for pion (kaon) production in light-flavor events (fig. \[xsudsmc\]) is consistent with (higher than) the data for $x_p<0.05$, so it is safe to conclude from fig. \[xsrbumc\] that HERWIG mismodels pion and kaon production from $B$ decays in this region. However the fact that the HERWIG ratio for kaons is high in the region $0.1<x_p<0.3$ is due at least in part to the low HERWIG prediction for kaon production in light-flavor events in that region.
In fig. \[xsrbumc\] we also show the ratios of production in $c$-flavor to light-flavor events for the seven species. The errors are larger than for the $b$:$uds$ comparison and $x_p$ bins have been combined in some cases for clarity. Similar qualitative features are observed: there is higher kaon production in $c$-flavor events than in light-flavor events at $x_p \sim 0.1$; pion production is slightly higher in $c$-flavor than in light-flavor events for $x_p< 0.03$, then decreases slowly with $x_p$; both pion and kaon production appear to fall rapidly with $x_p$ for $x_p>0.3$, a somewhat higher value than the corresponding $b$:$uds$ ratios. These features are expected since $c$-jets produce a charmed hadron with on average about half [@bohrer] the beam energy, a lower fraction than $B$-hadrons, which leaves more energy available for fragmentation hadrons than in $b$-jets. The charmed hadron decay products often include a kaon carrying a large fraction of the charmed hadron momentum, and there are fewer additional charged pions than in $B$ hadron decays. Also shown in fig. \[xsrbumc\] are the $c$:$uds$ ratios predicted by the three fragmentation models. All models are consistent with the data, except that HERWIG overestimates the pion ratio for $0.03<x_p<0.15$.
Comparison with QCD Predictions
===============================
We tested the predictions of Gribov and Lipatov, that, in the limit $x_p \rightarrow 1$, the momentum distribution for primary leading hadrons be $(1-x_p)^n$, with $n=2$ for mesons and $n=3$ for baryons. Since this test benefits from more bins at high $x_p$, we considered only the charged hadrons. The cross sections measured in light flavor events provide in principle a better test than those measured in flavor-inclusive events, since $c$- and $b$-flavor events cannot contain primary leading pions, kaons or protons. However, we have just shown that the contributions from $c$- and $b$-flavor events are small for $x_p$ greater than about 0.5; since we have better statistics for flavor-inclusive events we performed the test on this data set, as well as on the light-flavor data. We are limited to $x_p<0.77$ for the charged pions and kaons, but for the flavor-inclusive analysis of protons we have an additional bin, obtained from a 2-hypothesis analysis (see sec. 4.1) that also yielded the sum of meson cross sections ($\pi^{\pm} + K^{\pm}$). We also considered this meson sum at all momenta, which has smaller statistical errors than the sum of the individual $\pi^\pm$ and $K^\pm$ cross sections.
=4.3in
Figure \[glall\] shows the $\pi^\pm$, $K^\pm$, p and ($\pi^{\pm} + K^{\pm}$) [differential cross section]{}s as functions of $(1-x_p)$ in flavor-inclusive $Z^0$ decays. Fits of the function $f(x) = A(1-x_p)^n$, with the value of $n$ fixed to 2 (3 for protons), were performed to the first $m$ data points and the resulting fitted distributions for $m=2,4,6$ are shown in the figure. In all cases the fit quality is good for $m=2$, but worsens with increasing $m$. The maximum number of bins for which the confidence level of the $\chi^2$ of the fit exceeded 0.01 was 3 for $\pi^\pm$ and $K^\pm$, 6 for p/$\bar{\rm p}$, and 2 for the meson sum ($\pi^{\pm} + K^{\pm}$).
Using this criterion, the theoretical prediction is consistent with our combined meson data for $(1-x_p)<0.34$, with our pion and kaon data for $(1-x_p)<0.47$, and with our proton data for $(1-x_p)<0.57$. A similar analysis of the light-flavor sample (not shown) yielded similar results; the prediction is consistent with our pion, kaon and combined meson data for $(1-x_p)<0.53$, and with our proton data for $(1-x_p)<0.62$.
=6.4in
=6.4in
In order to test the predictions of QCD in the Modified Leading Logarithm Approximation (MLLA) combined with the ansatz of Local Parton-Hadron Duality (LPHD), we converted our measurements into [differential cross section]{}s in the variable $\xi= \ln(1/x_p)$. Figure \[xione\] shows our measured [differential cross section]{} as a function of $\xi$ for the charged kaons. Also shown are the results of fits to a simple Gaussian, and a distorted Gaussian including skewness and kurtosis terms. The Gaussian fit was performed over a $\xi$ range of width 2 units positioned near the maximum of the distribution. The fitted peak position $\xi^*$ was found to be independent of the exact position of this range within statistical errors, and the solid line in fig. \[xione\] represents the result of a fit over a range centered on this peak position. A good fit quality was obtained; the two points above this $\xi$ range could be added to the fit, as could the first two points below the range, before the $\chi^2$ began to increase rapidly, indicating that the Gaussian approximation is consistent with our data over a range of approximately $\pm$1.3 units of $\xi$ around the peak position. The distorted Gaussian function is able to describe the data over the full measured range of $\xi$, as indicated by the dashed line in fig. \[xione\], however the distortion terms grow rapidly as points outside the range described by the simple Gaussian are added.
=5.2in
Similar results were obtained for the other hadron species. Their $\xi$-distributions are shown in fig. \[xiall\]. We fitted a simple Gaussian over a $\xi$ range of approximately $\pm$1 unit centered on the maximum of each distribution in order to measure the peak position $\xi^*$ for each hadron species. Systematic errors on this measurement were evaluated by varying the fit range and by refitting with each source of correlated experimental systematic error considered coherently in turn. Good fit qualities were obtained when the correlated systematic errors were taken into account. The peak positions are given in table \[xistar\] and shown as a function of hadron mass in fig. \[xiallpk\], along with averages of similar measurements from experiments at LEP [@bohrer], with which they are consistent. The distribution for pions peaks at a higher $\xi$ value than the those of the other hadron species, but otherwise there is no monotonic mass-dependence.
------------------------------------------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------
\[.1cm\] $\pi^{\pm}$ 3.80 0.01 3.81 0.01 3.85 0.04 3.71 0.01
\[.1cm\] $K^{\pm}$ 2.60 0.03 2.83 0.08 2.52 0.12 2.67 0.04
\[.1cm\] $K^0/\bar{K}^0$ 2.62 0.05 2.78 0.10 2.32 0.35 2.61 0.06
\[.1cm\] [$K^{*0}/\bar{K}^{*0}$]{} 2.31 0.04 2.47 0.09 2.11 0.07
\[.1cm\] $\phi$ 2.0 0.4 2.43 0.28 2.18 0.18
\[.1cm\] p/$\bar{\rm p}$ 3.00 0.07 2.77 0.05 3.03 0.26 2.86 0.07
\[.1cm\] [$\Lambda^0/\bar{\Lambda}^0$]{} 2.64 0.07 2.58 0.21 2.75 0.15 2.47 0.18
\[.1cm\]
------------------------------------------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------
: \[xistar\] Peak positions $\xi^*$ from Gaussian fits to the $\xi$ distributions for each hadron species measured in flavor-inclusive and flavor-specific hadronic $Z^0$ decays. The errors are the sum in quadrature of statistical and systematic components.
As discussed in section 1, the MLLA QCD$+$LPHD prediction is valid for primary fragmentation particles, whereas experiments so far have measured samples that include decay products of an unknown mix of resonances as well as of heavy hadrons. This mix may affect measured $\xi^*$ values differently for different hadron species. It is of interest to try to resolve this question experimentally, and we have therefore applied the same analysis to the three primary event flavor categories discussed in the previous section. We expect the light flavor events to be less affected by decay products, as $D$- and $B$-hadron decays are excluded.
The Gaussian function provides an acceptable description of the $\xi$ distribution for all hadron species in events of each flavor within about $\pm$1 unit of the peak (not shown), and the fitted peak positions are listed in table \[xistar\]. For the [$K^{*0}/\bar{K}^{*0}$]{} and $\phi$ in $c$-flavor events, the limited sample size did not allow a reasonable systematic error evaluation, so they are omitted.
The $\xi^*$ values measured in $b$-flavor events are significantly different from those measured in light-flavor events for $\pi^{\pm}$ and [$K^{*0}/\bar{K}^{*0}$]{}; the difference is 1.5$\sigma$ for $K^\pm$ and $K^0/\bar{K}^0$. For the other hadron species the $\xi^*$ values measured in events of all three flavors are consistent. The $\xi^*$ values measured in light-flavor events differ significantly from those measured in flavor-inclusive events for $K^\pm$ and p/$\bar{\rm p}$. The light-flavor $\xi^*$ values are also shown in fig. \[xiallpk\]. The result of an ad hoc exponential fit to the light-flavor data is shown in fig. \[xiallpk\] as a reference trajectory, and the light-flavor data are seen to lie closer to a monotonic trajectory than the flavor-inclusive data.
Total Production Cross Sections
===============================
We have integrated our differential cross sections over their respective measurement ranges, taking into account the bin-to-bin correlations in the systematic errors. These integrated cross sections per event are listed in tables \[pifraxa\]–\[xsgneu\]; the errors are dominated by overall normalization uncertainties corresponding to the uncertainty in our track reconstruction efficiency. In order to quote total cross sections, we must extrapolate into the unmeasured regions of $x_p$, and we have done this using the three MC models discussed above. From the hadrons of each species generated using each of these models, we calculated the fraction that were generated with $x_p$ in the range of our measurement. For each hadron species the three fractions were found to be similar, with the UCLA (HERWIG) fraction being typically 1% larger (1–2% smaller) than the JETSET fraction. The average of the three accepted fractions ranged from 0.812 for $K^\pm$ to 0.945 for $K^0/\bar{K}^0$. Each integrated measured cross section was divided by the corresponding average fraction, and an uncertainty of $\pm$0.01 ($\pm$0.015) was assigned to the average fraction for $\pi^{\pm}$, $K^{\pm}$, $K^0/\bar{K}^0$, p/$\bar{\rm p}$ and [$\Lambda^0/\bar{\Lambda}^0$]{} ([$K^{*0}/\bar{K}^{*0}$]{} and $\phi$), corresponding to a typical rms among the three predictions. The corrected total cross sections are shown in table \[xsintf\], and were found to be consistent with an average of similar measurements from experiments at LEP [@bohrer].
----------------------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------- ------- -------- -------
\[-.3cm\]
\[.1cm\]
\[.1cm\]
\[-.3cm\] $\pi^{\pm}$ 16.84 0.37 16.46 0.47 16.30 1.01 18.36 0.52 –0.15 0.96 1.91 0.36
\[.1cm\] $K^{\pm}$ 2.22 0.16 2.04 0.15 2.47 0.28 2.40 0.19 0.43 0.23 0.36 0.10
\[.1cm\] $K^0$ 2.01 0.08 1.86 0.09 1.86 0.21 2.11 0.11 0.01 0.21 0.25 0.09
\[.1cm\] ${K}^{*0}$ 0.707 0.041 0.727 0.081 0.561 0.316 0.768 0.124 –0.166 0.321 0.041 0.132
\[.1cm\] $\phi$ 0.105 0.008 0.091 0.021 0.131 0.091 0.121 0.026 0.040 0.093 0.030 0.031
\[.1cm\] p 1.03 0.13 1.06 0.14 1.06 0.21 0.91 0.13 0.01 0.17 –0.15 0.07
\[.1cm\] $\Lambda^0$ 0.395 0.022 0.421 0.030 0.341 0.088 0.383 0.032 –0.080 0.091 –0.038 0.039
\[.1cm\]
----------------------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------- ------- -------- -------
: \[xsintf\] Corrected total cross sections per hadronic $Z^0$ decay, and per decay into light, $c$ or $b$ primary flavor. Differences between the total cross sections for $c$- and light-flavor and $b$- and light-flavor events. All errors are the sum in quadrature of experimental and extrapolation uncertainties
As a cross check, we fitted the distorted Gaussian function described in section 6 to the $\xi$ distribution for each hadron species, and calculated the fraction of the area under the fitted curve that was within the range of our measurement. An uncertainty was assigned corresponding to the largest variation obtained by varying the fitted parameter values by all combinations of $+1\sigma$ and $-1\sigma$. The resulting fractions are consistent with those obtained using the fragmentation models, giving confidence in both the central values and the uncertainties assigned.
We applied the same procedure to our measurements for the three flavor categories. The three simulations were found to give similar flavor dependences, with the accepted fraction in $b$ ($c$) events typically 0.02 (0.01) larger than that in light-flavor events. The resulting total cross sections are listed in table \[xsintf\] along with differences between flavors, for which some of the systematic errors cancel. We observe roughly 15% more pseudoscalar mesons in $b$-flavor events than in light-flavor events, and the respective sums of the charged hadron differences are consistent with our previous measurement [@nchflav] of the differences in total charged multiplicity between light-, $c$- and $b$-flavor events. All other differences are consistent with zero.
Leading Particle Effects
========================
We extended these studies to look for differences between particle and antiparticle production in light quark (as opposed to antiquark) jets, in order to address the question of whether e.g. a primary $u$-initiated jet contains more hadrons that contain a valence $u$-quark (e.g. $\pi^+$, $K^+$, p, $\Lambda^0$) than hadrons that do not (e.g. $\pi^-$, $K^-$, $\bar{\rm p}$, $\bar{\Lambda}^0$). To this end we used the light quark- and antiquark-tagged hemispheres described in section 3.
We measured the [differential cross section]{}s per light quark jet $$\begin{aligned}
R^{q}_{h} &=& {1\over{2N_{evts}}}{d\over{dx_{p}}}\left[ N(q\rightarrow
h)+N(\bar{q}\rightarrow\bar{h})\right],\\
R^{q}_{\bar{h}} &=& {1\over{2N_{evts}}}{d\over{dx_{p}}}\left[
N(q\rightarrow\bar{h})+N(\bar{q}\rightarrow h)\right],\end{aligned}$$ where: $q$ and $\bar{q}$ represent light-flavor quark and antiquark jets respectively; $N_{evts}$ is the total number of events in the sample; $h$ represents any of the identified hadron species $\pi^{-}$, $K^{-}$, $\overline{K}^{*0}$, p, or $\Lambda^0$, and $\bar{h}$ indicates the corresponding antihadron. Then, for example, $N(q\rightarrow h)$ is the number of hadrons of species $h$ in light quark jets. This formulation assumes CP symmetry, i.e. $N(q\rightarrow h) = N(\bar{q} \rightarrow \bar{h})$, which was found to be satisfied in the data in all cases.
The charged hadron fractions analysis was repeated on the sample of positively charged tracks in the quark-tagged jets and negatively charged tracks in the antiquark-tagged jets, yielding measured values of $R^{q}_{\pi^{+}}$, $R^{q}_{K^{+}}$, and $R^{q}_{\rm p}$ in the tagged samples. The same procedure applied to the remaining tracks yielded $R^{q}_{\pi^{-}}$, $R^{q}_{K^{-}}$, and $R^{q}_{\bar{\rm p}}$. The [$K^{*0}/\bar{K}^{*0}$]{} and [$\Lambda^0/\bar{\Lambda}^0$]{} analyses were applied similarly to the quark- and antiquark-tagged jets to yield $R^{q}_{\overline{K}^{*0}}$, $R^{q}_{K^{*0}}$, $R^{q}_{\Lambda}$ and $R^{q}_{\bar{\Lambda}}$.
The light-tagged event sample contains a residual heavy flavor background of 12% $c\bar{c}$ and 3% $b\bar{b}$ events. The decays of the leading heavy hadrons in simulated heavy flavor background events give rise to substantial differences between hadron and antihadron production in the quark-tagged sample over the entire $x_p$ range. It is essential to understand this contribution, which is typically 15% of the observed hadrons for $x_p<0.5$ and decreases at higher $x_p$ (see fig. \[xsrbumc\]). The simulated contribution to each cross section was applied as a correction, yielding [differential cross section]{}s per light-quark-tagged jet.
For each hadron species, [differential cross section]{}s in light quark jets were then extracted by correcting for the light-tag bias (see sec. 5) and unfolding for the effective quark (vs. antiquark) purity. The purity was estimated from the simulation to be 0.76 for the [$\Lambda^0/\bar{\Lambda}^0$]{} and 0.72 for the charged hadrons and [$K^{*0}/\bar{K}^{*0}$]{}, the latter value reflecting the cutoff in acceptance of the CRID at $|\cos\theta|=0.68$.
The measured [differential cross section]{}s per light quark jet are listed in tables \[xsqpi\]–\[xsqla\] for the five measured hadron species that are not self-conjugate. As for the flavor dependent results (sec. 5), the error given is the sum in quadrature of the statistical error and those systematic errors arising from the tagging and correction procedures. The latter include variation of the event tagging efficiencies and biases as described in section 5, variation of the electroweak parameters $R_b$, $R_c$, $A_b$ and $A_c$ by the errors on their respective world average values [@pdg], and variation of the effective quark purity by $\pm$0.015 to cover the uncertainty in the electron beam polarization and statistical error on the simulated purity. The systematic errors are small compared with the statistical errors, and are typically dominated by the uncertainty on the effective quark purity. These results supersede those in our previous publication [@lpprl].
---------------- --------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------- -------
\[-.3cm\]
$<x_p>$
\[.1cm\] 0.016 0.022 0.019 140.9 2.5 139.0 2.6 –0.007 0.016
0.022 0.033 0.027 98.2 1.5 96.7 1.4 –0.007 0.014
0.033 0.044 0.038 62.8 1.3 63.6 1.3 0.007 0.019
0.044 0.055 0.049 44.2 1.4 44.9 1.4 0.007 0.029
0.055 0.066 0.060 33.4 1.1 33.2 1.1 –0.003 0.030
0.066 0.077 0.071 25.79 0.82 27.16 0.82 0.026 0.028
0.077 0.088 0.082 21.66 0.71 22.34 0.71 0.016 0.029
0.088 0.099 0.093 17.17 0.62 18.40 0.63 0.034 0.032
0.099 0.110 0.104 14.45 0.57 14.52 0.57 0.003 0.036
0.110 0.121 0.115 11.44 0.50 12.84 0.52 0.057 0.038
0.121 0.143 0.131 9.32 0.32 9.61 0.32 0.015 0.031
0.143 0.164 0.153 7.21 0.28 7.39 0.28 0.012 0.035
0.164 0.186 0.175 5.40 0.24 5.49 0.25 0.008 0.041
0.186 0.208 0.197 4.30 0.21 4.44 0.22 0.016 0.045
0.208 0.230 0.219 3.14 0.19 3.30 0.19 0.026 0.053
0.230 0.274 0.251 2.37 0.12 2.59 0.12 0.043 0.043
0.274 0.318 0.295 1.398 0.091 1.687 0.097 0.093 0.055
0.318 0.384 0.348 0.972 0.061 0.996 0.064 0.012 0.057
0.384 0.471 0.423 0.456 0.040 0.504 0.042 0.050 0.077
0.471 0.603 0.527 0.180 0.025 0.210 0.026 0.08 0.12
0.603 0.768 0.668 0.065 0.019 0.089 0.021 0.16 0.23
\[.1cm\]
---------------- --------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------- -------
: \[xsqpi\] Differential cross sections for the production of positive and negative pions in light ($u$, $d$ and $s$) quark jets from hadronic $Z^0$ decays, along with the normalized difference $D_{\pi^-}$ between the two. The errors are the sum in quadrature of statistical errors and those systematic errors arising from the light quark tagging and unfolding procedure.
---------------- --------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------
\[-.3cm\]
$<x_p>$
\[.1cm\] 0.018 0.048 0.033 2.50 0.94 2.69 0.95 0.04 0.29
0.048 0.088 0.068 1.64 0.36 2.40 0.38 0.18 0.14
0.088 0.149 0.118 1.11 0.22 0.88 0.22 –0.11 0.17
0.149 0.263 0.206 0.318 0.087 0.447 0.095 0.17 0.19
0.263 0.483 0.342 0.053 0.033 0.264 0.042 0.67 0.18
0.483 1.000 0.607 0.022 0.012 0.100 0.015 0.64 0.16
\[.1cm\]
---------------- --------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------
: \[xsqks\] Differential cross sections for the production of $K^{*0}$ and $\bar{K}^{*0}$ mesons in light quark jets, along with their normalized difference.
---------------- --------- ------- -------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------
\[-.3cm\]
$<x_p>$
\[.1cm\] 0.016 0.022 0.019 8.3 1.1 14.8 1.3 0.28 0.09
0.022 0.033 0.027 9.27 0.69 8.14 0.68 –0.06 0.07
0.033 0.044 0.038 8.05 0.68 7.70 0.68 –0.02 0.08
0.044 0.055 0.049 8.03 0.81 7.59 0.81 –0.03 0.09
0.055 0.066 0.060 3.75 0.74 6.27 0.79 0.25 0.14
0.066 0.088 0.077 3.44 0.45 3.90 0.47 0.06 0.11
0.088 0.121 0.101 3.09 0.41 2.73 0.42 –0.06 0.13
0.208 0.230 0.219 0.99 0.18 1.36 0.19 0.15 0.14
0.230 0.274 0.251 0.595 0.091 1.120 0.099 0.31 0.10
0.274 0.318 0.295 0.383 0.072 0.895 0.081 0.40 0.11
0.318 0.384 0.348 0.260 0.049 0.665 0.055 0.44 0.10
0.384 0.471 0.423 0.163 0.034 0.427 0.039 0.45 0.11
0.471 0.603 0.527 0.091 0.023 0.219 0.026 0.42 0.14
0.603 0.768 0.668 –0.007 0.017 0.120 0.022 1.12 0.28
\[.1cm\]
---------------- --------- ------- -------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------
: \[xsqka\] Differential cross sections for the production of positive and negative kaons in light quark jets from hadronic $Z^0$ decays, along with their normalized difference.
---------------- --------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------
\[-.3cm\]
$<x_p>$
\[.1cm\] 0.022 0.033 0.027 7.1 1.1 4.7 1.4 0.20 0.21
0.033 0.044 0.038 5.76 0.52 4.83 0.51 0.09 0.09
0.044 0.055 0.049 4.10 0.44 4.07 0.44 0.00 0.10
0.055 0.066 0.060 3.65 0.44 3.20 0.44 0.07 0.12
0.066 0.088 0.077 2.69 0.30 2.31 0.30 0.08 0.11
0.088 0.121 0.101 1.82 0.29 1.99 0.30 –0.04 0.14
0.230 0.274 0.251 0.618 0.078 0.292 0.072 0.36 0.15
0.274 0.318 0.295 0.387 0.056 0.157 0.053 0.42 0.18
0.318 0.384 0.348 0.257 0.035 0.099 0.033 0.44 0.18
0.384 0.471 0.423 0.117 0.020 0.076 0.019 0.21 0.19
0.471 0.603 0.527 0.070 0.010 0.025 0.009 0.47 0.19
0.603 0.768 0.668 0.018 0.004 0.001 0.004 0.85 0.42
\[.1cm\]
---------------- --------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------
: \[xsqpr\] Differential cross sections for the production of protons and antiprotons in light quark jets, along with their normalized difference.
---------------- --------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------
\[-.3cm\]
$<x_p>$
\[.1cm\] 0.010 0.030 0.022 0.65 0.16 1.05 0.17 –0.23 0.18
0.030 0.050 0.040 0.86 0.13 0.91 0.13 –0.03 0.14
0.050 0.070 0.060 0.529 0.084 0.555 0.084 –0.02 0.14
0.070 0.100 0.083 0.303 0.057 0.468 0.060 –0.21 0.14
0.100 0.140 0.118 0.301 0.053 0.319 0.054 –0.03 0.16
0.140 0.180 0.158 0.190 0.048 0.157 0.047 0.09 0.25
0.180 0.300 0.227 0.171 0.034 0.098 0.032 0.27 0.23
0.300 0.500 0.368 0.090 0.022 0.013 0.019 0.75 0.37
\[.1cm\]
---------------- --------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------
: \[xsqla\] Differential cross sections for the production of $\Lambda^0$ and $\bar{\Lambda}^0$ hyperons in light quark jets, along with their normalized difference.
It is convenient to show these results in the form of the difference between hadron $h$ and antihadron $\bar{h}$ production normalized by the sum: $$D_{h} = {R^{q}_{h} - R^{q}_{\overline{h}}\over
R^{q}_{h} + R^{q}_{\overline{h}}}.$$ The common systematic errors cancel explicitly in this variable, which is shown for each hadron species in fig. \[ndall\]. A value of zero corresponds to equal production of hadron and antihadron, whereas a value of $+$(–)1 corresponds to complete dominance of (anti)particle production. In each case the difference is consistent with zero at low $x_p$. For charged pions it is also consistent with zero at high $x_p$, but for the other hadrons there are significant positive differences that appear to increase with increasing $x_p$.
The results for the baryons (fig. \[ndall\]a,b) afford the most straightforward interpretation. Since baryons contain valence quarks and not antiquarks, the observed excess of both protons and $\Lambda^0$s over their respective antibaryons for $x_p>0.2$ is clear evidence for the production of leading baryons. The data suggest that the effect increases with $x_p$, however more data are needed to study the $x_p$ dependence in detail. For $x_p<0.2$ the data are consistent with equal production of baryons and antibaryons, however the contribution from fragmentation is very high in this region and we cannot exclude that leading baryons are also produced at low $x_p$.
=3.5in
Since a meson contains one valence quark along with one valence antiquark, the interpretation of our results for mesons is more complicated. All down-type quarks are produced equally and with the same forward-backward asymmetry in $Z^0$ decays in the Standard Model, so that if a leading neutral particle such as $\bar{K}^{*0}$ ($s\bar{d}$) were produced equally in $s$ and $\bar{d}$ jets (i.e. $D^{d\bar{d}}_{\bar{K}^{*0}} = -D^{s\bar{s}}_{\bar{K}^{*0}}$), then our measured $D_{\bar{K}^{*0}}$ would be zero. Our two highest-$x_p$ points are significantly positive, indicating both that there is leading $\bar{K}^{*0}$ production [*and*]{} that more leading $\bar{K}^{*0}$ are produced in $s$ jets than in $\bar{d}$ jets. This is an expected consequence of strangeness suppression in the fragmentation process. That is, it is expected to be less likely for an $s\bar{s}$ to be produced from the vacuum and the $s$ to pair up with an initial $\bar{d}$ than it is for a $d\bar{d}$ to be produced and the $\bar{d}$ to pair up with the initial $s$.
In the case of charged hadrons such as $\pi^-$ ($d\bar{u}$), the different $Z^0$ branching ratios and forward-backward asymmetries of up- and down-type quarks cause a nonzero dilution of leading particle effects. Assuming Standard Model couplings to the $Z^0$ and equal production of leading $\pi^+$ in $u$-jets and $\pi^-$ in $d$-jets (i.e. $D^{d\bar{d}}_{\pi^-} = -D^{u\bar{u}}_{\pi^-}$), we calculate a dilution factor for our analysis cuts of 0.27. That is, we would expect to observe $D_{\pi^-} = 0.27 D^{d\bar{d}}_{\pi^-}$. For purposes of illustration, we have fitted a line to our $D_p$ and $D_{\Lambda^0}$ points for $x_p > 0.2$, scaled it by the dilution factor 0.27, and drawn it as the dot-dashed line on figs. \[ndall\]c and \[ndall\]d. We do not necessarily expect that leading particle effects are identical for mesons and for baryons, but this line serves as a basis for a qualitative comparison.
Our measured $D_{\pi^-}$ are consistent with zero everywhere, and consistently below this line. This does not rule out leading pion production, but indicates that nonleading production of pions must be comparable or larger at all $x_p$. This could be due to a very soft leading pion momentum distribution and/or a large “background" contribution of pions from decays of excited states such as $\rho^0$, $\omega$, $\eta$, $K^*$. Our measured $D_{K^-}$ are consistently positive and above the line for $x_p > 0.2$. As in the case of $\bar{K}^{*0}/K^{*0}$, this indicates both production of leading charged kaons and more frequent production of leading $K^-$ in $s$-jets than in $\bar{u}$-jets.
The quantification of the total number of observed leading particles is problematic. For example, in the region $x_p>0.2$ we observe a total of 0.083$\pm$0.005 protons and 0.036$\pm$0.005 antiprotons per light quark jet. Some of the antiprotons are expected to be “subleading" antiprotons produced in association with a leading baryon, since baryon number is known to be conserved locally [@bcorrl], whereas others are from a non-leading baryon-antibaryon pair, and provide a measure of the background of nonleading protons in the high-$x_p$ sample. We conclude that the number of leading protons we have observed per light quark jet must lie between the p-$\bar{\rm p}$ difference and the total number of protons, i.e. in the range 0.047–0.083 per light quark jet. Similarly, the number of observed leading $\Lambda^0$ in the range $0.18<x_p<0.5$ is 0.024–0.039. For $x_p>0.26$ we measure a total of 0.110$\pm$0.012 $\bar{K}^{*0}$ and 0.023$\pm$0.010 $K^{*0}$ per light quark jet. In this case, all of these could be leading due to contributions from $s$ and $d$ jets, and so the sum gives an upper bound on the number of leading $K^{*0}$/$\bar{K}^{*0}$ produced. A lower bound is given by the possibility that no leading $K^{*0}$ are produced in $d$ jets. In this case all of the observed $K^{*0}$ are nonleading, we expect an equal number of nonleading $\bar{K}^{*0}$, and the number of leading $\bar{K}^{*0}$ produced is given by the $\bar{K}^{*0}$–$K^{*0}$ difference. Thus we have observed 0.087–0.133 leading [$K^{*0}/\bar{K}^{*0}$]{} per jet with $x_p>0.26$. Similarly, the number of leading charged kaons produced in the range $0.21<x_p<0.77$ is 0.141–0.355 per jet.
The measured normalized differences are compared with the predictions of the three fragmentation models in fig. \[ndall\]. All models reproduce the qualitative features of our data. For the baryons, the HERWIG prediction drops below zero in the range in which we have no proton coverage; this behavior might be ruled out with more [$\Lambda^0/\bar{\Lambda}^0$]{} data. The HERWIG and UCLA predictions rise sharply to unity at $x_p \approx 0.4$ and are inconsistent with the proton data. For the mesons all models are consistent with the data.
Production Ratios and Fragmentation Parameters
==============================================
Certain aspects of the fragmentation process can be studied more directly by measuring the relative production of two hadron species that differ by a single quantum number. We have calculated the ratios of [differential cross section]{}s for a number of pairs of hadron species, for flavor-inclusive and light-flavor events, taking into account any systematic errors common to the two species. The results are shown for light-flavor events in fig. \[rtuds\]. In the cases where binning was different for the two hadron species in a pair, the ratio was obtained by fitting a curve to the denominator over a region near each $x_p$ value in the numerator. In some cases charged and neutral pseudoscalar kaons were averaged, and are denoted simply “K". In all cases, charge-conjugate states are included in both numerator and denominator.
=6.4in
The ratios of the strange mesons to pions vary rapidly with $x_p$. In flavor-inclusive events (not shown), the values of each of these ratios vary over a similar range but show less structure, being consistent with simple powers of $x_p$ for $x_p>0.04$. The proton:pion ratio also varies rapidly for $x_p<0.1$. The other ratios shown in fig. \[rtuds\] are independent of $x_p$ within our errors.
The $K^0$:$K^{\pm}$ ratio differs significantly from unity over the range $0.03<x_p<0.09$, averaging 0.86$\pm$0.03; we observe a similar difference in flavor-inclusive events (not shown), as has been observed previously [@bohrer]. Assuming that primary charged and neutral kaons are produced equally in the fragmentation process, this implies that some hadron species is produced that decays preferentially into charged kaons. Our measured cross sections indicate that decays of $\phi$ and $K^*$ mesons would each account for only $\sim$0.01 of the difference from unity. Decays of $D$- and $B$-hadrons cannot be the source of this difference since they have been excluded explicitly.
The predictions of the three fragmentation models are also shown in fig. \[rtuds\], and all describe the qualitative features of the data. The JETSET prediction for each ratio involving $K^{*}$ or $\phi$ mesons differs from the data by a large normalization factor, and those predictions have been scaled by factors derived from fig. \[xsudsmc\] in order to compare the momentum dependence with that of the data. All models underestimate the slope of the $K$:$\pi^+$ ratio, but reproduce those of the $\phi$:$\pi^+$ and $K^{*}$:$\pi^+$ ratios, overestimating the latter ratio only at the highest-$x_p$ point. The $x_p$ dependence of the p:$\pi^+$ ratio is reproduced by all models at low $x_p$, but only by the JETSET model for $x_p>0.2$. However the JETSET model shows a normalization difference from the data of about 20%. Similar differences in the model predictions for the $\Lambda$:$K$ ratio cannot be resolved with the current statistics. No model reproduces the measured $K^0$:$K^+$ ratio; all predict a roughly constant value of 0.98 in the range of our measurement. All models predict a larger value of the $K^*$:$K$ ratio at the highest-$x_p$ point than is observed in the data. A similar set of comparisons for flavor-inclusive events (not shown) yielded the same conclusions.
These ratios can be used to study the suppression of baryons, vector mesons and strange hadrons in the fragmentation process. Quantifying such suppression at the primary fragmentation level is problematic due to possible effects of different masses of the two hadron species in the ratio and the fact that decay products populate a different $x_p$ region than their primary parents. We therefore used the JETSET model, in which there are tunable parameters controlling the relative production of baryons, strange hadrons and vector mesons, to extract suppression parameters in the context of that model. We first considered the relative production of pseudoscalar ($P$) and vector ($V$) mesons, traditionally expressed in terms of the parameter $P_V = V/(V+P)$. Since we might expect that measured ratios are not the same at very high $x_p$, where leading hadron production is important, as they are lower $x_p$, we defined arbitrarily a “fragmentation" region, $0.05<x_p<0.25$, and a “leading" region, $x_p>0.45$. In each region we averaged our measured $K^{*}$:$K$ ratio, and compared it with those obtained in the same region from the JETSET generator run with a series of input values of the $P_V$ parameter for strange mesons. We interpolated to find the $P_V$ value at which the model prediction for each ratio was equal to that measured in the data, and these values are listed in table \[tpv\] for the two $x_p$ regions and for both flavor-inclusive and light-flavor events. The two measurements in each momentum range are consistent, but the $P_V$ value measured in the fragmentation region is significantly higher than that measured in the leading region for both flavor categories.
[|c|c|c|]{}\
\
&&\
$x_p$ Range & inclusive & light-flavor\
&&\
0.055–0.219 & 0.405$\pm$0.020 & 0.433$\pm$0.033\
0.439–1.000 & 0.226$\pm$0.029 & 0.279$\pm$0.029\
We next considered the relative production of baryons (B) and mesons (M), in terms of the parameter $P_B = B / (B+M)$. A similar set of comparisons of our p:$\pi$ and $\Lambda$:$K$ ratios with the predictions of the JETSET model as $P_B$ was varied yielded the measured $P_B$ values listed in table \[tpb\]. The four values extracted from the p:$\pi$ ratio are consistent. The value from the $\Lambda$:$K$ ratio in light-flavor events is consistent with these four, but that in flavor-inclusive events is slightly larger.
[|r@[:]{}lc|c|c|]{}\
\
&&&\
& $x_p$ Range & inclusive & light-flavor\
&&&\
p & $\pi^\pm$ & 0.055–0.165 & 0.076$\pm$0.003 & 0.074$\pm$0.004\
$\Lambda$ & $K$ & 0.061–0.237 & 0.101$\pm$0.003 & 0.087$\pm$0.005\
p & $\pi^\pm$ & 0.493–0.987 & 0.081$\pm$0.006 & 0.081$\pm$0.009\
Information on the suppression of strangeness is available from several of our measurements. It is conventional to define a suppression factor $\gamma_s$ as the probability of creating an $s\bar{s}$ from the vacuum, relative to that of creating a $u\bar{u}$ or $d\bar{d}$, at a given point in the fragmentation process. As has been suggested in ref. [@lafferty], the normalized production difference (see section 8) at high $x_p$ between a strange hadron and its antihadron in light quark jets provides a robust way of investigating strangeness suppression for any neutral hadron, such as [$K^{*0}/\bar{K}^{*0}$]{}, that is unlikely to be a decay product of a heavier primary particle. If we assume leading particle dominance, so that $\bar{K}^{*0}$ can be produced only in $s$ and $\bar{d}$ jets, and that the relative production in $\bar{d}$ jets is suppressed by a factor of $\gamma_s$, then we expect the normalized difference to be $D_{\bar{K}^{*0}} = (1-\gamma_s)/(1+\gamma_s)$. From our point in the bin $0.5<x_p<1$ we used this equation to derive a “direct" measurement of $\gamma_s=0.26\pm0.12$, where we first scaled our given $D_{\bar{K}^{*0}}$ value by 0.923 to account for the fact that we assumed contributions from $u$, $d$ and $s$ jets in the original unfolding, whereas we now assume only $d$ and $s$ contribute. Similarly, assuming dominant production of leading $K^{\pm}$ and accounting for the different branching fraction and forward-backward asymmetry of up- and down-type events, one expects $1.05 D_{K^-} = (1-0.55\gamma_s)/(1+0.77\gamma_s)$. From this we derive $\gamma_s=0.41\pm0.17$, using our $D_{K^-}$ data in the range $0.47<x_p<0.77$.
We also used the JETSET model to predict the normalized differences as a function of $\gamma_s$, and to extract from our measured $D_{\bar{K}^{*0}}$ and $D_{K^-}$ the $\gamma_s$ values listed in table \[tgs\]. Also listed in table \[tgs\] are $\gamma_s$ values extracted in the context of the JETSET model from our measured $K$:$\pi^+$, $\phi$:$K^*$ and $\Lambda$:p ratios. For each ratio, the values derived from the flavor-inclusive and light-flavor events are consistent. However there is a significant $x_p$ dependence in the values obtained from the $K$:$\pi^+$ ratio in both flavor categories, and there are several other significant differences between pairs of values from the same flavor category. This indicates that the JETSET model cannot accommodate all of our data with a single $\gamma_s$ value and all other parameters set to their default values.
[|r@[:]{}l|c|c|c|]{}\
\
&&&\
& $x_p$ Range & inclusive & light-flavor\
&&&\
& 0.482–1.000 & – & 0.194$\pm$0.141\
& 0.493–0.768 & – & 0.249$\pm$0.110\
&&&\
$K$ & $\pi^+$ & 0.055–0.219 & 0.236$\pm$0.016 & 0.266$\pm$0.014\
$\phi$ & $K^*$ & 0.048–0.263 & 0.163$\pm$0.027 & 0.184$\pm$0.052\
$\Lambda$ & p & 0.050–0.182 & 0.339$\pm$0.014 & 0.311$\pm$0.032\
&&&\
$K$ & $\pi^+$ & 0.493–0.768 & 0.575$\pm$0.084 & 0.483$\pm$0.091\
$\phi$ & $K^*$ & 0.482–1.000 & 0.160$\pm$0.060 & 0.239$\pm$0.075\
Summary and Conclusions
=======================
We have measured the production of the seven hadron species $\pi^\pm$, $K^\pm$, $K^0/\bar{K}^0$, [$K^{*0}/\bar{K}^{*0}$]{}, $\phi$, p/$\bar{\rm p}$, and [$\Lambda^0/\bar{\Lambda}^0$]{} as a function of scaled momentum $x_p$ over a wide range in hadronic $Z^0$ decays. The SLD Cherenkov Ring Imaging Detector enabled the clean and efficient identification of stable charged hadrons, yielding precise measurements of their production cross sections, as well as the identification of relatively clean samples of the strange mesons [$K^{*0}/\bar{K}^{*0}$]{}and $\phi$ reconstructed in decay modes containing charged kaons. Our measurements of differential production cross sections, total cross sections and ratios of production of these hadron species in flavor-inclusive hadronic $Z^0$ decays are consistent with averages of those from experiments at LEP.
Using the SLD vertex detector to isolate high-purity light- and $b$-tagged event samples, we have measured the production of these seven hadron species in light-, $c$- and $b$-flavor events. Significant differences between flavors were found, consistent with expectations based on the known properties of $B$ and $D$ hadron production and decay. Our $\pi^\pm$, $K^\pm$ and p/$\bar{\rm p}$ data at high $x_p$ were used to test the predictions of Gribov and Lipatov for the shape of the $x_p$ distribution of primary leading hadrons as $x_p \rightarrow 1$. We find the predictions of the theory to be consistent with the flavor-inclusive (light-flavor) meson data for $x_p>0.66$ ($x_p>0.47$) and with the proton data for $x_p>0.43$ ($x_p>0.38$). The shape of the $\xi = -\ln(x_p)$ distribution for each hadron species in events of each flavor is consistent with the Gaussian form predicted by MLLA QCD$+$LPHD near its peak. The peak positions $\xi^*$ for each hadron species in light-flavor events are more consistent with a monotonic dependence on hadron mass than those in flavor-inclusive events.
Using the large forward-backward asymmetry induced by the polarized SLC electron beam to separate light quark from light antiquark hemispheres, we have updated our measurements of hadron and antihadron production in light quark jets. Differences are observed at high $x_p$ between baryon and antibaryon production, which is evidence for the production of leading baryons, i.e. baryons that carry the quantum numbers of the initial quark. Differences are also observed for both pseudoscalar and vector $K$-mesons, which indicate not only leading production of these two hadron species but also that leading strange mesons are produced more often from initial $s$ quarks than from initial $u$ or $d$ quarks.
Our data were used to test the predictions of three fragmentation models with default parameters. In most cases these simulations reproduced the data to within a few percent. However the JETSET 7.4 model predicts too many p/$\bar{\rm p}$, [$K^{*0}/\bar{K}^{*0}$]{} and $\phi$ mesons at all $x_p$, and too many $K^\pm$ and $K^0$/$\bar{K}^0$ at low $x_p$. The UCLA model predicts too many pions in the 2–20 GeV/c range, a shoulder in the $x_p$ distributions for baryons at high $x_p$, and larger differences between baryon and antibaryon production at high $x_p$ than are seen in our light-quark data. The HERWIG 5.8 model predicts a shoulder in the $x_p$ distribution for most hadron species at high $x_p$, a large excess of low-$x_p$ pions and kaons in $b$-flavor events and of medium-$x_p$ pions in $c$-flavor events, and a rapid variation in the baryon-antibaryon differences as a function of $x_p$. All models predict a charged:neutral kaon ratio very close to unity, which is inconsistent with our light-flavor and flavor-inclusive data. Also, no model is consistent with the $x_p$ dependence of either our $K$:$\pi$ ratio or our $K^*$:$K$ ratio.
We have studied several parameters of the fragmentation process. The differences between kaon and antikaon production in light quark jets allow two new, direct measurements of strangeness suppression at high momentum. We have also used our ratios of production of pairs of hadron species to extract fragmentation parameters in the context of the JETSET model. We find the vector:pseudoscalar meson parameter to be dependent on $x_p$, and the strangeness suppression parameter to be dependent both on $x_p$ and on the hadron species used to form the ratio.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
We thank the personnel of the SLAC accelerator department and the technical staffs of our collaborating institutions for their outstanding efforts on our behalf. We thank S. Brodsky and L. Dixon for useful discussions.
[99]{}
See e.g. R.K. Ellis, D.A. Ross, A.E. Terrano, Nucl. Phys. [**B178**]{} (1981) 421.
S. Moretti, RAL-TR-97-065, hep-ph/9711518.
T.I. Azimov, Y.L. Dokshitzer, V.A. Khoze and S.I. Troyan, Z. Phys. [**C27**]{} (1985) 65.
G. Marchesini and B.R. Webber, Nucl. Phys. [**B238**]{} (1984) 1.
V.N. Gribov and L.N. Lipatov, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. [**15**]{} (1973) 675.
D.H. Saxon, [*High Energy Electron-Positron Physics*]{}, Eds. A. Ali and P. Söding, World Scientific (1988), p. 539.
A. Böhrer, Phys. Rep. [**291**]{} (1997) 107.
SLD Collab., K. Abe et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. [**78**]{} (1997) 3442.
G. Marchesini et al., Comp. Phys. Comm. [**67**]{} (1992) 465.
T. Sjöstrand, Comp. Phys. Comm. [**82**]{} (1994) 74.
S. Chun and C. Buchanan, Phys. Rep. [**292**]{} (1998) 239.
SLD Design Report, SLAC-Report 273 (1984).
M.D. Hildreth et al., Nucl. Inst. Meth. [**A367**]{} (1995) 111.
C. J. S. Damerell et al., Nucl. Inst. Meth. [**A288**]{} (1990) 236.
K. Abe et al., Nucl. Inst. Meth. [**A343**]{} (1994) 74.
D. Axen et al., Nucl. Inst. Meth. [**A238**]{} (1993) 472.
S. Brandt et al., Phys. Lett. [**12**]{} (1964) 57;\
E. Farhi, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**39**]{} (1977) 1587.
SLD Collab., K. Abe et al., Phys. Rev. [**D53**]{} (1996) 1023.
K. Abe et al., Nucl. Inst. and Meth. [**A371**]{} (1996) 195.
T.J. Pavel, Ph.D. Thesis, Stanford University, January 1997; SLAC-Report-495.
SLD Collab., K. Abe et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. [**73**]{} (1994) 25.
DELPHI Collab., P. Abreu et al., Nucl. Phys. [**B444**]{} (1995) 3.
OPAL Collab., P.D. Acton et al., Z. Phys. [**C63**]{} (1994) 181.
ALEPH Collab., D. Buskulic et al., Z. Phys. [**C66**]{} (1995) 355.
SLD Collab., K. Abe et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. [**72**]{} (1994) 3145.
K.G. Baird, Ph.D. Thesis, Rutgers University, December 1995; SLAC-Report-95-483.
Particle Data Group, Phys. Rev. [**D54**]{} (1996) 1.
M.O. Dima, Ph.D. Thesis, Colorado State University, March 1997; SLAC-Report-505.
ALEPH Collab., D. Buskulic et al., Z. Phys. [**C69**]{} (1996) 379.
SLD Collab., K. Abe et al., Phys. Rev. [**D53**]{} (1996) 2271.
SLD Collab., K. Abe et al., Phys. Lett. [**B386**]{} (1996) 475.
See e.g. DELPHI Collab., P. Abreu et al., Phys. Lett. [**B416**]{} (1998) 247.
G. D. Lafferty, Phys. Lett. [**B353**]{} (1995) 541.
$^{**}$List of Authors {#list-of-authors .unnumbered}
======================
=.75
**
(The SLD Collaboration)
=.75 Adelphi University, South Avenue- Garden City,NY 11530, Aomori University, 2-3-1 Kohata, Aomori City, 030 Japan, INFN Sezione di Bologna, Via Irnerio 46 I-40126 Bologna (Italy), Brunel University, Uxbridge, Middlesex - UB8 3PH United Kingdom, Boston University, 590 Commonwealth Ave. - Boston,MA 02215, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati,OH 45221, University of Colorado, Campus Box 390 - Boulder,CO 80309, Columbia University, Nevis Laboratories P.O.Box 137 - Irvington,NY 10533, Colorado State University, Ft. Collins,CO 80523, INFN Sezione di Ferrara, Via Paradiso,12 - I-44100 Ferrara (Italy), Lab. Nazionali di Frascati, Casella Postale 13 I-00044 Frascati (Italy), University of Illinois, 1110 West Green St. Urbana,IL 61801, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Dept.of Physics 50B-5211 University of California- Berkeley,CA 94720, Louisiana Technical University, , University of Massachusetts, Amherst,MA 01003, University of Mississippi, University,MS 38677, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 77 Massachussetts Avenue Cambridge,MA 02139, Moscow State University, Institute of Nuclear Physics 119899 Moscow Russia, Nagoya University, Nagoya 464 Japan, University of Oregon, Department of Physics Eugene,OR 97403, Oxford University, Oxford, OX1 3RH, United Kingdom, Universita di Padova, Via F. Marzolo,8 I-35100 Padova (Italy), Universita di Perugia, Sezione INFN, Via A. Pascoli I-06100 Perugia (Italy), INFN, Sezione di Pisa, Via Livornese,582/AS Piero a Grado I-56010 Pisa (Italy), Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Chiton,Didcot - Oxon OX11 0QX United Kingdom, Rutgers University, Serin Physics Labs Piscataway,NJ 08855-0849, Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, 2575 Sand Hill Road Menlo Park,CA 94025, Sogang University, Ricci Hall Seoul, Korea, Soongsil University, Dongjakgu Sangdo 5 dong 1-1 Seoul, Korea 156-743, University of Tennessee, 401 A.H. Nielsen Physics Blg. - Knoxville,Tennessee 37996-1200, Tohoku University, Bubble Chamber Lab. - Aramaki - Sendai 980 (Japan), U.C. Santa Barbara, 3019 Broida Hall Santa Barbara,CA 93106, U.C. Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz,CA 95064, Vanderbilt University, Stevenson Center,Room 5333 P.O.Box 1807,Station B Nashville,TN 37235, University of Washington, Seattle,WA 98105, University of Wisconsin, 1150 University Avenue Madison,WS 53706, Yale University, 5th Floor Gibbs Lab. - P.O.Box 208121 - New Haven,CT 06520-8121.
[^1]: Work supported by Department of Energy contracts: DE-FG02-91ER40676, DE-FG03-91ER40618, DE-FG03-92ER40689, DE-FG03-93ER40788, DE-FG02-91ER40672, DE-FG02-91ER40677, DE-AC03- 76SF00098, DE-FG02-92ER40715, DE-FC02-94ER40818, DE-FG03-96ER40969, DE-AC03-76SF00515, DE-FG05-91ER40627, DE-FG02-95ER40896, DE-FG02-92ER40704; National Science Foundation grants: PHY-91-13428, PHY-89-21320, PHY-92-04239, PHY-95-10439, PHY-88-19316, PHY-92-03212; The UK Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council; The Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare of Italy; The Japan-US Cooperative Research Project on High Energy Physics; The Korea Science and Engineering Foundation.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'It is well known that the leptogenesis mechanism offers an attractive possibility to explain the baryon asymmetry of the universe. Its particular robustness however comes with one major difficulty: it will be very hard if not impossible to *test* experimentally in a foreseeable future, as most of the mechanics *typically* takes place at high energy or *results* from suppressed interactions, without unavoidable low-energy implications. An alternate approach is taken by asking: can it be at least falsified? We show that *possible* discoveries at current and future colliders, most notably that of right-handed gauge interactions, would indeed forbid at least the “canonical” leptogenesis mechanisms, namely those based on right-handed neutrino decay. General lower bounds for successful leptogenesis on the mass of the right-handed gauge boson $W_R$ are given. Other possibilities to falsify leptogenesis, including from the observation of a $Z''$, are also considered.'
---
\
1.5cm
[**Is leptogenesis falsifiable at LHC?**]{}
0.5cm
[Jean-Marie Frère$^{a,b}$]{}[^1], [Thomas Hambye$^a$]{}[^2] and [Gilles Vertongen$^a$]{}[^3]\
.7cm $^a$Service de Physique Théorique,\
Université Libre de Bruxelles, 1050 Brussels, Belgium\
$^b$KITP, University of California, Santa Barbara CA93106, USA
0.5cm
2truecm
Introduction
============
The recent evidence for neutrino masses has brought forward leptogenesis [@fy] as a very attractive mechanism to explain the baryon asymmetry of the universe. Along this mechanism, the baryon asymmetry of the universe is explained by the same interactions as the ones which can explain the neutrino masses. In the most straightforward seesaw model, which assumes right-handed neutrinos in addition to the standard model particles, both neutrino masses and leptogenesis originate from the Yukawa interactions and lepton number violating Majorana masses of the right-handed neutrinos $${\cal L} \owns
- \overline{L} \,{\widetilde H} \, {Y_\nu^\dagger} \, N
-\frac{1}{2}\,\overline{N} \, {m_N} \,{{N}^c}
+\text{h.c.}$$ where $L$ stands for the lepton weak doublets and $\tilde H$ is related to the standard Brout-Englert-Higgs (hereafter simply Higgs) doublet $H \equiv (H^+, H^0)$ by $\tilde H = i \tau_{2} H^*$.
However, testing this mechanism will be a very difficult task for several reasons. If the right-handed neutrinos have a hierarchical mass spectrum, due to neutrino mass constraints, leptogenesis through $N$ decay can lead to the observed amount of baryon asymmetry e.g. only if it involves right-handed neutrinos with masses above $\sim 10^8$ GeV [@predi; @di]. As a result they cannot be produced at colliders. Moreover there are many more parameters in the Yukawa coupling matrices which can play an important role for leptogenesis, than there are (not too suppressed) low energy observables which could constrain these parameters.[^4]
If the right-handed neutrinos have instead a quasi-degenerate spectrum (for at least 2 of them), leptogenesis can be efficient at lower scales [@lowscale] but generically in this case the neutrino mass constraints require suppressed values of Yukawa couplings, which hampers their production at colliders.
For leptogenesis to be both efficient and tested at low energy, not only is a quasi-degeneracy between 2 right-handed neutrinos required, but also a special flavour structure which allows for larger Yukawa couplings while preserving the light neutrino mass constraints,[^5] and/or a right-handed neutrino production mechanisms other than through the Yukawas and associated neutrino mixings.
In this paper we consider the problem of testing leptogenesis mechanisms the other way around. While they cannot confirm leptogenesis, could low energy observations at least exclude it? We propose one particularly clear possibility, namely the observation of a right-handed charged gauge boson $W_R$. It is known that for high mass right-handed neutrinos and $W_R$, around $10^{10}$ GeV or higher, the $W_R$ can have suppression effects on leptogenesis through dilution and scattering, but, in the specific case of reheating after inflation, they can also boost the $N$ abundances [@Carlier; @Cosme; @2sarkar] and hence relax the constraints on Yukawa couplings. Not surprisingly, with a low scale $W_R$ the suppression effects are dramatically enhanced. Actually, see section 2, they turn out to be so strongly enhanced that, even with a maximal CP asymmetry of order unity, leptogenesis cannot be a sufficient cause of the matter excess anymore.
Right-handed gauge interactions lead in particular to much larger suppression effects at low scale than left-handed interactions do in other contexts (i.e. than in leptogenesis from scalar [@typeIIlepto; @typeIIleptoeffic] or fermion [@typeIIIlepto] triplet decays, whose efficiency have been calculated in Refs. [@typeIIleptoeffic; @typeIIIlepto]). This is due to the fact that at the difference of triplets, a single $N$ can interact through $W_R$ exchange with fermions which are all in thermal equilibrium, which induces more efficient, and hence dangerous, scatterings and decays. In particular, some of the scatterings involving the $W_R$ turn out to induce a very large suppression due to the fact that they do not decouple through a Boltzmann suppression. The production of $N$’s through a light $W_R$, often presented as the easiest way to produce $N$’s, is therefore incompatible with successful leptogenesis, and even enhanced $N$ production from reheating cannot compensate for the large suppression. The lower bounds on the mass of the $W_R$, required for successful leptogenesis, are given in section 3.
The possible discovery of a low-energy $W_R$ has recently been the object of several analysis by LHC collaborations [@Wlhcferrari; @Wlhckras; @LHCstudies]. It should be feasible up to $m_{W_R} \sim 3$-5 TeV (see more details, and additional possible searches, in section 7).
The observation of a $W_R$ is not the only possibility to exclude canonical neutrino decay leptogenesis from current energy data. We give a list of other possibilities in section 5, considering in particular the implications of the observation of a $Z'$ at LHC. The case of other leptogenesis seesaw models with not only or without right-handed neutrinos is briefly considered in section 6.
Leptogenesis in presence of a low scale $W_R$
=============================================
As well known the net rate of baryon asymmetry is given in any leptogenesis model by 3 ingredients, the CP asymmetry of the decaying particle, $\varepsilon_N$ for a right-handed neutrino, the Boltzmann equations which determine the efficiency $\eta$ and the $L$ to $B$ sphaleron conversion rate, which we denote by $r_{{\cal
L} \rightarrow {\cal B}}$. Let us first discuss and present our results for the case where the lepton asymmetry is created from the decay of a single right-handed neutrino, $N$.[^6] Later on we will discuss the generalization to more right-handed neutrinos. In this case, from these 3 ingredients the net baryon asymmetry produced by the $N$ decays is: $$Y_{\cal B} = Y_{\cal L} \, r_{{\cal L}\rightarrow {\cal B}} = \varepsilon_N \,\eta \, Y_N^{eq}(T\gg m_N) \, r_{{\cal L}\rightarrow {\cal B}}.$$ with $Y_i\equiv n_i/s$, $Y_{\cal B}\equiv Y_{B}-Y_{\bar{B}}$, $Y_{\cal L}\equiv Y_L-Y_{\bar{L}}$, $n_i$ the comoving number density of the species “i”, “eq” refering to the equilibrium number density, and $s$ the comoving entropy density. For a particle previously in thermal equilibrium, the efficiency is unity by definition in absence of any washout effect from inverse decays or scatterings. If all lepton asymmetry has been produced before the sphaleron decoupling at the electroweak phase transition and if the sphalerons have had the time to thermalize completely the $L$ abundance, the conversion ratio between lepton and baryon number is given by [@Khlebnikov:1988sr] $$\label{LtoBfactor}
r_{{\cal L}\rightarrow {\cal B}}= -\frac{8\,n_f + 4 \,n_H}{22\,n_f + 13 \,n_H}=-\frac{28}{79},$$ where the last equality refers to the SM value, with $n_f$ the number of fermion families and $n_H$ the number of Higgs doublets.
In the right-handed neutrino decay leptogenesis model without any $W_R$, the CP-asymmetry is defined by $$\varepsilon_N \equiv \frac{\Gamma(N\rightarrow L H) - \Gamma(N \rightarrow \bar{L} H^*)}{\Gamma(N\rightarrow L H) + \Gamma(N \rightarrow \bar{L} H^*)}. \label{CPasym}$$ while the evolution of the comoving abundances is given as a function of $z\equiv m_N/T$ by the Boltzmann equations: $$\begin{aligned}
zH(z)s\, Y'_{N} &=& -\left(\frac{Y_{N}}{Y_{N}^{\rm eq}}-1 \right) \left(\gamma_N^{(l)} + 2 \gamma_{Hs} + 4\gamma_{Ht}\right)\\
zH(z)s\, Y'_{\cal L} &=&\gamma_N^{(l)} \left[\varepsilon_{N} \left(\frac{Y_{N}}{Y_{N}^{\rm eq}}-1\right) - \frac{Y_{\cal L}}{2\,Y_{L}^{\rm eq}}\right] -2 \frac{Y_{\cal L}}{Y_{L}^{\rm eq}}\left(\gamma_{Ns}^{\rm sub}+\gamma_{Nt}+\gamma_{Ht} + \gamma_{Hs}\,\frac{Y_{N}}{Y_{N}^{\rm eq}}\right)
\label{Boltzstand2}\end{aligned}$$ where $'$ denotes the derivative with respect to $z$. The thermally averaged reaction rate $$\gamma^{(l)}_N = n_N^{eq}(z)~\frac{K_1(z)}{K_2(z)}~\Gamma_N^{(l)},$$ parametrizes the effects of Yukawa induced decays and inverse decays with $\Gamma^{(l)}_{N}=\Gamma(N\rightarrow L H) + \Gamma(N \rightarrow \bar{L} H^*)=\frac{1}{8 \pi}|Y_\nu|^2 m_N$, and $K_{1,2}$ Bessel functions. The other $\gamma$’s take into account the effects of the various scatterings through a $H$ or a $N$ in the $s$ or $t$ channels. They are related to the corresponding cross sections in the following way $$\begin{aligned}
\gamma(a\,b\leftrightarrow 1\,2) &=& \iint d\bar{p}_a d\bar{p}_b f_a^{eq}f_b^{eq} \iint d\bar{p}_1 d\bar{p}_2 (2\pi)^4 \delta^4(p_a+p_b-p_1-p_2) |{\cal M}|^2\\
&=& \frac{T}{64~\pi^4} \int_{s_{min}}^{\infty} ds ~\sqrt{s}~\hat{\sigma}(s)~K_1\left(\frac{\sqrt{s}}{T} \right)
\label{ScatRates}\end{aligned}$$ with $\hat{\sigma} = 2\,s^{-1}\, \lambda^2[s,m_a^2,m_b^2]\, \sigma(s)$ the reduced cross section, $\lambda[a,b,c]\equiv \sqrt{(a-b-c)^2 -4bc}$ and $s_{min} = \max[(m_a+m_b)^2,(m_1+m_2)^2]$. The analytic expression of the reduced cross sections can be found in Refs. [@gammas1; @gammas2].[^7] $\gamma_{Ns}^{\rm sub} = \gamma_{Ns} -\gamma_{N}^{(l)}/4$ in Eq. (\[Boltzstand2\]) refers to the substracted scattering through a $N$ in the $s$ channel (i.e. taking out the contribution of the on-shell propagator in order to avoid double counting with the inverse decay contribution [@gammas2]).
The above, now traditional approach assumes that $N$ are introduced in an isolated way in the model. In many unifying groups (left-right symmetric [@SU2R], Pati-Salam [@PatiSalam], $SO(10)$ [@SO10] or larger) the presence of the $N$ can be nicely justified as it is precisely the ingredient required to unify all fermions. These groups however do not introduce the $N$ in such an isolated way and moreover link the $N$ and $W_R$ masses to the same $SU(2)_R$ breaking scale $v_R$.[^8] It is thus a (generally unwarranted) assumption to neglect the effect of $SU(2)_R$ gauge bosons. If $m_{W_R}$ is smaller than $\sim 10^{13}$ GeV, these effects must be explicitly incorporated for any $N$ whose mass is not several orders of magnitude below the one of the $W_R$ [@Cosme].
The key interactions of the $W_R$ [@SU2R; @PatiSalam] are the $${\cal L} \owns \frac{g}{\sqrt{2}}
W_R^{\mu} \left( \bar{u}_R \gamma_{\mu} d_R + \bar{N} \gamma_{\mu} \,l_R \right)$$ gauge ones. ($N$ and the right-handed charged leptons ($l_R=e_R,\mu_R,\tau_R$), and $u_R$ and $d_R$, are members of a same $SU(2)_R$ doublet).
Their effects for leptogenesis can be incorporated by modifying the Boltzmann equations in the following way: $$\begin{aligned}
zH(z)s\, Y'_{N} &=& -\left(\frac{Y_{N}}{Y_{N}^{\rm eq}}-1 \right) \left(\gamma_{N}^{(l)} + \gamma_{N}^{(W_R)} + 2 \gamma_{Hs} + 4\gamma_{Ht}+ 2 \gamma_{Nu} + 2 \gamma_{Nd} + 2 \gamma_{Ne} \right)\nonumber\\
& &- \left(\left(\frac{Y_N}{Y_N^{eq}}\right)^2 - 1 \right) \gamma_{NN}\label{NBoGauge}\\
zH(z)s\, Y'_{\cal L} &=&\gamma_{N}^{(l)} \varepsilon_{N} \left(\frac{Y_{N}}{Y_{N}^{\rm eq}}-1\right) - \left(\gamma_{N}^{(l)}+ \gamma_{N}^{(W_R)}\right)\frac{Y_{\cal L}}{2\,Y_{L}^{\rm eq}}\nonumber\\
&&
-\frac{Y_{\cal L}}{Y_{L}^{\rm eq}}\left(2\,\gamma_{Ns}^{\rm sub}+2\,\gamma_{Nt}+2\,\gamma_{Ht} + 2\,\gamma_{Hs}\,\frac{Y_{N}}{Y_{N}^{\rm eq}}
+ \,\gamma_{Nu}
+ \,\gamma_{Nd}
+ \,\gamma_{Ne}\,\frac{Y_{N}}{Y_{N}^{\rm eq}}\right) \,\,\label{LBoGauge}\end{aligned}$$ with the CP asymmetry unchanged, as given by Eq. (\[CPasym\]). In these Boltzmann equations there are essentially 2 types of effects induced by the $W_R$, both suppressing the produced lepton asymmetry: from the presence of alternate decay channels for the heavy neutrinos, $\gamma_N^{(W_R)}$, and from scatterings, $\gamma_{Nu,d,e}$, see below.
Decay effect: dilution and wash-out
-----------------------------------
It is useful to distinguish 2 cases depending on the mass hierarchy between $N$ and $W_R$.
a\) Case $m_{W_R}> m_{N}$: in this case the decay of $N$ to leptons or antileptons plus Higgs particles remains the only possible 2 body decay channels but a series of three body decay channels with a *virtual* $W_R$ is now possible: $N \rightarrow l_R q_R \bar{q}'_R$ or $N \rightarrow \bar{l}_R \bar{q}_R q'_R $ with $l=e,\mu,\tau$, $q=u,c,t$, $q'=d,s,b$. We obtain: $$\Gamma(N \rightarrow l_R q_R \bar{q}'_R)= \frac{3\,g_R^4}{2^9\,\pi^3\,m_N^3} \int_0^{m_N^2} dm_{12}^2 ~\frac{\left(m_N^6-3 m_N^2 m_{12}^4 +2 m_{12}^6\right)}{\left(m_{W_R}^2-m_{12}^2\right)^2+m_{W_R}^2 \Gamma_{W_R}^2\left(m_{12}^2\right)}$$ Given the potentially large value of the gauge to Yukawa couplings ratio, the three body decays can compete with the Yukawa two body decay. Since the gauge interactions do not provide any CP-violation and are flavor blind, it can be shown that they do not provide any new relevant source of CP-asymmetry. But still the gauge interaction-induced 3 body decays appear in both Boltzmann equations, Eqs. (\[NBoGauge\])-(\[LBoGauge\]), with $$\gamma_{N}^{(W_R)}=n_N^{eq}(z)~\frac{K_1(z)}{K_2(z)}~\Gamma_{N}^{(W_R)}.\label{DecayTot}$$ where $\Gamma_N^{(W_R)}$ is the total three body decay width.
Unlike in leptogenesis without $W_R$, not all decays participate in the creation of the asymmetry but only a fraction $\Gamma^{(l)}_{N}/\Gamma_{N_{Tot}}$ does. This shows up in the Boltzmann equations through the fact that Eq. (\[NBoGauge\]) involves $\Gamma_{N_{Tot}}=\Gamma_N^{(l)}+ \Gamma_N^{(W_R)}$ while the CP-asymmetry in Eq. (\[LBoGauge\]) is multiplied only by $\Gamma^{(l)}_{N}$.[^9] This dilution effect leads automatically to an upper bound on the efficiency. The bound $\eta
<1$, which applies in standard leptogenesis for thermal $N$’s becomes: $$\eta < \Gamma^{(l)}_{N}/\Gamma_{N_{Tot}}
\label{etabound}$$ As a numerical example, for $m_{N}\sim 1$ TeV, with Yukawa couplings of order $10^{-6}$, so that $m_\nu \sim Y_\nu^2 v^2/m_{N} \sim 10^{-1}$ eV, and with $m_{W_R}\sim 3(4)$ TeV we obtain the large suppression factor $\Gamma^{(l)}_{N}/\Gamma_{N_{Tot}}= 7\cdot10^{-7}(2\cdot10^{-6})$, consistent with leptogenesis only if the CP-asymmetry is of order unity, which requires maximal enhancement of the asymmetry (i.e. right handed neutrino mass splittings of order of their decay widths).
In addition to this dilution effect, the three body decay $\gamma_N^{(W_R)}$ reaction density also induces a $L$ asymmetry washout effect from inverse decays (proportional to $Y_{\cal L}$ in Eq. (\[LBoGauge\])) which can also be large.
b\) Case $m_{W_R} < m_{N}$: in this case[^10] the direct 2 body decays $N \rightarrow W_R l_R$ are allowed which leads to an even larger dilution and washout effect for low $m_N$. For example with $m_N\simeq 1$ TeV, $Y_\nu \simeq 10^{-6}$ and $m_{W_R}\simeq 800$ GeV, we get $\Gamma^{(l)}_{N}/\Gamma_{N_{Tot}}= 4\cdot10^{-9}$, which means that the dilution effect makes leptogenesis basically hopeless at this scale, even with the maximum value $\varepsilon_N=1$. In the following we will consider only the case where $m_{W_R} \gtrsim
m_{N}$ (this corresponds to the situation where a discovery of the $W_R$ and $N$ at LHC would occur through same sign dilepton channel [@Wlhcferrari; @Wlhckras; @cmsreport], see section 6).
Gauge scattering effect
-----------------------
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
![Scatterings involving the $W_R$.[]{data-label="gauge_scatterings"}](1a.png "fig:"){width="3.2cm"} ![Scatterings involving the $W_R$.[]{data-label="gauge_scatterings"}](1b.png "fig:"){width="3.2cm"} ![Scatterings involving the $W_R$.[]{data-label="gauge_scatterings"}](1c.png "fig:"){width="3.2cm"} ![Scatterings involving the $W_R$.[]{data-label="gauge_scatterings"}](0a.png "fig:"){width="3.2cm"}
![Scatterings involving the $W_R$.[]{data-label="gauge_scatterings"}](2a.png "fig:"){width="3.2cm"} ![Scatterings involving the $W_R$.[]{data-label="gauge_scatterings"}](2b.png "fig:"){width="3.2cm"} ![Scatterings involving the $W_R$.[]{data-label="gauge_scatterings"}](2c.png "fig:"){width="3.2cm"} ![Scatterings involving the $W_R$.[]{data-label="gauge_scatterings"}](2d.png "fig:"){width="3.2cm"}
![Scatterings involving the $W_R$.[]{data-label="gauge_scatterings"}](2e.png "fig:"){width="3.2cm"} ![Scatterings involving the $W_R$.[]{data-label="gauge_scatterings"}](2f.png "fig:"){width="3.2cm"} ![Scatterings involving the $W_R$.[]{data-label="gauge_scatterings"}](b1.png "fig:"){width="3.2cm"} ![Scatterings involving the $W_R$.[]{data-label="gauge_scatterings"}](b2.png "fig:"){width="3.2cm"}
![Scatterings involving the $W_R$.[]{data-label="gauge_scatterings"}](0a2.png "fig:"){width="3.2cm"} ![Scatterings involving the $W_R$.[]{data-label="gauge_scatterings"}](c1.png "fig:"){width="3.2cm"}
![Scatterings involving the $W_R$.[]{data-label="gauge_scatterings"}](d1.png "fig:"){width="3.2cm"} ![Scatterings involving the $W_R$.[]{data-label="gauge_scatterings"}](d2.png "fig:"){width="3.2cm"} ![Scatterings involving the $W_R$.[]{data-label="gauge_scatterings"}](d3.png "fig:"){width="3.2cm"}
![Scatterings involving the $W_R$.[]{data-label="gauge_scatterings"}](d4.png "fig:"){width="3.2cm"} ![Scatterings involving the $W_R$.[]{data-label="gauge_scatterings"}](d5.png "fig:"){width="3.2cm"} ![Scatterings involving the $W_R$.[]{data-label="gauge_scatterings"}](d6.png "fig:"){width="3.2cm"}
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Right-handed gauge interactions induce a long series of scatterings, given in Fig. 1. To explain their effects let us first consider scatterings which do not involve any external $W_R$, Fig. 1.a. The density reaction rates $\gamma_{Nu}$, $\gamma_{Nd}$, $\gamma_{Ne}$, $\gamma_{NN}$ can be computed from the following reduced cross sections: $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{\sigma}(Ne_R\rightarrow \bar{u}_R d_R)&=& \frac{9 g_R^4}{8\pi s[(s-m_{W_R}^2 )^2+m_{W_R}^2 \Gamma_{W_R}^2]} \left( \frac{m_N^6}{6} - \frac{m_N^2 s^2}{2} + \frac{s^3}{3} \right)
\label{gammaNu}\\
\hat{\sigma}(N\bar{u}_R\rightarrow e_R \bar{d}_R)&=& \frac{9 g_R^4}{8\pi s} \int_{m_N^2-s}^0 dt ~\frac{(s+t)(s+t-m_N^2)}{(t-m_{W_R}^2)^2}\\
\hat{\sigma}(N d_R\rightarrow e_R u_R)&=& \frac{9 g_R^4}{8\pi} \frac{\left(m_N^2 - s \right)^2}{m_{W_R}^2 \left(s+m_{W_R}^2-m_N^2 \right)}
\label{gammaNe}\\
\hat{\sigma}(N N\rightarrow e_R \bar{e}_R)&=& \frac{g_R^4}{8\pi s} \int_{t_0}^{t_1} dt ~\left( \frac{(s+t+-m_N^2)^2}{(t-m_{W_R}^2)^2} + \frac{(m_N^2-t)^2}{(2 m_N^2 -s-t-m_{W_R}^2)^2} \right. \nonumber \\ && \hspace{2.5cm} \left.- \frac{m_N^2 s}{(t-m_{W_R}^2)(2 m_N^2 -s-t-m_{W_R}^2)}\right)
\label{gammaNN}\end{aligned}$$ Among these scatterings the three first ones involving only one external $N$ have a peculiar property. Unlike in ordinary pair annihilation or in coannihilation with a heavier particle, their decoupling in the $Y_N$ Boltzmann equation does not proceed with a Boltzmann suppression of their rate. The decoupling condition is: $$\frac{\gamma_A}{n_N^{eq} H} \lesssim 1
\label{decoupl}$$ with $H$ the Hubble constant and $\gamma_A=
\gamma_{Nu}+\gamma_{Nd}+\gamma_{Ne}$. For $T$ well below $m_N$ the reaction density, Eq. (\[ScatRates\]), is Boltzmann suppressed (i.e. in $e^{-m_N/T}$) but so is also $n_N^{eq}$ in the denominator. Therefore, decoupling comes at low temperature only from the approximately linear in $T$ behaviour of $\frac{\gamma_A}{n_N^{eq} H}$ for small $T$. This can be understood from the fact that what sets the thermal equilibrium of $Y_N$ is the number of interactions per $N$, not the number of interactions irrespective of the number of $N$. In other words these processes are important because the abundance of the other particles involved is large with respect to the $N$ density.
It is useful to compare this behaviour with the one of ordinary left-handed gauge scatterings which have been considered for leptogenesis from the decay of a scalar triplet [@typeIIleptoeffic] or of a fermion triplet [@typeIIIlepto]. In these models these scatterings necessarily involve two external heavy-states (i.e. annihilation or creation of a pair of scalar triplets or a pair of fermion triplet respectively) and therefore are doubly Boltzmann suppressed (which leads to an exponential Botzmann type decoupling: $\frac{\gamma}{n_T^{eq} H}\sim e^{-m_T/T}$) .
The right-handed gauge interaction induced scatterings remain therefore in thermal equilibrium down to temperatures much lower than the left-handed gauge triplet interactions for equal decaying state and gauge boson masses. Their decoupling also doesn’t occur so sharply (compare for example $\gamma_A$ with $\gamma_{NN}$ in Fig. \[rates\] below or with the left-handed gauge scattering rates of Fig. 3 of Ref. [@typeIIleptoeffic] or of Fig. 6 of Ref. [@typeIIIlepto]).
For $m_{W_R}$ and $m_N$ of order TeV, one observes from a numerical analysis that the decoupling temperature which follows from Eq. (\[decoupl\]) is $\sim 15$ orders of magnitude below these masses. At this temperature the number of $N$ remaining is hugely Boltzmann suppressed, so that no sizeable asymmetry can be created. However, due to the fact that their decoupling is not sharp, these scatterings still allow the creation of a highly suppressed but non-vanishing lepton asymmetry at temperature well above this value (see numerical results below). In all cases the later the $N$ decays with respect to $m_{W_R}$, the less the gauge scatterings will be in thermal equilibrium at the time of the decays, and the smaller will be the suppression effect from them.
Note also that unlike the left-handed gauge interactions, the suppressions from the scatterings of Eqs. (\[gammaNu\])-(\[gammaNe\]) also operate in the $Y_{\cal L}$ Boltzmann equation, Eq. (\[LBoGauge\]). This can lead to several orders of magnitude further suppression (see below). The decoupling of these scatterings in the $Y_{\cal L}$ Boltzmann equation results from a Boltzmann suppression when $\gamma_A/(n_l^{eq} H) \lesssim 1$. In Ref. [@Cosme] these effects of gauge scatterings (as well as of three body inverse decays) in the $Y_{\cal L}$ Boltzmann equation have been omittted. In the region of parameters considered in this reference, these effects are nevertheless moderate, see below.
Beside the gauge scattering of Fig. 1.a there are also scatterings with one external $W_R$ changing the number of $N$ and/or violating lepton number, Fig. 1.b. Since a substantial asymmetry can be created only at temperature as low as possible, well below $m_{W_R}$ for $m_{W_R} \gtrsim m_N$, all these scatterings are suppressed with respect to the ones with no external $W_R$, Eqs. (\[gammaNu\])-(\[gammaNe\]). The relative suppression effect is $e^{-m_{W_R}/m_N}$. Similarly the scatterings with two external $W_R$, Fig. 1.c are further suppressed. Finally the scatterings of Fig. 1.d are suppressed by powers of the Yukawa couplings. As a result we will neglect all the scatterings of Fig. 1.b-1.d and keep only the ones of Fig. 1.a.[^11]
Efficiency results
------------------
All in all the efficiency we obtain numerically is given in Fig. \[efficiencies\], as a function of $m_N$ and $\tilde{m}=v^2{Y_\nu^\dagger Y_\nu}/{m_N}=\Gamma_N^{(l)}{8 \pi v^2}/{m_N^2}$ for various values of $m_{W_R}= 800 \,\hbox{GeV},\,3\,\hbox{TeV},\,5\,\hbox{TeV}$ with $v=174$GeV. $m_{W_R}=800$GeV corresponds essentially to the lower experimental limit [@PDG], while $m_{W_R}= 3$ TeV corresponds essentially to the value LHC could reasonably reach [@LHCstudies]. Motivated by the analysis of Ref. [@Burnier], these figures are based on the approximation that all $L$ asymmetry produced above $T\sim 130$GeV (for $m_h\sim 120$GeV) has been converted to a $B$ asymmetry (with conversion factor as given in Eq. (\[LtoBfactor\])), but none of it afterwards. In all cases we get an efficiency factor far below $\sim 7\cdot 10^{-8}$ which is the minimum value necessary to get the observed baryon asymmetry $Y_{\cal B}= (6-9)\cdot 10^{-11}$ (with maximal CP-asymmetry).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![For values of the right-handed gauge boson mass which could be probed at LHC, $m_{W_R}=0.8, \,3,\, 5$ TeV, iso-efficiency curves as a function of $\tilde{m}$ and $m_N$. As expected the efficiency decreases from right to left panel, and is always too suppressed to obtain successful baryogenesis.[]{data-label="efficiencies"}](eta8sph11.png "fig:"){width="5cm"} ![For values of the right-handed gauge boson mass which could be probed at LHC, $m_{W_R}=0.8, \,3,\, 5$ TeV, iso-efficiency curves as a function of $\tilde{m}$ and $m_N$. As expected the efficiency decreases from right to left panel, and is always too suppressed to obtain successful baryogenesis.[]{data-label="efficiencies"}](eta3sph11.png "fig:"){width="5cm"} ![For values of the right-handed gauge boson mass which could be probed at LHC, $m_{W_R}=0.8, \,3,\, 5$ TeV, iso-efficiency curves as a function of $\tilde{m}$ and $m_N$. As expected the efficiency decreases from right to left panel, and is always too suppressed to obtain successful baryogenesis.[]{data-label="efficiencies"}](eta5sph11.png "fig:"){width="5cm"}
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To understand these results it is useful to discuss the effect of the various terms step by step. For this, we take as example the set of parameters: $m_N=500$ GeV, $m_{W_R}=3$ TeV, $\tilde{m}=10^{-3}$ eV. Fig. \[rates\] provides the various reaction densities divided by $n_N^{eq} H$ and $n_l^{eq} H$, as relevant for discussing thermal equilibrium in the $Y_N$ and $Y_{\cal L}$ Boltzmann equation respectively. Fig. \[abundances\] gives the $Y_N$ and $Y_{\cal L}$ abundances as a function of $z$. As well known, omitting all $W_R$ interactions, Fig. \[abundances\].a, there is no large efficiency suppression for $\tilde{m}=10^{-3}$ eV, we get $\eta\simeq 0.5$, i.e. $Y_{\cal
B}= 6.2\cdot10^{-4}$ (with $\varepsilon_N =1$). Adding to this case only the effect of the 3 body decay in the $Y_N$ Boltzmann equation, Fig \[abundances\].b, leads to the dilution effect explained above: $\eta \simeq \gamma_N^{(l)}/\gamma_N^{(W_R)}\simeq 2.8\cdot10^{-8}$, i.e. $Y_{\cal B}\simeq 3.6\cdot10^{-11}$. Adding the gauge scattering terms in the $Y_N$ Boltzmann equation leads to a even more suppressed result for any $z < 6.5$ because in this range $\gamma_A >
\gamma_N^{(W_R)}$. Given the fact that the sphaleron decoupling temperature corresponds to $z\simeq 4$ we do get an extra suppression: $\eta\simeq 1.5\cdot10^{-10}$, i.e. $Y_{\cal B}
\simeq1.8\cdot10^{-13}$, Fig. \[abundances\].c. The efficiency is roughly given by the value of $\gamma_A/\gamma_N^{(l)}$ a bit before sphaleron decoupling. Note that the result is sensitive to the sphaleron decoupling temperature. For smaller decoupling temperatures where $\gamma_A$ is smaller the efficiency would have been larger and would have lead to about the same result as in Fig. \[abundances\].b. Adding furthermore the $\Delta L=1$ gauge scattering effects in the $Y_{\cal L}$ Boltzmann equation, Fig. \[abundances\].d, leads to further suppression because for $T> 130$ GeV, these scatterings turn out to be fast enough to put leptons close to chemical equilibrium, i.e. $\gamma_A/n_l^{eq} H >
1$, see Fig. \[rates\].b. We get: $\eta\simeq1.6\cdot10^{-18}$, i.e. $Y_{\cal B}\simeq2.1\cdot10^{-21}$. Finally adding the 3 body decay effect to the $Y_{\cal L}$ Boltzmann equation doesn’t lead to further sizable suppression at $T=130$ GeV because above this temperature $\gamma_A > \gamma_N^{(W_R)}$. Only between $z\simeq6.5$ (when $\gamma_N^{(W_R)}$ becomes larger than $\gamma_A$) and $z=30$ (when $\gamma_N^{(W_R)}/n_l^{eq} H$ becomes smaller than 1) it could have had an effect, compare Fig. \[abundances\].d and Fig. \[abundances\].e. Alltogether at $T=130$ GeV we get $\eta\simeq1.6\cdot10^{-18}$ as given in Fig. \[efficiencies\].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --
![Evolution of the reaction densities (a) $\gamma/(n_N^{eq} H)$ and (b) $\gamma/(n_l^{eq} H)$ with $z$ for $m_N=500$ GeV, $m_{W_R}=3$ TeV and $\tilde{m}=10^{-3}$ eV.[]{data-label="rates"}](gnnH.png "fig:"){width="7.5cm"} ![Evolution of the reaction densities (a) $\gamma/(n_N^{eq} H)$ and (b) $\gamma/(n_l^{eq} H)$ with $z$ for $m_N=500$ GeV, $m_{W_R}=3$ TeV and $\tilde{m}=10^{-3}$ eV.[]{data-label="rates"}](gnlH.png "fig:"){width="7.5cm"}
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --
![Evolution of $Y_N$ and $Y_{\cal L}$ abundances as a function of $z=m_N/T$ for $m_N=500$ GeV, $m_{W_R}=3$ TeV and $\tilde{m}=10^{-3}$ eV, including various effects in the Boltzmann equations as explained in the text. The straight lines indicate the value of $z$ and $Y_{\cal L}$ at sphaleron decoupling.[]{data-label="abundances"}](ya.png "fig:"){width="5cm"} ![Evolution of $Y_N$ and $Y_{\cal L}$ abundances as a function of $z=m_N/T$ for $m_N=500$ GeV, $m_{W_R}=3$ TeV and $\tilde{m}=10^{-3}$ eV, including various effects in the Boltzmann equations as explained in the text. The straight lines indicate the value of $z$ and $Y_{\cal L}$ at sphaleron decoupling.[]{data-label="abundances"}](yb.png "fig:"){width="5cm"} ![Evolution of $Y_N$ and $Y_{\cal L}$ abundances as a function of $z=m_N/T$ for $m_N=500$ GeV, $m_{W_R}=3$ TeV and $\tilde{m}=10^{-3}$ eV, including various effects in the Boltzmann equations as explained in the text. The straight lines indicate the value of $z$ and $Y_{\cal L}$ at sphaleron decoupling.[]{data-label="abundances"}](yc.png "fig:"){width="5cm"}
![Evolution of $Y_N$ and $Y_{\cal L}$ abundances as a function of $z=m_N/T$ for $m_N=500$ GeV, $m_{W_R}=3$ TeV and $\tilde{m}=10^{-3}$ eV, including various effects in the Boltzmann equations as explained in the text. The straight lines indicate the value of $z$ and $Y_{\cal L}$ at sphaleron decoupling.[]{data-label="abundances"}](yd.png "fig:"){width="5cm"} ![Evolution of $Y_N$ and $Y_{\cal L}$ abundances as a function of $z=m_N/T$ for $m_N=500$ GeV, $m_{W_R}=3$ TeV and $\tilde{m}=10^{-3}$ eV, including various effects in the Boltzmann equations as explained in the text. The straight lines indicate the value of $z$ and $Y_{\cal L}$ at sphaleron decoupling.[]{data-label="abundances"}](ye.png "fig:"){width="5cm"}
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --
Note that for $m_{W_R}=3$ TeV, the values $m_N\simeq 500$ GeV and $\tilde{m} \simeq 10^5$ eV appear to be the ones which maximize the efficiency. Larger values of $m_N$ lead to more suppression from the $W_R$. Smaller values lead to a creation of the asymmetry occurring too late to be converted by the sphalerons. The important effect of sphaleron decoupling for low $N$ mass can be seen by comparing Fig. 2.b with Fig. \[nosphaleron\] where no sphaleron decoupling temperature cut has been applied. Similarly smaller values of $\tilde{m}$ leads to more suppressed efficiency from larger $\gamma_A/\gamma_N^{(l)}$ and $\gamma_N^{(W_R)}/\gamma_N^{(l)}$ ratios in the $Y_N$ Boltzmann equation. Large values of $\tilde{m}$ lead though to very large suppression from Yukawa driven inverse decays and $\Delta L=2$ scatterings. Those effects start to dominate over the $W_R$ effects for $\tilde{m} \simeq 10^5$ eV, which explains why in Fig. 2.a maximum is got around this value of $\tilde{m}$: $\eta \simeq
10^{-10}$.
Note also that, for $m_N \sim m_{W_R}$, in Fig. \[efficiencies\], there is a local enhancement of the efficiency because, as $m_N$ approaches $m_{W_R}$ from below, the $\gamma_A$ rate becomes more and more insensitive to the $W_R$ resonance. However as $m_N$ gets larger than $m_{W_R}$ the $N \rightarrow W_R l_R$ decay opens up and the efficiency gets again suppressed.
One additional question one must ask is whether our results depend on the fact that we considered only the evolution of the total lepton number asymmetry. The results can indeed largely depend on the flavour structures of the Yukawa couplings as well as on the flavour of the $SU(2)_R$ light partner of the $N$, but not enough to allow successful leptogenesis. For example even if $N$ could create an asymmetry only in flavours orthogonal to the flavour of its $SU(2)_R$ partner, leptogenesis still wouldn’t work. In this case the asymmetry produced wouldn’t be washed-out by any $W_R$ interaction appearing in the $Y_{\cal L}$ Boltzmann equation, but still the $W_R$ thermalization effects in the $Y_N$ Boltzmann equation would be fully effective since they do not depend on flavour.[^12] We have checked over the full $\tilde{m}$ and $m_N$ parameter space that even in this extreme case we would get a far too suppressed efficiency to have successful leptogenesis. Our results for this case are given in Figure. \[efficienciesWonlyN\], see also the example of Fig. \[abundances\].
![Efficiencies without sphaleron decoupling for $m_{W_R}= 3$ TeV. (For values of $\tilde{m}$ beyond $10^{5}$ eV, Yukawa driven $\Delta L=2$ scatterings are so fast that the efficiency collapses.)[]{data-label="nosphaleron"}](eta3infLR.png "fig:"){width="5cm"}\
One more question to ask is whether the results obtained above could sizeably depend on the initial distribution of $N$ before they decay. The answer is simply no, due to the fact that, starting from any number of $N$ at temperature above $m_N$ (from no $N$ to only $N$ in the universe) the $W_R$ interactions very quickly put the $N$’s in deep thermal equilibrium.
Note finally that since we neglected the scatterings of Fig. \[gauge\_scatterings\].b and Fig. \[gauge\_scatterings\].c, strictly speaking our result is valid only for $m_N < m_{W_R}$. But this is where the maximum efficiency is obtained and elsewhere these scatterings can only suppress even more leptogenesis.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![Iso-efficiency curves for $m_{W_R}=0.8, \,3,\, 5$ TeV as a function of $\tilde{m}$ and $m_N$ when gauge interactions are only present in the $Y_N$ Boltzmann equation.[]{data-label="efficienciesWonlyN"}](etaW8onlyNLR.png "fig:"){width="5cm"} ![Iso-efficiency curves for $m_{W_R}=0.8, \,3,\, 5$ TeV as a function of $\tilde{m}$ and $m_N$ when gauge interactions are only present in the $Y_N$ Boltzmann equation.[]{data-label="efficienciesWonlyN"}](etaW3onlyNLR.png "fig:"){width="5cm"} ![Iso-efficiency curves for $m_{W_R}=0.8, \,3,\, 5$ TeV as a function of $\tilde{m}$ and $m_N$ when gauge interactions are only present in the $Y_N$ Boltzmann equation.[]{data-label="efficienciesWonlyN"}](etaW5onlyNLR.png "fig:"){width="5cm"}
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bounds on $m_{W_R}$ and $m_N$
=============================
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --
![For various values of $m_{W_R}$ (in GeV), the inner part of each curve gives the values of $\tilde{m}$ and $m_N$ which can lead to successful leptogenesis (i.e. $Y_{\cal B}=9\cdot10^{-11}$). Left (right) pannel is obtained for $\varepsilon_N = 1$ ((3/16$\pi$)$ \,m_N\sqrt{\Delta m^2_{atm}}/v^2$). The dependance in $m_{W_R}$ of the lower bound on $m_N$ is totally negligible, except for $m_{W_R}< 10^6$ (left panel) and $m_{W_R}< 2\cdot10^{11}$ (right panel). []{data-label="Wbounds"}](eta1WLR.png "fig:"){width="7.5cm"}
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --
In the previous section we have seen that for $m_{W_R}$ reachable at LHC, successful leptogenesis from $N$ decays is not possible. Larger values of $m_{W_R}$ lead however to better efficiencies. It is useful to determine what are the bounds on $m_{W_R}$ for a given value of $m_N$ and vice versa. These can obtained from Fig. \[Wbounds\].a which for fixed values of $m_{W_R}$ gives the allowed range of $m_N$ and $\tilde{m}$ taking the maximum value $\varepsilon_N=1$. One observes that the absolute lower bound on $m_{W_R}$ is $18$ TeV. It is obtained for $m_N=500$ GeV and $\tilde{m}=3\cdot10^{2}$ eV. This value of $\tilde{m}$ requires large cancellations between large Yukawa couplings in the neutrino masses. More usual values lead to a more severe bounds, we get $$m_{W_R}>110, \,60, \,35 ~ \hbox{TeV} \quad \hbox{for} \quad \tilde{m}=10^{-5, -3, -1} \,\hbox{eV}
\label{boundsreso}$$ Note also that as can be seen in Fig. \[Wbounds\].a for successful leptogenesis we get the bound $$m_N > 2.6 \, \hbox{GeV}$$ which holds even for the case where $W_R$ effects are negligible. This gives an absolute lower bound on $m_N$ which is another tantalizing target for excluding leptogenesis.
For completeness we also give in Fig. \[Wbounds\].b the results we obtain taking the lower bound $\varepsilon_{N}< (3/16
\pi) \,m_N \sqrt{\Delta m^2_{atm}}/v^2$ [@di] which holds for a hierarchical spectrum of right-handed neutrinos. We obtain the absolute bound $m_{W_R}> 10^{11}$GeV which requires $m_N=2.6\cdot10^9$GeV and $\tilde{m}=5\cdot 10^{-5}$eV. We also get $$m_{W_R}>1.1\cdot 10^{11}, \,1.3\cdot 10^{11},\,1.1\cdot 10^{12} \, \hbox{GeV} \quad \hbox{for} \quad \tilde{m}=10^{-5,-3,-1} \, \hbox{eV}\,.
\label{boundshier}$$
The flavour dependance of the results of this section is relatively moderate. For the extreme case above where all $W_R$ have been omitted in the $Y_{\cal L}$ Boltzmann equation, instead of equation Eq. (\[boundsreso\]), we get $m_{W_R}>39, \, 13, \, 8.8 ~ \hbox{TeV}$, while the absolute lower bound on $m_{W_R}$ becomes $8.7$TeV which we obtained for $\tilde{m}=10^1$eV. The bounds of Eq. (\[boundshier\]) in this case are relaxed by less than 10 percent, while the lower bounds on $m_N$, as well as the upper bounds on $\tilde{m}$, are negligibly affected in Figs. \[Wbounds\].a and \[Wbounds\].b. As for the upper bounds on $m_N$ in these figures, they are relaxed by up to one order of magnitude. The results of Fig. \[Wbounds\].b agree with the one of [@Cosme] for what can be compared, modulo these flavour effects, since the $W_R$ effects are neglected in the $Y_{\cal L}$ Boltzmann equation in this reference.
Note that we do not expect that the results of Fig. \[Wbounds\] could be largely affected by the (neglected) scatterings of Fig. \[gauge\_scatterings\].b-c, because all bounds in these figures are obtained with $m_N \lesssim m_{W_R}$ (except in corners of parameters space for large $m_{W_R}$ and large $\tilde{m}$ where it is not excluded that these scatterings could reduce the bounds on $m_N$ by up to a few times).
Generalization to several right-handed neutrinos
================================================
The results obtained above are strictly valid only if the lepton asymmetry is produced by a single right-handed neutrino, the effects of the other heavy states being present only in the CP asymmetry $\varepsilon_N$ and in the $\Delta L =2$ washout.[^13] Consequently these results assume that the heavier states do not create their own asymmetry and do not induce any washout besides this $\Delta L =2$ one. However, we are not aware of any model where $\varepsilon_N$ can be obtained as large as unity, the upper bound we considered above, and where the above assumption can be fully justified. For instance, as said above, one possibility to have large CP asymmetries at low scale is through quasi-degeneracy of at least 2 right-handed neutrinos leading to a resonant enhancement of the self-energy diagram. In this case to a very good approximation both right-handed neutrinos have equal CP-asymmetries and equal masses, which means that both $N_{1,2}$ must be considered in the Boltzmann equations. In the Appendix \[appendix\] we show that this does not change though our conclusions. The point is that the asymmetry produced by two neutrinos is bounded by the sum of both asymmetries we get in the single $N$ case with $\tilde{m}=\tilde{m}_1$ and with $\tilde{m}=\tilde{m}_2$ (with $\tilde{m}_i$ refering to the value of $\tilde{m}$ of $N_i$), Eq. (\[ineqYL\]). From the results of Figs. \[efficiencies\] and \[efficienciesWonlyN\] this shows that the lepton asymmetry produced will be always too small to produce enough asymmetry if $m_{W_R}$ is as low as in these figures, as relevant for the LHC. Furthermore from this inequality, if both $\tilde{m}_i$ lie ouside the range of values allowed by Fig. 7.a, a large enough baryon asymmetry cannot be produced. Moreover it can be checked numerically that this figure remains also valid to a good approximation for the case $\tilde{m}=\tilde{m}_1=\tilde{m}_2$. It is in this sense that this figure has to be interpreted for the several $N$ case.
Other possible suppression effects
==================================
Effects of a $Z'$ associated to a $U(1)$ symmetry
-------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![Iso-efficiency curves for $m_{Z'}=0.8, \,3,\, 5$ TeV as a function of $\tilde{m}$ and $m_N$.[]{data-label="Zefficiencies"}](etaZ8sphcLR.png "fig:"){width="5cm"} ![Iso-efficiency curves for $m_{Z'}=0.8, \,3,\, 5$ TeV as a function of $\tilde{m}$ and $m_N$.[]{data-label="Zefficiencies"}](etaZ3sphcLR.png "fig:"){width="5cm"} ![Iso-efficiency curves for $m_{Z'}=0.8, \,3,\, 5$ TeV as a function of $\tilde{m}$ and $m_N$.[]{data-label="Zefficiencies"}](etaZ5sphcLR.png "fig:"){width="5cm"}
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A $Z'$ associated to an extra low energy $U(1)$ could be discovered at LHC up to $\sim 3$-5 TeV [@cmsreport; @Wlhckras]. If it couples to $N$ through the $Z'^\mu (\bar{N} \gamma_\mu N)$ interaction it has effect on the efficiency through the $Y_N$ Boltzmann equation. Since this interaction involves 2 $N$ it doesn’t induce any relevant 2 or 3 body decays which could cause dilution, and the associated scatterings decouple through a Boltzmann suppression. As a result the suppression effect is not as large as with a $W_R$. For example considering a $U(1)_{Y'}$ as it has been considered in [@pluma], see also [@kanu], including all associated scatterings (i.e. the effect of $NN \leftrightarrow f \bar{f},\,HH$ scatterings), the efficiency we obtain for $M_{Z'}=0.8,\,3,\,5$ TeV is given in Fig. \[Zefficiencies\]. It shows that the discovery of a $Z'$ would not necessarily rule out leptogenesis depending on the values of $\tilde{m}$, but would require very large values of $\varepsilon_N$.
Effects of a $Z'$ associated to a $SU(2)_R$ symmetry
----------------------------------------------------
The neutral gauge boson associated to $SU(2)_R$ symmetry could also be discovered at LHC up to $\sim 3$-5 TeV [@cmsreport; @Wlhckras]. Since it is in the same multiplet as the $W_R$, its effect should be included in the analysis above together with the effects of the $W_R$. As it also couples only to 2 $N$, the suppression effects due to this neutral gauge boson will nevertheless be negligible with respect to the ones of the $W_R$ when the asymmetry is created: the $N$ will have an interaction involving a $W_R$ before having one involving the $Z'$ (as long as $m_{Z'} \simeq m_{W_R}$ as expected in the left-right symmetric models).
Effects of a right-handed triplet
---------------------------------
The consequences of the discovery of one or several components of a right-handed scalar triplet $\Delta_R=(\delta_R^{++},\delta_R^+,\delta_R^0)$ could be dramatic for leptogenesis in some cases.
The easiest state to discover at LHC is the doubly charged one, $\delta_R^{++}$, due to suppressed background in the same sign dilepton channel [@tripletLHC]. As this state couples only to 2 right-handed charged leptons [@SU2R], and doesn’t couple directly to the $N$, it has no sizable effect on the $Y_N$ Boltzmann equation but can have an effect on the second one through L-violating $l_R l_R H H$ interactions mediated by the $\delta_R^{++}$. This effect can be large if the couplings involved are of order $\sim10^{-4}$ or larger depending on the masses. The presence of the $\delta_R^{++}$ would be however indicative of the existence of other triplet members.
A $\delta_R^+$ (e.g. more difficult to see at LHC because it doesn’t produce same sign dilepton channels in as direct a way as the $\delta_R^{++}$), can couple to a $N$ and a $l_R$ as the $W_R$. It can therefore induce dilution effect from the $N\rightarrow
\delta_R^+ l_R$ decay if kinematically allowed, or from $N
\rightarrow l_R H^+H^0$ decays otherwise (i.e. through a $\delta_R^+ H^- H^0$ coupling with $H$ any lighter scalar particle, e.g. from the bidoublet in LR models [@SU2R]). Similarly it induces dangerous scatterings similar to the one of Fig. 1.a, replacing the $W_R$ by a $\delta_R$ and the quark pair by a $H^+
H^0$ pair. For couplings in these processes as large as the $W_R$ gauge couplings, the suppression of the efficiency is expected to be similar to the one caused by the $W_R$ in section 2, which would rule out leptogenesis. For smaller couplings however the suppression decreases quickly. In the later case leptogenesis can be successfully produced from $N \rightarrow \delta_R^+ l_R$ decays if kinematically allowed [@FHM].[^14]
Finally the $\delta_R^0$ couples to 2 $N$ and therefore is expected to have effects roughly similar to the ones of a $Z'$, if the Yukawa couplings are as large as the gauge couplings, less otherwise.
Effects of a neutral or charged $SU(2)_L$ scalar singlet
--------------------------------------------------------
In large varieties of models, e.g. non left-right, a $SU(2)_L$ scalar singlet can couple to 2 $N$ if it is neutral or to a $N$ and a $e_R$ if its electromagnetic charge is unity. These states, if they also couple to right-handed quarks, can be dangerous for leptogenesis in a similar way as the above $\delta^0_R$ and $\delta_R^+$ states respectively.
Suppression effects in other frameworks : scalar and fermion triplet leptogenesis, electroweak baryogenesis
============================================================================================================
In the above we have shown that a $W_R$ discovered at current or future colliders would exclude any possibility to create a large enough baryon asymmetry from the decay of a $N$. However there exist other ways to induce successfully the baryon asymmetry through leptogenesis. In seesaw models this can be achieved from the decay of a scalar triplet to 2 leptons or from the decay of a fermion triplet to a lepton and Higgses, through diagrams involving another heavy state [@typeIIlepto; @typeIIleptoeffic; @typeIIIlepto]. In these models there are washout effects from $SU(2)_L$ interactions. These effects have been calculated in Refs. [@typeIIleptoeffic; @typeIIIlepto] and show that they are not large enough to rule-out leptogenesis even for masses as low as few TeV. For such low masses leptogenesis appears to be possible though only for asymmetries of order unity (i.e. assuming almost perfect resonance which requires e.g. large fine-tuning).
Since a $W_R$ (or more generally any right-handed gauge boson) does not couple to left-handed triplets, its discovery at low scale would have no direct consequences for the triplet number density Boltzmann equation.
The discovery of a $W_R$ at low scale would nevertheless provide a strong hint for the existence of $N$’s at low energy, see section 7. This would lead to 2 additional washout effects on the asymmetry produced by the triplet decays. First, $\Delta L\neq 0$ scatterings involving both the $W_R$ and $N_R$, Fig. 1, will be important (in the flavour channels coupling to the $N$’s) if both these particles have masses smaller or of order the triplet mass. Second, these $N$, through their Yukawa interactions, and together with sphalerons, could easily wash-out any previously produced lepton and baryon asymmetry, unless some of their Yukawa couplings are so suppressed that they preserve to a very good approximation at least one flavor number combination (which has not to be preserved in the triplet decay).
Putting all these effects together it can be checked that, the discovery of a $W_R$ and a $N$ would rule out the possibility to have any successful thermal leptogenesis from triplet decays at any scale as well, except for such kind of extreme flavour pattern.
Note that in the case of very low triplet mass a direct discovery of the triplets is possible through Drell-Yan pair production [@tripletLHC; @typeIIILHC].
Finally leptogenesis is also possible in more exotic models from the decay of $SU(2)_{L,R}$ singlets, in case all the gauge interaction induced suppression effects considered in the above would be irrelevant for the decaying particle Boltzmann equation but still would be relevant for the $Y_{\cal L}$ one. Similarly, electroweak baryogenesis with first order phase transition from the presence of particles beyond the standard model around the electroweak scale, can be affected by the L violating interactions driven by a light $W_R$ and/or light $N$, but could survive because these cannot erase the $B$ asymmetry produced in this case. For electroweak baryogenesis at the right-handed scale [@frere2] the effects could be large, and this would require a specific analysis.
$N$ and $W_R$ at colliders
==========================
We have shown this far to which (huge) extent the discovery of gauge interactions affecting the right-handed sector would cripple leptogenesis, offering - at least in the case of canonical neutrino decay leptogenesis - a rare opportunity of falsifying an otherwise particularly sturdy mechanism. This should provide additional motivation for this quest.
The discovery potential of LHC has been investigated for both massive right-handed neutrinos and gauge bosons associated to $SU(2)_R$; in particular sensitivity plots corresponding to various stages of LHC operation can be found in [@Wlhcferrari; @Wlhckras; @cmsreport], and scales of the order of $4$-$5$ TeV in the best case are reached for $W_R$. Some attention should however be paid to the generality of the search. The “benchmark” just mentioned is reached under the assumption that at least one right-handed neutrino $N$ is lighter than the $W_R$, and therefore that the process: $ p + p \rightarrow
X + W_R \rightarrow X +N + l^-$ leads to an on-shell $N$, which can be reconstructed. Being a Majorana state, the $N$ can decay indifferently into the channels $l^- + u +
\overline{d}$ or $l^+ + \overline{u} + d$, which, in connection with the production reaction leads to (non-resonant) dilepton signals of like or opposite charge in equal quantities. Same sign dilepton channels are particularly clean for background and its observation would establish the Majorana character of neutrino and N masses [@dileptonGK].
Given the importance for excluding leptogenesis, it may thus be worthwhile to go beyond this benchmark, and to examine the cases where either the $W_R$, the $N$ or both are virtual.
The case of virtual $N$ still gives a striking signature: namely, in equal amounts, 2 charged leptons of same or opposite sign + 2 jets, no missing energy, with the invariant mass resonating at $m_{W_R}$. The case of $W_R$ heavier than the $N$ is however of particular interest to us, even if the $W_R$ only intervenes in a virtual way. In this case, the above process keeps the same overall signature, in particular equal amounts of like and opposite-sign dileptons, but resonance is only observed in the (lepton + 2 jets)- branch.
Only in the case where both $N$ and $W_R$ are both above threshold is the signature reduced to 2 jets + equal amounts of like or opposite charge dileptons.
It may also be worth pursuing other channels for detection of the $W_R$, in particular if the $N$’s are heavy. For this purpose, it is useful to note that, even if heavy $N$’s make the $W_R$ leptonic decay impossible, it still couples to right-handed quarks whose mass is known. These quarks, being massive, also link to the left-handed sector. Hence the process $p+p \rightarrow X + W_R ^*$ followed by $W_R ^* \rightarrow t + \overline{b} \rightarrow \overline{b} + b +
l^+ + \nu_L$, the last decay occurring through an ordinary $W_L$ ($W_R ^*$ stands here for either a real or a virtual $W_R$)[@Frere:1990qm]. This possibility has been used at the Tevatron detectors [@tevatron] but not yet studied for LHC detectors. The interest in focusing on the top quark in the process is that it decays without having time to hadronize, and therefore keeps the helicity correlations. In particular, the final lepton energy distribution is markedly softer [@Frere:1990qm] than in the similar process where both production and decay occur via $W_L$. A discovery through the top channel would not prove nevertheless that the $W_R$ actually couples to the $N$ but would be a strong hint for it.[^15] We should finally mention the case where the right-handed neutrinos are (nearly) massless, in which case they cannot induce leptogenesis, but also cannot interfere with baryogenesis from another source. This case is difficult to characterize, as the right-handed closely resembles a heavier left-handed in most processes. Here again, the above-mentioned top quark intermediary channel, with its polarization effects would come to help.
Conclusion
==========
We have shown that the discovery at LHC or future accelerators, of a $W_R$ coupling to a right-handed neutrino and a right-handed charged lepton, would rule out the possibility to create any relevant lepton asymmetry from the decay of right-handed neutrinos, see Fig. 2. A $W_R$ induces extra $N$ decay channels inducing large dilution and washout effects, as well as very fast gauge scatterings (whose decoupling doesn’t occur through Boltzmann suppression). We determined bounds on $m_{W_R}$ and $m_N$ for successful leptogenesis, given in Fig. \[Wbounds\] and Eqs. (\[boundsreso\]) and (\[boundshier\]). Similarly we discussed how the discovery of other particles generally expected in presence of right-handed gauge interactions, or of a $Z'$, could also affect leptogenesis, ruling it out too in some cases. Leptogenesis from the decay of scalar or fermion triplet would be also basically ruled out in presence of a $N$ or both a $N$ and a $W_R$ around the TeV scale, unless there is a flavour symmetry to protect one flavour combination from the washout due to these states.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
The authors received partial support from the Belgian Science Policy (IAP VI-11), IISN, as well as from the NSF/PHY05-51164 grant. T.H. thanks the FNRS-FRS for support.
Several right-handed neutrino case {#appendix}
==================================
With 2 right-handed neutrinos, and at the same level of approximation as for Eqs. (\[NBoGauge\], \[LBoGauge\]) [^16], we get the following Boltzmann equations: $$\begin{aligned}
zH(z)s\, Y'_{N_1} &=& -\left(\frac{Y_{N_1}}{Y_{N_1}^{\rm eq}}-1 \right) \left(\gamma_{N_1}^{(l)} + \gamma_{N_1}^{(W_R)} + 2 \gamma^{N_1}_{Hs} + 4\gamma^{N_1}_{Ht}+ 2 \gamma_{N_1u} + 2 \gamma_{N_1d} + 2 \gamma_{N_1e} \right) \nonumber\\
& &- \left(\frac{Y_{N_1}^2}{\left.Y_{N_1}^{eq}\right.^2} - 1 \right) \gamma_{N_1N_1}^{(W_R~t)} - \left(\frac{Y_{N_1}Y_{N_2}}{Y_{N_1}^{eq}Y_{N_2}^{eq}} - 1 \right) \gamma_{N_1N_2}^{(W_R~t)} \nonumber \\
&&- \left(\frac{Y_{N_1}}{Y_{N_1}^{eq}} - \frac{Y_{N_2}}{Y_{N_2}^{eq}} \right)\left( \gamma_{N_1N_2}^{(W_R~s)}+\gamma_{N_1N_2}^{(H,L)}\right) \label{N1BoGauge_new}\\
zH(z)s\, Y'_{N_2} &=& -\left(\frac{Y_{N_2}}{Y_{N_2}^{\rm eq}}-1 \right) \left(\gamma_{N_2}^{(l)} + \gamma_{N_2}^{(W_R)} + 2 \gamma^{N_2}_{Hs} + 4\gamma^{N_2}_{Ht}+ 2 \gamma_{N_2u} + 2 \gamma_{N_2d} + 2 \gamma_{N_2e} \right)\nonumber\\
& &- \left(\frac{Y_{N_2}^2}{\left.Y_{N_2}^{eq}\right.^2} - 1 \right) \gamma_{N_2N_2}^{(W_R~t)} - \left(\frac{Y_{N_2}Y_{N_1}}{Y_{N_2}^{eq}Y_{N_1}^{eq}} - 1 \right) \gamma_{N_2N_1}^{(W_R~t)} \nonumber \\
&&- \left(\frac{Y_{N_2}}{Y_{N_2}^{eq}} - \frac{Y_{N_1}}{Y_{N_1}^{eq}} \right) \left(\gamma_{N_2N_1}^{(W_R~s)} + \gamma_{N_2N_1}^{(H,L)} \right)
\label{N2BoGauge_new}\\
zH(z)s\, Y'_{{\cal L}} &=&\gamma_{N_1}^{(l)} \varepsilon_{N_1} \left(\frac{Y_{N_1}}{Y_{N_1}^{\rm eq}}-1\right) + \gamma_{N_2}^{(l)} \varepsilon_{N_2} \left(\frac{Y_{N_2}}{Y_{N_2}^{\rm eq}}-1\right)\nonumber \\
&&- \left(\gamma_{N_1}^{(l)}+ \gamma_{N_1}^{(W_R)} +\gamma_{N_2}^{(l)}+ \gamma_{N_2}^{(W_R)} \right)\frac{Y_{{\cal L}}}{2\,Y_{L}^{\rm eq}}\nonumber\\
&&
-\frac{Y_{{\cal L}}}{Y_{L}^{\rm eq}}\left(2\,\gamma_{Ns}^{\rm sub}+2\,\gamma_{Nt}+2\,\gamma^{N_1}_{Ht} + 2\,\gamma^{N_1}_{Hs}\,\frac{Y_{N_1}}{Y_{N_1}^{\rm eq}}
+ \,\gamma_{N_1u}
+ \,\gamma_{N_1d}
+ \,\gamma_{N_1e}\,\frac{Y_{N_1}}{Y_{N_1}^{\rm eq}}\right.
\nonumber\\
&&
\qquad \quad
\left.+2\,\gamma^{N_2}_{Ht} + 2\,\gamma^{N_2}_{Hs}\,\frac{Y_{N_2}}{Y_{N_2}^{\rm eq}}
+ \,\gamma_{N_2u}
+ \,\gamma_{N_2d}
+ \,\gamma_{N_2e}\,\frac{Y_{N_2}}{Y_{N_2}^{\rm eq}}\right)
\,\,\label{LBoGauge_new}\end{aligned}$$ $\gamma_{Ns}^{\rm sub}$ and $\gamma_{Nt}$ take into account the effects of the $\Delta L=2$ channels $LH \leftrightarrow \bar{L}H$ and $LL (\bar{L}\bar{L})\leftrightarrow HH$ from both $N_1$ and $N_2$. $\gamma_{N_iN_j}^{(W_R ~t)}$ and $\gamma_{N_i N_j}^{(W_R ~s)}$ parametrize the effects of the $W_R$ mediated processes with 2 external $N$, $N_i N_j \leftrightarrow L\bar{L}$ and $N_i L \leftrightarrow N_j L$ respectively, as illustrated in Fig. \[2N\_scatterings\]. Similarly $\gamma_{N_iN_j}^{(H,L)}$ parametrizes the effects of the Yukawa induced $N_i L \leftrightarrow N_j L$ and $N_i H \leftrightarrow N_j H$ scatterings mediated by a $H$ and a $L$ respectively. In these equations it is a very good approximation for the resonant case to take $m_{N_1}=m_{N_2}$, $\varepsilon_{N_1}=\varepsilon_{N_2}$, $Y_{N_1}^{\rm eq}=Y_{N_2}^{\rm eq}$, $\gamma_{N_1N_2}^{(H,L)}=\gamma_{N_2N_1}^{(H,L)}$, as well as all gauge induced processes equal: $\gamma_{N_{1}u,d,e}=\gamma_{N_{2}u,d,e}$, $\gamma^{(W_R ~t,s)}_{N_1N_2}=\gamma^{(W_R ~t,s)}_{N_2 N_1}=\gamma^{(W_R ~t,s)}_{N_1 N_1} =\gamma^{(W_R ~t,s)}_{N_2 N_2}$. $N_1$ and $N_2$ can have significantly different effects only through their Yukawa coupling contributions.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
![Scatterings involving 2 N.[]{data-label="2N_scatterings"}](e1.png "fig:"){width="3.2cm"} ![Scatterings involving 2 N.[]{data-label="2N_scatterings"}](f1.png "fig:"){width="3.2cm"} ![Scatterings involving 2 N.[]{data-label="2N_scatterings"}](f2.png "fig:"){width="3.2cm"}
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
To compare Eqs. (\[NBoGauge\], \[LBoGauge\]) and Eqs. (\[N1BoGauge\_new\], \[N2BoGauge\_new\], \[LBoGauge\_new\]) let us first note that the $Y_{N_{1,2}}$ equations differ from the $Y_N$ equation only through the $\gamma_{N_i N_j}^{(W_R ~t,s)}$ and $\gamma_{N_i N_j}^{(H,L)}$ terms. As in the one $N$ case it can be checked that the $\gamma_{N_i N_j}^{(W_R ~t)}$ terms have very little effects because their reaction rates are smaller than the $\gamma_{Nu,d,e}$ ones (compare for example in Fig. 3.a $\gamma_{NN}$ with $\gamma_{Ne}+\gamma_{Nu}+\gamma_{Nd}$). The $\gamma_{N_i N_j}^{(W_R ~s)}$ terms on the other hand have a size similar to the one of $\gamma_{Nu,d,s}$ but they are multiplied by $Y_{N_2}-Y_{N_1}$. This means that their effect is suppressed because those terms could be important only as long as the $W_R$ effects ($\gamma_{Nu,d,s}$ and $\gamma_N^{(W_R)}$) dominate the thermalization of the $N's$ (with respect to the Yukawa induced processes), but these $W_R$ effects equally affect $Y_{N_1}$ and $Y_{N_2}$. Similarly it can be checked that the $\gamma_{N_iN_j}^{(HL~s)}$ are of little importance. They are relevant only for very large values of both $\tilde{m}_1$ and $\tilde{m}_2$, beyond the values of interest for our purpose. As a result all these terms can be neglected in Eqs. (\[N1BoGauge\_new\], \[N2BoGauge\_new\]) and the evolution of $Y_{N_1}$ and $Y_{N_2}$ are essentially the same as the one of $Y_N$ in Eq. (\[NBoGauge\]) replacing $\tilde{m}$ by $\tilde{m}_{1}$ and $\tilde{m}_{2}$ respectively. There are no important differences at this level. Differences however can come from Eq. (\[LBoGauge\_new\]) because this equation involves source and washout terms from both $N_1$ and $N_2$. To discuss this equation it is useful to split it in two parts as follows $$\begin{aligned}
zH(z)s\, Y'_{{\cal L}a} &=&\gamma_{N_1}^{(l)} \varepsilon_{N_1} \left(\frac{Y_{N_1}}{Y_{N_1}^{\rm eq}}-1\right) - \left(\gamma_{N_1}^{(l)}+ \gamma_{N_1}^{(W_R)} +\gamma_{N_2}^{(l)}+ \gamma_{N_2}^{(W_R)} \right)\frac{Y_{{\cal L}a}}{2\,Y_{L}^{\rm eq}}\nonumber\\
&&
-\frac{Y_{{\cal L}a}}{Y_{L}^{\rm eq}}\left(2\,\gamma_{Ns}^{\rm sub}+2\,\gamma_{Nt}+2\,\gamma^{N_1}_{Ht} + 2\,\gamma^{N_1}_{Hs}\,\frac{Y_{N_1}}{Y_{N_1}^{\rm eq}}
+ \,\gamma_{N_1u}
+ \,\gamma_{N_1d}
+ \,\gamma_{N_1e}\,\frac{Y_{N_1}}{Y_{N_1}^{\rm eq}}\right.
\nonumber\\
&&
\qquad \quad
\left.+2\,\gamma^{N_2}_{Ht} + 2\,\gamma^{N_2}_{Hs}\,\frac{Y_{N_2}}{Y_{N_2}^{\rm eq}}
+ \,\gamma_{N_2u}
+ \,\gamma_{N_2d}
+ \,\gamma_{N_2e}\,\frac{Y_{N_2}}{Y_{N_2}^{\rm eq}}\right)
\,\,\label{LaBoGauge}\\
zH(z)s\, Y'_{{\cal L}b} &=&\gamma_{N_2}^{(l)} \varepsilon_{N_2} \left(\frac{Y_{N_2}}{Y_{N_2}^{\rm eq}}-1\right) - \left(\gamma_{N_1}^{(l)} + \gamma_{N_1}^{(W_R)} + \gamma_{N_2}^{(l)} + \gamma_{N_2}^{(W_R)}\right)\frac{Y_{{\cal L}b}}{2\,Y_{L}^{\rm eq}}\nonumber\\
&&
-\frac{Y_{{\cal L}b}}{Y_{L}^{\rm eq}}\left(2\,\gamma_{Ns}^{\rm sub}+2\,\gamma_{Nt}+2\,\gamma^{N_1}_{Ht} + 2\,\gamma^{N_1}_{Hs}\,\frac{Y_{N_1}}{Y_{N_1}^{\rm eq}}
+ \,\gamma_{N_1u}
+ \,\gamma_{N_1d}
+ \,\gamma_{N_1e}\,\frac{Y_{N_1}}{Y_{N_1}^{\rm eq}}\right.\nonumber\\
&&
\qquad \quad
\left.+2\,\gamma^{N_2}_{Ht} + 2\,\gamma^{N_2}_{Hs}\,\frac{Y_{N_2}}{Y_{N_2}^{\rm eq}}
+ \,\gamma_{N_2u}
+ \,\gamma_{N_2d}
+ \,\gamma_{N_2e}\,\frac{Y_{N_2}}{Y_{N_2}^{\rm eq}}\right)
\,\,\label{LbBoGauge}\end{aligned}$$ with $Y_{{\cal L}}=Y_{{\cal L}a}+Y_{{\cal L}b}$. Clearly comparing the $Y_{{\cal L}a}$ ($Y_{{\cal L}b}$) Boltzmann equations with the one $N$ corresponding equation, Eq. (\[LBoGauge\]), one observes that these equations are the same except that Eqs. (\[LaBoGauge\], \[LbBoGauge\]) involve additional washout terms from $N_2$ ($N_1$). Since these terms can only decrease[^17] the absolute value of the lepton asymmetry obtained[^18] one consequently gets $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Lbound}
Y_{{\cal L}a} (m_N,\varepsilon_N, \tilde{m}_1,\tilde{m}_2 )&<& Y_{\cal L}^{(1)}(m_N,\varepsilon_N,\tilde{m}_1)\\
Y_{{\cal L}b} (m_N,\varepsilon_N, \tilde{m}_1,\tilde{m}_2 )&<& Y_{\cal L}^{(1)}(m_N,\varepsilon_N,\tilde{m}_2)\end{aligned}$$ which gives $$\label{ineqYL}
Y_{\cal L}(m_N,\varepsilon_N, \tilde{m}_1,\tilde{m}_2 )< Y_{\cal L}^{(1)}(m_N,\varepsilon_N,\tilde{m}_1) + Y_{\cal L}^{(1)}(m_N,\varepsilon_N,\tilde{m}_2)$$ with $Y_{\cal L}^{(1)}$ which refers to the lepton number asymmetry obtained from Eqs. (\[NBoGauge\], \[LBoGauge\]). This inequality has several consequences. (i) It means that if leptogenesis is ruled out in the one $N$ case taking $\varepsilon_N<1$ (as above) it will be also ruled out in the 2 $N$ case if we take $\varepsilon_{N_{1,2}}<1/2$ (which is the bound to be considered in this case, see Ref. [@typeIIIlepto]). One just need to apply the results of Figs. 2 and 5 to both terms of Eq. (\[ineqYL\]). (ii) As Eq. (\[ineqYL\]) obviously also holds for the case where we neglect the $W_R$ effects in the lepton number Boltzman equation, this conclusion remains true even if we play with flavour (applying to Eq. (\[ineqYL\]) the results of Fig. 6). (iii) If, for a given value of $m_N=m_{N_1}\simeq m_{N_2}$ and $m_{W_R}$, both $\tilde{m}_1$ and $\tilde{m}_2$ are outside the allowed range of $\tilde{m}$ given in Fig. 7.a, the lepton asymmetry produced will be too small. Numerically it can be checked also that this Figure remains valid to a good approximation for the $\tilde{m}=\tilde{m}_1=\tilde{m}_2$ case. For $m_{W_R}$ above $\sim50$ TeV the allowed region is shrinked by a hardly visible amount. As for the absolute lower bound on $m_{W_R}$ it is larger in the 2 $N$ case than in the one $N$ case (i.e. than the value $18$ TeV above) but not by more than a few TeV. With more than 2 right-handed neutrinos these conclusions remain valid.
[999]{}
Fukugita, Yanagida, Phys. Lett. [**B174**]{} (1986) 45; for recent reviews see e.g. A. Strumia, arXiv:hep-ph/0608347; S. Davidson, E. Nardi and Y. Nir, arXiv:0802.2962 \[hep-ph\]; T. Hambye, arXiv:hep-ph/0412053; R. Barbieri, P. Creminelli, A. Strumia and N. Tetradis, Nucl. Phys. [**B575**]{} (2000) 61; K. Hamaguchi, H. Murayama and T. Yanagida, Phys. Rev. [**D65**]{} (2002) 043512 ; T. Hambye, Nucl. Phys. [**B633**]{} (2002) 171. S. Davidson and A. Ibarra, Phys. Lett. [**B535**]{} (2002) 25.
John R. Ellis, Junji Hisano, Martti Raidal and Yasuhiro Shimizu, Phys. Rev. [**D66**]{} (2002)115013; S. Davidson and A. Ibarra, JHEP 0109:013, 2001. L. Covi, E. Roulet and F. Vissani, Phys. Lett. B [**384**]{} (1996) 169 \[arXiv:hep-ph/9605319\]; M. Flanz, E. A. Paschos and U. Sarkar, Phys. Lett. B [**345**]{}, 248 (1995) \[Erratum-ibid. B [**382**]{}, 447 (1996)\] \[arXiv:hep-ph/9411366\]. A. Pilaftsis, Phys. Rev. D [**56**]{} (1997) 5431, \[arXiv:hep-ph/9707235\]; A. Pilaftsis and T. E. J. Underwood, Nucl. Phys. B [**692**]{} (2004) 303 \[arXiv:hep-ph/0309342\]. J. Kersten and A. Y. Smirnov, Phys. Rev. D [**76**]{} (2007) 073005 \[arXiv:0705.3221 \[hep-ph\]\]. M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia and J. W. F. Valle, Phys. Lett. B [**216**]{} (1989) 360;
A. Abada, C. Biggio, F. Bonnet, M. B. Gavela and T. Hambye, JHEP [**12**]{} (2007) 061 \[arXiv:0707.4058 \[hep-ph\]\].
F. del Aguila, J.A. Aguilar-Saavedra and R. Pittau, JHEP 0710:047,2007, and references therein.
S. Carlier, J. M. Frere and F. S. Ling, Phys. Rev. D [**60**]{} (1999) 096003 \[arXiv:hep-ph/9903300\]; N. Cosme, JHEP [**0408**]{} (2004) 027 \[arXiv:hep-ph/0403209\]. E. Ma, S. Sarkar and U. Sarkar, Phys. Lett. [**B458**]{} (1999) 73.
P. J. O’Donnell, Utpal Sarkar, Phys. Rev. [**D49**]{} (1994) 2118; E. Ma and U. Sarkar, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**80**]{} (1998) 5716; T. Hambye and G. Senjanovic, Phys. Lett. [**B582**]{} (2004) 73-81; G. D’Ambrosio, T. Hambye, A. Hektor, M. Raidal and A. Rossi, Phys. Lett. [**B604**]{} (2004) 199. T. Hambye, M. Raidal and A. Strumia, Phys. Lett. [**B632**]{} (2006) 667; T. Hambye, E. Ma and U. Sarkar, Nucl. Phys. [**B602**]{} (2001) 23-38.
T. Hambye, L. Yin, A. Notari, M. Papucci and A. Strumia, Nucl. Phys. B [**695**]{}, 169 (2004) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0312203\];
A. Ferrari et al., Phys.Rev. [**D62**]{} (2000) 013001.
S.N. Gninenko, M.M. Kirsanov, N.V. Krasnikov and V.A. Matveev, Phys.Atom.Nucl.70 (2007) 44.
V. Buescher, M. S. Carena, B. A. Dobrescu, S. Mrenna, D. Rainwater and M. Schmitt, arXiv:hep-ph/0608322.
S. Y. Khlebnikov and M. E. Shaposhnikov, Nucl. Phys. B [**308**]{} (1988) 885.
E. W. Kolb and S. Wolfram, Nucl. Phys. B [**172**]{} (1980) 224 \[Erratum-ibid. B [**195**]{} (1982) 542\]. M. A. Luty, Phys. Rev. D [**45**]{} (1992) 455. M. Plumacher, Z. Phys. C [**74**]{} (1997) 549 \[arXiv:hep-ph/9604229\]. G. F. Giudice, A. Notari, M. Raidal, A. Riotto and A. Strumia, Nucl. Phys. B [**685**]{} (2004) 89 \[arXiv:hep-ph/0310123\].
R.N. Mohapatra and J.C. Pati, Phys. Rev. [D11]{} (1975) 566; G. Senjanović and R.N. Mohapatra, Phys.Rev. [**D12**]{} (1975) 1502. G. Senjanović, Nucl. Phys. [**B153**]{} (1979) 334.
J.C. Pati and A. Salam, Phys. Rev. [**D10**]{} (1974) 275.
H. Georgi, Proceedings of Coral Gables 1975, 329; H. Fritzsch and P. Minkowski, Annals Phys. [**93**]{} (1975) 193.
G.L. Bayatian [*et al.*]{} \[CMS Collaboration\], “CMS technical design report, volume II: Physics performance,” J. Phys. G [**34**]{} (2007) 995. W. M. Yao [*et al.*]{} \[Particle Data Group\], J. Phys. G [**33**]{} (2006) 1 (and 2007 partial update for edition 2008).
Y. Burnier, M. Laine and M. Shaposhnikov, JCAP [**0602**]{}, 007 (2006) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0511246\].
M. Plümacher, Z. Phys. [**C74**]{} (1997) 549.
K. Enqvist and I. Vilja, Phys. Lett [**B299**]{} (1993) 281.
T. Hambye, E. Ma, M. Raidal and U. Sarkar, Phys. Lett. [**B512**]{} (2001) 373.
M. Mühlleitner and M. Spira, Phys. Rev. [**D68**]{} (2003) 117701; A. G. Akeroyd and M. Aoki, Phys. Rev. D [**72**]{} (2005) 035011 E. Accomando [*et al.*]{}, arXiv:hep-ph/0608079; D. Acosta [*et al.*]{} \[CDF Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. Lett. [**93**]{} (2004) 221802; K. Huitu, J. Maalampi, A. Pietila and M. Raidal, Nucl. Phys. B [**487**]{} (1997) 27
M. Frigerio, T. Hambye and E. Ma, JCAP 0609 (2006) 009.
R. Franceschini, T. Hambye and A. Strumia, arXiv:0805.1613.
J. M. Frere, L. Houart, J. M. Moreno, J. Orloff and M. Tytgat, Phys. Lett. B [**314**]{} (1993) 289.
W.-Y. Keung and G. Senjanovic, Phys.Rev.Lett. [**50**]{} (1983) 1427.
J. M. Frère and W. W. Repko, Phys. Lett. B [**254**]{} (1991) 485.
V.M. Abazov et al. (D0 collaboration), Phys. Lett. [**B641**]{} (2006) 423; D. Amidei et al. (CDF collaboration), CDF Note 9150, http://www-cdf.fnal.gov/physics/new/top/ 2007/singletop/Wprime/Public\_2fb.html.
[^1]: [email protected]
[^2]: [email protected]
[^3]: [email protected]
[^4]: A possible exception to that arises in the supersymmetric case from the effects of Yukawa couplings on the running of the slepton masses [@raidal]. This nevertheless assumes that universality of lepton soft mass terms must be present (an assumption which requires to be tested) and, for any real test of leptogenesis, would require to observe a long series of rare leptonic decays not necessarily expected to be all close to the present corresponding experimental bounds.
[^5]: This case can be realized if the Yukawa induced dimension 6 operator coefficients are unsuppressed (decoupling from the suppressed neutrino mass dimension 5 ones). This does not necessarily require cancellations of the various entries. It requires that some of entries are smaller than others, as in the inverse seesaw, see e.g. [@ValleConcha; @Smirnov; @ABBGH]. But it e.g. leads only to lepton conserving channels with rather large background at LHC [@delAguila].
[^6]: We will not consider finite temperature effects which are not expected to change our conclusions.
[^7]: Note that for simplicity we have neglected the subdominant effects of scatterings of the type $N+L \leftrightarrow H +(\gamma,Z,W_L)$ [@gammas2]. We also neglect as in ref. [@gammas2] the effects of Yukawa coupling induced $NN \leftrightarrow LL,HH$ processes which have little effects too.
[^8]: More complicated breaking mechanisms could add extra contributions to the gauge boson masses: all mass contributions to $N$ will also contribute to $W_R$, but the opposite is not necessarily true.
[^9]: In Eq. (\[LBoGauge\]), we made the choice to keep Eq. (\[CPasym\]) as definition for the CP-asymmetry. In its denominator, it involves only the Yukawa driven decay rather than the total decay width, $ \Gamma_{N_{Tot}}$. Therefore this CP asymmetry doesn’t correspond anymore, as in standard leptogenesis, to the averaged $\Delta L$ which is created each time a $N$ decays. However this definition is convenient for several reasons. It makes explicit the fact that the gauge decay does not induce any lepton asymmetry. Moreover in this way, all (competing) suppression effects, including the dilution one, are put together in the efficiency, not in the CP-asymmetry. It also allows to take the simple upper bound $\varepsilon < 1$ for any numerical calculations.
[^10]: A $N$ much heavier than $W_R$ is in general not expected in the left-right symmetric model or extensions given the fact that, as said above, both $W_R$ and $N_R$ have a mass proportional to the $SU(2)_R$ breaking scale $v_R$, and given the fact that $m_{W_R}\sim g v_R$ with $g$ the ordinary gauge coupling which is of order unity.
[^11]: These scatterings can only further suppress leptogenesis, which as we will see is anyway already far too suppressed to be successful.
[^12]: We neglect effects of charged leptons Yukawa couplings which are much less important.
[^13]: In $\gamma_{Ns}^{sub}$ and $\gamma_{Nt}$ above we took into account the contributions from $N_{2,3}$ proportional to the neutrino masses, as given in Eqs. (92, 93) of Ref. [@gammas2] with $\xi=\sqrt{\Delta m^2_{atm}}/\tilde{m}$, because these contributions are relevant anyway (even for hierarchical $N$’s) for very large $m_N$ and/or very large $\tilde{m}$.
[^14]: The observation of a $W_R$ would rule out this leptogenesis mechanism in the same way as in section 2.
[^15]: Models where the $W_R$ (or the $Z'$) does not couple to the $N$, and therefore where it has little effect on leptogenesis, are with the $SU(2)'_R$ ($U(1)_N$) subgroup of $E_6$, instead of the ususal $SU(2)_R$ [@HMRS].
[^16]: See footnote 4.
[^17]: Except if in $\gamma_{Ns}^{\rm sub}$ and $\gamma_{N t}$ there is a destructive interference between the contribution of $N_1$ and $N_2$ but even so, from the effects of all other terms, the following inequalities hold (except for very large $m_N$ close to $10^{15}$ GeV which is not of interest for our purpose).
[^18]: Note that, due to the $W_R$ effects it is a good approximation to start from thermal distributions of $N_{1,2}$, as explained above. Therefore there is no change of sign of $Y_{\cal L}$ and the argument applies.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Conduction may play an important role in reducing cooling flows in galaxy clusters. We analyse a sample of sixteen objects using *Chandra* data and find that a balance between conduction and cooling can exist in the hotter clusters ($T \gtrsim$ 5 keV), provided the plasma conductivity is close to the unhindered Spitzer value. In the absence of any additional heat sources, a reduced mass inflow must develop in the cooler objects in the sample. We fit cooling flow models to deprojected data and compare the spectral mass deposition rates found to the values required to account for the excess luminosity, assuming Spitzer-rate heat transfer over the observed temperature gradients. The mass inflow rates found are lower than is necessary to maintain energy balance in at least five clusters. However, emission from cooling gas may be partially absorbed. We also compute the flux supplied by turbulent heat transport (Cho et al. 2003) and find conductivity profiles which follow a strikingly similar temperature dependence to the conductivity values required to prevent cooling. Finally, we show that the cluster radio luminosities vary by over five orders of magnitude in objects with X-ray luminosities differing by no more than a factor of a few. This suggests that there is unlikely to be a straightforward correlation between the mechanical power provided by the radio lobes and the rate of energy loss in cooling flow clusters.'
author:
-
title: Thermal conduction and reduced cooling flows in galaxy clusters
---
galaxies: clusters – cooling flows – X-rays: galaxies – conduction
Introduction
============
High resolution observations of cooling flow clusters with *XMM-Newton* and *Chandra* show no evidence for the large amounts of multiphase gas expected in the inner regions of these objects (Peterson et al. 2001; Tamura et al. 2001; Kaastra et al. 2001; Peterson 2002). Several solutions have been proposed to account for the lack of soft X-ray emission; including models which preserve the classic mass deposition rates by invoking differential absorption, mixing or inhomogeneous metallicity distributions (Fabian et al. 2001; Morris & Fabian 2002; Fabian et al. 2002a), and those which prevent, or significantly reduce, mass dropout by balancing the radiative losses by some heat source (Bertschinger & Meiksin 1986, Tucker & Rosner 1983; Churazov et al. 2001; Brüggen & Kaiser 2001).
Here we discuss the role played by conduction in transporting heat from the hot gas reservoir outside the cooling radius towards the centre of the cluster. Narayan & Medvedev (2001), Gruzinov (2002) and Fabian et al. (2002b) have shown that conduction provides heat fluxes which are close to those required to stem cooling, assuming the plasma conductivity is within an order of magnitude of the Spitzer value, $\kappa_{\rm S}$ (Spitzer 1962). The actual value for the suppression of cluster conductivity below $\kappa_{\rm S}$ remains an open question, and depends on detailed understanding of cluster magnetic fields. Churazov (2001) estimated the suppression factor to be $\sim$ 0.01, whereas Narayan & Medvedev (2001) argue that it could be as high as 0.3. If the former scenario were true we could rule out conduction as a successful heating mechanism. However, recent support for heat transfer rates close to the Spitzer rate means that conduction may have a significant effect on cluster evolution.
In order to test the conduction hypothesis further, detailed spatial analyses of individual clusters have been carried out by Voigt et al. (2002) and Zakamska & Narayan (2002). In the latter study, a simple model in which conduction balances cooling was used to generate theoretical temperature and density profiles. The conductivity values required to produce profiles which were reasonable fits ‘by eye’ to the observed profiles were then used to assess whether or not conduction can be effective. Zakamska & Narayan concluded that half the clusters in their sample could be prevented from cooling if conduction is operating at a rate between (0.1–0.4) $\kappa_{\rm S}$. They suggest that the remaining clusters are heated by the central radio source.
Voigt et al. (2002) calculated the conductivity required to replace heat loss as a function of radius using the observed temperature and density profiles of Abell 1835 (Schmidt et al. 2001) and Abell 2199 (Johnstone et al. 2002). We found that whilst conduction at the Spitzer rate was able to prevent cooling in the outer parts of the cooling flow region, a factor of 2 or more above the Spitzer rate was required in the very centre (within about 20 kpc). We suggested that conduction suppresses cooling, and that in some cases this suppression is complete, and in others partial. In the latter case a reduced cooling flow develops. In this paper we extend the work of Voigt et al. (2002) to a sample of sixteen galaxy clusters using archival *Chandra* data. In clusters where the required conductivity is above the Spitzer value we fit cooling flow models to the spectra and compare the mass deposition rates found to those required to maintain energy balance with conduction at $\kappa_{\rm S}$.
We consider the possibility that heat is transported by turbulent diffusion in Section 7.
Throughout the paper we assume a cosmology with $H_{0}$=71$\kmpspMpc$, $\Lambda$=0.73 and $\Omega_{\rm m}$=0.27.
Clusters and data reduction
===========================
The clusters in our sample are listed in Table \[clusters\] and include objects ranging in redshift from 0.0–0.5 and in temperature from $\sim$ 2–15 keV. The clusters were observed using chip 7 on the ACIS-S detector on board *Chandra*, allowing spatially-resolved analysis of the cooling flow region. In each case the data were reduced using the (*Chandra Interactive Analysis of Observations*) software package. We used the Markevitch script () to remove flares and strong point sources were identified by eye and subtracted from the regions files. ACIS ‘blank-sky’ datasets were used to subtract the background. Ancillary-response and response matrices were produced using the and programs and data were binned to have at least 20 counts per channel.
[lcccccccc]{} Cluster& Redshift & Obs. date& Exps. time & GTI& X-ray peak (J2000) & $d_{\rm L}$ & $d_{\rm A}$ & Refs.\
& $z$ & &(ks) &(ks) &RA Dec & (Mpc) &(kpc/$''$) &\
\
2A 0335+096 & 0.0347 & 2000 Sep 06 & 20.0 & 18.1 & (03 38 40.5) (+09 58 11.6) &140.6 & 0.7& \[1\]\
A478 & 0.0880 & 2001 Jan 27 &42.9 &38.9 & (04 13 25.4) (+10 27 57.1) &396.9 &1.6 & \[2\],\[3\]\
PKS 0745-191 & 0.1028 & 2001 Jun 16 &17.9 &14.6 &(07 47 31.2) (-19 17 38.8) &468.5&1.9 & \[4\],\[5\]\
Hydra A & 0.0520 &1999 Nov 02 &24.1 &17.3 &(09 18 05.7) (-12 05 43.3)&228.5 &1.0 & \[6\],\[7\]\
M87$^{\dagger}$ & 0.0043 & 2000 Jul 29 & 38.2 & 33.7 & (12 30 49.4) (+12 23 28.0)& 18.2 & 0.1 & \[8\],\[9\],\[10\],\[11\]\
RXJ 1347.5-1145& 0.4510& 2000 Apr 29& 10.1 & 7.2& (13 47 30.7) (-11 45 09.5) &2492.9 &5.7& \[12\],\[13\]\
A1795 & 0.0632 &2000 Mar 21 &19.7 &15.6 &(13 48 52.5) (+26 35 37.8) &280.0&1.2 & \[14\],\[15\]\
A1835 & 0.2523 & 1999 Dec 11 &19.8 &18.9 &(14 01 02.0) (+02 52 39.7) &1262.4 &3.9 & \[16\]\
PKS 1404-267 & 0.0226 & 2001 Jun 07 &7.3 & 6.0&(14 07 29.8) (-27 01 04.2) &97.1 &0.5& \[17\]\
3C 295 &0.4605 &1999 Aug 30& 19.0& 14.3&(14 11 20.5) (+52 12 10.5) &2556.0&5.8 & \[18\]\
A2029 & 0.0767 & 2000 Apr 12 &19.9 & 19.8 &(15 10 56.1) (+05 44 40.6) &343.2 &1.1& \[19\]\
RXJ 1532.9+3021 & 0.3615 & 2001 Aug 26 &9.5 & 6.2 &(15 32 53.8) (+30 21 00.2) &1916.3&5.0& –\
Cygnus A & 0.0562 & 2000 May 21 & 35.2 & 33.3 &(19 59 28.3) (+40 44 02.0) &247.7 &1.1 & \[20\]\
A2390 & 0.2301 & 2000 Oct 08 &10.0 &7.4 &(21 53 36.8) (+17 41 44.1) &1136.8& 3.6& \[21\],\[13\]\
Sersic 159-03 (AS 1101)& 0.0564 &2001 Aug 13 &10.1 &9.8 &(23 13 58.5) (-42 43 34.5) &248.7 &1.1 & \[22\]\
A2597 & 0.0830 &2000 Jul 28 &39.9 &21.3 &(23 25 19.8) (-12 07 27.6)&362.3&1.5 & \[23\]\
\
Spectra were extracted in the 0.5–7.0 keV energy range in circular annuli around the X-ray emission peak. The following regions were excluded from the cluster images: strong central sources in PKS 1404–267, Hydra A and 3C 295; enhanced, hot emission south–east of the X–ray centre in RXJ 1347.5-1145; emission interior to the radio jets in Cygnus A; X–ray holes in Hydra A and hot emission 180–280 kpc north of the centre in Abell 478. A detailed analysis of the temperature and density profiles of the sample will be given in future work (Voigt et al. 2003, in prep.).
Spectral Model and Temperature and emission measure profiles
============================================================
Deprojected temperature and emission measure profiles were found for each cluster assuming spherically symmetric emission from shells of single phase gas. The spectra were fitted in (Arnaud 1996) with the (Mewe et al. 1985; Liedahl et al. 1995) plasma emission code, absorbed by the (Balucinska-Church & McCammon 1992) photoelectric absorption code. Deprojection was performed using the routine. The elements were assumed to be present in the Solar ratios measured by Anders & Grevesse (1989) and the abundance allowed to vary between shells. The Galactic absorption column density was left as a free parameter in the fits, although linked between shells. Fixing $N_{\rm H}$ at the value expected along the line-of-sight to the cluster would lead to spurious results since the counts are uncertain below $\sim$ 1 keV due to the low energy quantum efficiency degradation of the detector since launch. We do not apply the tools provided to correct for this loss in effective area ( or ) since they appear to over-correct the data, reducing the best-fitting absorption column density to zero in many objects. (We note that this over-correction is also found by Takizawa et al. (2003) in an analysis of Abell 3112). We therefore allow an artificially high absorption column to account for the loss in low energy counts since the reduction in effective area is similar in shape to the subtraction of counts by a foreground screen. We stress that the temperature profiles obtained are the same within the 1$\sigma$ error bars both with and without the correction to the low energy counts when $N_{\rm
H}$ is left as a free parameter in the fits. We are therefore confident that the results are robust. The best-fitting $N_{\rm H}$ values and reduced chi-squares of the fits are shown in Table \[spectra\] (model A).
[lcccccc]{} Cluster&Model A& Model A& Model B& Model B & & Galactic $N_{\rm H}$\
& &Fitted $N_{\rm H}$ & & Fitted $N_{\rm H}$ & &\
&$\chi^{2}$/dof & (10$^{20}$ cm$^{-2}$)&$\chi^{2}$/dof & (10$^{20}$ cm$^{-2}$) & & (10$^{20}$ cm$^{-2}$)\
2A 0335+096 & 2227.300/1404 & 27.06$\pm$0.20 & 1888.495/1400 & 28.78$\pm$0.23 & 0.00 & 17.8\
A478 & 3370.693/2654 & 32.72$\pm$0.17 & 3299.203/2649 & 33.54$\pm$0.20 & 5.5$\times$10$^{-11}$ & 15.2\
PKS 0745-191 & 2468.181/2193 & 40.73$\pm$0.35 & 2409.976/2187 & 43.14$\pm$0.43 & 1.7$\times$10$^{-9}$ &42.4\
Hydra A & 1429.901/1352 & 3.67$\pm$0.19 & 1418.988/1346 & 3.77$\pm$0.20 & 0.11 & 4.90\
M87 & 3171/1271 & 1.97$\pm$0.12 & – & – &– & 2.5\
RXJ 1347.5-1145 & 317.3776/312 & 6.63$\pm$0.72 & 317.2172/309 & 6.72$\pm$0.90 & 0.98 &4.85\
A1795 & 1753.311/1491 & 1.43$\pm$0.13 &1706.515/1489 & 1.69$\pm$0.14 & 1.8$\times$10$^{-9}$ &1.19\
A1835 & 1306.118/1291 & 2.94$\pm$0.24 & 1305.088/1288 & 3.00$\pm$0.27 & 0.78 & 2.32\
PKS 1404-267 & 670.9301/625 & 10.06$\pm$0.50 & 649.8231/597 & 10.03$\pm$0.52 & 0.88 &4.52\
3C 295& 133.3785/137 & 2.49$\pm$1.12 & 133.0522/135 & 2.62$\pm$1.45 & 0.85 &1.33\
A2029 & 2779.268/2472 & 3.81$\pm$0.12 & 2751.292/2466 & 4.02$\pm$0.13 & 3.5$\times$10$^{-4}$ &3.05\
RXJ 1532.9+3021 & 314.4362/322 & 5.71$\pm$0.68 & 309.5464/319 & 7.04$\pm$1.18 & 0.17 &2.16\
Cygnus A & 1412.082/1237 & 30.29$\pm$0.32 &1411.647/1235 & 30.42$\pm$0.34 & 0.83 & 34.8\
A2390 & 589.6790/617 & 11.12$\pm$0.53 & 576.4204/615 & 12.47$\pm$0.62 & 9.2$\times$10$^{-4}$ &6.80\
Sersic 159-03 & 867.0667/802 & 6.31$\pm$0.41& 843.1426/798 & 6.60$\pm$0.43 & 1.7$\times$10$^{-4}$ & 1.79\
A2597 & 1396.950/1222 & 3.24$\pm$0.22 & 1337.056/1216 & 3.88$\pm$0.24 & 9.9$\times$10$^{-10}$ &2.49\
\
The temperature profiles obtained are shown for the whole sample in Fig. \[fig:temp\]. The one sided error bars plotted (necessary for chi-square calculations) are the root-mean-square of the two sided 1$\sigma$ uncertainties found using the error command in .
Calculation of the effective conductivity
=========================================
Energy equations
----------------
The luminosity emitted from an isothermal plasma of density $n$, temperature $T$ and metallicity $Z$ per unit volume is given by
$$L = n^{2} \Lambda(T,Z)$$
where $\Lambda(T,Z)$ is the cooling function for a plasma losing energy by bremsstrahlung radiation and line emission.
Assuming the shells contain single phase gas, we can write the total luminosity emitted from shell $j$ with volume $\Delta V_{j}$ as
$$\Delta L^{\mathrm{tot}}_{j} = EM_{j} \Lambda(T_{j},Z_{j})
\label{eqn:cool}$$
where $EM_{j}=n_{j}^{2} \Delta V_{j}$ is the emission measure of the shell.
The net heat transferred to the $j^{\rm th}$ shell by conduction is given by
$$\Delta L^{\mathrm{cond}}_{j} = 4\pi r_{j}^2 \kappa_{j} \left(\frac{dT}{dr}\right)_{j} -
4\pi r_{j-1}^2 \kappa_{j-1} \left(\frac{dT}{dr}\right)_{j-1}
\label{eqn:heat}$$
where (d$T$/d$r$)$_{j}$ is the temperature gradient and $\kappa_{j}$ the plasma conductivity across the outer boundary of the $j^{\rm th}$ shell.
We calculate the conductivity required to prevent cooling in the $j^{\rm th}$ shell by equating Equations \[eqn:cool\] and \[eqn:heat\] and summing from the centre of the cluster outwards
$$4\pi r_{j}^2 \kappa^{\rm eff}_{j} \left(\frac{dT}{dr}\right)_{j} =
\sum_{i=1}^{j}
EM_{j} \Lambda_{j}
\label{eqn:kappa}$$
where $\kappa^{\rm eff}$ is referred to as the effective thermal conductivity.
$\kappa^{\rm eff}$ calculation
------------------------------
The effective conductivity at the outer boundary of each shell was calculated using Equation \[eqn:kappa\]. We fit power-law models to temperature profiles where the error bars overlap (see Table \[fits\]). The effective conductivity values and their 1$\sigma$ uncertainties, shown for each cluster individually in Fig. \[fig:kappa\], were determined using Monte Carlo simulations. The gas cooling times, $t^{\rm cool}$, within each shell are also plotted in Fig. \[fig:kappa\].
We calculate $t^{\rm cool}$ using the formula
$$t^{\rm cool} \approx \frac{\frac{3}{2}nkT}{\epsilon}
\label{eqn:tcool}$$
where $\epsilon$ is the total emissivity and $n$ is the total number density of particles.
Since $\epsilon \Delta V = EM \Lambda = n_{\rm e}n_{\rm h} \Delta V
\Lambda $, and using $n \approx 2n_{\rm e}$ and $n_{\rm e} \approx
(6/5) n_{\rm h}$, then $\epsilon \approx (5/6) n_{\rm e}^{2}
\Lambda$, where $n_{\rm e}$ and $n_{\rm h}$ are the electron and hydrogen number densities respectively. Substituting into Equation \[eqn:tcool\] we have the following expression for the cooling time of gas in the $j^{\rm th}$ shell
$$t^{\rm cool}_{j} \approx 3.3\frac{kT_{j}}{(EM_{j}/\Delta
V_{j})^{\frac{1}{2}} \Lambda_{j}}.$$
The cooling time profiles (which are mostly $\propto T^{\frac{1}{2}}
n^{-1}$) are plotted for the whole sample in Fig. \[fig:sample\]. They closely track the same radial-dependence curve (a similar result is found for the entropy profiles $\propto T n^{-\frac{2}{3}}$). We find no trend in terms of ‘old’ or ‘young’ cooling flows which would indicate cyclic heating behaviour.
We define the cooling radius as where the cooling time of the gas drops to 5 Gyr.
[lcccc]{} Cluster & $a$ & $b$ & $\chi^{2}$/dof\
PKS 0745-191 & 1.18 & 0.38 & 11.83/7\
Hydra A &1.72 & 0.18 &5.39/6\
RXJ 1347.5-1145 &2.84 & 0.31 & 1.21/2\
A1795 &1.68 & 0.26 & 6.09/3\
A1835 & 1.58 & 0.34 & 2.86/5\
PKS 1404-267 & 0.73 & 0.22 & 1.93/5\
3C 295 &1.91 & 0.17 & 0.43/2\
A2029& 2.43 & 0.24 & 11.86/7\
RXJ 1532.9+3021 & 0.83 & 0.43 & 0.08/2\
Cygnus A & 1.34 & 0.36 & 0.99/2\
A2390 & 2.06 & 0.27 & 1.34/3\
Sersic 159-03 & 1.21 & 0.16 & 4.90/5\
A2597 & 1.00 & 0.33 & 13.42/5\
\
Thermal conduction
==================
Spitzer conductivity
--------------------
The conductivity of a hydrogen plasma completely free from magnetic fields was derived by Spitzer (1962)
$$\kappa_{\rm S} = \frac{1.84\times10^{-5} T^{\frac{5}{2}}}{\mathrm{ln}\hspace{0.6mm}\Lambda} \ergpspcmpK$$
where ln$\Lambda$ is the Coulomb logarithm (ratio of the largest to the smallest impact parameter)
$$\mathrm{ln}\hspace{0.6mm}\Lambda = 37.8 +
\mathrm{ln}\left[\left(\frac{T}{10^{8}\hspace{0.1cm}\mathrm{K}}\right)\left(\frac{n_{\rm
e}}{10^{-3}\hspace{0.1cm} \mathrm{cm}^{-3}}\right)^{-\frac{1}{2}}\right].$$
This term depends only weakly on on the plasma temperature and density and so we can re-write this equation as
$$\kappa_{\rm S} \simeq \kappa_{0} T^{\frac{5}{2}}$$
where $\kappa_{0} \simeq 5.0\times10^{-7}$ erg s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-1}$ K$^{-\frac{7}{2}}$ for electron densities and temperatures appropriate to the objects considered.
Magnetic field effects
----------------------
The presence of magnetic fields in the intracluster medium will reduce the conductivity below the full Spitzer rate, such that $\kappa=f\kappa_{\rm S}$, where $f \leq 1$. The gyroradius of charged particles around magnetic field lines in the intracluster plasma, $r_{g}$, is much less than the mean free path of charged particles due to collisions, $\lambda_{e}$. The effective mean free path will be reduced by a factor $\sim r_{g}^{2}/\lambda_{e}$ perpendicular to ordered magnetic field lines. Assuming a radial temperature gradient, $f$ $\sim$ 0.3 for a radial magnetic field and negligible for a circumferential field.
However, observations show that the magnetic fields may be tangled (Carilli & Taylor 2002). The conductivity then depends on the coherence length of the magnetic field. The theory was first discussed by Rechester & Rosenbluth (1978) and later developed by Chandran & Cowley (1998). These initial studies predicted a suppression factor $f \sim$ 0.01–0.001. More recently, Narayan & Medvedev (2001) have suggested that a magnetic field which is chaotic over a wide range of scales will lead to a suppression factor in the range $\sim$ 0.1–0.4. Maron, Chandran & Blackman (2003), on the other hand, support a value $\sim$ 0.02.
We note that heat conduction at close to the Spitzer rate is observed in the Solar wind when the electron mean free path is small compared with the temperature gradient (Salem et al. 2003).
The conductive heat flux will be overestimated in the outer regions of clusters if the mean free path of electrons is comparable to or greater than the scale length of the temperature gradient (Cowie & McKee 1977). ‘Saturation’ of the conductivity at large radii may explain why significant amounts of heat will not be removed from the cluster outwards (Loeb et al. 2002 suggested that conduction at the Spitzer rate throughout galaxy clusters would result in significant amounts of thermal energy being leaked to the surrounding intercluster medium). Also, fields lines may be stretched out radially by mass inflow, resulting in Spitzer rate conduction being restricted to cluster centres (Bregman & David 1988; Fabian et al. 2002b).
Analysis
========
Effective conductivity profiles
-------------------------------
The effective conductivity profiles are plotted out to the cooling radius for the whole sample in Fig. \[fig:sample\]. We find that when the temperature of the cluster drops below $\sim$5 keV, conductivity values above the Spitzer curve are required. This demonstrates the strong dependence of thermal heat transport on temperature and suggests that even Spitzer-rate conduction will be unable to prevent cooling in low temperature clusters.
Studying the individual effective conductivity profiles shown in Fig. \[fig:kappa\] in detail, we find that in four clusters (Abell 1795, Abell 2029, Cygnus A and Abell 2390) conduction at or below the Spitzer rate would prevent cooling from taking place everywhere inside the cooling radius. The remaining clusters in the sample require the plasma conductivity to be greater than $\kappa_{\rm S}$ in at least one shell. (We note that in studies by Fabian et al. (2002) and Medvedev et al. (2003), where the conductivity required to prevent cooling is calculated at the cooling radius only, clusters such as RXJ 1532.9+3021 and 3C 295 would appear below the Spitzer curve. Detailed studies of the temperature profiles right into the centres of clusters are therefore needed to accurately assess the energetic feasibility of conduction over the entire cooling flow region).
The conductivity values required to prevent cooling at radial positions within the cluster where the cooling time of the gas is 13, 5 and 1 Gyr are shown in Table \[kappas\] as a fraction of $\kappa_{\rm S}$. Conduction may stop large mass inflows from taking place in the outer parts of the cooling flow region, but will be unable to prevent a net heat loss in the inner regions of the majority of objects in the sample. Since most of the implied mass deposition takes place at larger radii, the small mass inflows which must develop in the centre (in the absence of any additional heat sources) may be below the spectral constraints imposed by recent observations.
------------- -------------- ------------- ----------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------- --------------------------
Cluster Cooling time Temperature $\kappa^{\rm eff}$ $\dot M^{\mathrm{clas}}$ $\dot M^{\mathrm{spec}}$
(Gyr) (keV) (/$\kappa_{\rm S}$) (M$_{\odot}$ yr$^{-1}$) (M$_{\odot}$ yr$^{-1}$)
2A 0335+096 13.7 – –
5.0 3.2 0.8 377$\pm$8 80$\pm$5
1.0 2.2 **[2.8]{} & &\
A478 & 13.7 && & &\
&5.0 & 6.6 & 0.3 & 892$\pm$22 & 112$\pm^{22}_{19}$\
&1.0 & 4.5 & 0.2 & &\
PKS 0745-191 & 13.7 & 9.5 & 0.1 & &\
&5.0 & 7.6 & 0.3 & 1269$\pm$30 & 317$\pm^{35}_{29}$\
&1.0 & 5.1 & 1.0 & &\
Hydra A & 13.7 & – & – & &\
&5.0 & 3.9 & 1.0 & 239$\pm$7 & 8$\pm^{6}_{4}$\
&1.0 & 3.2 & **[1.8]{} & &\
RXJ 1347.5-1145 & 13.7 & – & – & &\
&5.0 & 14.4 & 0.1 & 3518$\pm$304 & 75$\pm^{743}_{72}$\
&1.0 & 10.5 & 0.5& &\
A1795 & 13.7 & – & – &&\
& 5.0 & 5.4 & 0.4 & 268$\pm$6 & 30$\pm^{5}_{5}$\
& 1.0 & 4.1 & 0.6 & &\
A1835 &13.7 & 10.5 & 0.1 & &\
&5.0 & 8.3 & 0.3 & 1453$\pm$64 & 34$\pm^{43}_{34}$\
&1.0 & 6.4 & 0.9 & &\
PKS 1404-267 & 13.7 & – & – & &\
&5.0 & 1.8 & **[2.0]{} & 54$\pm$4 & 5$\pm$1\
&1.0 & 1.4 & **[3.9]{} & &\
3C 295 & 13.7 & 4.8 & 1.1 & &\
&5.0 & 4.5 & **[1.7]{} & 632$\pm$83 & 16$\pm^{230}_{12}$\
&1.0 & 3.9 & **[3.2]{} & &\
A2029 & 13.7 & 8.7 & 0.1 & &\
&5.0 & 7.5 & 0.2 & 453$\pm$12 & 30$\pm^{10}_{13}$\
&1.0 & 5.2 & 0.4 &&\
RXJ 1532.9+3021 & 13.7 & – & – & &\
&5.0 & 7.5 & 0.4 & 2375$\pm$169 & 592$\pm^{357}_{260}$\
&1.0 & 4.9 & **[1.5]{} & &\
A2390 & 13.7 & 8.9 & 0.1 & &\
&5.0 & 7.7 & 0.2 & 765$\pm$76 & 339$\pm^{42}_{118}$\
&1.0 & – & – & &\
Sersic 159-03 & 13.7 & 2.7 & **[2.3]{} & &\
&5.0 & 2.5 & **[4.1]{} & 245$\pm$13 & 33$\pm^{11}_{9}$\
&1.0 & 2.1 & **[6.2]{} &&\
A2597 & 13.7 & – & – & &\
&5.0 & 4.5 & 0.5 & 409$\pm$14 & 57$\pm^{14}_{13}$\
&1.0 & 3.1 & **[1.5]{} & &\
\
**********************
------------- -------------- ------------- ----------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------- --------------------------
Conduction + reduced cooling flow?
----------------------------------
For clusters in which conductive heat transfer is insufficient to prevent cooling, we calculate the rate at which mass must drop out in each shell, assuming conduction is operating at the Spitzer rate over the observed temperature gradients. This provides lower limits on the mass deposition rates required, since the plasma conductivity is reduced by a factor $f \leq 1$ in the presence of magnetic fields. We then compare these values with spectral mass deposition rates, determined by fitting cooling flow models to the spectra.
We note that for any blobs of cool gas to exist, conduction of heat to the blobs must be highly suppressed. This probably requires them to be separate magnetic structures.
### Inhomogeneous cooling flows
The observed bolometric luminosity from a single shell $j$ in a spherically symmetric, inhomogeneous, steady state, subsonic cooling flow is given by
$$\Delta L^{\mathrm{tot}}_{j}-\Delta L^{\mathrm{cond}}_{j}= \Delta \dot M_{j} H_{j} + \delta_{j} \Delta \dot M_{j}
\Delta \Phi_{j}
+ \dot M_{j-1} \left(\Delta H_{j} + \Delta
\Phi_{j} \right)
\label{eqn:nulsen}$$
where $\Delta \dot M_{j}$ is the rate at which mass is deposited in the $j^{\rm th}$ shell and $\dot M_{j-1}$ is the rate at which mass flows through the shell towards the centre, such that
$$\dot M_{j} = \sum_{i=1}^{j} \Delta \dot M_{i}$$
$H_{j}$, $\Delta H_{j}$, $\Delta \Phi_{j}$ are the enthalpy of the ambient gas in the $j^{\rm th}$ shell and the enthalpy change and gravitational potential difference across it. $\delta_{j}$ is a factor of order unity which takes into account the fact that gas is deposited throughout the volume of the shell (see e.g. Fabian et al. 1985).
The first term represents the luminosity emitted by gas cooling out of the flow. Since the flow rate is long compared with the cooling rate, the gas can be assumed to be cooling out at a fixed radius and therefore, under the condition of hydrostatic equilibrium, at constant pressure. The spectrum emitted by a perfect gas cooling isobarically is described by Johnstone et al. (1992)
$${\Delta L^{\mathrm{cool}}_{j}(\nu)={\frac{5k}{2\mu m_{\rm H}}} \dot \Delta M_{j} \int_{0}^{T_{j}}
\frac{\epsilon_{j}(\nu)}{\Lambda(T)} \mathrm{d}T}
\label{eqn:rmj}$$
where $\epsilon_{j}(\nu)$ is the emissivity at frequency $\nu_{j}$.
The second and fourth terms represent the gravitational potential energy released due to gas cooling out and gas flowing across the shell respectively. The third term is the contribution from the enthalpy change of gas flowing across the shell. The contribution from these terms to the total luminosity emitted may be comparable to that from the first term (Fabian 1994).
We note that in the classic cooling flow scenario cool gas clouds deposited out of the flow are assumed to be supported against gravitational infall. Magnetic fields were invoked to prevent clouds from falling towards the cluster centre (Fabian 1994). Fabian (2003a) discusses the possibility that blobs of gas fall inwards, giving up their gravitational potential energy to the surrounding medium as they descend through the core. The energetics show that this process could be important in the outer parts of the cooling flow region.
### Mass deposition rates with and without conduction
We first calculate the mass deposition rate expected in each shell assuming the plasma conductivity is zero (i.e. $ \Delta
L^{\mathrm{cond}}_{j}$ = 0); this is the classic mass deposition rate, $\Delta \dot M_{j}^{\rm clas}$.
$${\Delta L^{\mathrm{tot}}_{j}={\frac{5k}{2\mu m_{\rm H}}} \Delta \dot M_{j}^{\mathrm{clas}} T_{j}}
\label{eqn:mdot}$$
where we have neglected the contributions from the last three terms in Equation \[eqn:nulsen\].
We then calculate the mass which must cool out of the flow assuming conductive heat transfer at the Spitzer rate over the observed temperature gradients. We refer to this as $\Delta \dot
M_{j}^{\mathrm{cool}}$, given by
$$\Delta L^{\mathrm{tot}}_{j} - \Delta L^{\mathrm{cond}}_{j} =
{\frac{5k}{2\mu m_{\rm H}}} \Delta \dot M_{j}^{\mathrm{cool}} T_{j}
\label{eqn:mdotcool}$$
where we put $\kappa_{j}=\kappa_{0} T_{j}^{\frac{5}{2}}$ in Equation \[eqn:heat\].
### Spectral mass deposition rates
We compare the values calculated for $\Delta \dot
M_{j}^{\mathrm{cool}}$ with spectral mass deposition rates, determined by fitting a cooling flow models to the data. The emission from each shell is represented by an isothermal component (plasma maintained at a constant temperature) plus a cooling flow component. The cooling term is fitted with an spectrum (see Equation \[eqn:rmj\]) and the isothermal term by a single component. Since we receive projected X-ray emission, the model + is fitted to the deprojected emission from each shell. As with model A, this is carried out using the routine. The component is not there to account for emission from material outside the cooling radius and any cooling flow component detected is not a projection effect (assuming spherical symmetry), as suggested by Molendi & Pizzolato 2001. The temperatures and abundances in are tied to the values within each shell. The spectral mass deposition rate, $\Delta
\dot M_{j}^{\mathrm{spec}}$, in each shell is the normalization of the component. The cooling flow model is fit to shells only where the cooling time of the gas is less than or equal to 5 Gyr. As before, the Galactic absorption column is left as a free parameter in the fits (although linked between shells) and the abundances are untied. We note that the spectral mass deposition rates obtained are statistically equivalent both with and without the correction.
The best-fitting $N_{\rm H}$ values and reduced chi-squares for the fits are tabulated in Table \[spectra\] (model B), together with the -test probabilities that the isothermal model provides a better representation of the data than the cooling flow model. The probabilities suggest that adding a cooling flow component to each shell provides a significantly better fit to the data for the majority of objects in the sample. For 3C 295, Abell 1835, RXJ 1347.5+1145, PKS 1404-267 and Cygnus A an additional cooling flow component is not required statistically. There is no relation between the requirement for a cooling flow component and the need for super-Spitzer plasma conductivity.
### Comparison between predicted and spectrally-determined mass deposition rates
In Fig. \[fig:mdot\] we plot the classic mass deposition rates, $\Delta \dot M_{j}^{\mathrm{clas}}$, the mass deposition rates required assuming conduction at the Spitzer rate, $\Delta \dot
M_{j}^{\mathrm{cool}}$, and the spectral mass deposition rates, $\Delta \dot M_{j}^{\mathrm{spec}}$, for clusters where the effective conductivity is above the Spitzer rate.
In five clusters the spectral mass deposition rates are approximately a factor of two lower than is required for energy balance, even when $\Delta \dot M_{j}^{\mathrm{cool}}$ is halved to take into account the gravitational work done on the gas and the enthalpy released by the gas as it flows across the shell.
For clusters which have also been studied by Peterson et al. (2002), we plot $\Delta \dot M_{j}^{\mathrm{cool}}$ and $\Delta \dot
M_{j}^{\mathrm{spec}}$ summed out to the cooling radius (see Fig. \[fig:peterson\]), together with the RGS upper limits or detections of cool gas within the radius shown by the dashed line. For Abell 1835 and Sersic 159-03 the spectral mass deposition rates found in this study are consistent with the RGS upper limits. There is some discrepancy between the Chandra and RGS data for Hydra A and 2A 0335+096, with a larger mass deposition rate found in this study for 2A 0335+096, and a smaller one for Hydra A.
### Conclusions
Conduction at the Spitzer rate, together with a reduced, unabsorbed cooling flow equal to the spectral mass deposition rates found here is unable to account for the entire cooling luminosity in at least five clusters (Hydra A, Sersic 159-03, 2A 0335+096, Abell 1835 and PKS1404-267). Conduction at a lower rate will fail to prevent cooling in even more clusters.
Unhindered conduction is, however, able to *reduce* the mass deposition rates required for a steady-state energy balance by a significant factor (2–3 in most clusters) and the addition of a modest amount of intrinsic absorption may bring the spectral mass deposition rates into agreement with what is required. (We note too that the Chandra detector contamination, affecting counts at low energies, places an instrumental limitation on the accuracy of soft X-ray emission measurements).
As a final comment on reduced cooling flows, we plot in Fig. \[fig:totmdot\] the predicted classic and observed spectral mass deposition rates obtained for the whole sample (tabulated in Table \[kappas\]). The observed values do not assume any conduction or excess absorption. We find that $\dot M^{\mathrm{spec}} \sim 0.1
\dot M^{\mathrm{clas}}$. This correlation indicates that there is no relation between the spectral mass deposition rates found and the effective conductivity.
Turbulent heat transport
========================
Cho et al. (2003) suggest that turbulent heat transport by mixing may produce conductivities at least as high as those advocated by Narayan & Medvedev (2001). They derive a coefficient of turbulent diffusion $\kappa_{\mathrm{diff}}=C_{\mathrm{dyn}} L V_{\mathrm{L}}$, where $V_{\mathrm{L}}$ is the amplitude of the r.m.s. turbulent velocity, $L$ is the scale length of the turbulent motions and $C_{\mathrm{dyn}}$ is a constant of the order unity. The turbulent conductivity is then given by $\kappa_{\mathrm{turb}}= n_{\rm e} k
\kappa_{\mathrm{diff}}$.
Assuming $V_{\mathrm{L}} = \alpha c_{\rm s}$, where $c_{\rm s}$ is the gas sound speed, and $L = \beta r$, then
$$\kappa_{\rm turb}=\alpha \beta n_{\rm e} k^{\frac{3}{2}} r \left(\frac{\gamma}{\mu
m_{\rm H}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}} T^{\frac{1}{2}}
\label{eqn:kappaturb}$$
where $\alpha, \beta \leq 1$.
Since the dependence of electron number density on temperature varies from cluster to cluster, we find a general expression for $\kappa_{\rm
turb}$ by calculating $n_{\rm e}$ as a function of temperature at a fixed cooling time.
For $T \gtrsim 3 \times 10^{7}$ K, thermal bremsstrahlung is the main emission mechanism and $\epsilon \approx 3.0 \times 10^{-27}
n_{\mathrm h}^{2} T^{\frac{1}{2}} $ erg cm$^{-3}$ s$^{-1}$. For $T
\lesssim 3 \times 10^{7}$ line cooling becomes important and $\epsilon
\approx 6.2 \times 10^{-19} n_{\mathrm h}^{2} T^{-\frac{3}{5}} $ erg cm$^{-3}$ s$^{-1}$ (McKee & Cowie 1977). Substituting $\epsilon$ into Equation \[eqn:tcool\] we can re-write $t^{\rm cool}$ in terms of the temperature and electron number density in the two temperature regimes
$$t^{\rm cool}_{j} \approx 2.0 \times 10^{10}
\left(\frac{n_{\rm e}}{10^{-3}\hspace{0.1cm} \rm cm^{-3}}\right)^{-1}
\left(\frac{T}
{10^{7}\hspace{0.1cm} \rm K}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\rm yr,
\label{eqn:tcool2}$$
$T \gtrsim 3 \times 10^{7}$ K\
and $$t^{\rm cool}_{j} \approx 0.5 \times 10^{10}
\left(\frac{n_{\rm e}}{10^{-3}\hspace{0.1cm} \rm cm^{-3}}\right)^{-1}
\left(\frac{T}
{10^{7}\hspace{0.1cm} \rm K}\right)^{\frac{8}{5}}\rm yr,
\label{eqn:tcool3}$$ $T \lesssim 3 \times 10^{7}$ K.\
Substituting Equations \[eqn:tcool2\] and \[eqn:tcool3\] into Equation \[eqn:kappaturb\] we find the following expressions for the turbulent conductivity at a fixed cooling time within each cluster
$$\kappa_{\rm turb} \approx 8 \times 10^{12}
\left(\frac{T}{10^{7} \hspace{0.1cm} \rm K}\right) \ergpspcmpK,$$
$T \gtrsim 3 \times 10^{7}$ K\
and $$\kappa_{\rm turb} \approx 2 \times 10^{12}
\left(\frac{T}{10^{7} \hspace{0.1cm} \rm K}\right)^{2.1} \ergpspcmpK,
\label{eqn:turb}$$ $T \lesssim 3 \times 10^{7}$ K\
\
for $\alpha\beta$=1, $\gamma=\frac{5}{3}$, $t^{\rm cool}$= 1Gyr and $L$ = 20 kpc. (In the lower plot in Fig. \[fig:sample\] we see that $L \approx$ 20 kpc at $t^{\rm cool}$=1Gyr for the clusters in the sample). We plot this curve on the effective conductivity plot in Fig. \[fig:sample\]. Turbulent heat transport may be important, depending on the actual values of $\alpha$ and $\beta$.
We also compute a $\kappa_{\rm turb}$ profile for each cluster individually (shown in Fig. \[fig:kappa\]) using Equation \[eqn:kappaturb\]. The $\kappa_{\rm turb}$ and $\kappa^{\rm
eff}$ profiles are strikingly similar if $\alpha \beta \sim
\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{10}$. This may be explained by the scaling involved. We have that $$\frac{\kappa^{\rm eff}}{\kappa_{\rm turb}}
\propto \frac{n_{\rm e}}{\rm{d}T/\rm{d}r} = \frac{n_{\rm e} r}{T}$$ for power-law temperature profiles and bremsstrahlung emission. Typically $n_{\rm e} r \sim {\rm constant}$ and $T$ varies at most by a factor of $\sim$ 3. The similarity could therefore be a coincidence. More interestingly, the scaling (i.e. the temperature and density profiles observed) could result from turbulence [*being*]{} the heat transport process operating in cluster cores.
One problem with the last possibility is that the quasi-linear optical filaments seen in the Perseus cluster (Conselice et al. 2001) argue in that case against the gas being strongly turbulent (Fabian et al.2003c). A mild circulation pattern with eddies of a few kpc driven by buoyant radio bubbles and oscillatory motion of the central galaxy may however be consistent.
Radio and optical data
======================
If the intracluster gas is heated by the central radio source, then we would expect to see some degree of correlation between the heating rate required to prevent cooling and the radio luminosity of the central source. In Table \[radio\] we show the radio luminosities measured at 20 cm (1.4 GHz), obtained from the NVSS survey (Condon et al. 1998). In each case the radio sources detected within 15 arcsec of the X-ray centre (see Table \[clusters\]) are tabulated. We plot the rate of energy loss from the cluster within the cooling radius against the total 1.4 GHz radio luminosity in Fig. \[fig:radiolum\].
We see that there is no obvious correlation between the radio power observed and the radio power required to prevent cooling in these clusters. Although the radio luminosity is not directly related to the mechanical power of the radio lobes, it is unlikely that the same $P$d$V$ work can be done on clusters with similar X-ray luminosities when their radio source luminosities vary by over 5 orders of magnitude.
Observations in the UV, optical and infrared suggest that a small cooling flow may be required to fuel the observed star formation rates, emission line nebulosities and molecular gas masses (Donahue 2000; Edge 2001; Edge et al. 2002) in the centres of cooling flow galaxy clusters. In Table \[radio\] we indicate whether or not optical emission lines have been observed in the object (Crawford & Fabian 1992; Crawford et al. 1999; Peres et al. 1998).
It is interesting that there is no evidence for optical emission lines in Abell 2029 (Johnstone et al. 1987; McNamara & O’Connell 1989), given that conduction at $\kappa \sim$ (0.3–0.4) $\kappa_{\rm S}$, the range in plasma conductivity advocated by Narayan & Medvedev 2001, can prevent cooling from taking place right into the inner few kpc of this object.
We also note that molecular gas is generally found only within the central $\sim$ 20 kpc of clusters (Donahue & Voit 2003); indicating that if we are indeed detecting the cool sink produced by a reduced cooling flow, then any heat process operating in these objects fails to stop cooling only in the innermost region. We find that, in general, the effective conductivity profiles rise above the Spitzer curve towards the centres of the clusters.
[lccccc]{} Cluster & Position (J2000)& Flux& Total Radio Luminosity &X-ray Luminosity & Optical lines\
&RA Dec &(mJy)&(10$^{31}$ erg s$^{-1}$ Hz$^{-1}$)& (10$^{44}$ erg s$^{-1}$)&\
2A0335+096 & (03 38 40.62) (+09 58 12.2) & 36.7 & 0.1 & 2.3 & YES\
& (03 38 40.06) (+09 58 11.0) & 1.8 & & &\
A478 & (04 13 25.18) (+10 27 54.1) & 36.9 & 0.7 & 13.6 & YES\
& (04 13 20.04)(+10 27 50.7) & 1.5 & & &\
PKS 0745-191 & (07 47 31.35) (07 47 30.0) & 2372.0 & 64.7 & 17.2 & YES\
& (07 47 30.03) (-19 17 30.6) & 83.7 & & &\
Hydra A & (09 18 05.78) (-12 05 41.3) & 40849.9 & 263.9 & 2.0 & YES\
& (09 18 00.03) (-12 05 40.6)& 1278.8& &&\
M87 & (12 30 49.46) (+12 23 21.6) & 138487.0 & 5.7 &– & YES\
& (12 30 00.03) (+12 23 20.3) & 4858.7 & & &\
RXJ 1347.5-1145 & (13 47 30.67) (-11 45 08.6) & 45.9 & 35.3 & 89.0 & –\
& (13 47 30.04) (-11 45 00.7) & 1.5 & & &\
A1795 & (13 48 52.43) (+26 35 33.6) & 924.5 & 9.0 & 3.7 & YES\
& (13 48 50.03) (+26 35 30.6) & 27.7 & &&\
A1835 & (14 01 02.05) (+02 52 41.0) & 39.3& 7.8 & 26.0 & YES\
& (14 01 00.04) (+02 52 40.7) & 1.6 & & &\
PKS 1404-267 & (14 07 29.83) (-27 01 04.2) & 645.5 & 0.8 & 0.17 & –\
& (14 07 20.03) (-27 01 00.6) & 22.8 & & &\
3C295 & (14 11 20.63) (+52 12 09.0) & 22720.1 & 1.83$\times10^{4}$ & 7.2 & –\
& (14 11 20.05) (+52 12 00.6) & 681.6 & & &\
A2029 & (15 10 55.87) (+05 44 39.3) & 527.8 & 7.7 & 6.9 & NO\
& (15 10 50.03) (+05 44 30.6) & 18.2 & & &\
RXJ 1532.9+3021 & (15 32 53.77) (+30 20 59.8) & 22.8 & 10.4 & 27.5 & YES\
& (15 32 50.06) (+30 20 50.8) & 0.8 & & &\
Cygnus A & (19 59 28.1) (40 44 0.5.00) & 5.7$\times10^{5}$ & 4.2$\times10^{3}$ & – & YES\
& & & & &\
A2390 & (21 53 36.81) (+17 41 44.8) & 235.3 & 37.8 & 11.4 & YES\
& (21 53 30.06) (+17 41 40.6) & 8.3& & &\
Sersic 159-03 &(23 13 58.60) (-42 43 38.0) &156.7 & 1.2 & 1.9 & YES\
& & & & &\
A2597 & (23 25 19.82) (-12 07 28.6) & 1874.6 & 30.4 & 4.0 & YES\
& (23 25 10.03) (-12 07 20.6) & 56.2 & & &\
\
Discussion
==========
We have carried out spatially-resolved, deprojected analyses of the cooling flow regions in a sample of galaxy clusters and find effective conductivity profiles which lie both above and below the Spitzer curve. If the plasma conductivity in galaxy clusters is close to the unhindered Spitzer value, then conduction will play a important role in reducing cooling flows.
For clusters with effective conductivity values above the Spitzer curve, we calculated the rate at which gas must cool out of the ambient plasma, assuming unhindered conduction, and found spectral mass deposition rates at least a factor of two lower than is required for energy balance in five objects.
The possibility that the plasma conductivity is as high as 0.1–1.0 $\kappa_{\rm S}$ continues to be debated in the literature, both from an observational viewpoint (Ettori & Fabian; Vikhlinin et al. 2001; Markevitch et al. 2003; Nath 2003) and theoretically (Chandran & Cowley 1998; Narayan & Medvedev 2001; Chandran & Maron 2003). We also point out that a certain amount of fine-tuning is required for the conduction model to be successful. For an energy balance between conduction and cooling to exist in each object, the suppression factor must vary from cluster to cluster. However, it is not unreasonable to expect there to be some variation in the suppression of conduction in different objects; in particular since rotation measures show that the length over which fields are ordered varies between clusters (Taylor et al. 2002). Also, mass inflow itself may pull the field lines radially, increasing the conductivity (Bregman & David 1988; Fabian et al. 2002b).
Since the model requires some finite $\dot M$ in most clusters, we must consider whether or not it is physically plausible for an inhomogeneous cooling flow to exist in a conducting medium. If the gas which cools out of the flow ‘pulls’ magnetic field lines around it as it condenses then the cool blobs may be magnetically isolated from the surrounding hotter, conducting medium. We note that a certain amount of cool gas may need be deposited in the centres of galaxy clusters in order to account for the enhanced star formation rates (Crawford et al. 1999) and molecular gas masses detected (Edge 2001; Edge et al. 2002).
In this paper we concentrate on the energetic feasibility of balancing bremsstrahlung emission with conductive heat transfer. For the conduction model to be successful, this balance must be stable; or at least quasi-stable over the timescales considered. The conduction scenario may be a self-regulating process. Radiative cooling occurs isobarically at each radius and so a perturbation causing the temperature to drop leads to an increase in the cooling rate. We might then expect the gas to cool dramatically since conductivity decreases with temperature. However, the decline in temperature leads to an increase in the temperature gradient, which is beneficial for conductive heat transfer. The situation is complex and time-dependent simulations are needed to understand how the intracluster gas may evolve. Past work has shown that steady state solutions to the energy equation are unable to reproduce the large temperature gradients observed (Bregman & David 1988; Bertschinger & Meiksin 1986; Meiksin 1988). Zakamska & Narayan (2002), on the other hand, argue that the balance is stable with the observed temperature and density profiles. Kim & Narayan (2003) suggest that thermal instabilities are unimportant on timescales $\sim$ 2–5 Gyr.
If there is some heating process preventing cooling flows from developing then it must be distributed. We see from Fig. \[fig:heatrateperkpc\] (left plot) that the heat which must be transferred per kpc to shells at increasing radii is approximately constant between 20 and 100 kpc, with a rise in the innermost region. If the cluster is heated by the central AGN then the $P$d$V$ work done in blowing bubbles through the intracluster medium must lead to the widespread deposition of energy. How this heat is transported is unclear (viscous dissipation of the sound waves produced by the bubbles is a possibility; Fabian et al. 2003b). It has been suggested that conduction and AGN heating work together in galaxy clusters (Brighenti & Matthews 2003, Ruszkowski & Begelman 2002), and, in particular, that conduction prevents cooling in the outer regions, with AGN heating dominating in the inner regions (Kim & Narayan 2003). Since we find $\kappa^{\rm eff}$ decreases with radius in most clusters it would be worth pursuing this scenario. We plot the heating rate required per kpc with conduction at $\kappa=\kappa_{\rm S}/3$ (right plot in Fig. \[fig:heatrateperkpc\]). The required heating is little changed for the cooler clusters in our sample.
Summary
=======
Recent *XMM-Newton* observations using the RGS have shown that although cooling may have occurred in the past, it is likely that some heating mechanism is preventing net heat loss at the observed epochs ($z=0.0-0.5$). We have shown that, in general, conduction at close to the Spitzer rate is able to completely offset cooling in the hotter parts of clusters ($T$ $\gtrsim$ 5 keV). But in the inner, cooler parts of hot clusters and most of cool clusters conduction is insufficient. The observed spectral mass deposition rates found here are less than the amounts expected from the radiative cooling rate and some additional heating and/or absorption of the cooling gas is therefore required.
It has been suggested that turbulent heat diffusion can provide a high effective heat conductivity (Cho et al. 2003). We have shown that this process may supply adequate heat to balance radiative cooling in the observed clusters. In detail, it provides remarkably similar profiles to those required.
Acknowledgements
================
We thank Roderick Johnstone for help with the analysis of PKS 1404-267 and the use of his program for evaluating the cooling function. We are also grateful to Robert Schmidt and Jeremy Sanders for the use of their scripts in the Monte Carlo simulations and cooling flow models, respectively. We thank Steve Allen and Martin Laming for helpful discussions. ACF and LMV acknowledge support from The Royal Society and PPARC, respectively.
Allen S. W., Ettori S., Fabian A. C., 2001a, MNRAS, 324, 877 Allen S. W., Taylor G. B., Nulsen P. E. J., Johnstone R. M. J., David L. P., Ettori S., Fabian A. C., Forman W., Jones C., McNamara B., 2001b, MNRAS, 324, 842 Allen S. W., Schmidt R. W., Fabian A. C., 2002, MNRAS, 335, 256 Anders E., Grevesse N., 1989, Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 53, 197 Arnaud K. A., 1996, in Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems V, eds. Jacoby G., Barns J., ASP Conf. Ser., 101, 17 Arnaud M., Evrard A. E., 1999, MNRAS, 305, 631 Balusinska-Church M., McCammon D., 1992, ApJ, 400, 699 Barnes D. G., Nulsen P. E. J., 2003, submitted MNRAS , astro-ph/0304065 Bertschinger E., Meiksin A., 1986, ApJ, 306, L1 Böhringer H. et al., 2001, A&A, 365, L181 Bregman J. N., David L. P., 1988, ApJ, 326, 639
Brighenti F., Matthews W. G., 2003, ApJ, 587, 580 Brüggen M., Kaiser C. R., 2001, MNRAS, 325, 676 Carilli C. L., Taylor G. B., 2002, ARA&A, 40, 319 Chandran B. D. G., Cowley S. C., 1998, Phys. Rev. Lett., 80, 3077 Chandran B. D. G., Maron J. L., 2003, submitted ApJ, astro-ph/0303214 Cho J., Lazarian A., Honein A., Knaepen B., Kassinos S., Moin P., 2003, submitted ApJ, astro-ph/0302503 Churazov E., Brüggen M., Kaiser C. R., Böhringer H., Forman W., 2001, ApJ, 554, 261
Condon J. J., Cotton W. D., Greisen E. W., Yin Q. F., Perley R. A., Taylor G. B., Broderick J. J., 1998, AJ, 115,1693
Conselice C. J., Gallagher J. S., Wyse R. F. G., 2001, AJ, 122, 2281 Cowie L. L., McKee C. F., 1977, ApJ, 211, 135 Crawford C. S., Fabian A. C., 1992, MNRAS, 259, 265 Crawford C. S., Allen S. W., Ebeling H., Edge A. C., Fabian A. C., 1999, MNRAS, 306, 857 David L. P., Slyz A., Jones C., Forman W., Vrtilek S. D., Arnaud K. A., 1993, ApJ, 412, 479 David L. P., Nulsen P. E. J., McNamara B. R., Forman W., Jones C., Ponman T., Robertson B., Wise M., 2001, 557, 546 De Grandi S., Molendi S., 1999, A&A, 351, L45 Di Matteo T., Allen S. W., Fabian A. C., Wilson A. S., Young A. J., 2003. ApJ, 582, 133 Dickey J. M., Lockman F. J., 1990, ARA&A, 28, 215 Donahue M., Mack J., Voit M., Sparks W., Elston R., Maloney P. R., 2000, ApJ, 545, 670 Donahue M., Voit M., 2003, Carnegie Obs. Astrophys. Ser., Vol. 3, astro-ph/0308006 Edge A. C., 2001, MNRAS, 328, 762 Edge A. C., Wilman R. J., Johnstone R. M., Crawford C. S., Fabian A. C., Allen S. W., 2002, MNRAS, 337, 49 Ettori S., Fabian A. C., 2000, MNRAS, 317 L57 Ettori S., Allen S. W., Fabian A. C., 2001, MNRAS, 322, 187 Ettori S., Fabian A. C., Allen S. W., Johnstone R. M., 2002, MNRAS, 331, 635 Fabian A. C. et al., 1985, MNRAS, 216, 923 Fabian A. C., 1994, ARAA, 32, 227
Fabian A. C., Mushotzky R. F., Nulsen P. E. J., Peterson J. R., 2001, MNRAS, 321, L20
Fabian A. C., Allen S. W., Crawford C. S., Johnstone R. M., Morris R. G., Sanders J. S., Schmidt R. W., 2002a, MNRAS, 332, L50 Fabian A. C., Voigt L. M., Morris R. G., MNRAS, 2002b, 335, L71 Fabian A. C., 2003a, accepted MNRAS, in press Fabian A. C., Sanders J. S., Allen S. W., Crawford C. S., Iwasawa K., Johnstone R. M., Schmidt R. W., Taylor G. B., 2003b, MNRAS accepted, astro-ph/0306036 Fabian A. C., Sanders J. S., Crawford C. S., Conselice C. J., Gallagher III J. S., Wyse R. F. G., 2003c, MNRAS accepted, astro-ph/0306039 Gruzinov A., 2002, astro-ph/0203031 Hicks A. K., Wise M. W., Houck J. C., Canizares C. R., 2002, ApJ, 580, 763 Johnstone R. M., Fabian A. C., Nulsen P. E. J., 1987, MNRAS, 224, 75 Johnstone R. M., Fabian A. C., Edge A. C., Thomas P. A., 1992, MNRAS, 255, 431 Johnstone R. M., Fabian A. C., Taylor G. B., 1998, MNRAS, 298, 854 Johnstone R. M., Allen S.W., Fabian A. C., Sanders J.S., 2002, MNRAS, 336, 299 Kaastra J. S., Ferrigno C., Tamura T., Paerels F. B. S., Peterson J. R., Mittaz J. P. D., 2001, A&A, 365, L99 Kim W.,, Narayan R., 2003, accepted ApJ, astro-ph/0303097 Lewis A. D., Stocke J. T., Buote D. A., 2002, ApJ, 573, L13 Liedahl D. A., Osterheld A. L., Goldstein W. H., 1995, ApJ, 438, L115 Loeb A., 2002, New Astronomy, 7, 279
Markevitch M., 1998, ApJ, 504, 27 Markevitch M. et al., 2003, ApJ, 586, L19 Maron J. L., Chandran B. D. G., Blackman E. G., 2003, submitted Phys. Rev. Lett., astro-ph/0303217 Matsushita K., Belsole E., Finoguenov A., Böhringer H., 2002, A&A, 386, 77 Mazzotta P., Edge A., Markevitch M., 2003, submitted ApJ, astro-ph/0303314 McKee C. F., Cowie L. L., 1977, ApJ, 215, 213 McNamara B. R., O’Connell R. W., 1989, ApJ, 98, 6 McNamara B. R., Wise M., Nulsen P. E. J., David L. P., Sarazin C. L., Bautz M., Markevitch M., Vikhlinin A., Forman W. R., Jones C., Harris D. E., 2000, ApJ, 534, L135 McNamara B. R. et al., 2001, ApJ, 562, L149 Medvedev M. V., Melott A. L., Miller C., Horner D., 2003, astro-ph/0303310 Mewe R., Gronenschild E. H. B. M., van den Oord G. H. J., 1985, A&AS, 62, 197 Molendi S., 2002, ApJ, 580, 815 Molendi S., Pizzolato F., 2001, ApJ, 560, 194 Morris R. G., Fabian A. C., 2003, MNRAS, 338, 824 Narayan R., Medvedev M. V., 2001, ApJ, 562, L129 Peres C. B., Fabian A. C., Edge A. C., Allen S. W., Johnstone R. M., White D. A., 1998, MNRAS, 298, 416 Nath B. B., 2003, MNRAS, 340, L1 Peterson J. R. et al., 2001, A&A, 365, L104 Peterson J. R., Kahn S. M., Paerels F. B. S., Kaastra J. S., Tamura T., Bleeker J. A. M., Ferrigno C., 2002, ApJ, 590, 207 Rechester A. B., Rosenbluth M. N., 1978, Phys. Rev. Lett., 40, 33 Ruszkowski M.,, Begelman M. C., 2002, ApJ, 581, 223 Salem C., Hubert D., Lacombe C., Bale S. D., Mangeney A., Larson D. E., Lin R. P., 2003, ApJ, 585, 1147 Schmidt R. W., Allen S. W., Fabian A. C., 2001, MNRAS, 327, 1057 Smith D. A., Wilson A. S., Arnaud K. A., Terashima Y., Young A. J., 2002, ApJ, 565, 195 Spitzer L., 1962, Physics of Fully Ionized Gases, New York: Wiley-Interscience Sun M., Jones C., Murray S. S., Allen S. W., Fabian A. C., Edge A. C., 2003, ApJ, 587, 619 Takizawa M., Sarazin C. L., Blanton E. L., Taylor G. B., 2003, accepted ApJ, astro-ph/0306157 Tamura T., Kaastra J. S., Peterson J. R., Paerels F. B. S., Mittaz J. P. D., Trudolyubov S. P., Stewart G., Fabian A. C. F., Mushotzky R. F., Lumb D. H., Ikebe Y., 2001, A&A, 365, L87 Taylor G. B., Allen S. W., Fabian A. C., 2002. MNRAS, 334, 769 Tucker W.H., Rosner R., 1983, ApJ, 267, 547 Vikhlinin A., Markevitch M., Forman W., Jones C., 2001, ApJ, 555, L87 Voigt L. M., Schmidt R. W., Fabian A. C., Allen S. W., Johnstone R. M., MNRAS, 335, L7 Wright A. E., Griffith M. R., Burke B. F., Ekers R. D., 1994, ApJ, 91, 111 Young A. J., Wilson A. S., Mundell C. G., 2002, ApJ, 579, 560 Zakamska N. L., Narayan R., 2003, ApJ, 582, 162
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'A key physical quantity during reionization is the size of HII regions. Previous studies found a characteristic bubble size which increases rapidly during reionization, with apparent agreement between simulations and analytic excursion set theory. Using four different methods, we critically examine this claim. In particular, we introduce the use of the watershed algorithm – widely used for void finding in galaxy surveys – which we show to be an unbiased method with the lowest dispersion and best performance on Monte-Carlo realizations of a known bubble size PDF. We find that a friends-of-friends algorithm declares most of the ionized volume to be occupied by a network of volume-filling regions connected by narrow tunnels. For methods tuned to detect the volume-filling regions, previous apparent agreement between simulations and theory is spurious, and due to a failure to correctly account for the window function of measurement schemes. The discrepancy is already obvious from visual inspection. Instead, HII regions in simulations are significantly larger (by factors of $10-1000$ in volume) than analytic predictions. The size PDF is narrower, and evolves more slowly with time, than predicted. It becomes more sharply peaked as reionization progresses. These effects are likely caused by bubble mergers, which are inadequately modeled by analytic theory. Our results have important consequences for high-redshift 21cm observations, the mean free path of ionizing photons, and the visibility of Ly$\alpha$ emitters, and point to a fundamental failure in our understanding of the characteristic scales of the reionization process.'
author:
- |
Yin Lin$^{1,2}$, S. Peng Oh$^{1}$, Steven R. Furlanetto$^{3}$, P.M. Sutter$^{4,5,6}$\
$^{1}$Department of Physics; University of California; Santa Barbara, CA 93106, USA.\
$^{2}$ Department of Physics; University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637, USA.\
$^{3}$ University of California Los Angeles, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA.\
$^{4}$ INFN - National Institute for Nuclear Physics, via Valerio 2, I-34127 Trieste, Italy\
$^{5}$ INAF - Osservatorio Astronomico di Trieste, via Tiepolo 11, 1-34143 Trieste, Italy\
$^{6}$ Center for Cosmology and Astro-Particle Physics, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210
bibliography:
- 'bubble\_paper\_final.bib'
title: The Distribution of Bubble Sizes During Reionization
---
\[firstpage\]
galaxies:evolution – intergalactic medium – cosmology: theory
Introduction {#section:intro}
============
Reionization is the last global event in the history of our universe, akin to primordial nucleosynthesis or recombination, in which virtually all baryons participated. What would be at the top of our wish list in understanding this still mysterious epoch? Clear frontrunners are: (i) the progress of reionization, or $Q_{\rm HII}(z)$, the growth of the HII filling fraction with time. Its time derivative is closely related to the comoving emissivity, and functions as reionization’s “Madau plot". (ii) The topology of reionization, or the distribution of HII bubble sizes. This is reionization’s “mass function", and illuminates many properties of the underlying galaxy distribution and radiative transfer during reionization. Current influential models suggest that reionization proceeds outward from overdense regions (“inside out"); galaxy clustering produces large ($\sim 10$s Mpc comoving) HII regions whose characteristic size increases as reionization progresses. The distribution of bubble sizes was first predicted analytically via the excursion set formalism (@furl04-bub; hereafter ‘FZH04’), and has since been largely corroborated by comparisons with semi-numeric and radiative transfer simulations of reionization [@mesinger07; @mcquinn07; @zahn07; @zahn11]. These all paint an apparently consistent picture of an approximately lognormal bubble size distribution which peaks at a characteristic scale, and becomes increasingly peaked as reionization progresses. Indeed, given the complexity of the reionization process, the agreement between simulations and analytic theory (which for instance assumes spherical bubbles, as opposed to the complex, non-spherical shapes seen in simulations) is remarkable. Interestingly, a dissenting view came from @iliev06 and @friedrich11, which found from friends-of-friends analysis of large scale radiative transfer simulations two populations of HII regions: numerous, mid-sized ($\sim 10$ Mpc) regions, and rare, very large regions several tens of Mpc in size, which contained a considerable fraction of the volume. Recently, @paranjape14 presented a modified excursion set theory calculation which predicts typical bubble sizes more than a factor two larger than earlier calculations– a trend which is borne out and amplified in this work.
The characteristic scale of bubbles is of considerable importance: the characteristic scale of bubbles affects the amplitude of 21cm brightness temperature fluctuations and the scale at which they peak. The size of bubbles directly affects our ability to do direct imaging and tomography, as well as our ability to cross-correlate the fluctuating 21cm signal against the galaxy population (particularly against lines whose visibility is directly affected by bubble size, for instance Ly$\alpha$). Large bubbles may also assist with the recovery of large-scale 21cm modes which are otherwise inaccessible due to foreground subtraction [@petrovic11]. Thus, theoretical calculations of bubble size have been crucial in setting the science agenda for low-frequency interferometers, and indeed in instrument design itself. It is one of the most important theoretical inputs to instrumentalists.
In this paper, we provide a critical re-analysis of some of the methods previously used to characterize bubble size in numerical simulations, and in addition employ a new algorithm, the watershed method, which has previously been used to detect voids in galaxy surveys [@platen07; @neyrinck08; @sutter15]. The definition of bubble size is somewhat ambiguous: different methods weight bubble topology in different ways, and will return different answers for the bubble size. For instance, if connectedness is our only metric, then past a critical point, virtually all of the ionized volume is consumed by a single large bubble, a result which can be understood from percolation theory [@furlanetto16]. Nonetheless, for metrics which are most physically and observationally relevant, we find effective bubble radii larger than that predicted by excursion set theory by a factor of a few, up to an order of magnitude (and thus larger bubble volumes by 1-3 orders of magnitude). The outline of this paper is as follows: in §\[section:method\], we discuss the four methods we use to characterize bubble sizes, and how they are tested and calibrated against control samples. In §\[section:results\], we then apply these methods to simulations of reionization. In §\[section:convergence\], we describe convergence studies. In §\[section:discussion\], we discuss implications of our findings, and conclude in §\[section:conclusions\]. Unless otherwise specified, all distances are in comoving units.
Method {#section:method}
======
![The bubble PDF for numerical calculations of the mean free path (MFP) and distance transform (DT) of a sphere of radius $R=10$ Mpc. The red dotted line is for the DT, the blue dashed line and the yellow solid line are for numerical and analytic calculations of the MFP respectively (note their excellent agreement), and the pink dash-dot line is the MFP window function used by @mesinger07. The watershed and FoF algorithms give delta functions at the true bubble size.[]{data-label="fig:window_functions"}](./window_new.pdf){width="50.00000%"}
![Bubble PDFs for Monte Carlo toy box sampled at $Q_{\text{HII}} = 0.5$ (z=11 for $\zeta = 40$), with an Lagrangian FZH04 bubble mass function. Each line is normalized to be integrated to unity. The black line is the unconvolved excursion set density function. The green solid line is the watershed PDF (smoothing parameter $h=0.7$). The blue and red solid lines are the convolution of direct sampling of the excursion set prediction with the MFP and DT window functions respectively. The blue and red dashed lines are the convolution of the watershed PDF with the MFP and DT window functions. The blue and red dotted lines are the results of MFP sampling with $10^7$ samples and DT. The FoF algorithm identifies most of the volume in a single large bubble and is not shown.[]{data-label="fig:mfp_monte"}](./mfp_monte.pdf "fig:"){width="50.00000%"}\
We use 4 methods of analyzing reionization simulations to obtain the bubble size distribution. Two, the distance transform (DT; @zahn07 [@zahn11]) and the mean free path (MFP; @mesinger07) methods have previously been used to obtain singly peaked distributions with characteristic bubble sizes in good agreement with excursion set theory. The third, friends of friends (FoF; @iliev06 [@friedrich11]) was shown to yield a bimodal distribution. The last, the watershed algorithm, has never previously been used in this context. In this section, we compare and contrast these different algorithms by: (i) deriving their window function $W(r/R)$, i.e. the derived bubble size distribution for a single spherical bubble of radius $R$; this determines how accurately the underlying bubble size distribution can be determined. (ii) validating their performance on a Monte-Carlo realization of spherical bubbles drawn from the distribution predicted by excursion set theory. At this stage, we deliberately restrict ourselves to spherical bubbles since sphericity is an explicit assumption of excursion set theory. If an algorithm already fails in this idealized regime, there is no reason to trust its results in more complicated settings. Note that the DT and MFP methods do not yield a unique segmentation of the ionization field into bubbles of different sizes (membership in a bubble of size R is only assigned one voxel at a time), while the FoF and watershed methods [*do*]{} result in a unique partitioning which can be visualized.
We focus on the statistic $dP/dR$, i.e. the probability that an ionized voxel selected at random lies in a bubble with radius in the range $(R,R+dR)$. We generally plot $dP/d(\ln R)$, normalized to unity, which is equivalent to the fraction of volume occupied by bubbles with these radii. Given an intrinsic PDF $[dP/d(\ln R)]_{\rm i}$, the recovered bubble PDF is: $$\left(\frac{dP}{d{\ln R}} \right)_{\rm obs} = \int d({\ln r}) \left(\frac{dP}{d{\ln r}} \right)_{\rm i} W({r}/{R})$$ where $W(r/R)$ is the window function (i.e., $(dP/d(\ln R))_{\rm obs}$ for a single bubble of radius R). For a spherical bubble distribution with a differential number density as a function of radius $d{\rm n}/d{\rm r}$, $$\label{eqn:dpdr}
\left(\frac{dP}{d{\ln r}} \right)_{\rm i} = \frac{V}{Q_{\rm HII}} \frac{d {\rm n}}{d {\ln r}},$$ where $V=4/3 \pi r^{3}$, and $0 < Q_{\rm H II} < 1$ is the volume filling fraction of ionized regions.
Note that the number density $dn/dr$ must be in Eulerian coordinates to compare to results from our simulations. However, the analytic FZH04 model predictions are in Lagrangian coordinates. We use the following procedure to transform between the two. Let $r_0$ be the comoving Lagrangian radius and $r$ be the comoving Eulerian radius.
From the standard spherical collapse model we obtain [@paranjape14]: $$\frac{r}{r_0} = 2\cdot 6^{2/3}\frac{(\theta - \sin\theta)^{2/3}}{1-\cos\theta}$$ where $\theta$ is the development angle which, at a given redshift $z$ and linear density contrast $\delta_0$, can be determined from $$\frac{1}{1+z} = \frac{3\cdot6^{2/3}}{20\delta_0}(\theta - \sin\theta)^{2/3}$$ where we use $\delta_0 = D(z)B(m,z)$, where $D(z)$ is the growth factor and $B(m,z)$ is the linear fit to barrier as presented in FZH04. We can rewrite equation (\[eqn:dpdr\]) as $$\left(\frac{dP}{d{\ln r}} \right)_{\rm i} = \frac{V}{Q_{\rm HII}} \frac{d {n}}{d {\ln r}} = \frac{V_0}{Q_{\rm HII}}\frac{dn}{d\ln r_0}\left(\frac{V}{V_0}\right)\left(\frac{d\ln r}{d\ln r_0}\right)^{-1}$$ where $dn/dr_0$ is the Lagrangian number density in FZH04, $V_0 = (4/3)\pi r_0^3$ is the Lagrangian volume, and the Jacobian $d \ln r / d\ln r_0$ is equal to $$\frac{\ln r}{\ln r_0} = 1 - \left|\frac{d\sigma^2}{dr_0}\right|\frac{dB}{d\ln \sigma^2}\left(1-\frac{3}{2}\frac{\theta(\theta-\sin\theta)}{(1-\cos\theta)^2}\right),$$ and $\sigma(m)$ is the density fluctuation variance linearly extrapolated to $z=0$. Finally, the filling fraction[^1] is given by $$Q_{\rm HII} = \int^\infty_{r_{\rm min}} V\frac{dn}{d\ln r} (d\ln r)
\label{eqn:Q_HII}$$ where $r_{\rm min}$ corresponds to the smallest possible ionized bubble, which is ionized by a single halo with virial temperature $T_{\rm vir} = 10^{4}$K.
The transformation between Lagrangian and Eulerian coordinates is a small ($< 10\%$) correction. It is only used when comparing FZH04 to simulation results (and not, for instance, when creating a Monte-Carlo catalog from a given bubble PDF, e.g. §\[section:monte\_carlo\]).
Distance Transform (DT) {#section:spa}
-----------------------
The use of spherical averaging (@mcquinn07 [@zahn07]) was motivated by how bubbles are defined and generated within the excursion set formalism, and in principle should provide the closest correspondence to bubble sizes predicted by excursion set theory. At each point in the simulation box, one ‘draws’ progressively smaller spheres of radius R, and smooths the ionization field within the sphere. The voxel is deemed to belong to the [*largest*]{} sphere of radius R where the smoothed ionization fraction exceeds a threshold value $x_{\rm HII}^{t}$. The short mean free path of UV ionizing photons at ionization fronts means that the IGM is predominantly two-phase, and values of $x_{\rm HII}^{t}$ between 0 and 1 are generally finite resolution effects. For simplicity, we use $x_{\rm HII}^{t} = 1$ as it gives an analytic window function; lower values of $x_{\rm HII}^{t}$ give similar results [@zahn11]. For this threshold value, spherical averaging is exactly the same as the distance transform later used as a step in the watershed algorithm; each voxel is labelled by the shortest distance to a neutral voxel. We henceforth refer to this as the distance transform (‘DT’) method.
Consider a point in a sphere of radius R, which is a distance $r$ away from the closest boundary of the sphere, and a distance $(R-r)$ from the sphere’s center. The probability of hitting such a point at random is $dP=4 \pi (R-r)^{2} dr/(4/3) \pi R^{3}$, or [@friedrich11]: $$W\left(\frac{r}{R}\right)= \left( \frac{d\, {\rm P}}{d \, {\rm ln \, r}} \right) = 3 \left( \frac{r}{R} \right) \left( 1- \frac{r}{R} \right)^{2}.
\label{eqn:window_func_SPA}$$ In Fig \[fig:window\_functions\], we show a numerical calculation of $W(r/R)$, which agrees with equation (\[eqn:window\_func\_SPA\]). Clearly the DT is a poor method for estimating bubble sizes: it has a broad smoothing kernel spanning $\sim 2$ dex, and peaks at $r=R/3$. This distortion arises because there is more volume and hence more voxels at large radii, where the distance to the HII boundary is smaller. Since the true PDF is convolved with this window function, the observed PDF will be smeared out and biased toward lower bubble sizes. This is clearly apparent in Fig. \[fig:mfp\_monte\], where the DT method does not recover the underlying bubble distribution of a Monte-Carlo catalog where bubbles are randomly drawn from the FHZ04 PDF (see §\[section:monte\_carlo\] for more details), but a distorted version heavily biased toward small bubble sizes. Indeed, we see that if we take the true bubble distribution and convolve it with the window function (equation \[eqn:window\_func\_SPA\]), then this matches our numerical result very well. We regard the DT as an inferior technique for inferring bubble sizes.
Mean Free Path (MFP) {#section:mfp}
--------------------
This method, first used by @mesinger07, consists of selecting a random ionized point, choosing a random direction, and finding the distance along that direction to the boundary of the HII region. Repeatedly performing this in a Monte-Carlo fashion allows us to find the PDF of ‘mean free paths’, which acts as a proxy for bubble size. This measure is attractive because photon mean free path (which, until the late stages of reionization, is primarily determined by bubble size rather than absorption by Lyman limit systems) is an important physical variable. It is crucial in setting the strength of the ionizing background $\Gamma \propto \epsilon \lambda$ (where $\epsilon$ is the emissivity and $\lambda$ is the mean free path).
We present an analytic derivation of the window function in Appendix \[appendix:mfp\_window\_func\]. In Fig \[fig:window\_functions\], we compare this expression with direct numerical calculations of the MFP PDF for a single spherical bubble; the two agree extremely well. Note that our window function differs from the erroneous expression derived by @mesinger07, which disagrees with direct numerical calculations. The @mesinger07 window function is somewhat narrower and peaked toward larger bubble sizes (see Fig \[fig:window\_functions\]); because this assumed window function is convolved with the excursion set theory prediction, it skews predicted bubble sizes to be larger, somewhat reducing the discrepancy between theory and simulations.[^2] In Fig \[fig:window\_functions\], we see that the MFP is unbiased and peaks at the correct bubble size. However, it is also asymmetric and comparable in width ($\sim$ 2 dex in $r/R$) to the DT method. The large number of voxels close to the bubble boundary have opposing short and long lines of sight which give the correct mean, but an asymmetric distribution. The MFP method thus introduces some smoothing and distortion of the underlying PDF, but for our purposes it should be acceptable. In Fig \[fig:mfp\_monte\], we see that the MFP method reasonably approximates the input PDF in a Monte-Carlo simulation. Also, the input PDF convolved with our window function matches our numerical result, confirming that we have the correct window function. Note that @friedrich11 find that the bubble PDF derived from the MFP method is sensitive to the threshold $x_{\rm th}$ used to demarcate the transition between neutral and ionized regions. This is largely a resolution effect: as resolution increases, the fraction of partially ionized voxels decreases. Since the semi-numeric simulations we use by their nature divide the IGM into fully ionized or fully neutral regions, with only a negligible fraction of partially ionized voxels, we find that this is much less of a problem in our work.
Friends of Friends (FoF) {#section:fof}
------------------------
The friends of friends algorithm groups together neighboring cells of the same equivalence class. It has been widely used for halo-finding in cosmological N-body simulations, where all particles separated by less than a given linking length $b \bar{l}$ (where $\bar{l}=\bar{n}^{-1/3}$ is the mean inter-particle separation and $b$ is a free parameter) are assigned to the same halo. Here, it links together neighboring cells which are either ionized or neutral. Unlike other methods, FoF is relatively insensitive to the topology of ionized regions. A network of connected tunnels will be classified as a single monolithic entity with a large volume, whereas the other methods we use will consider them to be a large collection of smaller ionized regions. Using FoF, @iliev06 and @friedrich11 found a surprising result: the bubble size distribution is [*bimodal*]{}, with the vast majority of the ionized volume in a single large bubble as reionization progresses. This is in sharp contrast to the findings of other methods, and predictions from the excursion set formalism, and raises the question of whether some crucial aspect of reionization has been missed.
For a single sphere, FoF correctly segments the entire bubble; its window function is a delta function. For the Monte-Carlo catalog, the distribution is bimodal and dominated by a single large bubble; past an ionization fraction of $\sim 30\%$, it occupies virtually all of the volume. Fig \[fig:FoF\] shows the volume fraction of the largest ionized bubble for realistic semi-numeric simulations of reionization; it starts to dominate and quickly rise toward unity once the volume fraction exceeds $\sim 15\%$. If connectedness is our only criterion, then throughout reionization, most of the volume is in a single bubble. Thus, in Fig \[fig:mfp\_monte\], the bubble size distribution is essentially a delta function with a bubble volume $x_{\rm HII} V_{\rm box}$. This structure is created by bubble overlap (even in the absence of clustering) and regardless of the details of the underlying PDF. For instance, it arises even if all bubbles are identical (so the PDF is a delta function). It is also robust to the details of the FoF algorithm (for instance, in Fig. \[fig:FoF\], we show find fairly similar behavior given two different criteria for connectedness, requiring either 6 or 26 nearest neighbors). Its appearance has less to do with details of the reionization process, but rather is a generic feature of any percolation process [@furlanetto16].
![The fractional volume of ionized voxels inside the largest ionized bubble as defined by FoF method. The blue plot is for 26 connected neighborhood voxels (i.e., each voxel must have 26 neighbors, consisting of face, edge, or vertex adjacent voxels) whereas the red plot is for 6 connected neighborhood voxels (requiring only face adjacent voxels).[]{data-label="fig:FoF"}](./fof_frac.pdf){width="50.00000%"}
Watershed Algorithm
-------------------
The watershed algorithm is a well-known 2D image segmentation algorithm (see @soille13, and references therein). The essential idea is to connect constant values of a scalar field (e.g. greyscale), and treat them as contour lines indicating height in a topographic map. If one floods this topographic surface with water, it will break up into different catchment basins, demarcated by watershed lines. This provides the required image segmentation. We have extended the watershed algorithm to 3D. Such a 3D extension has been used for void-finding in both cosmological simulations and galaxy surveys [@platen07; @neyrinck08; @sutter15]. The detailed procedure is as follows:
- [[**Binary transform.**]{} We first apply a threshold $x_{\rm HI}^{\rm th}$ such that if the neutral fraction $x_{\rm HI} > x_{\rm HI}^{\rm th}$, we set $x_{\rm HI}=1$; otherwise, $x_{\rm HI}=0$. This eliminates ambiguity about whether a voxel is neutral or ionized. We choose $x^{\rm th}_{\rm HI} = 1$ (i.e., a voxel is ionized if and only if it is completely ionized); in practice we find we are not sensitive to this threshold.]{}
- [[**Distance Transform.**]{} Next, we assign to each ionized voxel $i$ the Euclidean distance $d_{i}$ to the nearest neutral voxel (if the voxel is neutral, then $d_{i}=0$). We use voxel units in which the side of a single voxel is one.]{} As previously noted, this ’distance transform’ is identical to spherical averaging methods used by previous authors (§\[section:spa\]) in the limit of a two-phase medium. To ensure congruence with standard watershed terminology, we then invert $d_{i} \rightarrow - d_{i}$.
- [[**Identify local minima.**]{} We identify local minima of the scalar 3D array $d_{i}$. These naturally correspond to our notion of ‘bubble centers’, since they are as distant as possible from HII region boundaries as possible. In watershed terminology, these are the bottoms of separate catchment basins. In principle, all that is now required is to identify the boundaries between different catchment areas (‘watershed lines’). In practice, this leads to the well-known problem of over-segmentation, because every single local minimum, no matter how small, forms its own catchment basin. Thus, Poisson noise can lead to an obviously contiguous single bubble being spuriously sub-divided into many small bubbles.]{}
- [[**Threshold**]{} To avoid this, we suppress shallow minima via the so called ‘h-minimum transform’ that smooths out the map. Unlike Gaussian smoothing, such transformation preserves the topology of ionized regions without mixing neutral region voxels in it. Suppose a set of voxels $d_i$ rests in a catchment basin. In this catchment basin, there could be multiple sets of connected components (known as ‘markers’ in image processing nomenclature) which create artificial sub-boundaries within a single catchment basin. The h-minimum transform smooths out those spurious local minima by imposing a contrast limit, $h$. If the differences in voxel value between a local minimum $d_{\rm min}$ and its surrounding voxels is less than $h$, then this shallow local minimum is potentially due to noise. We ‘cut off the tip’ of this minimum by setting this voxel and all of its neighbors to the value $d_{\rm min}+h$ (note that $d_{\rm min}$ is negative, so this corresponds to reducing the depth of the minimum). With an appropriate choice of $h$, we can eliminate small fluctuations at the bottom of the catchment basin which result in spurious over segmentation. Note that $h$ values we quote are in voxel units, not in physical units. Hence, the appropriate values of $h$ can change as we change the resolution of box. ]{}
- [[**Identify bubble boundaries.**]{} Now that the bubble centers have been found, we identify bubble boundaries. To do this, we inject fluid from markers (the minima of catchment basins) until they just touch. In practice, this corresponds to identifying contours of constant $d_{i}$. These ‘watershed lines’ denote the bubble boundaries. In the absence of smoothing or thresholding, this procedure is guaranteed to assign every ionized voxel to a bubble. However, with thresholding, bubbles below the scale $h$ are either merged with larger bubbles or ignored. To conserve the total ionized fraction, we manually add back the smaller bubbles which were not merged into larger structures. These constitute a small fraction of the ionized volume ($\sim1\%$ of total ionized voxels ). In this paper, we use $h<1$. Thus, the thresholding process only affects minima in large bubbles (where neighboring voxels can have distances from the boundary which differ by less than unity). The smallest possible isolated bubble has $d_{\rm min}=1$, and is not eliminated by the smoothing process. Thus, this complication is not important for us.]{}
We now have a unique partitioning of ionized voxels into distinct bubbles, which we can use to calculate bubble volumes $V$. To compare against excursion set theory, we calculate the effective spherical radius $R_{\rm eff} = (3V/4 \pi)^{1/3}$ of each bubble. For a single spherical bubble, the watershed algorithm correctly identifies the entire region as ionized – i.e., similar to FoF, its window function is a delta function at the true value. It also performs very well on Monte-Carlo catalogs, as we describe below.
Results {#section:results}
=======
Monte-Carlo Tests {#section:monte_carlo}
-----------------
![A slice of the watershed segmentation of the Monte Carlo box; different colors denote separate bubbles.[]{data-label="fig:slice_monte"}](./toy_conv_unclustered_h07.pdf){width="50.00000%"}
As a test bed and to better understand and validate our bubble-size measurement algorithms, we begin with Monte-Carlo bubble catalogs where the bubble size distribution is fully specified. We use the bubble size distribution given by excursion set theory; our fiducial test case corresponds to an ionization fraction of $Q_{\rm HII} = 0.50$ (and $z=11$, using an ionizing efficiency of $\zeta=40$ in the FZH04 model). We create a Monte-Carlo realization of spherical bubbles drawn from the FZH04 mass function in a $500^{3}$ box, 100 cMpc on a side. These bubbles are simply laid down randomly in a box; provided bubble overlap is small, we are guaranteed to be sampling from a known bubble PDF. This is [*not*]{} (as in semi-numeric algorithms, e.g., @mesinger07) a direct implementation of the excursion set approach. As we shall see, the latter in fact has a bubble PDF quite different from that predicted by analytic theory.
The results are shown in Fig \[fig:mfp\_monte\]. We show the probability density function $dP/d({\rm log \, R})$, normalized to integrate to unity. The results for each of the four methods are in line with what one might expect from the spherical window functions shown in Fig \[fig:window\_functions\]: (i) the watershed algorithm shows excellent performance, which is to be expected since it does an excellent job with isolated spherical bubbles (Fig. \[fig:window\_functions\]). The slightly narrower width can be understood from the adopted smoothing parameter ($h=0.7$; $h$ is in voxel units) which suppresses small bubbles. We explore sensitivity to smoothing in §\[section:convergence\]. (ii) The mean free path algorithm also does an excellent job. The slight shift toward smaller bubble sizes can be understood from the long tail of the window function toward small scales. Indeed the convolution of the excursion set PDF with the MFP window function closely corresponds to our results. (iii) By contrast, the distance transform performs very poorly in this Monte-Carlo trial, underestimating characteristic scales by an order of magnitude. Note that although the distance transform underestimates the single bubble size by a factor of $\sim 3$, once this window function is convolved with a bubble population, the distortion to the peak of the probability distribution can be considerably larger. The underlying excursion set PDF convolved with the DT window function matches our results. As one might expect, the watershed PDF convolved with the MFP and DT window functions also give excellent results. (iv) Finally, the FoF algorithm identifies most of the ionized volume in a single giant ionized bubble. The origins and implications of this result, which can be understood from percolation theory, are examined in detail in @furlanetto16.
In Fig \[fig:slice\_monte\], we show a slice through the simulation box. Each color labels a unique region found by the watershed algorithm. For the spatially Poisson distributed realization we have created, bubble overlap appears fairly minimal in 2D slices (note, however, that they are actually interconnected through narrow channels largely outside this slice, as can be shown using the FoF algorithm). In reality, bias at high redshift means that bubbles will inevitably be clustered [@furl04-bub]. Once bubble overlap is significant, we no longer know the underlying mass function – indeed, its definition can be ambiguous (see §\[section:discussion\] for more discussion). As we shall see, clustering renders the watershed algorithm sensitive to the degree of smoothing applied.
Application to Simulations of Reionization {#section:real_sims}
------------------------------------------
![Distance transform probability density functions for semi-numeric simulation boxes versus the excursion set predictions ([*not*]{} convolved with the DT window function). The black lines are excursion set predictions and the red curves are distance transform results at $z=12$, $11$, and $10$ ($Q_{\text{HII}} = 0.28,0.49,0.78$) from left to right respectively. These show apparent (and spurious!) agreement. The cutoff at 1 Mpc (and consequent distortion of the PDF) for the $z=11,10$ boxes is due to finite resolution effects; see discussion in text.[]{data-label="fig:dist_vs_unconv"}](./dist_unconvovled_excursion_500Mpc.pdf){width="50.00000%"}
Now that our bubble size measurement algorithms have been carefully characterized and tested, we deploy them on semi-numeric simulations of reionization. We use the 21cmFAST code [@mesinger07], which allows large, relatively high resolution simulations to be computationally affordable, by obviating the need for hydrodynamics or radiative transfer. We shall find that accurate resolving the bubble PDF, particularly in the late stages of reionization, requires large boxes ($\sim 500$ Mpc), which are difficult with numerical simulations due to the large required dynamic range. While they may differ in detail from radiation-hydrodynamics simulations, the gross morphology of HII regions in side-by-side comparisons of the two approaches starting from the same initial conditions is extremely similar [@mcquinn07; @zahn07; @zahn11]. For our purposes, where we aim to explore the gross evolution of the characteristic scale with redshift, rather than fine details of the bubble PDF, this level of accuracy is sufficient. The main limitation with standard semi-numeric simulations is that they incorporate opacity due to Lyman limit systems in a very approximate manner. The latter can change the morphology of the ionization field, particularly in the late stages of reionization [@furl05-rec; @finlator12; @sobacchi14]. Thus, reported bubble sizes for the late stages of reionization may be less reliable. In any case, as $Q_{\rm HII} \rightarrow 1$, it is probably more sensible to construct a size PDF of [*neutral*]{} regions. Also, it should be noted that the ‘mean free path’ here refers to bubble sizes, and does not take into account the fact that photon mean free paths are eventually regulated not by bubble sizes but by Lyman limit systems.
The 21cmFAST code uses an excursion-set theory approach to generating the ionization field[^3]. A linear density field is generated at high redshift, then evolved to lower redshift using linear theory and the Zel’dovich approximation. Using a conditional mass function from a voxel’s mean density, a source catalog is generated for halos with virial temperature $T> 10^{4}$K (as needed for hydrogen atomic cooling). The ionization field is then generated from the source catalog using excursion set theory (specifically, finding the largest spherical regions which can be ionized by the enclosed sources). We use the default setting of a maximum bubble size of $R_{\rm max}=30$ Mpc to crudely model the effects of absorption of ionizing photons in the IGM[^4]. Our boxes are $500^{3}$. We use a cosmology of $\Omega_{\rm m}=0.31$, $\Omega_{\Lambda}=0.69, \ \Omega_{b}=0.049, \ h=0.67, \ n=0.96, \sigma_{8}=0.83$ that matches the results of Planck 2015 [@planck-collaboration15]. We examine bubble PDFs at three $Q_{\rm HII}$ in simulations boxes with the properties given in Table \[tab:models\]. We use the ionization efficiency $\zeta = 55, 54, 50$ at $z=12,11,10$ to match the values of $Q_{\rm HII}$ to the true ionization fraction as found in our simulation boxes. Note that we increase the physical size of the simulation boxes at lower redshifts, when $Q_{\rm HII}$ and bubble sizes are larger. Failure to do so results in considerable cosmic variance, due to the small number of large bubbles which consume most of the volume. We discuss this point in more detail later.
$z$ $Q_{\rm HII}$ Box Size L (Mpc)
----- --------------- ----------- ---------
12 0.28 $500^{3}$ 100
11 0.49 $500^{3}$ 500
10 0.78 $500^{3}$ 500
: Simulation Parameters
\[tab:models\]
In Fig \[fig:water\_all\], \[fig:mfp\_all\], \[fig:dist\_all\], we compare the bubble PDF predicted by excursion set theory against the PDF recovered from the simulations by the watershed algorithm, the MFP method, and the distance transform respectively. Several features are immediately apparent. For all methods, the bubble size distribution is peaked toward larger bubble sizes than excursion set theory, by up to an order of magnitude. The difference is particularly egregious during the early stages of reionization. The simulations also show bubble sizes which evolve less rapidly during reionization than predicted by excursion set theory. Importantly, these findings only hold when theoretical predictions are convolved with the window function of the appropriate method. If one uses unconvolved theoretical predictions–thus failing to compare apples with apples– apparent spurious agreement between excursion set theory and simulations can arise, a problem which bedeviled previous comparisons. We can see this in Fig \[fig:dist\_vs\_unconv\], which shows good apparent agreement between the DT and analytic excursion set theory, if one does not convolve with the appropriate window function.[^5]
Figs \[fig:mfp\_all\] & \[fig:dist\_all\] show that when the watershed PDFs are convolved with the appropriate window functions for the mfp and distance transform methods, they match the direct MFP and distance transform measurements well.[^6] This gives us further confidence that the watershed algorithm accurately measures the true underlying bubble PDF. It also suggests that the window function we have adopted for MFP and distance transform methods (which strictly is only for spherical bubbles) is still broadly applicable.
The watershed PDFs are noticeably narrower than the excursion set PDFs at all stages of reionization; in particular, they lack an extended tail toward small bubble sizes, even after accounting for resolution effects. Closer examination of the simulations reveals that many of the small bubbles predicted by excursion set theory have merged together to create larger bubbles, early in the reionization process. The watershed PDFs also become increasingly narrow as reionization progresses.
In the upper panel of Fig \[fig:scales\], we show slices of simulation boxes with characteristic scales predicted by excursion set theory and the watershed algorithm shown. It is immediately visually apparent that the excursion set theory predictions are too small– no sophisticated methods are required! By contrast, the scales uncovered by the watershed algorithm appear quite sensible. The segmentation produced by the watershed algorithm is also visually sensible (lower panel). There are some cases where the segmentation may seem somewhat arbitrary (e.g., a large contiguous bubble is segmented into smaller pieces). Upon further examination, this is almost invariably due to 3D structure not visible in 2D slices. We caution the reader that 2D slices– from which much of our intuition has been drawn over the years– can be misleading. For instance, 2D circles are unlikely to be portions of spheres, but instead part of more complicated features which can only be fully understood in a 3D rendering. We emphasize that all algorithms need to be fully 3D, and furthermore 3D visualizations are very important for building intuition. To drive this point home, in Fig \[fig:markers\], we show the results of the watershed algorithm as applied to a 2D slice, and then the results for that same slice when it is incorporated into a full 3D algorithm. The results of the segmentation process are different. One of the reasons is clear from the left panel. The red points indicate bubble centers (i.e., minima of the distance transform after h minimum smoothing). The reader should focus on the largest ionized regions (the plethora of red dots outside are due to tiny ionized regions). In a 2D segmentation, there are always a few red points per large ionized region, whereas in the 3D algorithm, often there are none: the bubble centers lie elsewhere, once the 3D topology is taken into account.
In Fig 11, we show 3D renderings of the 5 largest bubbles in a $L=100$ Mpc portion (chosen for the sake of clarity) of the $Q_{\rm HII}=0.49$ ($z=11$) box. These largest bubbles are reasonably symmetric and not too complex in their topology, as one might expect for volume-filling regions. This is to be contrasted with the complex network of tunnels uncovered by a friends-of-friends or percolation algorithm (see corresponding figures in @furlanetto16).
![Top panel: slice of a simulation box with characteristic scales predicted by excursion set and uncovered by watershed methods at $Q_{\text{HII}} = 0.49$ ($z=11$). The excursion set has characteristic diameter of about 10 Mpc (10 voxels) and the watershed has characteristic diameter of about 50 Mpc (50 voxels) as shown. Bottom panel: the same, but showing the watershed segmentation.[]{data-label="fig:scales"}](./scalebar_z11_nowatershed_500Mpc.pdf "fig:"){width="50.00000%"} ![Top panel: slice of a simulation box with characteristic scales predicted by excursion set and uncovered by watershed methods at $Q_{\text{HII}} = 0.49$ ($z=11$). The excursion set has characteristic diameter of about 10 Mpc (10 voxels) and the watershed has characteristic diameter of about 50 Mpc (50 voxels) as shown. Bottom panel: the same, but showing the watershed segmentation.[]{data-label="fig:scales"}](./scalebar_z11_watershed_500Mpc.pdf "fig:"){width="50.00000%"}
![Top row: bubble centers (left) and segmentation (right) from the watershed algorithm applied to a chosen 2D slice at $z=11$ and smoothing parameter $h=0.9$. Bottom row: bubble centers (left) and segmentation (right) slices of the full 3D watershed algorithm at same redshift and smoothing parameter. Bubble centers and segmentation are significantly different for the 3D case. Note that we have shown the bubbles with distance transform value greater than 5 pixel/voxel units for each slice with red markers. In reality, there are many more smaller bubbles in both slices.[]{data-label="fig:markers"}](./2d_dist_marker_z11_500Mpc.pdf "fig:") ![Top row: bubble centers (left) and segmentation (right) from the watershed algorithm applied to a chosen 2D slice at $z=11$ and smoothing parameter $h=0.9$. Bottom row: bubble centers (left) and segmentation (right) slices of the full 3D watershed algorithm at same redshift and smoothing parameter. Bubble centers and segmentation are significantly different for the 3D case. Note that we have shown the bubbles with distance transform value greater than 5 pixel/voxel units for each slice with red markers. In reality, there are many more smaller bubbles in both slices.[]{data-label="fig:markers"}](./2dSeg_z11_h09_500Mpc.pdf "fig:") ![Top row: bubble centers (left) and segmentation (right) from the watershed algorithm applied to a chosen 2D slice at $z=11$ and smoothing parameter $h=0.9$. Bottom row: bubble centers (left) and segmentation (right) slices of the full 3D watershed algorithm at same redshift and smoothing parameter. Bubble centers and segmentation are significantly different for the 3D case. Note that we have shown the bubbles with distance transform value greater than 5 pixel/voxel units for each slice with red markers. In reality, there are many more smaller bubbles in both slices.[]{data-label="fig:markers"}](./dist_marker_z11_500Mpc.pdf "fig:") ![Top row: bubble centers (left) and segmentation (right) from the watershed algorithm applied to a chosen 2D slice at $z=11$ and smoothing parameter $h=0.9$. Bottom row: bubble centers (left) and segmentation (right) slices of the full 3D watershed algorithm at same redshift and smoothing parameter. Bubble centers and segmentation are significantly different for the 3D case. Note that we have shown the bubbles with distance transform value greater than 5 pixel/voxel units for each slice with red markers. In reality, there are many more smaller bubbles in both slices.[]{data-label="fig:markers"}](./slice_z11_h09_500Mpc.pdf "fig:")
![5 biggest bubbles found by the watershed algorithm, in a 3D rendering of a 100 Mpc region of the $Q_{\rm HII}=0.49$ $(z=11)$ box.[]{data-label="fig:3D"}](./biggest_bubbles.png){width="50.00000%"}
Convergence tests {#section:convergence}
=================
There are two important areas where we need to check convergence for the watershed algorithm, which has not been applied before in this context. Firstly, the effects of box size and resolution. Secondly, the watershed algorithm has an adjustable smoothing parameter $h$ ($h$ is quoted in voxel units–e.g., $h=2$ corresponds to 2 voxels). It is important to check sensitivity to this parameter. As with any regularization scheme, the smoothing parameter has a critical effect on the output, and the optimal choice is not always clear.
First, we examine the tradeoff between box size and resolution, for our fixed $500^{3}$ boxes. If $\Delta x, R_{b}, L$ are the voxel size, characteristic bubble size, and box size respectively, then ideally we should have $\Delta x \ll R_{b} \ll L$. In Fig \[fig:convergent\_z12\], we examine the convergence properties of the watershed bubble PDF as the box size $L$ is changed (and hence $\Delta x=L/N$, where we have used $N=500$ throughout). The PDF–particularly the location of the PDF peak–is fairly stable to box size/resolution for $L/R_{\rm b}=5,10,25,50$ (and thus $R_{\rm b}/\Delta x=100,50,20,10$). However, two interesting features are present. Firstly, in the $L=100$ Mpc ($L/R_{\rm b}=5$) simulation, the bubble PDF is bimodal! We have seen this in simulations with different $Q_{\rm HII}$ (and $z$) and resolution for small box sizes. It is consistent with Poisson fluctuations in the number of rare large bubbles (which consume most of the volume) in a small box. For an appropriately normalized bubble PDF, as the number of rare large bubbles fluctates, so does the relative contribution of smaller bubbles. We conclude that as rule of thumb, $L/R_{b} \gsim 10$ is needed. On the other hand, bubble detection appears to be suppressed for bubbles with $R_{\rm min} \lsim 3 \Delta x$. The bubble PDFs in the semi-numeric simulations are sharply peaked (and become increasingly so as reionization progresses). Typically there is no significant fractional contribution from bubbles with $R_{\rm min} < R_{b}/10$. We conclude that $R_{b}/\Delta x \gsim 30$ is a reasonable rule of thumb. Thus, requiring $L/R_{b} \gsim 10$, $R_{b}/\Delta x \gsim 30$ implies that $300^{3}$ simulations are potentially adequate. Of these two requirements, it is more important to satisfy the box size threshold $L/R_{\rm b} \gsim 10$, since there is relatively little volume in the small bubbles. These considerations drive our choice of box sizes shown in Table \[tab:models\].
Now let us examine the effects of the smoothing parameter. The top panel of Fig \[fig:monte\_mass\_function\_vary\_h\] shows the bubble size distribution for various choices of $h$, for the unclustered bubbles simulation. Over the range $h=0-2$, the recovered PDF is robust to the choice of $h$, and in good agreement with the underlying PDF. For higher values of $h$, the bubble size distribution is artificially truncated (e.g, the $h=5$ PDF is truncated at $R=1$ Mpc, as appropriate for 0.2 Mpc voxels), artificially biasing the bubble PDF toward larger sizes. Clearly, the algorithm is performing as one might expect. However, this case is not particularly informative: because of the lack of clustering, there is less bubble overlap, fewer local minima, and hence less need for smoothing (even $h=0$ returns sensible results). The next 3 panels show how the bubble PDFs changes as a function of smoothing parameter for realistic semi-numeric simulation boxes, for ionization fractions $Q_{\rm HII}=0.28,0.49,0.78$ ($z=12,11,10$). While there is more sensitivity to smoothing parameter (likely related to ambiguities in segmenting the large bubbles which arise from clustering), there is nonetheless an ‘intermediate asymptotic’ range where the bubble PDF depends only weakly on smoothing. We have employed smoothing in this range in all the subsequent plots we presented. Visually, we can see the effect of smoothing in Fig \[fig:slices\_smoothing\], which presents slices of the watershed segmented box for different smoothing parameters. Without smoothing, the bubbles appear significantly over-segmented. As the smoothing scale $h$ increases, there is a range where segmentation is fairly stable and appears visually sensible.
Ultimately, the fact that there is an adjustable smoothing parameter introduces an unavoidable degree of freedom into the watershed algorithm. The bubble sizes tend to increase as the smoothing parameter $h$ increases. For no smoothing ($h\rightarrow 0$), all local minima are identified as bubble centers, and for structures where there is a good deal of overlap between bubbles (due to clustering; this is certainly true of reionization), the watershed algorithm gives a mass function similar to that of a straight distance transform. At the other end of the spectrum, for larger amounts of smoothing (as h approaches the box size), the watershed identifies only collection basins with very deep minima, and becomes equivalent to the friends-of-friends algorithm. For realistic simulations of reionization, this results in most of the ionized volume residing in a gigantic bubble spanning the box. We argue that sensible choices for the smoothing parameter $h$ can be identified, based on two criteria: (i) an ’intermediate asymptotic’ range where the bubble PDF is independent or only very weakly dependent on $h$; (ii) reasonable agreement in peak bubble size with the MFP algorithm. The latter is a physically well-motivated algorithm which shows good agreement with watershed in the well-understood case where bubble overlap is insignificant. Finally, a visual check of watershed segmentation results is always helpful.
Of course, if one is applying the watershed algorithm to observations with finite resolution, the choice of smoothing parameter is obvious– indeed, in this case the smoothing has already been done. The observed PDF is heavily distorted by the broad window function of the observations. We leave analysis of this situation for future work.
![Bubble PDF derived by the watershed algorithm for the Monte-Carlo simulation (top) and semi-numeric simulation boxes at $Q_{\text{HII}} =0.28,0.49,0.78$ ($z=12,11,10$; second to bottom) for varying smoothing parameters $h$.[]{data-label="fig:monte_mass_function_vary_h"}](./toy_conv_unclustered.pdf "fig:"){width="30.00000%"} ![Bubble PDF derived by the watershed algorithm for the Monte-Carlo simulation (top) and semi-numeric simulation boxes at $Q_{\text{HII}} =0.28,0.49,0.78$ ($z=12,11,10$; second to bottom) for varying smoothing parameters $h$.[]{data-label="fig:monte_mass_function_vary_h"}](./z12_convergent_varyingh_100Mpc.pdf "fig:"){width="30.00000%"} ![Bubble PDF derived by the watershed algorithm for the Monte-Carlo simulation (top) and semi-numeric simulation boxes at $Q_{\text{HII}} =0.28,0.49,0.78$ ($z=12,11,10$; second to bottom) for varying smoothing parameters $h$.[]{data-label="fig:monte_mass_function_vary_h"}](./z11_convergent_varyingh_500Mpc.pdf "fig:"){width="30.00000%"} ![Bubble PDF derived by the watershed algorithm for the Monte-Carlo simulation (top) and semi-numeric simulation boxes at $Q_{\text{HII}} =0.28,0.49,0.78$ ($z=12,11,10$; second to bottom) for varying smoothing parameters $h$.[]{data-label="fig:monte_mass_function_vary_h"}](./z10_convergent_varyingh_500Mpc.pdf "fig:"){width="30.00000%"}
![Clockwise from top left are watershed segmented slices of real simulation box with $Q_{\text{HII}} =0.49$ ($z=11$), with smoothing parameters of $h=0, 0.9, 2, 5$. The oversegmentation is significant for $h=0$. Once we tune up the values of $h$, the results are more realistic segmented bubbles as seen in slices with $h=0.9$, $2$ and $5$.[]{data-label="fig:slices_smoothing"}](./slice_z11_h0_500Mpc "fig:") ![Clockwise from top left are watershed segmented slices of real simulation box with $Q_{\text{HII}} =0.49$ ($z=11$), with smoothing parameters of $h=0, 0.9, 2, 5$. The oversegmentation is significant for $h=0$. Once we tune up the values of $h$, the results are more realistic segmented bubbles as seen in slices with $h=0.9$, $2$ and $5$.[]{data-label="fig:slices_smoothing"}](./slice_z11_h09_500Mpc "fig:") ![Clockwise from top left are watershed segmented slices of real simulation box with $Q_{\text{HII}} =0.49$ ($z=11$), with smoothing parameters of $h=0, 0.9, 2, 5$. The oversegmentation is significant for $h=0$. Once we tune up the values of $h$, the results are more realistic segmented bubbles as seen in slices with $h=0.9$, $2$ and $5$.[]{data-label="fig:slices_smoothing"}](./slice_z11_h2_500Mpc "fig:") ![Clockwise from top left are watershed segmented slices of real simulation box with $Q_{\text{HII}} =0.49$ ($z=11$), with smoothing parameters of $h=0, 0.9, 2, 5$. The oversegmentation is significant for $h=0$. Once we tune up the values of $h$, the results are more realistic segmented bubbles as seen in slices with $h=0.9$, $2$ and $5$.[]{data-label="fig:slices_smoothing"}](./slice_z11_h5_500Mpc "fig:")
![Watershed segmentation of neutral regions at $Q_{\text{HII}} = 0.83$ (z=10 with varying smoothing parameters $h$. From left to right are lines with $h=0,0.7,2,$ and $5$.[]{data-label="fig:neutral"}](./z10_neutral_convergent_varyingh.pdf){width="50.00000%"}
![Clockwise from top left are watershed segmented slices of the neutral regions neutral regions at $Q_{\text{HII}} = 0.83$ with smoothing parameters of $h=0, 0.7, 5, 2$.[]{data-label="fig:neutral_slices"}](./slice_z10_h0_neutral_2Dseg.pdf "fig:") ![Clockwise from top left are watershed segmented slices of the neutral regions neutral regions at $Q_{\text{HII}} = 0.83$ with smoothing parameters of $h=0, 0.7, 5, 2$.[]{data-label="fig:neutral_slices"}](./slice_z10_h07_neutral_2Dseg.pdf "fig:") ![Clockwise from top left are watershed segmented slices of the neutral regions neutral regions at $Q_{\text{HII}} = 0.83$ with smoothing parameters of $h=0, 0.7, 5, 2$.[]{data-label="fig:neutral_slices"}](./slice_z10_h2_neutral_2Dseg.pdf "fig:") ![Clockwise from top left are watershed segmented slices of the neutral regions neutral regions at $Q_{\text{HII}} = 0.83$ with smoothing parameters of $h=0, 0.7, 5, 2$.[]{data-label="fig:neutral_slices"}](./slice_z10_h5_neutral_2Dseg.pdf "fig:")
Discussion {#section:discussion}
==========
As we have seen, there is no unique definition of bubble size, and different methods will highlight different aspects of the complicated topology of HII regions. Nonetheless, it is worth considering the most appropriate methods for questions we are likely to be asking. There are two compelling observational motivations. One is the hope of performing 21cm tomography with next generation instruments such as HERA[^7]. One would like to know the angular resolution needed at different stages of reionization to actually image the HII regions[^8]. This corresponds to the typical size of features in 2D slices of the simulation box. It is a task which the watershed algorithm is ideally suited to perform, given its origins as a well-tested, canonical image segmentation algorithm in 2D. From Fig \[fig:scales\], we see that the watershed algorithm does provide a reasonable measure of typical bubble sizes. It is also equally obvious that the excursion set formalism predicts bubble sizes that are too small. Another important observational application is the mean free path of ionizing photons, which determines the amplitude of the ionizing background $\Gamma$ at these high redshifts (via $\Gamma \propto \epsilon \lambda$, where $\epsilon$ is the comoving emissivity and $\lambda$ is the mean free path). This is closely related to the mean free path of Ly$\alpha$ photons, which determines if Ly$\alpha$ photons can redshift out of resonance in ionized bubbles before being scattered by neutral hydrogen. Ly$\alpha$ emitters will be visible in large bubbles, but not in smaller ones where this condition is not satisfied. The visibility and clustering of Ly$\alpha$ emitters, and the redshift evolution of these properties, has been proposed as a sensitive diagnostic of reionization [@mcquinn07-lya; @treu13]. Both these applications are obviously closely related to the MFP statistic[^9]. Thus, at present we regard the watershed and MFP methods as the best means for estimating observationally relevant bubble sizes. By contrast, the DT (which underestimates bubble sizes) and FoF methods (which overestimates bubble sizes, as it focusses solely on connectivity) return answers which at present appear less relevant to observations. The fact that both the watershed and MFP bubble size distributions peak at approximately the same physical scales gives us additional confidence.
In considering the characteristic scale of bubbles, there is also the broader question of how to partition ionized regions, and when bubbles should be regarded as physically distinct. This is a question which only the watershed and FoF algorithms can address, as only they are capable of segmentation. Consider two large spherical bubbles connected by a thin tube. Instinctively we would decompose this into 3 components (the two bubbles and the tube), and indeed this is what the watershed algorithm returns. By contrast, the FoF algorithm would characterize this as a single ionized region. Indeed, the FoF or any related percolation algorithm (such as the Hoshen-Kopelmann algorithm) where the linking length is allowed to be arbitrarily large, determines that most of the volume is in a single, large ionized region for $x_{\rm HII} > 10\%$ [@furlanetto16]. At this point, when almost all ionized points are connected but their filling factor is small, the HII regions have a ’tunnel-like’ topology. The connectivity of a network of tunnels is obviously important for transport processes which obey mass conservation–e.g., coffee percolating though coffee grounds in a filter, groundwater percolating through holes in the earth, or a Pac-man trying to traverse a maze. Its importance is less obvious for reionization, where (modulo the effects of recombinations to the ground state) ionizing photons travel in straight lines and are absorbed once they hit the HII region boundary. The photons cannot follow bends in the tunnel.[^10] photon mean free paths. From the MFP algorithm (which also concurs with the watershed algorithm), we conclude that these [*do*]{} have a characteristic scale. The existence of characteristic scales in 2D slices is why the excursion set theory predictions of a typical size scale was for so long uncritically accepted. Even though we have shown that the quantitative predictions of excursion set theory need to be revised, we still maintain that the notion of a characteristic bubble size is correct and physically meaningful.
Let us consider our example of 2 spherical bubbles, and bring them closer together. At the point at which they just begin to overlap, by the lights of the observational applications we have mentioned (e.g., photon mean free path), it still makes sense to regard them as distinct bubbles. However, as the level of overlap increases, as some point the bubbles are best described as having merged, constituting a single entity. The dividing line between these two cases can be somewhat indistinct, and obviously application and geometry dependent. Nonetheless, the watershed algorithm provides an objective, well-defined way of performing this segmentation, which has been extensively tested in the image processing community. As we have seen, in most cases it agrees well with what we would visually classify as distinct regions.
In this paper, we have argued that excursion set theory underpredicts bubble sizes, particularly early on in reionization. There are two questions worth considering in this regard: (i) what causes FZH04 to fail? (ii) if excursion set theory as formulated in FZH04 is defective, why is it nonetheless acceptable to use semi-numeric simulations? Both are after all based on the excursion set theory approach — smoothing the halo density field and marking the largest possible spherical volumes which are able to self-ionize.
With regards to point (i), the close correspondence at all stages of reionization between bubble sizes predicted by FZH04 and uncovered from simulations by the DT method (Fig \[fig:dist\_vs\_unconv\]) is noteworthy. In particular, the DT method infers a rapid evolution in bubble size which the other two methods do not. This may not be accidental. The DT method is very closely allied to the excursion set theory approach. At each point in the simulation box, the DT method smooths over the ionization field (rather than the density field) to find the largest spherical region which can be accommodated within an HII region, and labels that as a bubble of radius R. This raw distance transform overweights voxels at the bubble boundary, leading to an underestimate of bubble size. This close correspondence meant that the DT method was mistakenly used to [*confirm*]{} the results of analytic excursion set theory from simulations. In reality, it might give very similar results because it is a very similar method by construction, and suffers from the same defects. The effect is particularly egregious for the tube-like structures (caused by merger of similar-sized bubbles), which appear early in the history of reionization. These bubbles have large inverse porosity, i.e. they subtend large stretches of space without filling them. The over-counting of small bubbles by the DT method (and similarly by excursion set theory) is obvious if one thinks about the contours of constant distance transform. By contrast, the watershed algorithm adds a secondary processing step (flooding) which joins all connected regions with the same distance transform, thereby avoiding this bias. For instance, a straight tube will be identified as a single HII region. The mean free path algorithm also gives an acceptably unbiased answer since all trajectories are weighted by solid angle. Interestingly, FZH04 and the distance transform both give answers closer to the watershed algorithm at higher ionization fraction, when the ratio of surface area to volume is smaller, and boundary effects are less important. Bubbles become increasingly quasi-spherical as reionization proceeds [@furlanetto16], and the explicit assumption of sphericity is approximately correct.
Alternatively, a modified excursion set theory may be capable of producing the correct bubble distribution. A particularly promising approach is the model of @paranjape14, which predicted qualitative changes to the FZH04 bubble PDF – bubble sizes larger by a factor of 2– which are in agreement with the results of this paper. It proposes two modifications to standard excursion set theory: (i) standard excursion set theory assumes that random walks are uncorrelated, even though neighboring walks sample the same large scale fluctuations and real-space filtering (used to find the ionization pattern) couples different Fourier modes. This effect can now be accounted for in analytic models [@musso12; @musso14]. (ii) One should not consider spherical averages (and random walks) at all locations, but only at special ones. Both the most massive halos and the largest cosmic voids form at the most extreme peaks of the density field, invalidating the usual excursion set assumption that (e.g.) halos enclose a single density contrast. @paranjape14 find that the peaks constraints on halo locations has the largest effect. While their models and our simulation results do not fully agree in detail, these promising insights clearly deserve more work. We plan more detailed comparisons in the future.
Although the FZH04 excursion set theory based approach is incorrect for counting bubbles, as seen by its failure to correctly predict the mass function, excursion set theory is nonetheless correct for painting on the ionization field. This can be seen from the close agreement between semi-numeric simulations utilizing this approach with full radiative transfer simulations [@mcquinn07; @zahn07; @zahn11]. This is because the basic photon-counting argument behind the excursion set theory approach, which predicts the location of HII region boundaries–assuming they travel in straight lines–is correct. Difficulties only arise when one uses this approach directly to count bubbles. While the straight line assumption works well locally, it cannot fully characterize the stochastic overlap of realistic HII regions. As we have argued, the partitioning of a contiguous ionized region into separate bubbles is non-trivial. The watershed approach handles this by identifying local minima, which are effectively the bubble centers. The distance from these points to HII region boundaries is more accurate than unrefined distance transforms.
Regardless of the scheme we use, it is clear that bubble sizes are consistently underestimated in excursion set theory, by a factor $\sim 2-10$ in effective radius (so a factor $\sim 10-1000$ in volume), with the largest disparity during the early stages of reionization. Bubble sizes in the simulations clearly evolve more weakly with redshift/ionization filling fraction than in excursion set theory, an effect already noticed by @mesinger07. This arises because mergers of neighboring bubbles happens very early on, an effect which can be understood from percolation theory [@furlanetto16]. In percolation theory, an object of infinite extent (in practice, an object which spans the box) arises at a certain critical filling fraction, i.e., at that point, the structure percolates the entire volume. If the bubbles are Poisson distributed, this fraction is $\sim 30\%$ [@stauffer94]. However, for a Gaussian random field this critical fraction drops due to clustering; for $\Lambda$CDM parameters the critical fraction is $\sim 10\%$ [@shandarin06; @furlanetto16]. The clustering and percolation of bubbles is apparently not correctly handled by the analytic expressions of FZH04.
Conclusions {#section:conclusions}
===========
Our conclusions are as follows:
- [The watershed algorithm is a superior method for segmenting bubbles and inferring its mass function. It has the narrowest window function for spherical bubbles (a delta function), and is unbiased. It provides the best correspondence to intuitive visual segmentation of images, and has the best performance on controlled Monte-Carlo samples. It does have an adjustable smoothing parameter, but we have found robust results over a reasonable range of this parameter.]{}
- [The mean free path method is another good complementary method, and corresponds to an important physical quantity. By contrast, the distance transform (equivalent to spherical averaging used by previous authors) is unacceptably biased. The friends of friends algorithm, while focusing on a different aspect of bubble topology, does yield important physical insights, and it is imperative to translate these physical insights into observationally testable predictions.]{}
- [Both the watershed and MFP methods still show that there is a characteristic bubble size which increases with time during reionization. However, these bubble sizes are significantly larger (by up to an order of magnitude), and evolve more slowly with ionization fraction, than predicted by excursion set theory. The largest disparity occurs early in reionization. In addition, the bubble size distribution is narrower than predicted, and becomes increasingly sharply peaked as reionization progresses. Excursion set theory apparently does not correctly handle non-spherical structures produced by bubble mergers, particularly when the ionization filling factor is small, and should not be used to predict characteristic scales.]{}
In the future, it would be interesting to examine the size distribution of neutral regions with the watershed algorithm. This is an important, observationally accessible quantity during the late stages of reionization. However, semi-numeric simulations become unreliable toward the tail end of reionization, when photon mean free paths are limited by LLSs (which can only be incorporated in an ad-hoc fashion) rather than bubble sizes. Such a study requires analysis of simulations with full radiative transfer, including Lyman limit systems (LLSs); the latter can become prohibitively expensive, due to the wide required dynamic range ($\Delta x \lsim 0.1$ kpc resolution to accurately resolve LLSs, to the $L \gsim 300$ Mpc box sizes required to reduce cosmic variance for the largest volume-filling bubbles). It is possible also to consider many refinements: exploring the many variants of watershed or other segmentation/tesselation algorithms, refining the mean free path technique (e.g., using maximum likelihood to infer the underlying bubble distribution given a known window function; casting rays only from ionizing halo locations), or exploring other methods. In particular, it would be very interesting to consider whether the watershed algorithm can be applied directly to observations. Another obvious line of attack would be to arrive at a physical understanding of the characteristic scales and bubble PDFs we have obtained. The parallels between cosmic voids and HII bubbles in reionization, where many of the same techniques have been used (excursion set theory, segmentation algorithms) may also be a source of further insight.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
This work was completed as part of the University of California Cosmic Dawn Initiative. We acknowledges support from the University of California Office of the President Multicampus Research Programs and Initiatives through award MR-15-328388. YL acknowledges a UCSB College of Creative Studies SURF fellowship. SPO acknowledges NASA grants NNX12AG73G and NNX15AK81G. SRF was partially supported by a Simons Fellowship in Theoretical Physics. SRF also thanks the Observatories of the Carnegie Institute of Washington for hospitality while much of this work was completed. We thank Andrei Mesinger for helpful discussions.
Derivation of MFP Window Function {#appendix:mfp_window_func}
=================================
In this Appendix, we will derive the window function $W(r/R)$ for the mean free path (MFP) method (§\[section:mfp\]). This is equivalent to the conditional probability density function $P(r|R)$ for the mean free path of distance $r$ inside a sphere of radius $R$. Many of the steps here follow the derivation as presented in @solomon78, with some modifications.
There are two steps in our construction: first we choose a random point, $P$, inside the sphere, then we choose a random direction to project the line and record its length $r$. Let $t$ be the distance between the center and the random point P. The density function of $t$ is proportional to the volume of the spherical shell, $g(t) dt = 4 \pi t^{2} dt /(4 \pi/3 R^{3})$, or: $$g(t) = \frac{3t^2}{R^3}~~(0\leq t \leq R)$$ Let $\theta$ be the angle between the line through the origin $O$ and the mean free path cord. The density function is given by $$h(\theta) = \frac{\sin(\theta)}{2} ~~ \left(0\leq \theta \leq \pi\right)$$ Let $\phi$ be the acute angle between the line through the origin $O$ and the mean free path cord $MN$, so for acute $\theta$, $\theta= \phi$; for obtuse $\theta$, $\theta = \pi - \phi$ (see Fig \[fig:mfp\_geometry\]). Let $l$ be the length of perpendicular line from $O$ to our mean free path chord. We know $ l = t\sin(\phi) = t\sin(\theta)$ and $dl = t\cos(\theta)d\theta$ for a fixed t. Then the conditional density of $l$ for a fixed $t$ is $$h(l|t) = \sin(\theta)\left|\frac{1}{2t\cos(\theta)}\right| = \left | \frac{\tan(\theta)}{2t} \right|
~~(0\leq \theta \leq \pi)$$ where the absolute sign eliminates negative probability density for obtuse $\theta$. This can be written in terms of $l$, $t$, and $r$ as $$h(l|t) = \left| \frac{\tan(\theta)}{2t} \right| = \left|\frac{\tan(\phi)}{2t}\right| = \pm \frac{l}{2t\left(r - \sqrt{R^2 - l^2}\right)}$$ where plus/minus is for acute/obtuse $\theta$ respectively.
The conditional probability density function $P(l|R)$ is the product of $h(l|t)$ and $g(t)$ integrated over all possible $t$: $$P(l|R) =\int_l^R h(l|t)g(t) dt = \pm\int_l^R \left(\frac{3tl}{2R^3(r - \sqrt{R^2-l^2})}\right) dt$$ Now we want to perform a change of variables to express $l$ in terms of $r$ and $t$ to find density $P(r|R)$. We know that $\sqrt{t^2 - l^2} \pm \sqrt{l^2 + R^2} = r$ where plus/minus is for acute/obtuse $\theta$. Solving this equation for $l$ and discarding extraneous solutions we obtain: $$l = \frac{L^{2}}{2r}
\label{eqn:l}$$ where $$L^{2}=\sqrt{-r^4+2r^2R^2+2r^2t^2-R^4+2R^2t^2-t^4}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial l}{\partial r} &= \frac{-r^2 + R^2 + t^2}{L^{2}} -
\frac{L^{2}}{2r^2}\\
&= \frac{(R^2 - t^2 + r^2)(R^2 - t^2 - r^2)}{2r^2L^{2}}
\label{eqn:dldr}\end{aligned}$$ so the absolute value of the Jacobian determinant is: $$|J| = \left|\frac{\partial l}{\partial r}\right| = \mp\frac{\partial l}{\partial r}$$ where again minus/plus is for acute/obtuse $\theta$. This combines with the previous plus and minus sign to give an overall minus sign.
Lastly, we need to figure out the limit of integration for $t$ for a fixed $r$. The upper limit is $R$ as it cannot exceed the radius of the sphere. However, the lower limit for $t$ is $\left| R-r \right|$ which occurs when $\theta = 0$. Now plug in everything in hand and we have: $$\begin{aligned}
P(r|R)= \int ^R_{\left| R-r \right|} dt
&\left[\frac{3tL^{2}}{2 r R^3}\right] \times \nonumber \\
&\left[r - \sqrt{R^2-\left((2r)^{-1}L^{2}\right)^2}\right]^{-1} \times\nonumber\\
&\left[-\frac{(R^2 - t^2 + r^2)(R^2 - t^2 - r^2)}{2r^2L^{2}}\right]\nonumber\\
\label{eqn:fl}\end{aligned}$$ This analytic result matches numerical Monte-Carlo results.
Note that this result differs from the erroneous expression given in @mesinger07. The latter can be derived by calculating the probability of choosing two random points, one on the interior of the sphere and one on its surface, and calculating the distance between them. However, this approach does not correctly weight by solid angle. For instance, a random ray emerging from a point close to the bubble surface is much more likely to have a small MFP, due to the enhanced likelihood of striking the nearby surface. The @mesinger07 window function, which fails to take this into account, is skewed towards larger bubble sizes. When this incorrect window function is convolved with analytic predictions, it boosts typical bubble sizes and reduces the discrepancy between analytic predictions and simulation results.
![Geometry for calculation of window function for mean free path (MFP) method. Top panel: acute $\theta$. Bottom panel: obtuse $\theta$.[]{data-label="fig:mfp_geometry"}](./acute-eps-converted-to.pdf "fig:"){width="50.00000%"}\
![Geometry for calculation of window function for mean free path (MFP) method. Top panel: acute $\theta$. Bottom panel: obtuse $\theta$.[]{data-label="fig:mfp_geometry"}](./obtuse-eps-converted-to.pdf "fig:"){width="50.00000%"}
[^1]: For subtle reasons, equation (\[eqn:Q\_HII\]) and the frequently used alternative $Q_{\rm HII}=\zeta f_{\rm coll}$, where $\zeta$ is the ionizing efficiency and $f_{\rm coll}$ is the collapse fraction of dark matter halos above a threhold mass, which in principle should be equivalent, can differ slightly [@paranjape16].
[^2]: @mesinger07 did, however, use the MFP method to observe the main effects we see (§\[section:real\_sims\]): larger bubble sizes in the simulations, with slower evolution in the bubble PDF compared to theory.
[^3]: It may seem wrong-headed to use excursion-set theory simulations to test excursion set theory. We discuss this point in §\[section:discussion\].
[^4]: This setting in 21CMFAST sets the maximum size of a single spherical ionized region which can be obtained using the spherical filtering procedure. This does not directly correspond to the bubbles given by our procedure — for instance, if two 30 Mpc bubbles overlap, this gives rise to a larger ionized region.
[^5]: The agreement is somewhat poorer for the DT at $Q_{\rm HII}=0.49$ ($z=11$). This is an artifact of the lower resolution we have adopted for this case ($\Delta x=1$ Mpc), which truncates the bubble PDF for small bubble sizes; agreement would almost certainly improve for higher resolution. This issue for our choice of box sizes only arises for the distance transform, which incorrectly underestimates bubble sizes and therefore appears to require higher resolution. Since the DT is at any rate not an accurate method, we do not pursue further refinements.
[^6]: Note again the poorer agreement for the DT at $Q_{\rm HII}=0.49$, $z=11$, for the reasons previously mentioned.
[^7]: http://reionization.org
[^8]: Frequency resolution – i.e., resolution in the line of sight direction – is generally much higher and not a limiting factor.
[^9]: The correspondence is not exact, because sources tend to be biased toward the center of bubbles rather than occupy random positions. In principle, it should be possible to do a more careful job, given known positions of halos in semi-numeric simulations, but we leave this for future work.
[^10]: Nonetheless, FoF yields important physical insights. For instance, all the bubbles in Fig \[fig:scales\] actually connect to one another, so receive some illumination from sources at much larger scales than the watershed algorithm would suggest (particularly since recombinations to the ground state allow for some scattering of ionizing photons). The fact that during the middle stages of reionization, there is an infinite ionized region intertwined with an infinite neutral region is a physical fact which is not apparent in 2D slices or from other algorithms [@furlanetto16]. It is a robust prediction which potentially serves as a stringent test of future high-resolution interferometers. In this case, what is perhaps more relevant is the size of a typical cross-section –i.e. the width of these curved tubes, which dominate the solid-angle weighted[^11]
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Homoepitaxial growth is unstable towards the formation of pyramidal mounds when interlayer transport is reduced due to activation barriers to hopping at step edges. Simulations of a lattice model and a continuum equation show that a small amount of desorption dramatically speeds up the coarsening of the mound array, leading to coarsening exponents between 1/3 and 1/2. The underlying mechanism is the faster growth of larger mounds due to their lower evaporation rate.'
address: |
$^{(1)}$Institute of Physics, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Cukrovarnická 10, 162 53 Praha 6, Czech Republic\
$^{(2)}$Helsinki Institute of Physics, P.L. 9, 00014 University of Helsinki, Finland\
$^{(3)}$Fachbereich Physik, Universität GH Essen, 45117 Essen, Germany
author:
- 'P. Šmilauer,$^1$ M. Rost,$^2$ and J. Krug$^3$'
title: Fast coarsening in unstable epitaxy with desorption
---
[2]{} Growth of perfectly smooth epitaxial layers, e.g., for the fabrication of two-dimensional electron-gas heterostructures, requires suppressing growth instabilities that lead to surface roughening. However, one can also try to harness the instabilities and make them produce regular arrays of tiny objects on the crystalline substrate, such as quantum wires and quantum dots. Much attention has been paid to nanostructures created during heteroepitaxial growth. It seems tempting to use also other types of instabilities associated with [*homoepitaxy*]{}.
The most prominent of these kinetic instabilities is the creation of pyramidal features on the surface as a result of additional activation barriers to hopping at step edges reducing interlayer transport [@villain1; @johnson]. Theoretical [@siegert; @SV; @AF; @golub; @krug; @stroscio] and experimental [@stroscio; @moundexp] research has shown that the array of pyramidal mounds coarsens in time with the average mound size $\xi(t)$ increasing according to a power law, $\xi \propto t^{1/z}$. Under the standard assumption of negligible desorption, which implies volume conservation for the growing film [@villain1], the exponent $1/z$ was demonstrated to have an upper bound of 1/4 [@rost1; @note:anis]. Here we show, using kinetic Monte Carlo (KMC) simulations and numerical integration of a continuum equation of motion, that even a minute amount of desorption drastically changes this situation with $1/z$ increasing towards 1/2. Detailed investigation of growth kinetics reveals that the reason is a dependence of the evaporation rate on the mound size, leading to faster growth of big mounds at the expense of small ones.
[*Monte-Carlo simulations.*]{} To study epitaxial growth with desorption, we used a solid-on-solid KMC model in which the crystal is assumed to have a simple cubic structure with neither bulk vacancies nor overhangs allowed. The basic processes included in our model are the deposition of atoms onto the surface at a rate $F$, their surface diffusion, and evaporation from the surface. The diffusion of surface adatoms is modeled as a nearest-neighbor hopping process at the rate $k_D$ $=$ $k_0\exp(-E_D/k_{B}T)$, where $E_D$ is the hopping barrier, $T$ is the substrate temperature, and $k_B$ is Boltzmann’s constant. The pre-factor $k_0$ is the attempt frequency of a surface adatom and is assigned the value $10^{13}$ s$^{-1}$. The barrier to hopping is given by $E_D = E_S + nE_N + (n_i-n_f)\Theta(n_i-n_f)E_B$ where $E_S$, $E_N$, and $E_B$ are model parameters, $n$ is the number of in-plane nearest neighbors before the hop, $n_i$ and $n_f$ are the number of next-nearest neighbors in the planes beneath and above the hopping atom before ($n_i$) and after ($n_f$) a hop, and $\Theta(x)$=1 if $x>0$, and 0 otherwise (cf. Ref. for a more detailed description of the model). The evaporation of a surface adatom occurs at the rate $k_{\rm ev}=k_0\exp(-E_{\rm ev}/k_BT)$, where $E_{\rm ev}=E_0 + nE_N$ with $E_0$ being the energy for evaporation of a [free]{} surface adatom.
(8,6.0)
The simulations were carried out on square 300$\times$300 to 600$\times$600 lattices with periodic boundary conditions. The basic set of model parameters and growth conditions used was: $E_{S}=1.54$ eV, $E_{N}=0.23$ eV, $E_B=0.175$ eV, and $F$=1/6 monolayer (ML)/s (set I of Ref. ). Under these conditions the equilibrium evaporation flux $F_{\rm eq} = k_0 \exp[-(E_0 + 2 E_N)/k_B T)]
\approx (10^{-3} - 10^{-2}) \times F$, and the actual desorption rate is a few times larger. The robustness of the observed behavior was tested by using different temperatures and evaporation barriers $E_0$, and by including the “incorporation radius” effect whereby the incoming atom is placed at the site with the highest number of lateral nearest neighbors within a square area of size $R_i$ centered on the site of incidence [@SV].
Simulation results are shown in Fig. \[fig:KMC\] [@note:correlation]. As the desorption rate increases, coarsening becomes faster and the coarsening exponent $1/z$ becomes much bigger than 0.19-0.26, the range of values observed in previous simulation work using the same model without desorption [@SV]. Even a rather small amount of desorption [@strong] thus drastically affects the coarsening exponent regardless of the details of the simulation model (such as the model parameters and the incorporation radius). In the regions of fits shown in Fig. \[fig:KMC\] the mound slope stays approximately constant, indicating that the asymptotic regime has been reached. An interesting feature of Fig. \[fig:KMC\] is the crossover observed for the case $R_i$ $=$ $0$ after approx. 1000 ML were deposited. We discuss the underlying change in the mechanism of coarsening below.
(8,4)
Fig. \[fig:maps\] shows plane and perspective views of the surface morphology after approx. 2000 ML have been deposited. Pyramidal mounds are separated by narrow, deep troughs. The surface profile is clearly asymmetric with flat, rounded mound tops and sharp, deep valleys. For the case of $R_i$ $=$ $3$, mounds are much shallower and bigger, having also more regular structure. In both cases, however, very fast coarsening is observed.
[*Continuum equations.*]{} Further confirmation of the dramatic effect of evaporation comes from continuum theory, where the surface is modeled by a smooth, space and time-dependent height function $H({\bf x},t)$. Our starting point is the standard continuum equation for unstable epitaxy [@krug; @rost1], to which the leading order effect of desorption is added in terms of a slope-dependent growth rate $V(\vert \nabla H
\vert)$: $$\label{cont1}
\frac{\partial H}{\partial t} = - K \Delta^2 H- \nabla \! \cdot \!
[f(\vert \nabla H \vert^2) \nabla H] + V(\vert \nabla H \vert).$$ In the absence of desorption $V(u) \equiv F$, the external flux. For a vicinal surface with step spacing $\ell$ (tilt $u = a/\ell$, with lattice constant $a$), the growth rate according to BCF theory reads [@bcf] $
V_{\rm BCF}(\ell) = (F x_s/\ell) \tanh(\ell/x_s)
$ where $x_s = 2 \sqrt{D \tau}$ is the desorption length, depending on the diffusion coefficient $D$ and the desorption rate $1/\tau$ from a flat surface.
To use the BCF-expression also for near singular surfaces [@pimp], we introduce an effective, tilt-dependent step spacing $\ell_{\rm
eff}$, which equals $\ell$ in the step flow regime, $u \gg a/\ell_D$, and reduces to the terrace size or island distance [@villain2] $\ell_D$ for small $u$. Desorption is considered a small, perturbative effect in the sense that $$\label{condition}
\alpha \equiv \ell_D/x_s \ll 1,$$ which means that it is much more likely for an atom to be captured at a step than to desorb. Under this condition the terrace size $\ell_D$ should not be influenced by desorption. A plausible formula for $\ell_{\rm eff}$ is $\ell_{\rm eff}(u)$ $=$ $\ell_D [1$ $+$ $u^2 (\ell_D/a)^2]^{-1/2}$, and the growth rate is then $V(u) = V_{\rm BCF}(\ell_{\rm eff}(u))$. Because of (\[condition\]), $\ell_{\rm eff}(u) \leq \ell_D \ll x_s$ for all slopes, and therefore we can expand $V_{\rm BCF}$ to obtain $$\label{Vapprox1}
V(u) \approx
F[ 1 - (\alpha^2/3)(1 + u^2 (\ell_D/a)^2)^{-1}].$$ The growth rate varies between $V(0) = F[1 - (1/3) \alpha^2]$ for the singular surface and $F$ for $u \gg a/\ell_D$.
In the second term on the right hand side of Eq. (\[cont1\]) we set $f(u^2)$ $=$ $f_0 [1 \!- \!(u/m_0)^2]$, which leads to a stable selected slope $m_0$ [@siegert] as is observed in our lattice simulations [@nostableslope]. We subtract the deposited film thickness, $H \to H - Ft$ and rescale time, lateral space, and height variables to arrive at the dimensionless form [@rost1] $$\label{cont2}
\frac{\partial h}{\partial t} = - \Delta^2 h - \nabla \! \cdot \!
\Bigl[\Bigl(1 \! - \! (\nabla h)^2 \! \Bigr) \; \! \nabla h \Bigr] -
\frac{\alpha^2/3}{1 + (\nabla h)^2}.$$ The one-dimensional version of (\[cont2\]) with an evaporation rate $\sim (\nabla h)^2$ was considered in a different context by Emmott and Bray [@bray].
We integrated Eq. (\[cont2\]) numerically (for the method and system sizes see [@RSK1]) and found similar behavior as in the lattice model. After an initial fast increase of the lateral mound size $\xi$, the pattern coarsens as in the case without evaporation, $\xi \sim w \sim t^{1/4}$ [@rost1] ($w$ is the mean square width of the surface, $w^2 = \langle {\tilde h}^2 \rangle$ where $\tilde h \! = \! h \! - \!
\langle h \rangle$ denotes the height profile relative to its mean). This behavior is transient and eventually crosses over to a fast asymptotic increase of the mound size and the surface width as $\xi \sim w \sim t^{1/2}$. The mound size $\xi(t) $ is shown in Figure \[xi\_alpha\] for values of $\alpha^2/3 $ ranging from $10^{-1/2}$ to $10^{-3/2}$, decreased by a factor $10^{-1/8}$ between succeeding curves. The transient $t^{1/4}$–regime is absent for the strongest evaporation $(\alpha^2/3 \! = \! 10^{-1/2})$ and becomes more pronounced as $\alpha$ is decreased. A similar crossover is observed in the KMC simulations with $R_i \! = \! 0$ (stars in Fig. \[fig:KMC\]).
(8,6)
The evaporation term in Eq. (\[cont2\]) breaks the up–down symmetry ($h \leftrightarrow \! -h$) [@note:sym]. When it is dominant (in the fast coarsening regime at late times) the surface morphology is asymmetric. The profile shown in Figure \[cones\] consists of conical mounds separated by well defined, narrow valleys. Notice that there are no “negative mounds”. The greyscale plot shows the cellular arrangement of the cones. The observed features are very similar to results of simulations in Fig. \[fig:maps\].
(8,4)
[*The origin of fast coarsening.*]{} Allowing for evaporation fundamentally changes the nature of the growth instability, because it introduces a coupling between the local growth rate and the surface morphology. In particular, one expects generically a dependence of the average growth rate of a mound on its size, while for conserved growth only the [*fluctuations*]{} in the growth rate are size dependent [@SmilVvedTang]. To see how this can affect the coarsening law, assume that the growth velocity of a mound depends on its size $\xi$ as $$\label{size}
v(\xi) = v_0 - \Delta v(\xi) \; \; \; \mbox{where} \; \; \;
\Delta v(\xi) \sim \xi^{-\nu}$$ with a [*positive*]{} prefactor, so that large mounds grow faster. If $\xi$ is the only macroscopic length in the system, the size differences between mounds are also of the order of $\xi$. The time scale on which a small mound is eliminated by its larger neighbors is then given by $t_{\xi} \! \sim \! w/\Delta v(\xi)$, since the surface width $w$ equals the typical height of mounds. Using that the mounds have a constant slope, $w \sim \xi$, it follows that $\xi \sim t^{1/(1+\nu)}$ or $z = 1 + \nu$. Provided $\nu < 3$ this violates the bound $z \geq 4$ obtained in the conserved case [@rost1].
A well-known mechanism for a size-dependent growth rate is the Gibbs-Thomson-effect: For spherical droplets in equilibrium the evaporation rate is proportional to the curvature $\sim
1/\xi$, hence within the Wilson-Frenkel-approximation [@gilmer] the growth rate is of the form (\[size\]) with $\nu = 1$. The mounds in our lattice simulations are more conical in shape, with rather straight sides and rounded regions of lateral extent $\approx \ell_D$ at the tips. Assuming that desorption occurs preferentially from the tip regions, the evaporation rate of a mound of size $\xi$ has a contribution proportional to the ratio of the tip area $\sim \ell_D^2$ to the mound area $\sim \xi^2$, leading to $\nu = 2$ and $1/z = 1/3$. For a more quantitative estimate, $\Delta v(\xi)$ was determined in a sequence of simulations on small square lattices of lateral size 21, 23, …up to 101 [@note:range]. As initial configuration on each of them a single mound was prepared. It persisted during deposition of 1000 monolayers, and the average evaporation rate was determined from a sequence of 25 runs. The data presented in Figure \[fig:KMC\] show that $\Delta v(\xi) > 0$ and $\nu = 1.5 \pm 0.1$, which is consistent with direct observations of coarsening on large lattices (cf. Fig. \[fig:KMC\]).
An analytical evaluation of $\Delta v(\xi)$ is possible for the continuum equation, which will also allow us to derive the scaling of the crossover times (cf. Fig. \[xi\_alpha\]) with $\alpha$. We recall the surface profile of Figure \[cones\]. The cones show [*two*]{} lateral lengthscales: (i) their size $\xi$, which for late times is much larger than (ii) $\ell_D$, the diameter of the tips and the valleys ($= \! O(1)$ in our rescaled units) which is independent of $\xi$.
Thus for a mound on a $d$–dimensional surface the fraction of the surface covered by the tip is $(1/\xi)^d$. The surrounding trough has codimension one and a relative weight $1/\xi$, while the major part of the surface consists of the sloped sides of the conical mounds.
Evaporation is less pronounced on the mounds’ sides whereas it is enhanced by an amount of order $\alpha^2 $ on the horizontal parts, i.e. on the tip and in the surrounding valley. As a consequence equation (\[size\]) also holds for the continuum equation, where $v_0$ is the evaporation rate on the mounds’ sides, and the enhanced mass loss from small mounds is mainly due to the surrounding valley, i.e. $\Delta v(\xi) \sim \alpha^2 / \xi $. So the timescale for mound coalescence is $t_{\xi} \! \sim \! w/\Delta v(\xi) \! \sim \!
\xi^2/\alpha^2$ (due to the stable slope, $w \! \sim \! \xi$), and it follows that $\xi \sim \alpha t^{1/2}$. Incidentally, the same coarsening law was found in the one-dimensional case [@bray].
The initial increase $\xi \sim t^{1/4}$ is not due to evaporation and thus the same for all values of $\alpha$ (see Figure \[xi\_alpha\]). Together with the late time behavior $\xi \sim \alpha t^{1/2}$ this yields the estimate $t_\alpha \! \sim \! \alpha^{-4} = (x_s/\ell_D)^4$ for the time at which evaporation begins to dominate the coarsening process. Rescaling time as $t/t_\alpha$ and length as $\xi / t_\alpha^{1/4}$, and omitting the initial fast increase puts all curves and in particular the crossover times $t_\alpha$ on top of each other, as shown in the inset of Figure \[xi\_alpha\].
We emphasize that fast coarsening for the continuum equation is due to the dominance of evaporation from valleys compared to the rest of the mounds. Direct inspection shows that in the KMC simulations more atoms in fact evaporate from the [*upper*]{} parts of the mounds. This explains why the coarsening exponent observed for the lattice model is smaller than 1/2: Given enhanced evaporation only on the tips, $\Delta v (\xi)$ is of the order of $\alpha^2/\xi^d$, leading to $\xi \sim (\alpha^2 t)^{1/(d+1)}$ in $d$ dimensions, hence $z = 3$ for $d=2$ as argued previously. To improve on this estimate, more detailed information about the shape of mounds and its coupling to the evaporation rate would be needed. It is nevertheless interesting to note that the coarsening exponent $1/z = 1/(d+1)$ is always larger than the value $1/z = 1/(d+2)$ obtained for noise-induced coarsening [@SmilVvedTang], indicating that our conclusions will not be modified by shot noise.
In summary, we have identified a general mechanism for fast mound coarsening in unstable growth with desorption. While the detailed appearance of the effect is different in the lattice model as compared to the continuum equation, in both cases the key feature is the dependence of growth rate on mound size. This gives us confidence that the phenomenon is robust and will be observed under suitable experimental conditions.
[*Acknowledgements.*]{} Support by Volkswagen-Stiftung (P.Š., J.K.), DFG/SFB 237 (J.K., M.R.), the Grant Agency of the Czech Republic, Grant No. 202/96/1736 (P.Š.) and the COSA program of the Academy of Finland (M.R.) is gratefully acknowledged.
J. Villain, J. Phys. I [**1**]{}, 19 (1991). M.D. Johnson [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**72**]{}, 116 (1994). M. Siegert and M. Plischke, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**73**]{}, 1517 (1994). P. Šmilauer and D.D. Vvedensky, Phys. Rev. B [**52**]{}, 14263 (1995). J.G. Amar and F. Family, Phys. Rev. B [**54**]{}, 14742 (1996); K. Thürmer [*et al.*]{}, Surf. Sci. [**395**]{}, 12 (1998). L. Golubović, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**78**]{}, 90 (1997). For reviews see J. Krug, Adv. Phys. [**46**]{}, 139 (1997); Physica A (to appear). J.A. Stroscio [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**75**]{}, 4246 (1995). J.E. Van Nostrand [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**74**]{}, 1127 (1995); K. Thürmer [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**75**]{}, 1767 (1995); F. Tsui [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**76**]{}, 3164 (1996). M. Rost and J. Krug, Phys. Rev. E [**55**]{}, 3952 (1997). This bound may be violated in the presence of crystalline anisotropy, see M. Siegert, [*Coarsening dynamics of crystalline thin films*]{} (cond-mat/9808119). The mound size $\xi(t)$ is measured as the full width at half maximum of the height-height correlation function [@RSK1]. For strong desorption, $1/z$ attains values very close to 1/2 and the average mound size saturates after some time. W.K. Burton, N. Cabrera and F.C. Frank, Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. (Lond.) A [**243**]{}, 299 (1951). A. Pimpinelli and P. Peyla, J. Cryst.Growth [**183**]{}, 311 (1998). J. Villain, A. Pimpinelli, L.-H. Tang, and D.E. Wolf, J. Phys. I [**2**]{}, 2107 (1992). Fast coarsening with desorption does not require the presence of a stable slope $m_0$. We also observed it for other forms of $f$ introduced in [@rost1], in particular $f(u^2) \! = \! f_0/(1 \! + \! u^{\gamma+1})$ with $\gamma \! = \! 1$ and $3$. C.L. Emmott and A.J. Bray, Phys. Rev. E [**54**]{}, 4568 (1996). M. Rost, P. Šmilauer, and J. Krug, Surf. Sci., 393 (1996). Conservative terms breaking the up/down symmetry are also expected to be present [@krug; @stroscio], however since they do not affect the coarsening law [@stroscio; @paolo] they will be ignored here. L.-H. Tang, P. Šmilauer, and D.D. Vvedensky, Eur. Phys. J. B [**2**]{}, 409 (1998). J.D. Weeks and G.H. Gilmer, Adv. Chem. Phys. [**40**]{}, 157 (1979). This is more than the range which is covered by the mound size during our growth simulations. P. Politi, Phys. Rev. E [**58**]{}, 281 (1998).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
address: |
School of Mathematics\
University of Manchester\
Manchester M13 9PL\
United Kingdom
author:
- Peter Symonds
title: Endotrivial Modules for Infinite Groups
---
These notes were originally intended for a course given at the PIMS Summer School on Geometric and Topological Aspects of the Representation Theory of Finite Groups in Vancouver, July 27–30 2016. The material is based on a project with Nadia Mazza and a more general and complete treatment of the new results will appear elsewhere. We intend these notes to serve as an introduction to the field.
Why study endotrivial modules for infinite groups?
1. You cannot say much about all modules. Look for some small class where you might be able to say something interesting.
2. For finite groups, endotrivial modules or their generalization, endopermutation modules, occur as sources of simple modules for $p$-solvable groups and in the description of the source algebra of a nilpotent block. Their classification for finite $p$-groups was a major achievement.
3. We are led to reconsider a lot of work from the 1970s and ’80s on cohomology of groups.
4. It forces us to look carefully at stable categories of modules for infinite groups and suggests ways these might be described.
What we are going to do is as follows.
1. Recall briefly the definition and properties of endotrivial modules for finite groups in the way that we will use them. These were covered in other courses in the Summer School.
2. Define a class of infinite groups that we call groups of type $\Phi$. These are the groups that our methods can deal with and we investigate their homological properties.
3. Construct the category of stable $kG$-modules for $G$ of type $\Phi$. This is where our endotrivial modules will live.
4. Define endotrivial modules for groups of type $\Phi$ and develop their basic properties.
5. Prove the existence of an exact sequence that makes it possible to calculate the group of endotrivial modules for an amalgamated free product or an HNN extension.
For background material, it is helpful to know a little about endotrivial modules for finite groups. We recommend the article by Thévenaz [@thevenaz]. We assume that the reader is familiar with basic homological algebra and has some knowledge of derived and triangulated categories. One possible reference is the book by Happel [@happel].
Finite Groups {#sec:fg}
=============
In these notes $k$ will always be a field of finite characteristic $p$. In fact, everything we do can be carried through for $k$ any commutative noetherian ring of finite global dimension (and $p$-local when we mention $p$).
For this section, $G$ will be a finite group and all $kG$-modules will be finite dimensional unless stated otherwise. If $M$ and $N$ are two $kG$-modules then $M \otimes _kN$ is naturally a $kG$-module under the action $g(m \otimes n)=gm \otimes gn$. All tensor products will be over $k$ unless otherwise indicated.
A $kG$-module $M$ is endotrivial if there is another module $N$ such that $M \otimes N \cong k \oplus (\operatorname{proj})$.
Here $(\operatorname{proj})$ denotes some projective $kG$-module. We write $M \simeq M'$ when $M \oplus (\operatorname{proj}) \cong M' \oplus (\operatorname{proj})$ and denote the equivalence class by $[M]$. Note that $(\operatorname{proj}) \otimes_k (\operatorname{anything}) \cong (\operatorname{proj})$, so the equivalence classes form an abelian group under $\otimes_k$, which we denote by $T(G)$.
Notice that the trivial module $k$ is the identity element and $N$ in the definition is the inverse of $M$. Each equivalence class contains an indecomposable module $M$ such that every other member of the class is of the form $M \oplus (\operatorname{proj})$ (exercise).
Given a $kG$-module $M$, find a surjection from a projective module to $M$, $P \twoheadrightarrow M$ and let $\Omega M$ be the kernel, so we have a short exact sequence $\Omega M \hookrightarrow P \twoheadrightarrow M$. Then $\Omega M$ is well defined up to projective summands (Schanuel’s Lemma), so $[\Omega M]$ is well defined. We can also go in the other direction using injective modules: $M \hookrightarrow I \twoheadrightarrow \mho M$. For finite groups, injective is equivalent to projective, so we write $\Omega^{-1}$ instead of $\mho$. Iterating these gives us $[\Omega ^r M], \ r \in \mathbb Z$. It is an easy exercise to check that $\Omega (M \otimes N) \simeq (\Omega M) \otimes N$.
Now suppose that $M$ is endotrivial, so $M \otimes N \simeq k$. Then $\Omega M \otimes \Omega^{-1} N \simeq \Omega(M \otimes \Omega^{-1} N) \simeq M \otimes \Omega \Omega^{-1} N \simeq M \otimes N \simeq k$, so $\Omega M$ is also endotrivial. Clearly $k$ is endotrivial, so $\Omega^r M$ is endotrivial; since $\Omega^r k \otimes \Omega^s k \simeq \Omega^{r+s} k$, we obtain a homomorphism $\mathbb Z \rightarrow T(G), \quad r \mapsto \Omega^r k$. $T(G)$ also contains all 1-dimensional representations of $G$.
There are natural restriction maps $T(G) \rightarrow T(H)$ for $H \leq G$.
Recall that $\operatorname{Hom}_k(M,N)$ is considered to be a $kG$-module by setting $(gf)(m)=gf(g^{-1}m)$ for $f \in \operatorname{Hom}_k(M,N), g\in G, m\in M$. In particular, we have the dual $kG$-module, $M^*=\operatorname{Hom}_k(M,k)$.
\[lem:invdual\] If $M \otimes N \cong k \oplus (\operatorname{proj})$ then $[N] = [M^*]$. The natural evaluation map $\operatorname{ev}: M \otimes M^* \rightarrow k$ is split over $kG$ and the kernel is projective.
We have a commutative diagram
$$\begin{tikzcd}
M \otimes N \ar[r, "\cong"] \ar[d, "1 \otimes \phi"]
& k \oplus (\operatorname{proj}) \ar[r, "\pi"] &k \ar[d, equal] \ar[l, dashed, bend right]\\
M \otimes M^* \ar[rr, "\operatorname{ev}"] & & k,
\end{tikzcd}$$ where $\phi : N \rightarrow M^*$ is given by $(\phi (n))(m)=\pi(m \otimes n)$. Thus $k \mid M \otimes M^*$, splitting $\operatorname{ev}$ (the notation means *is a summand of*) and so $N \mid N \otimes M \otimes M^* \cong M^* \oplus(\operatorname{proj})$. But $M = M' \oplus (\operatorname{proj})$ for some indecomposable module $M'$ and so $N \cong M'^* \oplus (\operatorname{proj})$. Note that $N$ is not projective if $p \mid |G|$ and if $p \nmid |G|$ then all modules are projective and there is nothing to prove.
Thus $[N]=[M^*]$ and $M \otimes M^* \cong k \oplus (\operatorname{proj})$ so the kernel of $\operatorname{ev}$ must be projective.
It we relax the condition that $M$ be finite dimensional we do not get any more endotrivial modules.
\[lem:infendo\] If $M$ and $N$ are possibly infinite dimensional $kG$-modules such that $M \otimes N \cong k \oplus (\operatorname{proj})$ then $M = \overline{M} \oplus (\operatorname{proj})$ for some finite dimensional indecomposable $kG$-submodule $\overline{M}$ that is endotrivial in the original sense.
Using the isomorphism $M \otimes N \cong k \oplus (\operatorname{proj})$, write a generator of $K$ as $\sum m_i \otimes n_i$ and let $M'=\langle m_i \rangle_{kG} \subseteq M$. Then $\dim_k M' < \infty$ and $k \subseteq M' \otimes N \subseteq M \otimes N \rightarrow k$, so $k \mid M' \otimes N$. Tensoring with $M$, we obtain $M \mid M' \otimes N \otimes M \cong M' \oplus (\operatorname{proj})$.
Somehow we deduce that $M= (\operatorname{finite\ dimensional}) \oplus (\operatorname{proj})$. One way is to use an advanced version of the Krull-Schmidt Theorem (the right hand side is a sum of countably generated modules with local endomorphism rings), or see Exercise 7.
The same considerations apply to $N$, so we have $k \oplus (\operatorname{proj}) \cong M \otimes N = \overline{M} \otimes \overline{N} \oplus (\operatorname{proj})$.
The proof of Lemma \[lem:invdual\] now works for infinite dimensional modules too.
Here are some examples of calculations for finite $p$-groups in characterisitic $p$.
$T(C_{p^n}) = \begin{cases} 0 \quad \mbox{if $p^n=2$} \\ \mathbb Z/2 \quad \mbox{if $p^n \ne 2$} \end{cases}$\
$T(Q_8) = \begin{cases} \mathbb Z/4 \quad \mbox{if $k$ does not contain a cube root of unity} \\ \mathbb Z/4 \oplus \mathbb Z/2 \quad \mbox{if $k$ contains a cube root of unity} \end{cases}$\
$T(Q_{2^n}) = \mathbb Z/4 \oplus \mathbb Z/2$ for $2^n \geq 16$, regardless of cube roots\
$T(D_{2^n}) = \mathbb Z \oplus \mathbb Z$ for $2^n \geq 8$
Always one generator is $\Omega k$. For $Q_8$, when $k$ contains a cube root of unity $\omega$, there is a module described by $i= \left[ \begin{smallmatrix} 1 & 0&0 \\ 1 & 1&0 \\ 0&1&1 \end{smallmatrix} \right], j= \left[ \begin{smallmatrix} 1 & 0&0 \\ \omega & 1 &0 \\ 0& \omega^2 &1 \end{smallmatrix} \right]$. For $D_{2^n}$, another generator is the kernel of the natural map $k[D_{2^n}/C_2] \rightarrow k$, where $C_2$ is not central.
It is known that $T(G)$ is always a finitely generated group, but it can be very difficult to calculate. The classification of endotrivial modules for any finite $p$-group was a major achievement of Carlson and Thévenaz.
If all maximal elementary abelian subgroups of the $p$-group $P$ have rank at least 3 then $T(P) \cong \mathbb Z$, generated by $\Omega k$.
Suppose that the $p$-group $P$ has at least one maximal elementary abelian subgroup of rank 2 and $P$ is not semi-dihedral. Then $T(P)$ is free abelian on $r$ generators, where $r$ is defined by letting $c$ be the number of conjugacy classes of elementary abelian subgroups of rank 2 and setting $r=c$ if $\operatorname{rank}(P)=2$ and $r=c+1$ if $\operatorname{rank}(P) >2$.
The other cases are dealt with separately. Extraspecial and almost extraspecial groups are particularly tricky. For more background and details see the survey article [@thevenaz].
Here $G$ is a finite group and $kG$-modules are finite dimensional unless stated otherwise.
1. Show that the natural map $M \otimes _k M^* \rightarrow \operatorname{End}_k(M)$, $n \otimes f \mapsto ( m \mapsto f(m)n)$ is equivariant for any $M$ and an isomorphism when $M$ is finite dimensional. Thus a module $M$ is endotrivial if and only if $\operatorname{End}_k(M) \cong k \oplus (\operatorname{proj})$. This explains the terminology *endotrivial*.
2. If $M$ is endotrivial and $M \cong A \oplus B$ show that either $A$ is projective or $B$ is projective. Deduce that $M$ is of the form $(\operatorname{indecomposable}) \oplus(\operatorname{proj})$.
3. Verify that $(\operatorname{proj}) \otimes_k (\operatorname{anything}) = (\operatorname{proj})$, even for infinite groups and modules. (Hint: see any textbook.)
4. Verify that $\operatorname{Hom}_k ( (\operatorname{proj}), (\operatorname{anything})) = ( \operatorname{inj})$, even for infinite groups and modules. (Hint: $I$ is injective $ \Leftrightarrow$ $\operatorname{Hom}_{kG}(-,I)$ is exact; use $\operatorname{Hom}_{kG}(A,\operatorname{Hom}_k(B,C)) \cong \operatorname{Hom}_k(A \otimes _{kG} B, C)$.)
5. If $M$ is an endotrivial $kG$-module, show that $X \mapsto X \otimes M$ defines an autoequivalence of the category $kG \mhyphen \operatorname{Mod}$.
6. Let $G = H \times F$, where $F$ is a $p'$-group and $p$ divides the order of $H$. Show that $T(G)=T(H) \times \operatorname{Hom}_{\operatorname{Grp}}(F,k^{\times})$. Hint: if $[M] \in T(G)$ and $[\operatorname{Res}^G_HM]=[k]$ in $T(H)$, consider the Tate cohomology group $\widehat{H}^0(H;M)$ as a $kG$-module.
7. Here $M$ may be infinite dimensional. Define $M_{\operatorname{np}}= \mho \Omega M$, where $\Omega$ and $\mho$ are calculated using the projective cover and the injective hull respectively. Show that $M_{\operatorname{np}}$ has no projective summands. Show that there is a natural map $M_{\operatorname{np}} \rightarrow M$, it is injective and the cokernel is projective. Thus $M \cong M_{\operatorname{np}} \oplus (\operatorname{proj})$. Show also that $(M \oplus N)_{\operatorname{np}} \cong M_{\operatorname{np}} \oplus N_{\operatorname{np}}$. Use this to show that if $M$ is a summand of a module of the form $(\operatorname{finite\ dimensional}) \oplus (\operatorname{proj})$ then $M$ is also of this form.
Groups of Type $\Phi$ {#sec:phi}
=====================
Now we allow groups to be infinite.
The projective dimension of a $kG$-module $M$, denoted by $\operatorname{projdim}_{kG}$, is the length of the shortest possible projective resolution over $kG$, or $\infty$ if there is no resolution of finite length. The injective dimension is defined similarly.
A group $G$ is said to be of type $\Phi$ (over $k$) if, for any $kG$-module $M$, the restriction $M \! \downarrow _F$ to any finite subgroup $F$ is of finite projective dimension then $M$ has finite projective dimension (over $kG$).
Note that, since here we are taking $k$ to be a field of characteristic $p$, finite projective dimension over $F$ is equivalent to projective and in any case we only need to check restrictions to finite elementary abelian $p$-subgroups (Chouinard’s Theorem).
The finitistic dimension of $kG$ is $\operatorname{findim}kG = \sup \{ \operatorname{projdim}_{kG} M \mid \operatorname{projdim}_{kG} < \infty \}$.
For groups of type $\Phi$, $\operatorname{findim}kG < \infty$. For otherwise, for each $i \in \mathbb N$, let $M_i$ be a $kG$-module with $i \leq \operatorname{projdim}_{kG}M < \infty$. Consider $M=\oplus _{i \in \mathbb N}M_i$; $M \! \downarrow _F$ is projective for any finite subgroup but $\operatorname{projdim}_{kG}M = \infty$.
\[prop:phi\] Suppose that the group $G$ acts on a contractible CW-complex of finite dimension by permuting the cells and with finite cell stabilizers. Then $G$ is of type $\Phi$.
Let $X$ be the CW-complex, with cellular chain complex $C_*(X)$.
$$\begin{tikzcd} C_n(X) \ar[r] & \cdots \ar[r] & C_1(X) \ar[r] & C_0(X) \ar[d] \\
&&& k
\end{tikzcd}$$ Each $C_i(X)$ is a sum of permutation modules $k \! \uparrow _F^G$, $F$ finite (the notation means induced module). Tensor with $M$. $$\begin{tikzcd} C_n(X) \otimes M \ar[r] & \cdots \ar[r] & C_1(X) \otimes M \ar[r] & C_0(X) \otimes M \ar[d] \\
&&& M
\end{tikzcd}$$ Since $k \! \uparrow _F^G \otimes M \cong M \! \downarrow_F \! \uparrow _F^G$, if each $M \! \downarrow _F$ is projective then this is a projective resolution of $M$.
A group $G$ is of finite virtual cohomological dimension over $k$ (finite $\operatorname{vcd}_k$) if it has a subgroup $H$ of finite index such that $\operatorname{projdim}_{kH}k < \infty$.
Note that this subgroup $H$ can contain no $p$-torsion.
If $G$ is of finite $\operatorname{vcd}$ then it is of type $\Phi$.
This theorem is essentially due to Serre, see [@brown]. When $k= \mathbb Z$ you actually construct a CW-complex as in Proposition \[prop:phi\]. Otherwise you use algebraic methods to construct an analogue of the associated chain complex, see [@brown; @swan].
It follows that groups such as $\operatorname{Sl}_n(\mathbb Z)$ or, more generally, discrete subgroups of Lie groups with finitely many components have finite $\operatorname{vcd}$ (over $\mathbb Z$, hence over any $k$), see [@brown].
However $(\mathbb Z/p)^{(\mathbb N)}$ and $\mathbb Q / \mathbb Z$ are not of finite $\operatorname{vcd}_k$, because there is no subgroup of finite index with no $p$-torsion. They can both act on a tree with finite stabilizers, so they are of type $\Phi$. On the other hand, $\mathbb Z^{(\mathbb N)}$ is not even of type $\Phi$ (Exercise 4 of this section).
We now define a category $\operatorname{ModProj}(kG)$ in which all the projective modules are identified with 0. We say that a morphism $f \! : M \rightarrow N$ factors through a projective if there is a projective module $P$ such that $f$ factors as a composition $M \rightarrow P \rightarrow N$. We define $\operatorname{ModProj}(kG)$ to have the same objects as $kG \mhyphen \operatorname{Mod}$, but $$\operatorname{Hom}_{\operatorname{ModProj}(kG)}(M,N)=\operatorname{Hom}_{kG}(M,N)/(\mbox{factors through a projective module}).$$ In this catgory the syzygy $\Omega M$ is well defined up to unique isomorphism (Schanuel’s Lemma) and there is a map $\Omega \!: \operatorname{Hom}_{\operatorname{ModProj}(kG)}(M,N) \rightarrow \operatorname{Hom}_{\operatorname{ModProj}(kG)}(\Omega M,\Omega N)$ that is well defined by the diagram
$$\begin{tikzcd}
\Omega M \ar[r] \ar[d, dashed, "{\Omega f}"] & P_M \ar[r] \ar[d, dashed] & M \ar[d, "f"] \\
\Omega N \ar[r] & P_N \ar[r] & N.
\end{tikzcd}$$ Thus $\Omega$ becomes a functor from $\operatorname{ModProj}(kG)$ to itself.
Two $kG$-modules $M$ and $N$ are isomorphic in $\operatorname{ModProj}(kG)$ if and only if there exist projective modules $P$ and $Q$ such that $M \oplus P \cong N \oplus Q$ in $kG \mhyphen \operatorname{Mod}$ (exercise).
For finite groups, $\operatorname{ModProj}(kG)$ is considered to be the stable category, but for infinite groups it is not satisfactory, because not every module can be embedded in a projective module so we are unable to invert $\Omega$.
Define the stable category of $kG$-modules to have the same objects as $kG \mhyphen \operatorname{Mod}$ and morphisms $\operatorname{Hom}_{\operatorname{Stab}(kG)}(M,N)= \operatorname{\varinjlim}_{\Omega} \operatorname{Hom}_{\operatorname{ModProj}(kG)}(\Omega^r M,\Omega^r N)$.
For the rest of this section, all groups are of type $\Phi$ and there are no restrictions on the modules.
\[lem:spli\] Any injective $kG$-module has projective dimension at most $\operatorname{findim}(kG)$.
The restriction of an injective module to any finite subgroup is injective (the left adjoint of restriction is induction, which is exact), which is equivalent to projective for a finite group. Now use the definition of type $\Phi$.
The next proposition is from [@GG] and its proof is a little tricky, but it will be crucial later. If you are interested in what happens when you consider a more general ring $k$ than a field, this is where the noetherian condition is useful.
\[prop:silp\] Any projective $kG$-module has injective dimension at most $\operatorname{findim}(kG)$.
Let $P$ be a projective module. There is a map $k \rightarrow kG^*$ (the dual of $kG$) that sends 1 to the augmentation map $\epsilon : kG \rightarrow k$. Applying $\operatorname{Hom}_k(-,P)$ yields a surjection $\operatorname{Hom}_k(kG^*,P) \rightarrow P$, which splits since $P$ is projective. This allows us to replace $P$ by $\operatorname{Hom}_k(kG^*,P)$ (using the injective version of Exercise 5 of this section).
The module $kG^*$ is injective by Exercise 4 of Section 1, so has a projective resolution $Q_{*}$ of length at most $\operatorname{findim}(kG)$ by the previous lemma. Applying $\operatorname{Hom}_k(-,P)$ (which is exact), we obtain a quasi-isomorphism from $\operatorname{Hom}_k(kG^*,P)$ to $\operatorname{Hom}_k(Q_{*},P)$. Each $\operatorname{Hom}_k(Q_i,P)$ is injective, by the same exercise.
1. Show that if $G$ is of type $\Phi$, then so is any subgroup. (Hint: consider induced modules.)
2. In Proposition \[prop:phi\] we didn’t really use the CW-complex, only its chain complex. Write down a version that only uses the existence of an exact sequence of certain types of $kG$-modules.
3. Show that if $G$ acts cellularly on a CW-complex of finite dimension $d$ and there is a number $e$ such that every stabilizer $H$ is of type type $\Phi$ and has $\operatorname{findim}(kH) \leq e$, then $G$ is of type $\Phi$ and $\operatorname{findim}(kG) \leq d+e$.
4. Show that $\mathbb Z ^{(\mathbb N)}$ has infinite finitistic dimension, so is not of type $\Phi$. (Hint: projective dimension cannot increase when you restrict to a subgroup.)
5. If $A \rightarrow B \rightarrow C$ is a short exact sequence of modules show that:\
$\operatorname{projdim}A \leq \max \{ \operatorname{projdim}B, \operatorname{projdim}C-1 \}$,\
$\operatorname{projdim}B \leq \max \{ \operatorname{projdim}A, \operatorname{projdim}C \}$,\
$\operatorname{projdim}C \leq \max \{ \operatorname{projdim}A+1, \operatorname{projdim}B \}$,\
$\operatorname{projdim}D \oplus E = \max \{ \operatorname{projdim}D, \operatorname{projdim}E \}$.\
Complete Resolutions
====================
A complete resolution of a $kG$-module $M$ is a commutative diagram $$\begin{tikzcd}
\cdots Q_{n+1} \ar[r] \ar[d, equal] & Q_n \ar[r, "d_n"] \ar[d, equal] & Q_{n-1} \ar[r, "d_{n-1}"] \ar[d] & \cdots \ar[r] & Q_1 \ar[r, "d_1"] \ar[d] & Q_0 \ar[r, "d_0"] \ar[d] & Q_{-1} \ar[r] & Q_{-2} \cdots \\
\cdots P_{n+1} \ar[r] & P_n \ar[r] & P_{n-1} \ar[r] & \cdots \ar[r] & P_1 \ar[r] & P_0 \ar[d] \\
&&&&&M,
\end{tikzcd}$$ where the $P_i$ and $Q_i$ are projective, $P_{*}$ is a projective resolution of $M$ and $Q_{*}$ is acyclic (i.e. exact). The integer $n$ is called the coincidence index.
We also require the extra condition that $\operatorname{Hom}_{kG}(Q_{*},P)$ be acyclic for any projective module $P$.
For $n=0$ this is the same as the definition used for the Tate cohomology of finite groups.
For a group of type $\Phi$, any $kG$-module has a complete resolution with coincidence index at most $\operatorname{findim}(kG)$. Any two complete resolutions of the same module are chain homotopy equivalent. A homomorphism of modules induces a chain map between complete resolutions, unique up to chain homotopy.
We will now sketch the construction of these complete resolutions. From now on all groups will be understood to be of type $\Phi$.
For the next result we will write $\Omega^n M$ to denote a module that is the $n-1$st kernel in some projective resolution of $M$, even though this is only defined up to projective summands.
If $n \geq \operatorname{findim}(kG)$ then a module of the form $\Omega ^{n}M$ can be embedded in a projective module in such a way that the quotient is also of the form $\Omega^{n}N$, for some $kG$-module $N$.
Embed $M$ in an injective module $I$, with quotient $N$, say. By hypothesis, we already have the projective resolution $P_{*}$ of $M$ used to construct $\Omega^{n}M$ and we find a projective resolution $R_{*}$ of $N$. By the Horseshoe Lemma, these can be combined to give a projective resolution of $I$ such that all rows and columns in the following diagram are exact. $$\begin{tikzcd}
\Omega^{n}M \ar[r] \ar[d] & P_{n-1} \ar[r] \ar[d] & \cdots \ar[r] & P_0 \ar[r] \ar[d] & M \ar[d] \\
\Omega^{n}I \ar[r] \ar[d] & P_{n-1} \oplus R_{n-1} \ar[r] \ar[d] & \cdots \ar[r] & P_0 \oplus R_0 \ar[r] \ar[d] & I \ar[d] \\
\Omega^{n}N \ar[r] & R_{n-1} \ar[r] & \cdots \ar[r] & R_0 \ar[r] & N
\end{tikzcd}$$ By Lemma \[lem:spli\], $\Omega^{n}I$ is projective.
We can construct $Q_{*}$ as follows. Set $n = \operatorname{findim}(kG)$. For $i \geq n$ we take $Q_i=P_i$. Now apply the above lemma to $\Omega^{n}M$ to embed it in a projective module that we take as $Q_{n-1}$. The quotient is also of the form $\Omega^{n}N$ and we can keep repeating the process.
\[lem:homX\] The complex $\operatorname{Hom}_{kG}(Q_{*},X)$ is exact if $X$ has finite injective dimension or if $X$ is projective.
In view of Proposition \[prop:silp\], the second part follows from the first. We prove the first by induction on the injective dimension of $X$. When this is 0 the result is clear. Otherwise we embed $X$ in an injective module to obtain a short exact sequence $X \rightarrow I \rightarrow Y$ with $Y$ of lower injective dimension. Consider the double complex of $\operatorname{Hom}_{kG}$ from $Q_{*}$ to the short exact sequence just produced, written so that $Q_{*}$ is horizontal. All the columns are exact, because the $Q_i$ are projective. Two of the rows are exact by induction, thus so is the remaining one, by a diagram chase.
This lemma shows that the extra condition in the definition of a complete resolution holds automatically in the case of groups of type $\Phi$. Thus we could have omitted it from the definition, but in more general contexts it should be part of the definition so we have included it here. This extra condition is very important, because we can use it to produce morphisms. It yields the remaining vertical arrows in the definition of a complete resolution. It is also what is needed to produce the maps used to show that any two complete resolutions are chain homotopy equivalent. For more details see [@ikenaga].
If two acyclic complexes of projectives are chain homotopy equivalent then their kernels are isomorphic up to projective summands (Exercise 2).
From now on, given a $kG$-module $M$ and $i \in \mathbb Z$ we will use $\Omega^iM$ to denote the kernel of $d_{i-1}$ in a complete resolution of $M$. This is well defined as a module only up to projective summands and an isomorphism unique in $\operatorname{ModProj}(kG)$. For small non-negative $i$ it only agrees with the previous definition stably. In particular, we have negative syzygies.
The modules that can occur as a kernel in an acyclic complex of projectives $Q_{*}$ such that $\operatorname{Hom}_{kG}(Q_{*},P)$ is acyclic for any projective module $P$ are called Gorenstein projective.
Gorenstein projective modules have many nice properties (see the exercises). In many cases they are easy to recognise: for example, for a group of finite $\operatorname{vcd}_k$, a module is Gorenstein projective if and only if it projective on restriction to some subgroup of finite index (Exercise 3).
Notice that $\Omega^0M$ is not the same as $M$. From the defining diagram for a complete resolution we see that there is a natural map $\Omega^0M \rightarrow M$; it is a stable isomorphism because we can see in the diagram that a large enough syzygy of it is just equality. We sometimes write this as $\epsilon : \tilde{M} \rightarrow M$. Note that $\tilde{M}$ is Gorenstein projective and $\epsilon$ is a stable equivalence. In particular, every module is stably equivalent to a Gorenstein projective module.
\[thm:cat\] For a group $G$ of type $\Phi$, the following functors are equivalences of categories and going around the loop is isomorphic to the identity.
$$\begin{tikzcd}
\left(\mbox{$kG$-modules}, \ \operatorname{Hom}_{\operatorname{Stab}(kG)}\right) \ar[d, "\deg 0"] && \left(\mbox{Gorenstein projective $kG$-modules},\ \operatorname{Hom}_{\operatorname{ModProj}(kG)}\right) \ar[ll, "\mbox{\footnotesize{inclusion}}"'] \\
D^b(kG \mhyphen \operatorname{Mod})/D^b(kG \mhyphen \operatorname{Proj}) \ar[rr, "\mbox{\footnotesize{complete}}", "\mbox{\footnotesize{resolution}}"'] && \left(\mbox{acyclic complexes of projectives},\ \mbox{chain homotopy}\right) \ar[u, "\Omega^0"]
\end{tikzcd}$$
Here $\deg 0$ means that we consider a module as a complex consisting of just that module in degree 0 and 0 elsewhere. The complete resolution of a bounded complex is constructed in a way similar to that of a module. The complex has an ordinary projective resolution. We start constructing the complete resolution starting with $\operatorname{Ker}(d_{n-1})$ in this projective resolution, where $n$ is bigger than $\operatorname{findim}(kG)$ plus the degree of the top non-zero term of the complex.
$D^b(kG \mhyphen \operatorname{Mod})$ is the derived category of bounded complexes of $kG$-modules. It is easy to see that we get the same category if we allow complexes that are only bounded on the right (in the direction of the arrows) but have only finitely many non-zero homology groups. $D^b(kG \mhyphen \operatorname{Proj})$ is the derived category of bounded complexes of projective modules; these modules may be infinitely generated, so this is not what is called the category of perfect complexes. This is equivalent to $K^b(kG \mhyphen \operatorname{Proj})$, where the morphisms are taken up to chain homotopy.
We consider any of these categories to be the stable module category of $kG$.
Apart from the Gorenstein projective modules, the other three categories in this theorem have a natural triangulated structure. The shift functor is shift in degree for the categories on the bottom row and $\Omega^{-1}$ on the top row. These equivalences preserve the triangulated structure and the tensor product over $k$. See [@happel] for more background on derived and triangulated categories.
The equivalence of these categories is originally due to Buchweitz [@buchweitz], although the context is slightly different. It should be clear from the proof that these equivalences still hold when $kG$ is replaced by any ring such that the projective length of any injective module is finite and the injective length of any projective module is finite. In fact, these two conditions are also necessary [@beligiannis] and for a group ring $kG$, for *any* group $G$, one implies the other [@emmanouil].
Complete resolutions appeared earlier, in the context of Tate-Farrell cohomology; see [@brown; @ikenaga].
We conclude this section with a couple of lemmas that will be useful later.
\[lem:GPdom\] If $M$ and $N$ are $kG$-modules with $M$ Gorenstein projective then any stable map $f \! :M \rightarrow N$ can be realized as a genuine homomorphism of modules.
See Exercise 6 of this section.
Now that we are working in a triangulated category we can formulate a very useful property of groups of type $\Phi$.
Recall that if $ X \stackrel{f}{\rightarrow} Y \rightarrow Z \rightarrow $ is a triangle then $f$ is an isomorphism if and only if $Z \simeq 0$.
\[lem:stabiso\] A stable morphism $f \! :X \rightarrow Y$ is a stable isomorphism if and only if $f \! \downarrow _P:X \! \downarrow _P \rightarrow Y \! \downarrow _P$ is a stable isomorphism for every finite (elementary abelian) $p$-subgroup $P$.
Complete the triangle with a third module $Z$. The definition of type $\Phi$ shows that $Z=0$.
1. Show that if $Q_{*}$ is a complete resolution of $k$ then, for any module $M$, $Q_{*} \otimes k$ is a complete resolution of $M$.
2. 1. Verify that two complete resolutions of the same module must be chain homotopy equivalent.
2. Verify that two acyclic complexes of projective modules that are chain homotopy equivalent have isomorphic kernels up to projective summands, by an isomorphism the same in $\operatorname{ModProj}(kG)$ as the map induced by the chain map.
3. Suppose that $G$ is of finite $\operatorname{vcd}_k$. Show that the following conditions on a module $M$ are equivalent:
1. $M$ is Gorenstein projective;
2. for some subgroup $H$ of finite index, $M\! \downarrow_H$ is projective;
3. for any subgroup $H$ of finite index and $p$-torsion free, $M\! \downarrow_H$ is projective.
(Hint: Induction is the right adjoint of restriction for subgroups of *finite index*, so there is an embedding $M \rightarrow M \! \downarrow_H \! \uparrow^G$; see [@brown] for more details, particularly for the last part.)
4. If $G$ has a normal subgroup $N$ that is $p$-torsion free and both $G$ and $N$ are of type $\Phi$, show that inflation gives a well-defined functor on stable categories $\operatorname{Stab}(kG/N) \rightarrow \operatorname{Stab}(kG)$. Convince yourself that this will not work if $N$ contains $p$-torsion, even if $G$ is finite.
5. 1. Show that (Gorenstein projective)$\otimes$(anything) = (Gorenstein projective).
2. Show that Gorenstein projective and finite projective dimension implies projective.
6. For a group $G$ of type $\Phi$ and with $\operatorname{findim}(kG) \leq d$ and a $kG$-module $M$, show that the following conditions are equivalent:
1. $M$ is Gorenstein projective;
2. there is an exact sequence $0 \rightarrow M \rightarrow P_{m-1} \rightarrow \cdots \rightarrow P_0 \rightarrow X \rightarrow 0$, for some $m \geq d$, some $X$ and $P_i$ projective;
3. there is a projective module $P$ such that $M \oplus P$ is Gorenstein projective;
4. $M$ is a summand of a Gorenstein projective module;
5. for all $m,n \geq 0$ and all modules $N$, the map\
$\Omega^m: \operatorname{Hom}_{\operatorname{ModProj}}(\Omega^nM, \Omega^nN) \rightarrow \operatorname{Hom}_{\operatorname{ModProj}}(\Omega^{m+n}M, \Omega^{m+n}N)$\
is an isomorphism;
6. for all modules $N$, the map $\Omega^\infty: \operatorname{Hom}_{\operatorname{ModProj}}(M,N) \rightarrow \operatorname{Hom}_{\operatorname{Stab}(kG)}(M,N)$ is an isomorphism;
7. for all projective modules $P$ and all $i \geq 1$, $\operatorname{Ext}^i_{kG}(M,P)=0$;
8. $M \otimes N$ is projective whenever $\operatorname{projdim}N < \infty$.
7. Let $Q_{*}$ be a complete resolution of $M$ and define the complete $\operatorname{Ext}$-groups by\
$\widehat{\operatorname{Ext}}^i_{kG}(M,N)= H^i( \operatorname{Hom}_{kG}(Q_{*},N))$ and complete cohomology by $\widehat{H}^i(G;k) = \widehat{\operatorname{Ext}}^i_{kG}(k,k)$. Check the following (see [@brown]):
1. $\widehat{\operatorname{Ext}}^i_{kG}(M,N)$ does not depend on the complete resolution chosen,
2. $\widehat{\operatorname{Ext}}^i_{kG}(M,N) \cong \operatorname{Ext}^i_{kG}(M,N)$ for $i > \operatorname{findim}(kG)$,
3. $\widehat{\operatorname{Ext}}^0_{kG}(M,N) \cong \operatorname{Hom}_{\operatorname{ModProj}}(\tilde{M},N) \cong \operatorname{Hom}_{\operatorname{Stab}(kG)}(M,N)$.
Endotrivial Modules for Infinite Groups
=======================================
We repeat our standing assumption that all the groups we consider are of type $\Phi$.
A $kG$-module $M$ is endotrivial if there is another module $N$ such that $M \otimes N \simeq k$ in $\operatorname{Stab}(kG)$.
The stable isomorphism classes of endotrivial modules form a group $T(G)$.
\[prop:subend\] If $M$ is endotrivial then its inverse is its dual $M^*$.
The module $M$ is endotrivial if and only if $M \! \downarrow _P$ is endotrivial for every finite (elementary abelian) $p$-subgroup $P$.
Clearly an endotrivial module remains endotrivial on restriction. Consider the evaluation map $M \otimes M^* \stackrel{\operatorname{ev}}{\rightarrow} k$. If $M$ is endotrivial on restriction to a finite $p$-subgroup $P$, then $\operatorname{ev}$ is a stable isomorphism over $kP$, by the infinite dimensional version of Lemma \[lem:invdual\], see the remark after Lemma \[lem:infendo\]. Thus $\operatorname{ev}$ is a stable isomorphism, by Lemma \[lem:stabiso\].
$G = C_p \ast C_p'$, the free product of two groups of order $p$. $G$ acts on a tree with stabilizers conjugate to either $C_p$ or $C_p'$, so it is of type $\Phi$.
Consider the canonical map $k \! \uparrow ^G_{C_p} \rightarrow k, \ g \otimes x \mapsto gx$. If we restrict this to $C_p$ and use the Mackey formula we get a split surjection $k \oplus (\operatorname{free}) \rightarrow k$ and if we restrict it to $C_p'$ we get $(\operatorname{free}) \rightarrow k$. We also do the same thing starting with $C_p'$ and combine the two to get a map $k \! \uparrow ^G_{C_p} \oplus k \! \uparrow ^G_{C_p'} \rightarrow k$. On restriction to either $C_p$ or $C_p'$ this is a stable isomorphism. Any torsion subgroup of $G$ is conjugate to one of these two. Applying Lemma \[lem:stabiso\], we obtain a stable isomorphism $$k \simeq k \! \uparrow ^G_{C_p} \oplus k \! \uparrow ^G_{C_p'} .$$
Thus the trivial module decomposes. Note that the right hand side is Gorenstein projective by Exercise 3 of Section 3, since it is free over a subgroup of finite index.
In order to understand this decomposition better, we consider certain subgroup complexes associated to $G$. A suitable source for the theory of subgroup complexes is [@benson], although it only deals with finite groups. Most of the proofs carry over easily to the infinite case, with a little help from [@tomdieck II 2.7]. This material is not used in what follows, so we will be brief.
The Brown or Quillen complex is a simplicial complex, $\Delta (G)$, where the $r$-simplices correspond to chains $P_0<P_1 < \cdots P_r$ of non-trivial $p$-subgroups in the case of the Quillen complex, denoted $|\mathcal S_p(G)|$, or non-trivial elementary abelian $p$-subgroups in the case of the Brown complex, $|\mathcal A_p(G)|$. $G$ acts on $\Delta (G)$ by conjugation. The Brown and Quillen complexes are known to be equivariantly homotopy equivalent, so it will not matter which one we use. For simplicity here, we are going to assume that $\Delta (G)$ is equivariantly homotopy equivalent to a finite dimensional complex. This is clearly the case for $|\mathcal A_p(G)|$ if the $p$-rank of $G$ is finite (i.e. there is a bound on rank of any elementary abelian $p$-subgroup).
We are interested in the simplicial chain complex $C(\Delta (G))$ and its augmented version $C(\Delta (G)) \stackrel{\epsilon}{\rightarrow} k$, which we denote by $\tilde{C}(\Delta (G))$. It can be shown that for any non-trivial finite $p$-subgroup $P$ of $G$, the fixed point set $\Delta (G)^P$ is contractible. Quillen showed that it follows that $\tilde{C}(\Delta (G))$ restricted to such a $P$ is equivalent in the derived category to a bounded complex of projectives and Webb showed that in fact the restriction is homotopy equivalent to such a complex.
We can regard this augmented complex as an element of the derived category and hence of the stable category $\operatorname{Stab}(kG)$, by Theorem \[thm:cat\]. For this we use the functor $\Omega ^0 \circ (\mbox{projective resolution})$, which we abbreviate to $\Omega^0$. The fact that $\tilde{C}(\Delta (G))$ is equivalent to a bounded complex of projectives after restriction to any finite $p$-subgroup $P$ means that it is 0 in $\operatorname{Stab}(kP)$. Thus it is 0 even in $\operatorname{Stab}(kG)$, by Lemma \[lem:stabiso\]. Since we are working in a triangulated category, it follows that the augmentation $\epsilon$ is an isomorphism between $C(\Delta (G))$ and $k$. At the level of stable modules, this means that $\Omega^0C(\Delta (G)) \simeq k$.
If $C(\Delta (G))$ is equivariantly homotopy equivalent to a finite dimensional complex, where $\Delta (G)$ one of the complexes defined above (e.g. if $p \mhyphen \operatorname{rank}(G) < \infty$), then $\Omega^0C(\Delta (G)) \simeq k$. Thus $k$ decomposes stably as a sum, $k \simeq \oplus_e k_e$, one for each path component of $\Delta (G)/G$.
It is easy to see that the path components of $|\mathcal S_p(G)|/G$ correspond to the equivalence classes of non-trivial $p$-subgroups of $G$ under the equivalence relation generated by setting $P \sim Q$ if $P$ is contained in $Q$ or $P$ is conjugate to $Q$. A more homological version of this result appears in [@CL].
Let us write $\widehat{\operatorname{End}}_G(k)$ or $\widehat{\operatorname{Aut}}_G(k)$ for the stable endomorphism or automorphism group of $k$. Then $\widehat{\operatorname{End}}_G(k) = \prod_e \widehat{\operatorname{End}}_G(k_e)$ and we obtain idempotents corresponding to the $k_e$, which we also denote by $e$. In fact, these idempotents are primitive (Exercise 2 of this section). It follows that we have an “endo-$e$” group $T_e(G)$ for each idempotent $e$, with identity $k_e$, and $T(G)= \prod_e T_e(G)$.
There is a well-known fact that is important here.
$\widehat{\operatorname{End}}_G(k)$ is a commutative ring.
Given $f,g \in \widehat{\operatorname{End}}_{G}(k)$ there are two possible ways to form a product. The obvious way is to compose them, $f \circ g$; but since $k \otimes k \simeq k$ we can also take the tensor product, $f \otimes g$, which is commutative. We want to show that these two products agree.
A homological approach is to note that $\widehat{\operatorname{End}}_G(k) \cong \widehat{H}^0(G;k)$. It is shown in [@ikenaga] that $\widehat{H}^*(G;k)$ has a cup product, which agrees with the tensor product on $\widehat{H}^0(G;k)$. The cup product is known to agree with the composition product, see [@brown].
Alternatively, show that, given four endomorphisms, $d,e,f,g$, there is a relation $(d \circ e) \otimes (f \circ g) = (d \otimes f) \circ (e \otimes g)$ (draw a diagram with arrows). The result now follows formally: look up the Eckmann-Hilton argument.
1. Show that if $M$ is endotrivial then then the natural map $M \otimes M^* \rightarrow \operatorname{End}_k(M)$, $m \otimes f \mapsto ( n \mapsto f(n)m)$ is a stable isomorphism, so $\operatorname{End}_k(M) \simeq k$ in the stable category.
2. Let $e \in \widehat{\operatorname{End}}_G(k)$ be an idempotent. Show that if $P \leq G$ is a non-trivial finite $p$-subgroup then $\operatorname{res}^G_Pe$ is either 0 or 1. Show also that if $P'$ is in the same component of $|\mathcal S_p(G)|/G$ as $P$ then $\operatorname{res}^G_Pe=\operatorname{res}^G_{P'}e$. Deduce that the idempotents corresponding to the components of $\Delta (G)/G$ are primitive.
3. Calculate $\widehat{\operatorname{End}}_{C_p \times \mathbb Z}(k)$ and $\widehat{\operatorname{Aut}}_{C_p \times \mathbb Z}(k)$. One way is to construct a complete resolution by tensoring a complete resolution for $C_p$ with a projective resolution for $\mathbb Z$. Alternatively, use the spectral sequence $H^p(G/H;\widehat{H}^q(H;k)) \Rightarrow \widehat{H}^{p+q}(G;k)$ for $G$ of finite $\operatorname{vcd}_k$ and $H$ a normal subgroup such that $G/H$ is of finite $\operatorname{cd}_k$ [@brown].
Groups Acting on Trees
======================
A group that acts on a tree is of type $\Phi$ if all the stabilizers are of type $\Phi$ and there is a bound on their finitistic dimensions, by Exercise 3 of Section 2. We will assume that this is the case. For more information about groups acting on trees, see [@serre].
We will consider two basic examples, amalgamated free products and HNN extensions and will leave it to the reader to formulate the general result. We will obtain an exact sequence that allows us to calculate $T(G)$ for these groups. It is similar to part of the one used to calculate cohomology [@brown].
\[thm:amal\] For an amalgamated free product $G=A * _C B$ there is an exact sequence $$\begin{tikzcd}[column sep=large] \widehat{\operatorname{Aut}}_G(k) \ar[r, "\operatorname{res}^G_A \times \operatorname{res}^G_B"] & \widehat{\operatorname{Aut}}_A(k) \times \widehat{\operatorname{Aut}}_B(k) \ar[r, "\operatorname{res}^A_C-\operatorname{res}^B_C"] \ar[draw=none]{d}[name=X, anchor=center]{} & \widehat{\operatorname{Aut}}_C(k) \ar[rounded corners,
to path={ -- ([xshift=2ex]\tikztostart.east)
|- (X.center) \tikztonodes
-| ([xshift=-2ex]\tikztotarget.west)
-- (\tikztotarget)} ]{dll}[at end]{\delta}\\
T(G) \ar[r, "\operatorname{res}^G_A \times \operatorname{res}^G_B"] & T(A) \times T(B) \ar[r, "\operatorname{res}^A_C-\operatorname{res}^B_C"] & T(C). \end{tikzcd}$$
We will outline two approaches. One involves a natural representation-theoretic construction, but it is tricky to justify every step in the proofs of its properties. The other is more category-theoretic, but the proofs are formalities.
For the first, assume that we are given a $kA$-module $M$ and a $kB$-module $N$ and an isomorphism of the restrictions $M \! \downarrow_C \simeq N \! \downarrow _C$ (stable isomorphism). Then we can find representatives of the stable isomorphism classes such that $M \! \downarrow_C \cong N \! \downarrow _D$ (genuine isomorphism) (Exercise 1). Let $\phi : M \! \downarrow_C \rightarrow N \! \downarrow _D$ be such an isomorphism.
Define a $kG$-module $C(M,N;\phi)$ to be $M$ as a vector space and with $G$ action $*$ given by $$a*m=am, \quad b*m = \phi^{-1}(b \phi (m)), \quad \quad \mbox{for } a \in A, b \in B, m \in M.$$ These agree on $C$ and so do define a $kG$-module. It is convenient to denote $M$ with this twisted action of $B$ by $\phi^*N$; there is a $kB$-isomorphism
\^\*N & N
.
Note that $C(M,N;\phi) \! \downarrow _A =M$ and $C(M,N;\phi)\! \downarrow _B = \phi^*N \cong N$. Thus, if $M$ and $N$ are endotrivial then so is $C(M,N;\phi)$; this is because, by Proposition \[prop:subend\], we only have to check the restrictions to finite $p$-subgroups and any finite subgroup of $G$ is known to be conjugate to a subgroup of $A$ or $B$. This proves exactness at $T(A) \times T(B)$.
The map $\delta : \widehat{\operatorname{Aut}}_C(k) \rightarrow T(G)$ is defined by $\delta (\phi ) = C(k,k; \phi)$. It is not obvious that this is well defined, i.e. that it depends only on the stable class of $\phi$, so let us assume this for the moment. That $\delta$ is a homomorphism follows from the description of the product in $\widehat{\operatorname{Aut}}_G(k)$ in terms of tensor product.
If $M$ is a $kG$-module and there are stable isomorphisms
M \_A & k
and
M \_B & k,
then restricting to $C$ and combining with $M \! \downarrow _A \! \downarrow _C = M \! \downarrow_B \! \downarrow _C$ yields a map $\phi = \theta_B \! \downarrow_C \theta _A^{-1} \! \downarrow _C \in \widehat{\operatorname{Aut}}(k)$. The $kA$-isomorphism
M & C(k,k;)
is also a $kB$-isomorphism, by construction; this proves exactness at $T(G)$. Similarly, if we have a stable isomorphism
C(k,k;) & k
, then $\phi = ( \tilde{ \phi } ( \theta ^{-1}\! \downarrow _B))\! \downarrow _C \circ (\theta \! \downarrow _A ) \! \downarrow _C $, which proves exactness at $\widehat{\operatorname{Aut}}_C(k)$.
A more category-theoretic approach is to define a module $D(M,N;\phi)$, depending on the same data as before, as follows. The diagram $$\begin{tikzcd} M \! \downarrow _C \! \uparrow ^G \ar[r] \ar[d, "\phi \! \uparrow^G"] & M \! \uparrow^G \\
N \! \downarrow _C \! \uparrow ^G \ar[r] & N \! \uparrow^G \end{tikzcd}$$ leads to a map $$\begin{tikzcd}[row sep=small] M \! \downarrow _C \! \uparrow ^G \ar[r] & M \! \uparrow^G \oplus N \! \uparrow ^G \\
g \otimes m \ar[r, mapsto] & (g \otimes m, g \otimes \phi (m) ). \end{tikzcd}$$ Let $D(M,N ; \phi )$ be the cone; it only depends on stable data.
It is a standard fact that $G$ can act on a tree with two orbits of vertices, stabilizers conjugate to $A$ and $B$, and one orbit of edges, stabilizers conjugate to $C$. The corresponding augmented chain complex is a short exact sequence $$\begin{tikzcd} k \! \uparrow ^G_C \ar[r] & k \! \uparrow ^G_A \oplus k \! \uparrow ^G_B \ar[r] & k. \end{tikzcd}$$ Taking the tensor product with $C(M,N; \phi )$, we obtain a short exact sequence $$\begin{tikzcd}[row sep=small] M \! \downarrow _C \! \uparrow ^G \ar[r] & M \! \uparrow ^G \oplus \phi ^*N \! \uparrow ^G \ar[r] & C(M,N; \phi ), \\
g \otimes m \ar[r, mapsto] & (g \otimes m, g \otimes m) & {}
\end{tikzcd}$$ so $C(M,N, \phi ) \simeq D(M,N; \phi)$.
It is possible to work only with $D(M,N; \phi)$, using the geometry of the action on the tree.
There is a similar sequence for an HNN extension $G = H * _{(f,A)}$. This notation means that there is a subgroup $ A \leq H$ and an injective homomorphism $f : A \hookrightarrow H$ and $G = \operatorname{Grp}\langle H,t \mid tat^{-1} = f(a) \rangle $.
\[thm:hnn\] For an HNN extension $G= H * _{(f,A)}$ there is an exact sequence $$\begin{tikzcd}[column sep=huge] \widehat{\operatorname{Aut}}_G(k) \ar[r, "\operatorname{res}^G_H"] & \widehat{\operatorname{Aut}}_H(k) \ar[r, "\operatorname{res}^H_A-f^*\operatorname{res}^H_{f(A)}"] \ar[draw=none]{d}[name=X, anchor=center]{} & \widehat{\operatorname{Aut}}_A(k) \ar[rounded corners,
to path={ -- ([xshift=2ex]\tikztostart.east)
|- (X.center) \tikztonodes
-| ([xshift=-2ex]\tikztotarget.west)
-- (\tikztotarget)} ]{dll}[at end]{\delta}\\
T(G) \ar[r, "\operatorname{res}^G_H"] & T(H) \ar[r, "\operatorname{res}^H_A-f^*\operatorname{res}^H_{f(A)}"] & T(A). \end{tikzcd}$$
As before, we sketch two approaches. For the first, we need to know that, given a $kH$-module $M$ and a stable isomorphism
M \_A & f\^\*M \_[f(A)]{}
(i.e. $\theta(am)=f(a)\theta (m)$), we can arrange representatives of the stable classes such that $\theta$ is a genuine isomorphism of modules.
Define $E(M; \theta )$ to be $M$ as a vector space and with $G$ action $*$ given by $$h*m=hm, \quad t*m = \theta (m), \quad \quad \mbox{for } h \in H, m \in M.$$ It is easy to check that $(tat^{-1})* m = \theta(a \theta ^{-1} (m)) = f(a) \theta \theta^{-1}(m)=f(a)m$. Any finite subgroup of $G$ is conjugate to a subgroup of $H$ and $ E(M, \theta ) \! \downarrow _H \cong M $, so if $M$ is endotrivial, then so is $E(M;\theta)$, by Proposition \[prop:subend\]. The map $\delta : \widehat{\operatorname{Aut}}_C(k) \rightarrow T(G)$ is defined by $\delta (\theta ) = E(k; \theta)$.
For the category-theoretic approach, define a module $F(M;\theta)$, as follows. The diagram $$\begin{tikzcd}[column sep=small] g \otimes m \ar[d, mapsto] & M \! \downarrow _A \! \uparrow ^G \ar[rr] \ar[d] && M \! \uparrow^G \\
gt^{-1} \otimes \theta (m) & M \! \downarrow _{f(A)} \! \uparrow ^G \ar[rr] && M \! \uparrow^G \end{tikzcd}$$ leads to a map $$\begin{tikzcd}[row sep=small] M \! \downarrow _A \! \uparrow ^G \ar[r] & M \! \uparrow^G \\
g \otimes m \ar[r, mapsto] & g \otimes m - gt^{-1} \otimes \theta (m) ). \end{tikzcd}$$ Let $F(M; \theta )$ be the cone; it only depends on stable data. The rest of the proof is similar to the previous case and is left to the reader.
If $C$ is finite in Theorem \[thm:amal\] then the map $\delta$ is zero. If $H$ is finite in Theorem \[thm:hnn\] then the map $\delta$ is injective.
If $C$ is finite then $\widehat{\operatorname{Aut}}_C(k) \cong k^{\times}$ and similarly for $H$. In other words, the only automorphisms are multiplication by a scalar. Clearly the map preceding $\delta$ in Theorem \[thm:amal\] is surjective, as is $\operatorname{res}^G_H$ in Theorem \[thm:hnn\].
1. In the context of Theorem \[thm:amal\], show that it is possible to find representatives for $M$, $N$ and $\phi$ such that $\phi$ is a module isomorphism. First choose $M$ and $N$ Gorenstein projective so, by Exercise 2 of Section 3 or directly, there exist projective $kC$-modules $P$ and $Q$ such that $\phi$ can be realized as an isomorphism $M \! \downarrow _C \oplus P \rightarrow N \! \downarrow _C \oplus Q$. The snag is that $P$ might not be the restriction of a projective $kA$-module. Let $F$ be a free $kG$-module of sufficiently high rank that $F \! \downarrow _C \oplus P \cong F \! \downarrow _C \cong F \! \downarrow _C \oplus Q$, by the Eilenberg trick; add the appropriate restrictions of $F$ to $M$ and $N$.
2. Calculate $T(\operatorname{Sl}_2(\mathbb Z))$ at different primes ($\operatorname{Sl}_2(\mathbb Z) \cong C_6 *_{C_2}C_4$).
3. Calculate $T(C_{p^2}*_{C_p}C_{p^2})$.
4. There is an obvious surjection $C_4*_{C_2}C_4 \rightarrow Q_8$. Calculate the inflation map $T(Q_8) \rightarrow T(C_4*_{C_2}C_4)$.
5. Calculate $T(C_p * \mathbb Z)$ and $T(C_p \times \mathbb Z)$ (the latter group is an HNN extension). What happens to the 1-dimensional representations of $\mathbb Z$? Are the groups finitely generated?
6. Calculate $T(C_p \times \mathbb Z \times \mathbb Z)$. Can you identify explicit modules that generate?
7. Calculate $T(C_{p^\infty})$ ($C_{p^\infty}$ is the $p$-torsion subgroup of $\mathbb Q / \mathbb Z$; it acts on a tree with finite stabilizers [@ikenaga]).
[99]{}
A. Beligiannis, *The homological theory of contravariantly finite subcategories: Auslander-Buchweitz contexts, Gorenstein categories and (co-)stabilization*, Comm. Algebra 28 (2000), 4547–4596.
D.J. Benson, *Representations and Cohomology II*, Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics **30** (1991), Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge.
K.S. Brown, Cohomology of Groups. Graduate Texts in Mathematics, 87. Springer-Verlag, New York-Berlin, 1982.
R.-O. Buchweitz, *Maximal Cohen-Macaulay modules and Tate-cohomology over Gorenstein rings*, Univ. Hannover, 1986, available at `http://hdl.handle.net/1807/16682`.
J. Cornick, I.J. Leary, *Some remarks concerning degree zero complete cohomology*, Une dégustation topologique : homotopy theory in the Swiss Alps (Arolla, 1999), 21–25, Contemp. Math., 265, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2000.
I. Emmanouil, *On certain cohomological invariants of groups*, Adv. Math. 225 (2010), 3446–3462.
D. Happel, *Triangulated Categories in the Representation Theory of Finite-Dimensional Algebras*, London Math. Soc. Lecture Note Series, 119. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1988.
T.V. Gedrich, K.W. Gruenberg, *Complete cohomological functors on groups*, Topology Appl. 25 (1987), 203–223.
B.M. Ikenaga, *Homological dimension and Farrell cohomology*, J. Algebra 87 (1984), 422–457.
J.P. Serre, Trees, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2003.
R.G. Swan *Groups of cohomological dimension one*, J. Algebra 12 (1969) 585–610.
J. Thévenaz, *Endo-permutation modules, a guided tour*, Group representation theory, 115–147, EPFL Press, Lausanne, 2007.
T. tom Dieck, Transformation Groups, de Gruyter, Berlin, 1987.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'This paper deals with asymptotic stability of a class of dynamical systems in terms of smooth Lyapunov pairs. We point out that well known converse Lyapunov results for differential inclusions cannot be applied to this class of dynamical systems. Following an abstract approach we put an assumption on the trajectories of the dynamical systems which demands for any trajectory the existence of a neighboring trajectory such that their difference grows linearly in time and distance of the starting points. Under this assumption, we prove the existence of a $C^\infty$-smooth Lyapunov pair. We also show that this assumption is satisfied by differential inclusions defined by Lipschitz continuous set-valued maps taking nonempty, compact and convex values.'
author:
- 'Michael Schönlein[^1]'
title: Asymptotic Stability and Smooth Lyapunov Functions for a Class of Abstract Dynamical Systems
---
[*Keywords:*]{} abstract dynamical systems, asymptotic stability, converse Lyapunov theorem, smooth Lyapunov pair
Introduction
============
Inspired by the work of Lyapunov starting in the 1950s a lot of effort has been spent on the stability analysis of dynamical systems in terms of Lyapunov functions. Beginning with ordinary differential equations defined by a continuous function, the results have been extended to differential inclusions $$\begin{aligned}
\label{DI}
\dot x(t) \in F(x(t)), \qquad x(t) \in {\mathbb{R}}^n,\,t\geq 0 ,\, x(0)=x_0 \in {\mathbb{R}}^n,\end{aligned}$$ where $F\colon {\mathbb{R}}^n \rightsquigarrow {\mathbb{R}}^n$ is a set-valued map satisfying $0 \in F(0)$. A comprehensive exploration of the connection between stability of differential equations and differential inclusions and Lyapunov functions can be found in [@bacciotti]. For general references to set-valued maps and differential inclusions the interested reader is referred to [@aubin-frankowska] and [@aubin-cellina; @smirnov], respectively.
A solution to is an absolutely continuous function $x: {\mathbb{R}}_+ \to {\mathbb{R}}^n$ with $x(0)=x_0$ such that is satisfied almost everywhere. Following [@clarke98 Proposition 2.2] the equilibrium $x=0$ of differential inclusion is called *strongly asymptotically stable* if each solution can be extended to $[0,\infty)$, for any ${\varepsilon}>0$ there is a $\delta>0$ such that any solution $x(\cdot)$ with $\|x(0)\|<\delta$ satisfies $\|x(t)\| < {\varepsilon}$ for all $t\geq 0$, and for each individual solution $x(\cdot)$, one has $\lim_{t\to \infty} x(t)=0$.
The analysis of robust stability has been an active field in the dynamical systems literature. In the wake of this, the investigation of converse Lyapunov theorems and, in particular, the construction of smooth Lyapunov functions is of vital interest, cf. [@clarke98; @siconolfi2012; @teel2000smooth].
Clarke, Ledyaev and Stern [@clarke98] (see also [@teel2000smooth]) have shown that, provided $F(x)$ is nonempty, compact and convex for every $x \in {\mathbb{R}}^n$ and the set-valued map $F$ is upper semicontinuous, i.e. for any $x \in {\mathbb{R}}^n$ and any ${\varepsilon}>0$ there is a $\delta>0$ such that $F(y)\subset F(x) + {\varepsilon}B(0,1)$ for all $y \in x + \delta B(0,1)$, where $B(0,1)$ denotes the unit open ball in ${\mathbb{R}}^n$, the differential inclusion is strongly asymptotically stable if and only if there is a $C^\infty$-smooth and positive definite pair of functions $(V,W)$ such that $V$ is proper and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ineq:V-decrease}
\max_{v \in F(x)} \langle \nabla V(x), v \rangle \leq - W(x)\qquad \text{ for all }\, x \in {\mathbb{R}}^n\setminus \{0\}.\end{aligned}$$ A different proof of this converse Lyapunov theorem following a metric approach using weak KAM theory has been obtained by Siconolfi and Terrone, cf. [@siconolfi2012]. Related results for retarded functional equations and difference inclusions can be found in [@karafyllis06] and [@kelletteel04], respectively.
Originating from stochastic systems, such as multiclass queueing networks and semimartingale reflected Brownian motions [@dai; @DP94], there is a class of dynamical systems that does not immediately fall into framework mentioned above. More specifically, the analysis of recurrence behavior of the stochastic processes corresponding to multiclass queueing networks or semimartingale reflected Brownian motions, based on the remarkable insights of [@dai; @DP94; @rybkostolyar], can be reduced to the stability analysis of a related deterministic system, called fluid network and linear Skorokhod problem, respectively. Both models are obtained by taking limits of scaled versions of the stochastic processes. In [@DP94; @questa-2012] it is outlined that a wide class of linear Skorokhod problems and fluid networks can be defined by differential inclusions in a natural way. An essential part in [@DP94] is to describe the linear Skorokhod problem in terms of a differential inclusion and construct a $C^1$-Lyapunov function. The paper by Dupius and Williams [@DP94] was published a few years before the above mentioned paper on smooth Lyapunov functions by Clarke, Ledyaev and Stern [@clarke98].
The differential inclusions considered in [@clarke98] and [@DP94] are both defined by an upper semicontinuous set-valued map $F$ with nonempty, compact and convex values. The techniques used to construct a smooth Lyapunov function have in common that the set-valued map $F$ is embedded into a local Lipschitz set-valued map $F_L$, which keeps the property of asymptotic stability. Whereas the procedure in [@DP94] uses explicitly the properties of the set-valued map describing the evolution of the linear Skorokhod problem, the embedding technique in [@clarke98] is applicable to any upper semicontinuous set-valued map taking nonempty, compact and convex values. The essential feature of the set-valued map $F_L$ being local Lipschitz continuous is that it provides a Lyapunov function which is locally Lipschitz continuous and this property can be carried over to conclude a locally Lipschitz continuous Lyapunov function for the original differential inclusion. Moreover, the local Lipschitz continuity of the set-valued map $F_L$ facilitates to establish that the convolution of the local Lipschitz continuous Lyapunov function and a $C^\infty$-smooth mollifier satisfies locally the decrease condition . The construction is completed by using a locally finite open covering of ${\mathbb{R}}^n$ and a smooth partition of unity subordinate to it.
We show that, in general the set-valued map defining the differential inclusion describing the evolution of a fluid network is not upper-semicontinuous. Thus, although the the zero solution may be strongly asymptotically stable the existence of a $C^\infty$-smooth Lyapunov pair cannot be concluded by the results on differential inclusions mentioned above. In this paper we follow an abstract point of view, starting with Zubov [@zubov1964], understanding dynamical systems as abstract mathematical objects with certain properties. This has been further explored by Hale, Infante, Slemrod and Walker, cf. [@hale69; @haleinfante67; @slemrod70; @walker78]. In the literature there are several terms used, for instance, generalized dynamical system, $C^0$-semigroup, (semi)flow, process or abstract dynamical system, cf. [@walker1980] and the references therein. The class of abstract dynamical systems considered in this paper is defined by the characteristic properties of fluid networks. The trajectories of fluid networks evolve in the positive orthant. In order to get a $C^\infty$-smooth Lyapunov function on the positive orthant we use an extension of a Lyapunov function candidate to ${\mathbb{R}}^n$ by taking absolute values component-by-component. As this defines a continuous map the extended Lyapunov function is continuous as well. We note that, as the solutions to linear Skorokhod problems also stay within the positive orthant, Dupuis and Williams [@DP94] solved the boundary problem by shifting the orthant by some positive constant. Further, we note that the class of abstract dynamical systems under consideration may in general not be defined by a differential inclusion. As a consequence the constructions of a local Lipschitz continuous Lyapunov function in [@clarke98; @DP94; @siconolfi2012], which are based on the right-hand side of the differential inclusion, are not applicable in the present setting. It turns out that the essential ingredient to obtain a local Lipschitz continuous Lyapunov function is an estimate on the evolution of the difference of trajectories. For this reason, we have to make an assumption on the trajectories of the abstract dynamical system (see assumption (A) in Theorem \[thm:smooth-conv-lyap\]). Considering the assumption from the differential inclusions perspective we show that it is automatically satisfied for every differential inclusion with Lipschitz continuous right-hand side.
The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 we state relevant notation and terminology that is used throughout the paper. Section 3 introduces the class of abstract dynamical systems that is considered and the main result is presented. In Section 4 we outline that the class of abstract dynamical systems is motivated by the analysis of fluid networks. We also show that the classical results on smooth Lyapunov functions do not apply to the class of abstract dynamical systems discussed in this paper. In Section 5 we examine the relation of the assumption posed on the trajectories in the light of differential inclusions. Finally, Section 6 is devoted to the proof of the main result.
Notation and terminology
========================
A function $f \colon {\mathbb{R}}^n \to {\mathbb{R}}$ is called *proper* if the sublevel sets $\{ x \in {\mathbb{R}}^n | f(x) \leq c\}$ are bounded for all $c>0$. For $r>0$ and $x\in {\mathbb{R}}^n$ let $B(x,r):=\{ y \in {\mathbb{R}}^n | \|x-y\| \leq r\}$. A function $k \in C^{\infty}({\mathbb{R}}^n,{\mathbb{R}}_+)$ is called a *mollifier* if $\mbox{supp } k=B(0,1)$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n} k(x)\,{\operatorname{d}\!x} =1.\end{aligned}$$ Furthermore, the support of a mollifier can be scaled in the following way. For $r>0$ consider $ k_{r}(x):= \tfrac{1}{r^{n}}\, k(r^{-1}x)$. Then, it follows $k_{r} \in C^{\infty}({\mathbb{R}}^n,{\mathbb{R}}_+)$, $\text{ supp } k_{r}=B(0,r)$, and $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n} k_{r}(x) \,{\operatorname{d}\!x}=1.\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, to consider the convolution of a function $f \in C({\mathbb{R}}^n,{\mathbb{R}})$ and a mollifier $k_{r}$, let $U$ be an open subset of ${\mathbb{R}}^n$ and $U_{r} = \{ x \in U\, |\, d(x,\partial U) >r\}$. Then, the *convolution*, denoted by $f_r: U_r \rightarrow {\mathbb{R}}$, is defined by $$x \mapsto f_{r}(x) := f \ast k_{r} \, (x) = \int_{B(0,r)} f(x-y)\, k_{r}(y)\, {\operatorname{d}\!y}.$$ By standard convolution results it follows $f_{r} \in C^{\infty}(U_{r},{\mathbb{R}}_+)$, see for instance [@evans-pde Theorem 6 Appendix C.4]. Furthermore, if $f$ is continuous in $U$, it holds $f_r \rightarrow f$ uniformly on compact subsets (u.o.c.) of $U$ as $r\rightarrow 0$. The *Dini subderivative* of a function $f:U \rightarrow {\mathbb{R}}$ at $x \in U$ in the direction $v\in {\mathbb{R}}^n$ is defined by $$\begin{aligned}
Df(x;v):= \liminf_{{\varepsilon}\rightarrow 0, v'\rightarrow v} \frac{f(x+{\varepsilon}v')-f(x)}{{\varepsilon}}.\end{aligned}$$ Let $T(x,{\mathbb{R}}_+^n)$ denote the *contingent cone* to ${\mathbb{R}}^n_+$ at $x$ defined by $$\begin{aligned}
T\big(x,{\mathbb{R}}_+^n\big)= \left\{ \, v\in {\mathbb{R}}^n \,| \, \liminf_{\varepsilon \to 0} \; \frac{ d(x+\varepsilon v, {\mathbb{R}}_+^n) }{{\varepsilon}} \, =0\right\},\end{aligned}$$ with $d(x,K) = \inf\{ \|x-y\|\, | y \in K \}$.
Statement of the main result
============================
We start this section by recalling an abstract definition of a dynamical system from [@walker1980]. A *dynamical system* defined on a metric space $X$ is a continuous mapping $u\colon {\mathbb{R}}_+ \times X \to X$ such that $u(0,x)=x$ and $$u(t,u(s,x))=u(t+s,x) \quad \text{ for all } t,s \in {\mathbb{R}}_+,\,x \in X.$$ Recall that $x_* \in X$ is an equilibrium if $u(t,x_*)= x_*$ for all $t\geq 0$ and $x_*$ is said to be *stable* if for every ${\varepsilon}>0$ there is a $\delta >0$ such that $d(x,x_*) < \delta$ implies that $ d\left(u(t,x),u(t,x_*) \right)< {\varepsilon}$ for all $t \geq0$. If in addition, there is a $M>0$ so that $d(x,x_*)< M$ implies that $\lim_{t \to \infty} d\left(u(t,x),u(t,x_*) \right) =0$, then ${\varphi}_*$ is called *asymptotically stable*.
Here we consider the metric space ${\mathcal{P}}\subset C({\mathbb{R}}_+,{\mathbb{R}}_+^n)$ defined by the following properties:
1. There is a $L>0$ such that $$\|\varphi(t)-\varphi(s)\| \leq L \, |t-s| \qquad \text{ for all } {\varphi}\in {\mathcal{P}}, \, t,s \in {\mathbb{R}}_+.$$
2. Scaling invariance: $\tfrac{1}{r}\,\varphi(r\,\cdot) \in {\mathcal{P}}$ for all $\varphi \in {\mathcal{P}},r>0$.
3. Shift invariance: $\varphi(\cdot+t) \in {\mathcal{P}}$ for all $\varphi \in {\mathcal{P}},t\geq0$.
4. If a sequence $(\varphi_n)_{n \in {\mathbb{N}}}$ in ${\mathcal{P}}$ converges to $\varphi_*$ uniformly on compact sets, then $\varphi_* \in {\mathcal{P}}$.
5. Concatenation property: For all $\varphi_1,\varphi_2 \in {\mathcal{P}}$ with $\varphi_1(t^*)=\varphi_2(0)$ for some $t^* \geq 0$ it holds $\varphi_1\diamond_{t^*}\varphi_2 \in {\mathcal{P}}$, where $$\varphi_1\diamond_{t^*}\varphi_2(t):=
\begin{cases}
\varphi_1(t) &\quad t \leq t^*, \\
\varphi_2(t-t^*) &\quad t \geq t^*.
\end{cases}$$
6. There is a $T>0$ such that the set-valued map $ P: {\mathbb{R}}^n_+ \rightsquigarrow {\mathcal{P}}$ defined by $$P(x)= \{ \varphi:[0,T] \to {\mathbb{R}}^n_+ \, | \, \varphi \in {\mathcal{P}}, \, \varphi(0)=x \}$$ is lower semicontinuous, i.e. for any ${\varphi}\in P(x)$ and for any sequence of elements $(x_n)_{n \in {\mathbb{N}}} \in {\mathbb{R}}_+^n$ converging to $x$, there exists a sequence $({\varphi}_n)_{n \in {\mathbb{N}}}$ with ${\varphi}_n \in P(x_n)$ converging to ${\varphi}$ uniformly on compact sets.
By condition (a) the functions ${\varphi}\in {\mathcal{P}}$ are Lipschitz continuous with respect to a global Lipschitz constant. Condition (c) is in one-to-one correspondence to time-invariance of differential equations/inclusions. Condition (d) expresses that the set ${\mathcal{P}}$ is closed in the topology of uniform convergence on compact sets. The concatenation property (e) and condition (f) imply that for $x\in {\mathbb{R}}^n_+$ the set of functions in ${\mathcal{P}}$ starting in $x$ depend lower semicontinuously on $x$, cf. [@questa-2012].
In order to define the class of dynamical systems which will be considered in this paper, we equip the set ${\mathcal{P}}$ with the metric $$\begin{aligned}
d(\varphi_1,\varphi_2) := \max_{N \in {\mathbb{N}}} \, 2^{-N}\frac{\|{\varphi}_1 - {\varphi}_2\|_N}{1 +\|{\varphi}_1-{\varphi}_2\|_N}, \end{aligned}$$ where $\| {\varphi}\|_N:= \sup_{t \in [0,N]} \|{\varphi}(t)\|$ so that convergence of functions is equivalent to uniform convergence of the corresponding restrictions on each compact subset of ${\mathbb{R}}_+$, cf. [@rudin1991functional]. Furthermore, we define the shift operator $$\begin{aligned}
S(t) \colon C({\mathbb{R}}_+,{\mathbb{R}}_+^n) \to C({\mathbb{R}}_+, {\mathbb{R}}_+^n), \quad S(t) \varphi(\cdot) = \varphi(\cdot +t).\end{aligned}$$ In this paper, we consider the dynamical system on the metric space ${\mathcal{P}}\subset C({\mathbb{R}}_+,{\mathbb{R}}^n_+)$ defined by the mapping $$\begin{aligned}
u \colon {\mathbb{R}}_+ \times {\mathcal{P}}\to {\mathcal{P}}, \qquad u(t,{\varphi})=S(t) \varphi(\cdot)={\varphi}(\cdot + t).\end{aligned}$$
Throughout the paper we call a function ${\varphi}\in {\mathcal{P}}$ a *trajectory* of ${\mathcal{P}}$. The zero trajectory $\varphi_*\equiv 0$ is the unique fixed point of the shift operator $S(t)$ defined on ${\mathcal{P}}$ and thus, $\varphi_*\equiv 0$ is the only equilibrium of the dynamical system. The scope of this paper is to characterize asymptotic stability of the dynamical system $u$ defined on ${\mathcal{P}}$ in terms of the existence of a smooth Lyapunov function.
A pair $(V,W)$ of positive definite functions on ${\mathbb{R}}_+^n$ is called a *Lyapunov pair* for the dynamical system $u$ defined on ${\mathcal{P}}$ if $V \colon {\mathbb{R}}_+^n \rightarrow {\mathbb{R}}_+$ is proper and for any ${\varphi}\in {\mathcal{P}}$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{fLF2}
V(\varphi(t)) - V(\varphi(s)) &\leq - \int_{s}^{t} \,W(\varphi(r))\,{\operatorname{d}\!r} \qquad \text{ for all }0\leq s \leq t \in {\mathbb{R}}_+.\end{aligned}$$ The pair $(V,W)$ is called a *$C^\infty$-smooth Lyapunov pair* if the functions $V$ and $W$ are $C^\infty$-smooth. To formulate the decrease condition in a differential form let $$\begin{aligned}
\label{V-smooth-decrease}
\dot V({\varphi}(t)) := \lim_{h\rightarrow 0} \frac{V({\varphi}(t+h)) - V({\varphi}(t))}{h}.\end{aligned}$$ The main result of the paper is the following.
\[thm:smooth-conv-lyap\] Suppose the dynamical system $u$ defined on ${\mathcal{P}}$ satisfies:
- For any $\varphi \in {\mathcal{P}}$, ${\varepsilon}>0$, and $T>0$ there is a continuous function $c\colon [0,T] \to {\mathbb{R}}_+$ such that $\lim_{t \to 0} \tfrac{c(t)}{t}$ exists and is positive and for any $y \in {\mathbb{R}}^n$ with ${\varphi}(0)-y \in B({\varphi}(0),{\varepsilon}) \cap {\mathbb{R}}_+^n$ there is a trajectory $\psi \in {\mathcal{P}}$ with $\psi(0)=\varphi(0)-y$ satisfying $$\begin{aligned}
\| \,\varphi(t) - y - \psi(t)\, \| &\leq \|y\|\, c(t) \qquad \text{ for all } \, \, t \in [0,T]. \end{aligned}$$
Then, the dynamical system $u$ defined on ${\mathcal{P}}$ is asymptotically stable if and only if there is a $C^{\infty}$-smooth Lyapunov pair $(V,W)$ such that for every $\varphi \in {\mathcal{P}}$ it holds $$\begin{aligned}
\label{DC}
\dot V(\varphi(t)) \leq - W(\varphi(t)) \qquad \text{ for all }\, t \geq 0.\end{aligned}$$
We note that estimates similar to (A) for trajectories of differential inclusions with state constraints were derived by Bressan, Facchi, Bettiol, Vinter and Rampazzo, cf. [@bressan2011] and the references therein.
Motivation and application of the main result
=============================================
For the purpose of this paper we give a very brief introduction to fluid networks. For a comprehensive description of multiclass queueing networks and fluid networks we refer to [@bramsonLN; @chen; @dai]. A fluid networks consists of $J\in {\mathbb{N}}$ stations serving $n\in {\mathbb{N}}$ different types of fluids with $J \leq n$ and each fluid type is served exclusively at a predefined station. This assignment defines the constituency matrix $ C\in {\mathbb{R}}^{J \times K}$ with $c_{jk} := 1$ if fluid type $k \in \{1,...,n\}$ is served at station $j\in\{1,...,J\}$ and $c_{jk}=0$ otherwise. The exogenous inflow rate of fluid type $k$ is denoted by $\alpha_k$ and $\alpha=(\alpha_1,...,\alpha_n)^{\mathsf{T}}\in {\mathbb{R}}_+^n:=\{ x \in {\mathbb{R}}^n : x_i\geq 0, \, i =1,...,n\}$ is called the exogenous inflow rate. Likewise, $\mu_k \in {\mathbb{R}}_+$ denotes the potential outflow rate of type $k$ fluids and $\mu=(\mu_1,...,\mu_n)^{\mathsf{T}}\in {\mathbb{R}}_+^n$. The substochastic matrix $P \in [0,1]^{n \times n}$ describes the transitions in the network, where it is assumed that the spectral radius of the matrix $P$ is strictly less than one, i.e. $1> \max\{|\lambda| \,|\, \exists\, x\neq 0 \,:\, Px=\lambda x\}$. The initial fluid level and the fluid level at time $t$ of the network are denoted by $x(0)$ and $x(t)$, respectively. We note that, as $x(t)$ described the deterministic analog of the queue length of the multiclass queueing network, the fluid level process $x(\cdot)$ evolves only in the positive orthant ${\mathbb{R}}_+^n$.
The discipline, for instance First-In-First-Out (FIFO), determines the rule under which the individual stations of the fluid network are serving the different fluid types. More formally, the discipline specifies the allocation rate, denoted by $u =(u_1,...,u_n)^{\mathsf{T}}\in {\mathbb{R}}_+^n$, where $u_k$ denotes the current amount of time that a predefined station allocates to serve fluids of type $k$. For the class of general work-conserving fluid networks, given $x \in {\mathbb{R}}_+^n$, the set of admissible allocation rates is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{U1}
U(x)= \big\{ u \in {\mathbb{R}}^n \,\big| \, u \geq 0 ,\quad
e-Cu\geq0,\quad
(Cx)^{\mathsf{T}}\cdot(e-Cu) = 0\big\},\end{aligned}$$ where $e=(1,...,1)^{\mathsf{T}}\in {\mathbb{R}}^J$ and the inequalities have to be understood component-by-component. The evolution of the fluid network can then be described by the following differential inclusion $$\begin{aligned}
\label{D1}
\dot x & \in G\big(x\big) :=\Big\{ \alpha -(I-P^{\mathsf{T}}) M u \,\big|\, u \in U(x) \Big\} \, \cap \, T\big(x,{\mathbb{R}}^n_+\big),\end{aligned}$$ where $M=\mbox{diag}(\mu)$ and $T(x,{\mathbb{R}}_+^n)$ denotes the contingent cone to ${\mathbb{R}}^n_+$ at $x$. The intersection with the contingent cone to the positive orthant is to ensure the nonnegativity of the solutions. Tackling a simple example we show
\[lem:counter-ex\] The set-valued map $G$ defined in is not upper semicontinuous in general.
To show the claim we consider a single station fluid network serving one type of fluid. That is, for $\alpha >0$, $\mu=\alpha +1$, and $P=0$ the differential inclusion is defined by set-valued map $$\label{def:F-example}
\begin{split}
G(x) &=\left\{
\alpha - (\alpha +1) \, u
\quad \big| \quad
0\leq u \leq 1, \quad x(1-u)= 0
\right\} \cap T(x,{\mathbb{R}}_+) \\
&=\left\{
\alpha - (\alpha +1) \, u
\quad \big| \quad
0\leq u \leq 1, u = 1 \text{ if } x>0 \text { and } u= \tfrac{\alpha}{\alpha + \delta} \text{ else }
\right\} .
\end{split}$$ To conclude that $G$ is not upper semicontinuous let $x=0$ and consider the sequence $(x_k)_{k\in \mathbb{N}}$ with $x_k= \tfrac{1}{k}$. Then, for each $k \in {\mathbb{N}}$ we have $G(x_k)= -1$. Let $\operatorname{graph}(G) :=\{ \, (x,y) \in \mathbb{R}^n_+ \times {\mathbb{R}}^n \,\big|\, y \in G(x) \, \}$ denote the graph of $G$ and consider the sequence $\big(x_k,-1\big)_{k \in {\mathbb{N}}}$ on the graph of $G$ which converges to $\big(0,-1\big) \not \in \operatorname{graph}(G)$. Hence, the graph is not closed and by Proposition 2 in [@aubin-cellina Section 1.1] the set-valued map $G$ is not upper semicontinuous.
We note that the differential inclusion defined by is strongly asymptotically stable. However, as a consequence of Lemma \[lem:counter-ex\], the existence of a $C^\infty$-smooth Lyapunov pair cannot be concluded by the results on differential inclusions mentioned above.
We use the main result Theorem \[thm:smooth-conv-lyap\] to conclude that the differential inclusion admits a $C^\infty$-smooth Lyapunov pair. It is well known that a single station general work-conserving fluid network serving only one fluid type satisfies the properties (a)-(f); cf. [@chen; @questa-2012; @stolyar95]. To conclude the existence of a $C^\infty$-smooth Lyapunov function we will apply the main result of the paper by interpreting the zero solution ${\varphi}_*\equiv 0$ of the differential inclusion as the fixed point of the shift operator defined on the set of solutions to .
\[lem:ex-hypo-yes\] The differential inclusion admits a $C^\infty$-smooth Lyapunov pair, i.e. there is a $C^\infty$-smooth and positive definite pair $(V,W)$ such that $V$ is proper and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ineq:V-decrease}
\max_{v \in G(x)} \langle \nabla V(x), v \rangle \leq - W(x)\qquad \text{ for all }\, x \in (0,\infty).\end{aligned}$$
To show the existence of a $C^\infty$-smooth Lyapunov pair we verify that the set of solutions $\mathcal{S}_G$ to the differential inclusion satisfies the assumption (A).
Let ${\varphi}\in \mathcal{S}_G$, ${\varepsilon}>0$ and $T>0$ be fixed. In a first step, we treat the case that ${\varphi}(0)>0$. Then, we have $$\begin{aligned}
{\varphi}(t) =
\begin{cases}
{\varphi}(0) - t & \text{ if } t \leq {\varphi}(0)\\
0 &\text{ else}.
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ In the case $y={\varphi}(0)$ the only solution $\psi$ to the differential inclusion starting in $\psi(0)={\varphi}(0) - y=0$ is the zero solution and we obtain $| {\varphi}(t) - y - \psi(t)| =|t|$ for all $ t \leq {\varphi}(0)$ and $| {\varphi}(t) - y - \psi(t)| = |y|$ otherwise. Hence, one has $$\begin{aligned}
| {\varphi}(t) - y - \psi(t)| \leq \frac{1}{{\varphi}(0)}\, |y|\, t \qquad \text{ for all } t\geq 0.\end{aligned}$$ If $y\neq {\varphi}(0)$ we consider the solution $\psi$ to the differential inclusion starting in $\psi(0)={\varphi}(0) - y$ given by $$\begin{aligned}
\psi(t) =
\begin{cases}
{\varphi}(0) -y - t & \text{ if } t \leq {\varphi}(0)-y\\
0 &\text{ else}.
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ On one hand, if $0<{\varphi}(0) -y<{\varphi}(0)$ it follows $| {\varphi}(t) - y - \psi(t)| =0$ for all $ t \in [0, {\varphi}(0)-y]$. Also, for all $ t \in [{\varphi}(0)-y, {\varphi}(0)]$ we have $| {\varphi}(t) - y - \psi(t)| =| {\varphi}(0)-y- t|$ and for all $t\geq {\varphi}(0)$ one has $| {\varphi}(t) - y - \psi(t)| =|y|$. On other hand, if $0<{\varphi}(0)\leq {\varphi}(0) -y$ we have $| {\varphi}(t) - y - \psi(t)| =0$ for all $ t \in [0, {\varphi}(0)]$. Further, for all $ t \in [{\varphi}(0),{\varphi}(0)-y]$ one has $| {\varphi}(t) - y - \psi(t)| =| {\varphi}(0)-y- t|$ and for all $t\geq {\varphi}(0)-y$ it follows $| {\varphi}(t) - y - \psi(t)| =|y|$. Consequently, in either case one obtains $$\begin{aligned}
| {\varphi}(t) - y - \psi(t)| \leq \frac{1}{{\varphi}(0)}\, |y|\, t \qquad \text{ for all } t\geq 0.\end{aligned}$$ Finally, we consider the case ${\varphi}(0)=0$. Then, we have ${\varphi}\equiv 0$. For $y \in (-{\varepsilon}, 0]$ a solution $ \psi$ of the differential inclusion with $\psi(0)=-y$ is $$\begin{aligned}
\psi(t) =
\begin{cases}
-y - t & \text{ if } t \leq -y\\
0 &\text{ else}.
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, $| {\varphi}(t) - y - \psi(t)| =t$ for all $ t \in [0, -y]$ and $| {\varphi}(t) - y - \psi(t)| =|y|$ for all $ t \geq -y$ and one has $$\begin{aligned}
| {\varphi}(t) - y - \psi(t)|\leq \log(t+\operatorname{e})\, |y| \qquad \text{ for all } t\geq 0.\end{aligned}$$ Thus, there is a $C^\infty$-smooth Lyapunov pair $(V.W)$ such that for every solution ${\varphi}\in \mathcal{S}_G$ one has $$\begin{aligned}
\dot V( {\varphi}(t)) \leq - W({\varphi}(t)) \qquad \text{ for all } t\geq 0.\end{aligned}$$ Consequently, the pair $(V,W)$ satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
\max_{v \in G(x)} \langle V(x),v\rangle \leq - W(x) \qquad \text{ for all } x \in (0,\infty).\end{aligned}$$ This shows the assertion.
Relation to differential inclusions
===================================
Due to the fact that Clarke, Ledyaev and Stern [@clarke98] as well as Dupius and Williams [@DP94] embed the set-valued map defining the differential inclusion into a Lipschitz one, we consider the differential inclusion $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Li-di}
\dot x(t) \in F(x(t)),\end{aligned}$$ where $F:\mathbb{R}^n \rightsquigarrow \mathbb{R}^n$ is Lipschitz continuous, i.e. there is a constant $L>0$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
F(x) \subset F(y) + L\,\|x-y\| \,B(0,1) \qquad \text{ for all }\, x,y\in {\mathbb{R}}^n,\end{aligned}$$ and $F(x)$ is nonempty, compact and convex for every $x \in {\mathbb{R}}^n$. Let $\mathcal{S}_F(x)$ denote the set of solutions $\varphi\colon {\mathbb{R}}_+ \to {\mathbb{R}}^n$ to with $\varphi(0)=x$. Let $\mathcal{S}_F:= \{ \mathcal{S}_F(x)\, |\, x \in \mathbb{R}^n \}$. Obviously, the mapping $$\begin{aligned}
\label{def:di-ads}
u: \mathbb{R}_+ \times \mathcal{S}_F \to \mathcal{S}_F , \quad u(t,\varphi) := \varphi(t+\cdot)\end{aligned}$$ defines a dynamical system on $\mathcal{S}_F$.
Next we show that condition (A) is a natural assumption which is satisfied by a wide class of dynamical systems. To this end, we investigate assumption (A) from differential inclusions perspective and show that it is automatically fulfilled for differential inclusions defined by a Lipschitz continuous set-valued map.
\[lem:DI-H\] Let $F$ be a Lipschitz continuous set-valued map taking nonempty, compact and convex values with $0 \in F(0)$. Then, the dynamical system $u$ defined on $\mathcal{S}_F$ by satisfies assumption *(A)*.
Let $\varphi \in \mathcal{S}_F$, $\varepsilon>0$ and $T>0$. We define $c(t):=\operatorname{e}^{Lt}-1$. Then, for $y \in \mathbb{R}^n$ the function $\varphi_y(\cdot):= \varphi(\cdot)-y$ is absolutely continuous with $\varphi_y(0)=\varphi(0)-y$. Further, as $F$ is Lipschitz it holds $F(\varphi_y(t)) \subset F(\varphi(t)) + L \,\|y\|\, B(0,1)$ and we have $$\begin{aligned}
d(\dot \varphi_y(t),F(\varphi_y(t)) = d(\dot \varphi(t),F(\varphi_y(t))\leq L\, \|y\|.\end{aligned}$$ Thus, by Filippov’s Theorem [@aubin-cellina Theorem 1 in Chapter 2, Section 4] there is a solution $\psi(\cdot)$ to defined on the interval $[0,T]$ with $\psi(0)=\varphi_y(0)=\varphi(0)-y$ satisfying $$\begin{aligned}
\| \varphi_y(t)- \psi(t) \| = \| \varphi(t) -y - \psi(t) \| \leq \|y\| \left( \operatorname{e}^{Lt} -1\right)\quad \text{ for all } t \in [0,T].\end{aligned}$$ This shows the assertion.
Proof of the main result {#sec:proof}
========================
Before proving Theorem \[thm:smooth-conv-lyap\] we present a useful characterization of asymptotic stability for the class of dynamical systems under consideration which is based on the scaling property (b) and the shift property (c).
\[prop:stab\] The dynamical system $u$ defined on ${\mathcal{P}}$ is asymptotically stable if and only if there is a $\tau >0$ such that $u(\|\varphi(0)\|\tau,{\varphi}) = 0$ for all $\varphi \in {\mathcal{P}}$.
Suppose there is a $\tau < \infty$ such that $u(\|\varphi(0)\|\tau,{\varphi}) = 0$ for all $\varphi \in {\mathcal{P}}$. To conclude stability let ${\varepsilon}>0$ and $\delta:=\tfrac{{\varepsilon}}{\lceil L\tau \rceil}$, where for $x\in {\mathbb{R}}$ let $\lceil x \rceil := \min\{k\in {\mathbb{Z}}\,| \, k\geq x\}$. Let $\varphi \in {\mathcal{P}}$ with $d(0,\varphi) < \delta$. By assumption, using the scaling and shift property it holds $$\begin{aligned}
\label{1}
\varphi(s+t)= 0 \quad \text{ for all } t \geq \tau\,\|{\varphi}(s)\|.\end{aligned}$$ Together with the Lipschitz continuity of $\varphi$ for every $t \in [0,\tau\|{\varphi}(s)\|]$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{2}
\|\varphi(s+t)\| =
\| \, \varphi(s+t)- \varphi\big(s+\tau \|\varphi(s)\|\big) \,\| \leq L\, \big| t - \tau \|\varphi(s)\| \, \big|
\leq L\tau \|\varphi(s)\|.\end{aligned}$$ By we conclude that holds for all $t \geq 0$. Therefore, $$\begin{aligned}
\|\varphi(\cdot+t)\|_N=
\sup_{s \in [0,N]} \| \varphi(s+t)\|
\leq \lceil L\tau \rceil \|\varphi\|_N = \| \lceil L\tau \rceil \varphi\|_N .\end{aligned}$$ In turn, by the triangular inequality, we have $$\begin{aligned}
d\big(0, u(t,\varphi)\big) \leq \max_{N\in {\mathbb{N}}} \frac{1}{2^N} \frac{\| \lceil L\tau \rceil \varphi\|_N }{1+\| \lceil L\tau \rceil \varphi\|_N } = d\big(0, \lceil L\tau \rceil \varphi \big)
\leq \lceil L\tau \rceil d\big(0, \varphi \big) < {\varepsilon}.\end{aligned}$$ By assumption, it holds ${\varphi}\big(\|{\varphi}(0)\|\tau +t\big) =0$ for all $t\geq 0$. This in turn implies $\lim_{t \rightarrow \infty} d\big(0, u(t,\varphi)\big) =0$ and we have attractivity.
Conversely, let ${\varphi}_*\equiv 0$ be asymptotically stable. Due to the scaling property it suffices to consider trajectories ${\varphi}$ with $\|{\varphi}(0)\|=1$. Then, as $$\lim_{t \to \infty} d(0,u(t,{\varphi})) = \lim_{t\to \infty} d(0,{\varphi}(t+\cdot)) =0$$ we have $$\lim_{t\to \infty} \|{\varphi}(t)\|=0 \quad \text{ for all } {\varphi}\in {\mathcal{P}}.$$ Hence, $\inf\{ \|{\varphi}(t)\| \,|\, t \geq 0\}=0$ for any ${\varphi}\in {\mathcal{P}}$ with $\|{\varphi}(0)\|=1$. The assertion then follows from Theorem 6.4 in [@stolyar95].
[**Proof of Theorem \[thm:smooth-conv-lyap\]**]{}. In [@questa-2012 Theoerm 2] it is shown that for the dynamical system under consideration there is a continuous Lyapunov pair if and only if the dynamical system is asymptotically stable. Thus, the non-converse implication is already shown.
Conversely, let the dynamical system $u$ defined on ${\mathcal{P}}$ be asymptotically stable. Then, by Theorem 2 in [@questa-2012] there is a continuous Lyapunov pair $(V,W)$ such that $$\label{V-decrease}
V(\varphi(t)) - V(\varphi(s)) \leq -\,\int_{s}^{t} W(\varphi(r))\,{\operatorname{d}\!r} \quad \text{ for all } {\varphi}\in {\mathcal{P}}, \, 0 \leq s\leq t.$$ Thus, the construction of a $C^{\infty}$-smooth Lyapunov-pair remains.
To get differentiability on the boundary of the positive orthant, we first extend the pair $(V,W)$ to ${\mathbb{R}}^n$. To this end, let ${|\cdot|_{\text{vec}}}$ denote the map that takes componentwise absolute values defined by $ {|x|_{\text{vec}}} := (|x_1|,...,|x_n|)^{{\mathsf{T}}} \in {\mathbb{R}}_+^n$. The extention of the pair $(V,W)$ to ${\mathbb{R}}^n$ is defined by $$\begin{aligned}
V^e(x) := V({|x|_{\text{vec}}} ), \qquad W^e(x) := W( {|x|_{\text{vec}}} ).\end{aligned}$$ Note that, as a composition of continuous functions, the pair $(V^e,W^e)$ is also continuous. As a first consequence of assumption (A) we conclude that $V^e$ is locally Lipschitz.
\[lem:V-loc-Lip\] Suppose the abstract dynamical system $u$ defined on ${\mathcal{P}}$ satisfies *(A)* and is asymptotically stable. Then, $V^e$ is locally Lipschitz on ${\mathbb{R}}^n$.
Let $U \subset {\mathbb{R}}^n$ be open, convex, and bounded and let $x \in U$. Following Corollary 3.7 in [@clarke1993subgradient], since $-V^e$ is lower semicontinuous, it suffices to show that there is a $M>0$ such that for any $v \in {\mathbb{R}}^n$ it holds $$\begin{aligned}
D(-V^e)(x;v)\leq M \|v\|.\end{aligned}$$ Let $v'\in {\mathbb{R}}^n$ and $\xi>0$. Let $\varphi \in {\mathcal{P}}$ be a trajectory of the dynamical system satisfying $\varphi(0)= {|x|_{\text{vec}}}$ and $$V^e(x) = \int_0^{\infty} \|{\varphi}(s)\| {\operatorname{d}\!s}= \int_0^{\| x\| \tau} \|{\varphi}(s)\| {\operatorname{d}\!s},$$ where in the last equality used the stability of ${\mathcal{P}}$ and Lemma \[prop:stab\]. By the continuity of ${|\cdot|_{\text{vec}}}$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{\xi \to 0} {|x+\xi v'|_{\text{vec}}} = {|x|_{\text{vec}}}.\end{aligned}$$ So, for every ${\varepsilon}>0$ and $\xi$ sufficiently small we have $ {|x+\xi v'|_{\text{vec}}} \in B({|x|_{\text{vec}}}, {\varepsilon}) \cap {\mathbb{R}}_+^n$. Moreover, there is a continuous mapping $g:{\mathbb{R}}^n \to {\mathbb{R}}^n$ satisfying $\|g(v')\|=\|v'\|$ and $${|x+\xi v'|_{\text{vec}}} = {|x|_{\text{vec}}} +\xi g(v').$$ For $T:= \max \{\|x\| \, \tau, \|x+\xi v'\| \,\tau \}< \tau (\|x\| + {\varepsilon})$, by assumption (A) and the triangular inequality, there are $c>0$ and $\psi \in {\mathcal{P}}$ with $\psi(0)= {|x|_{\text{vec}}} +\xi g(v')$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:varphi-R-estimate}
\|\, \varphi(t)\, \| - \|\,\psi(t)\,\| \leq \|\, \varphi(t)\, - \,\psi(t)\,\| \leq \xi \, \|g(v') \|\, ( 1+ c (t) ) = \xi \, \|v' \|\, ( 1+ c (t) )\end{aligned}$$ for all $t \in [0,T]$. The definition of $V^e$, the stability of ${\mathcal{P}}$ together with Lemma \[prop:stab\], and $\|\,{|x|_{\text{vec}}} +\xi g(v')\| = \|x +\xi v'\| $ yield $$\begin{aligned}
V^e(x+\xi v') \geq \int_0^{\infty} \|\,{\psi}(s)\,\| {\operatorname{d}\!s} = \int_0^{\|x + \xi v'\| \tau} \|\,{\psi}(s )\,\| {\operatorname{d}\!s}.\end{aligned}$$ On the one hand, if $\|x\| \leq \|x+\xi v'\|$ by using it follows $$\begin{gathered}
V^e(x) - V^e(x+\xi v') \leq \int_0^{\|x\|\tau}\|\,{\varphi}(s )\,\| {\operatorname{d}\!s}
- \int_0^{\|x+ \xi v'\|\tau} \|\,{\psi}(s )\,\| {\operatorname{d}\!s} \\
\leq \int_0^{\|x\| \tau}\|\,{\varphi}(s )\| - \|{\psi}(s )\,\| {\operatorname{d}\!s}\\
\leq \int_0^{\|x\|\tau} \xi \,\|v'\|\,(1 +c(s) ) {\operatorname{d}\!s}
\leq \xi \,\|v'\| \cdot\|x\|\,\tau\, C,\end{gathered}$$ where $C:=\max\limits_{0 \leq s \leq \|x\|\tau}(1+c(s) )$. On the other hand, to consider the case $\|x\| > \|x+\xi v'\|$ we note that the triangle inequality together with the Lipschitz condition imply $$\begin{aligned}
\label{lip}
\| \varphi(t)\| \leq \| \varphi(0 )\| \, + Lt \leq \|x\| \,(1 + L\tau) \quad \text{ for all }t \in [0,\|x\|\tau].\end{aligned}$$ Using , , and $0 \leq \|x\| - \|x +\xi v'\| \leq \xi \|v'\|$ we obtain $$\begin{gathered}
V^e(x) - V^e(x+\xi v') \leq \int_0^{\|x\|\tau}\|\,{\varphi}(s )\,\| {\operatorname{d}\!s} - \int_0^{\|x+ \xi v'\|\tau} \|\,{\psi}(s )\,\| {\operatorname{d}\!s} \\
\leq \int_0^{\|x+\xi v'\| \tau}\|\,{\varphi}(s )\| - \| {\psi}(s )\,\| {\operatorname{d}\!s} + \int_{\|x +\xi v'\|\tau}^{\|x\|\tau}\|\,{\varphi}(s )\,\|{\operatorname{d}\!s}\\
\leq \int_0^{\|x+\xi v'\|\tau} \xi \,\|v'\|\,(1 +c(s)) {\operatorname{d}\!s} + \tau (\, \|x\| - \|x +\xi v'\|\,) \,\cdot \sup_{s \in [\|x +\xi v'\|\tau, \|x\|\tau ] } \|\,{\varphi}(s )\,\|\\
\leq \xi \,\|v'\| \,\|x+\xi v'\|\,\tau\,C \,+ \,\tau \,\xi \,\|v'\| \,\|x\| \,( 1+L\tau).\end{gathered}$$ Consequently, taking limits and using that $U$ is bounded there is a $M>0$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
D(-V^e)(x;v)= \liminf_{\xi \to 0, v'\rightarrow v} \frac{V^e(x) - V^e(x+\xi v') }{\xi} \leq \tau\left(C+1+L\tau\right) \, \|x\| \cdot \|v\| \leq M \, \|v\|.\end{aligned}$$ The shows the assertion.
Proceeding with the construction of a smooth Lyapunov pair, let $U$ be an open subset of ${\mathbb{R}}^n$ and consider the convolution of $V^e$ and $k_{r}$ defined by $$V^e_{r}(x) := V^e \ast k_{r} \, (x) = \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n} V^e(x-y)\, k_{r}(y)\, {\operatorname{d}\!y}= \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n} V({|x-y|_{\text{vec}}})\, k_r(y)\, {\operatorname{d}\!y}.$$ Also, we consider the convolution of $W^e$ and $k_r$ given by $$W^e_{r}(x) := W^e \ast k_{r} \, (x) = \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n} W^e(x-y)\, k_{r}(y)\, {\operatorname{d}\!y}.$$ By standard convolution results it follows $V^e_{r} \in C^{\infty}(U,{\mathbb{R}}_+)$ and $W^e_{r} \in C^{\infty}(U,{\mathbb{R}}_+)$. Furthermore, since $V^e$ is continuous on $U$ it holds $V^e_r \rightarrow V^e$ uniform on compact subsets of $U$ as $r\rightarrow 0$. Consequently, for every ${\varepsilon}>0$ there is an $r_0$ such that for all $r \in (0,r_0)$ we have $V^e_r$ and $W^e_r$ are smooth on $U$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{cond:conv_uoc}
| V^e_r(x) -V^e(x)| \leq {\varepsilon}, \qquad |W^e_r(x) - W^e(x)| \leq \tfrac{{\varepsilon}}{2} \qquad \text{ for all } x \in U.\end{aligned}$$ The subsequent statement addresses the decrease condition of the convolution along trajectories ${\varphi}\in {\mathcal{P}}$.
\[lem:local-conv\] Let $U \subset {\mathbb{R}}^n$ be compact such that $U\cap {\mathbb{R}}_+^n \neq \emptyset$ and suppose $(V,W)$ satisfy and assumption *(A)* is satisfied. Then, for every ${\varepsilon}>0$ there exists a $r_0 >0$ such that for all $r\in(0,r_0)$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{est:V-conv-local}
\dot V^e_{r}(\varphi(t)) \leq - W^e(\varphi(t)) + {\varepsilon}\end{aligned}$$ for all $\varphi \in {\mathcal{P}}$ and $ t\in [0,T]$ with $\varphi(\cdot)|_{[0,T]} \subset U\cap {\mathbb{R}}_+^n$.
Let $\varphi \in {\mathcal{P}}$ be a trajectory satisfying $\varphi(0)=x \in U\cap {\mathbb{R}}_+^n$. Then, for $h>0$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
V^e_{r}\big(\varphi(t+h )\big) - V^e_{r}\big(\varphi(t )\big)
= \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n} \Big(\, V^e\big( \varphi(t+h ) -y\big) - V^e\big(\varphi(t )-y\big)\,\Big) \, k_{r}(y)\, {\operatorname{d}\!y}.\end{aligned}$$ There is a continuous mapping $g:{\mathbb{R}}^n \to {\mathbb{R}}^n$ satisfying $\|g(y)\|=\|y\|$ and $${|\varphi(t) -y|_{\text{vec}}} = \varphi(t) -g(y).$$ Further, by assumption (A) and for $h$ sufficiently small there is a continuous function $c\colon {\mathbb{R}}_+ \to {\mathbb{R}}_+$ with $\lim_{t\to 0}\tfrac{c(t)}{t}=:c_0>0$ and a trajectory $\psi(t+\cdot) \in {\mathcal{P}}$ with $\psi(t)=\varphi(t)-g(y)$ such that $$\label{estimate-h-small}
\| \varphi(t+h) -y - \psi(t+h ) \| \leq \|y\| c(h).$$ Using this, as $V^e( \psi(t+h) ) = V(\psi(t+h))$ we obtain $$\begin{gathered}
\label{Ve-decrease}
V^e_{r}(\varphi(t+h) - V^e_{r}(\varphi(t )
\leq\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n} \Big|\, V^e(\varphi(t+h)-y)\,-\, V^e(\psi(t+h ) \,\Big| \, k_{r}(y)\, {\operatorname{d}\!y} \\
+ \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n} \Big(\, V(\psi(t+h ) - V(\varphi (t) -g(y) )\,\Big) \, k_{r}(y)\, {\operatorname{d}\!y}.\end{gathered}$$ By the local Lipschitz continuity of $V$ with constant $L$ and , the first term on the right hand side in the above inequality can be estimated as follows $$\begin{gathered}
\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n} \Big|\, V^e(\varphi(t+h )-y)\,-\, V^e( \psi(t+h ) ) \,\Big|\, k_{r}(y)\, {\operatorname{d}\!y} \\
=\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n} \Big|\, V(\varphi(t+h )-g(y))\,-\, V( \psi(t+h) ) \,\Big|\, k_{r}(y)\, {\operatorname{d}\!y} \\
\leq \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n} L \big\| \, \varphi(t+h )-g(y) \,-\,\psi(t+h ) \,\big\|\, k_{r}(y)\, {\operatorname{d}\!y} \\
\leq c(h) \,L \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n} \|g(y)\| \cdot k_{r}(y)\, {\operatorname{d}\!y}= c(h)\,L \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n} \|y\| \cdot k_{r}(y)\, {\operatorname{d}\!y}.\end{gathered}$$ Furthermore, it holds $\displaystyle \int_{B(0,r)} \|y\| \, k_r (y) {\operatorname{d}\!y} \leq \displaystyle \int_{B(0,r)} r\, k_r(y) {\operatorname{d}\!y} = r$ and choosing $r_0 :=\frac{{\varepsilon}}{2\,c_0\, L}$ it follows $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n} \big| \,V^e(\varphi(t+h )-y)\,-\, V(\psi(t+h ) ) \,\big|\cdot k_{r}(y)\, {\operatorname{d}\!y}
\leq \tfrac{c(h)}{c_0}\,\tfrac{{\varepsilon}}{2}.\end{aligned}$$ Asymptotic stability of the dynamical system implies that the very last term in can be estimated by means of the function $W $ and its mollification, $$\begin{gathered}
\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n} \Big(\, V\big(\psi(t+h )\big) - V\big(\varphi (t ) -g(y) \big)\,\Big) \, k_{r}(y)\, {\operatorname{d}\!y}\\
\leq \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n} \left( - \int_t^{t+h} W \big(\psi(s )\big) {\operatorname{d}\!s} \right) \cdot k_{r}(y) \,{\operatorname{d}\!y} \\
= - \int_0^{h} \left( \,\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n} W \big(\psi(t+s )\big) \cdot k_{r}(y) \,{\operatorname{d}\!y} \right) {\operatorname{d}\!s},\end{gathered}$$ where the last identity is obtained by integration by substitution. Next, we show that the function $$\begin{aligned}
s \mapsto \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n} W \big(\psi(t+s ) \big) \, k_{r}(y) \,{\operatorname{d}\!y}\end{aligned}$$ is continuous in $[0,h]$. To see this, consider the *modulus of continuity* of the function $$s\mapsto W\big(\psi(t+s)\big),$$ defined for $\delta \in [0,h]$ by $$\begin{aligned}
\mbox{m}\Big(\delta,W\big( \psi(t+\cdot ) \big)\Big):=
\sup_{|s-s'|\leq \delta} \Big|W\big( \psi(t+s ) \big) - W\big(\psi(t+s' )\,\big) \Big|.\end{aligned}$$ Then, for $s,s' \in [0,h]$ it holds $$\begin{aligned}
W \big( \psi(t+s ) )\,\big) - W \big( \psi(t+s' ) \,\big) \leq \mbox{m}\Big(h,W\big( \psi(t+ \cdot ) \,\big) \Big).\end{aligned}$$ By asymptotic stability of the dynamical system $\| \psi(t+s ) \|$ is bounded and, hence, $W(\psi(t+\cdot )\,)$ is uniformly continuous. Thus, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{h\rightarrow 0}\, \mbox{m}\, \Big(h,W\big( \psi(t+\cdot ) \big)\Big) = 0.\end{aligned}$$ That is, for every ${\varepsilon}'>0$ there is a $\delta'>0$ such that $\mbox{m}\Big(h,W \big(\,\psi(t+\cdot )\,\big) \Big) \leq {\varepsilon}'$ for all $h \leq \delta'$. For ${\varepsilon}' >0$ choose $\delta>0$ such that $|s- s'|< \delta <\delta'$. Then, $$\begin{gathered}
\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n} \Big( W \big( \psi(t+s ) \big) - W \big( \psi(t+s' ) \big) \Big)\, k_{r}(y) \,{\operatorname{d}\!y} \\
\leq
\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n} \mbox{m} \Big( \delta, W\big( \psi(t+\cdot ) \big) \Big) \, k_{r}(y) \,{\operatorname{d}\!y}
\leq
\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n} {\varepsilon}' \, k_{r}(y) \,{\operatorname{d}\!y} ={\varepsilon}'.\end{gathered}$$
Moreover, by conditions we have $-W^e_r(x) + \frac{{\varepsilon}}{2} \leq -W^e(x) + {\varepsilon}$. Finally, the collection of the above relations yields $$\begin{aligned}
\dot V_r^e(\varphi(t)) &= \lim_{h \rightarrow 0}\frac{V^e_{r}\big(\varphi(t+h)\big) - V_{r}^e\big(\varphi(t)\big)}{h} \\&
\leq \frac{{\varepsilon}}{2} - \lim_{h \rightarrow 0} \frac{1}{h} \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n} \left( \int_0^h W\big( \psi(t+s) \big) \, k_{r}(y)\, dy\right) {\operatorname{d}\!s}
\\
& \leq
- \lim_{h \rightarrow 0}
\frac{1}{h} \int_0^h \left( \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n} W\big( \psi(t+s) \big) \, k_{r}(y)\, dy\right) {\operatorname{d}\!s} +\frac{{\varepsilon}}{2}\\ &
= - \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n} W\big( \psi(t) \big) \, k_{r}(y)\, {\operatorname{d}\!y} + \frac{{\varepsilon}}{2} = - \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n} W\big( \varphi(t)-g(y) \big) \, k_{r}(y)\, {\operatorname{d}\!y} + \frac{{\varepsilon}}{2} \\&
= - \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n} W^e( \varphi(t)-y ) \, k_{r}(y)\, {\operatorname{d}\!y} + \frac{{\varepsilon}}{2} \\
&= - W^e_r(\varphi(t)) + \frac{{\varepsilon}}{2} \leq - W^e(\varphi(t)) + {\varepsilon}.\end{aligned}$$ This shows Lemma \[lem:local-conv\].
Now, let $\mathcal{U} = \{ U_{i}\}_{i=1}^{\infty}$ be a locally finite open cover of ${\mathbb{R}}^n$ such that for every $i$ the closure $\overline{U_i}$ is compact. Further, let $\{\psi_i\}_{i=1}^{\infty}$ be a smooth partition of unity that is subordinate to $\mathcal{U}$. Define $$\begin{aligned}
\label{choice:eps-i}
{\varepsilon}_i = \tfrac{1}{4}\min\{ \min_{x \in \bar U_i} V^e(x),\min_{x \in \bar U_i} w^e(x)\} \qquad \mbox{and} \qquad q_i = \max_{x \in \bar U_i} \|\nabla \psi_{i}(x)\|.\end{aligned}$$ Then, by Lemma \[lem:local-conv\] for every $i$ there is a $C^{\infty}$-pair $(V^e_i, W_i^e)$ such that for every $x \in U_i$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{est:V-w-local}
|V^e(x) - V^e_{i}(x)| < \frac{{\varepsilon}_i}{2^{i+1}(1+ q_i)} \qquad \mbox{and} \qquad |W^e(x) - W^e_{i}(x)| < {\varepsilon}_i.\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, by the conditions and we have that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{est:V-dot-local}
\dot V^e_i\big(\varphi(t )\big) \leq - W^e\big(\varphi(t)\big) + 2\,{\varepsilon}_i \leq - \tfrac{1}{2} W^e\big(\varphi(t)\big) .\end{aligned}$$ Next, we define $$\begin{aligned}
V^e_s(x) := \sum_{i=1}^{\infty} \psi_i(x)\, V^e_i(x).\end{aligned}$$ The following estimate holds true $$\begin{aligned}
| V^e_{s}(x) - V^e(x)| \leq \sum_{i=1}^{\infty} \psi_i(x) \, \big|V^e_i(x) - V^e(x) \big|
\leq \frac{V^e(x)}{4}\, \sum_{i=1}^{\infty} \frac{\psi_i(x)}{2^{i+1}(1+q_i)} \leq \tfrac{1}{8} V^e(x).\end{aligned}$$ Using the triangular inequality, the latter estimate shows that $V^e_s$ is proper and positive definite. The next step is to derive that $V^e_s$ is decaying along trajectories of ${\mathcal{P}}$. To this end, we consider $$\begin{gathered}
\tfrac{{\operatorname{d}\!}}{{\operatorname{d}\!t}}[V^e_s(\varphi(t))] = \tfrac{{\operatorname{d}\!}}{{\operatorname{d}\!t}}\left[ V^e(\varphi(t))+ V^e_s(\varphi(t)) - V^e(\varphi(t))\right] \\
= \tfrac{{\operatorname{d}\!}}{{\operatorname{d}\!t}}[ V^e(\varphi(t))] + \tfrac{{\operatorname{d}\!}}{{\operatorname{d}\!t}}\left[ \sum_{i=1}^{\infty} \psi_i(\varphi(t))\, \Big(V^e_i(\varphi(t)) - V^e(\varphi(t)) \Big) \right] \\
= \dot V^e(\varphi(t)) + \sum_{i=1}^{\infty} \psi_i(\varphi(t)) \,\, \Big( \dot V^e_i(\varphi(t)) - \dot V^e(\varphi(t)) \Big)
+ \sum_{i=1}^{\infty} \dot \psi_i(\varphi(t))\,\, \Big( V^e_i(\varphi(t)) - V^e(\varphi(t))\Big)\\
\leq \sum_{i=1}^{\infty} \psi_i(\varphi(t)) \,\left( \dot V^e_i(\varphi(t)) + \sum_{j=1}^{\infty} \dot \psi_j(\varphi(t))\,\Big| V^e_j(\varphi(t)) - V^e(\varphi(t))\Big|\right).\end{gathered}$$ Using the conditions and we get the following estimate $$\begin{aligned}
\dot V^e_s(\varphi(t)) \leq \sum_{i=1}^{\infty} \psi_i(\varphi(t)) \,\left( - \tfrac{1}{2}\,W^e(\varphi(t)) + \sum_{j=1}^{\infty} \frac{q_j {\varepsilon}_j}{2^{j+1}(1+q_j)}\right).\end{aligned}$$ Defining $\widetilde {\varepsilon}_i:= \max \{ {\varepsilon}_j \, : \, x \in U_i \cap U_j \not = \emptyset \}$ we have that $$\begin{aligned}
\dot V^e_s(\varphi(t)) &\leq \sum_{i=1}^{\infty} \psi_i(\varphi(t)) \,\left( - \tfrac{1}{2}\,W^e(\varphi(t)) + \widetilde {\varepsilon}_i \sum_{j=1}^{\infty} \tfrac{1}{2^{j+1}}\right)\\
&= \sum_{i=1}^{\infty} \psi_i(\varphi(t)) \,\big( - \tfrac{1}{2} W^e(\varphi(t)) + \widetilde {\varepsilon}_i\big).\end{aligned}$$ Using and the triangular inequality applied to the second inequality in , it holds that $$\begin{aligned}
- \tfrac{1}{2} W^e(\varphi(t)) + \widetilde {\varepsilon}_i \leq - \tfrac{1}{4} W^e(\varphi(t)) \leq - \tfrac{1}{5} W_i^e(\varphi(t)).\end{aligned}$$ Finally, we have that $$\begin{aligned}
\dot V^e_s(\varphi(t))\leq - \tfrac{1}{5}\sum_{i=1}^{\infty} \psi_i(\varphi(t)) \, W^e_i(\varphi(t)) =: - W^e_s(\varphi(t)).\end{aligned}$$
Consequently, the pair $(V^e_s,W^e_s)$ defines a $C^\infty$-smooth Lyapunov pair, which shows the assertion.$\Box$
Acknowledgment {#sec:acknowledgment .unnumbered}
==============
I am grateful to Fabian Wirth for many fruitful discussions and very helpful comments.
[10]{}
J.-P. Aubin and A. Cellina. Grundlehren der Mathematischen Wissenschaften, 264. Springer, Berlin, 1984.
J.-P. Aubin and H. Frankowska. Systems and Control: Foundations and Applications, 2. Birkhäuser, Boston, 1990.
A. Bacciotti and L. Rosier. Communications and Control Engineering. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, 2005.
M. Bramson. , 2008.
A. [Bressan]{} and G. [Facchi]{}. , 250(4):2267–2281, 2011.
H. Chen. , 5(3):637–665, 1995.
F. Clarke, Y. Ledyaev, and R. Stern. , 149(1):69–114, 1998.
F. Clarke, R. Stern, and P. Wolenski. Subgradient criteria for monotonicity, the [L]{}ipschitz condition, and convexity. , 45:1167–1183, 1993.
J. Dai. , 5(1):49–77, 1995.
P. Dupuis and R. J. Williams. , 22(2):680–702, 1994.
L. C. Evans. , 1998.
J. Hale and E. Infante. , 58:405–409, 1967.
J. K. Hale. Dynamical systems and stability. , 26(1):39–59, 1969.
I. Karafyllis. Lyapunov theorems for systems described by retarded functional differential equations. , 64(3):590–617, 2006.
C. M. Kellett and A. R. Teel. Smooth [L]{}yapunov functions and robustness of stability for difference inclusions. , 52(5):395–405, 2004.
W. Rudin. . International Series in Pure and Applied Mathematics. McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York, 1991.
A. Rybko and A. Stolyar. , 28(3):199–220, 1992.
M. Sch[ö]{}nlein and F. Wirth. On converse [L]{}yapunov theorems for fluid network models. , 70:339–367, 2012.
A. Siconolfi and G. Terrone. , 32(12):4409–4427, 2012.
M. Slemrod. , 7:584–600, 1970.
G. V. Smirnov. , 2002.
A. Stolyar. , 1(4):491–512, 1995.
A. Teel and L. Praly. , 5:313–367, 2000.
J. Walker. , 30:424–440, 1978.
J. Walker. Mathematical Concepts and Methods in Science and Engineering, Vol. 20. [Plenum Press, New York]{}, 1980.
V. [Zubov]{}. . , 1964.
[^1]: Institute for Mathematics, University of Würzburg, Emil-Fischer Straße 40, 97074 Würzburg, Germany, [[email protected]]{}
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We report the development of a parallel FORTRAN code, RCCPAC, to solve the relativistic coupled-cluster equations for closed-shell and one-valence atoms and ions. The parallelization is implemented through the use of message passing interface, which is suitable for distributed memory computers. The coupled-cluster equations are defined in terms of the reduced matrix elements, and solved iteratively using Jacobi method. The ground and excited states coupled-cluster wave functions obtained from the code could be used to compute different properties of closed-shell and one-valence atom or ion. As an example we compute the ground state correlation energy, attachment energies, $E$1 reduced matrix elements and hyperfine structure constants.'
address:
- 'Department of Physics, Indian Institute of Technology, Hauz Khas, New Delhi 110016, India '
- 'Theoretical Physics Division, Physical Research Laboratory, Navarangpura, Ahmedabad 380 009, Gujarat, India'
author:
- 'B. K. Mani'
- 'S. Chattopadhyay'
- 'D. Angom'
title: ' RCCPAC: A parallel relativistic coupled-cluster program for closed-shell and one-valence atoms and ions in FORTRAN'
---
Coupled-cluster theory; Dirac-Coulomb Hamiltonian; Correlation energy; Closed-shell and one-valence systems; Relativistic coupled-cluster theory; Coupled-cluster singles and doubles approximation
[**]{} 2.70.-c, 31.15.bw, 31.15.A-, 31.15.ve\
[**PROGRAM SUMMARY**]{} [*Program Title:*]{} RCCPAC\
[*Journal Reference:*]{}\
[*Catalogue identifier:*]{}\
[*Licensing provisions:*]{} none\
[*Programming language:*]{}FORTRAN 90\
[*Computer:*]{} Intel Xeon,\
[*Operating system:*]{} General\
[*RAM:*]{} at least 1.5Gbytes per core.\
[*Number of processors used:*]{} 4 or higher\
[*Supplementary material:*]{} none\
[*Classification:*]{}\
[*External routines/libraries:*]{} none\
[*Subprograms used:*]{}\
[*Journal reference of previous version:*]{}\*\
[*Nature of problem:*]{} Compute the ground and excited state wave functions, correlation energy, attachment energies, and E1 transition amplitude and hyperfine structure constant of closed-shell and one-valence atoms or ions using relativistic coupled-cluster theory.\
[*Solution method:*]{} The basic input data required is an orbital basis set generated using the Dirac-Coulomb Hamiltonian. For the present case, closed-shell and one-valence systems, the orbitals are grouped into occupied, valence and virtual. The relativistic coupled-cluster equations of the single and double excitation cluster amplitudes, which form a set of coupled nonlinear equations, are defined in terms of reduced matrix elements of the residual Coulomb interaction. The equations are solved iteratively in parallel using Message Passing Interface (MPI) with the Jacobi method. However, to overcome the slow convergence of the method, we use Direct Inversion in the Iterated Sub-space (DIIS) to accelerate the convergence. For enhanced performance, the two-electron integrals and $6j$- symbols are precalculated and stored. Further more, to optimized memory requirements, selected groups of integrals are computed and stored only by the thread which needs the integrals during computation.\
[*Restrictions:*]{} For efficient computations, the two-electron reduced Coulomb matrix elements consisting of three and four virtual states are stored in RAM. This limits the size of the basis set, as there should be sufficient space in RAM to store all the integrals.\
[*Unusual features:*]{} To avoid replication of data across the cores, and optimize the RAM use, the three particle and four particle two-electron Coulomb integrals are distributed. That is, following the loop structure in the driver, each core stores only the integrals it requires. With this feature there is enormous reduction in the RAM required to store the integrals.\
[*Additional comments:*]{} The code can be modified, with minimal changes, to compute properties other than electromagnetic transitions and hyperfine constants with appropriate modifications. The required modfications are addition of subroutine to compute the single-electron matrix element, and inclusion of calling sequence in the main driver subroutine.\
[*Running time: 14 minutes on six processors for the sample case. For heavy atoms or ions it could take several days or weeks of CPU time.*]{}\
\
Introduction
============
The coupled-cluster theory (CCT), first developed for applications in nuclear physics [@coester-58; @coester-60], is one of the most powerful quantum many-body theories. The theory was then extended to atomic and molecular systems through later developments by Čížek [@cizek-66; @cizek-69] . The theory, as applied to electronic systems, is non-perturbative in nature or incorporates electron correlation effects to all orders of the electron-electron interactions. In recent years it has been used with great success in the structure and properties computations of nuclear [@hagen-14], atomic [@geetha-01; @pal-07; @mani-09], molecular [@isaev-04] and condensed matter [@li-14] systems. The articles in a recent collected volume edited by Čársky, Paldus and Pittner [@carsky-10] provide very good introduction, and exhaustive survey of the recent developments related to the application of CCT in various quantum many-body systems. Another reference which elaborates on different variants of CCT is the recent review by Bartlett and Musiał [@bartlett-07]. The canonical version of CCT includes cluster operators of all possible excitations up to to the number of particles in the system, however, a truncated scheme which encapsulates all the key correlation effects is the coupled-cluster singles and doubles (CCSD) [@purvis-82] approximation. This, as the name indicates, includes only the single and double excitations, but extensive studies have proved the reliability of the method.
In the present work we report the development of a computer code which implements the relativistic CCT (RCCT) for structure and properties computations of closed-shell and one-valence atoms and ions. It is a relativistic implementation using the Dirac-Coulomb Hamiltonian, and it must be mentioned here that other groups have also used similar implementations for high precision structure and properties computations of atoms and ions. These include intrinsic electric dipole moments of atoms [@nataraj-08; @latha-09], and parity nonconservation [@wansbeek-08], hyperfine structure constants [@pal-07; @sahoo-09] and electromagnetic transition properties of atoms and ions. In a series of works , we have reported the various approaches adopted to verify the results from the present version, and proof of concept versions of the computer code. The computer code reported in the present work solves the RCCT equations for closed-shell and one-valence atoms and ions using MPI-parallelized Jacobi method, and computes the electron correlation energy, attachement energies, $E$1 reduced matrix elements, and hyperfine structure constants.
An important feature of the code, which optimizes the computational requirements of the code, is that the loops are structured to achieve minimal use of the electron-electron integrals, and CCT equations are solved in cluster driven mode. The basic advantage of such a structure is the relative ease of using the code for computations of closed-shell systems, and one-valence systems. This can be done only through changes in the outer most few loops. A similar modification with additional computations to diagonalize the effective Hamiltonian can be use to adapt the code for two-valence sytems. It must, however, be emphasized that the case of two-valence systems involves subtle issues related to the model space, and require due conceptual considerations, and these are explained in one of our previous works [@mani-11].
A short description of the RCCT is provided in the next section, Section \[rcc\_theory\]. The section provides a brief, but self contained summary of the CCSD and linearized RCCT. These are followed by a basic appraisal on how to compute correlation energy of closed-shell systems using the CCSD wave function. The following section describes the Fock-space CCT for one-valence systems, and how to compute the hyperfine constants and electric dipole transition amplitudes using the CC wavefunctions. The next section, Section \[comp\_detail\] provides crucial information about the grid structure and type of orbitals used. The Section \[detail\_impl\] contains important information on the schemes we have adopted in the code. Some of the concepts related to the algorithm adopted add unique features to the present code, and accounts for optimal usage of memory and computations. One of the key concepts is the novel abstraction employed is the structure of the outer loops in the implementations. As can seen from the driver subroutines, the modification from closed-shell to one-valence cluster amplitude computations involves changes in the driver subroutine only.
RCC theory of closed-shell systems {#rcc_theory}
==================================
The Dirac-Coulomb Hamiltonian $ H^{\rm DC}$ is an appropriate Hamiltonian to account for the relativistic effects in the structure and properties calculations of atoms and ions. For an $N$ electron atom or ion, in atomic units ($\hbar=m_e=e=4\pi\epsilon_0=1$), $$H^{\rm DC}=\sum_{i=1}^N\left [c\bm{\alpha}_i\cdot \mathbf{p}_i+
(\beta_i-1)c^2 - V_N(r_i)\right ] +\sum_{i<j}\frac{1}{r_{ij}},
\label{dchamil}$$ where $\bm{\alpha}_i$ and $\beta$ are the Dirac matrices, $\mathbf{p}$ is the linear momentum, $V_N(r)$ is the nuclear Coulomb potential, and the last term is the electron-electron Coulomb interactions. For a closed-shell system, the ground state satisfies the eigenvalue equation $$H^{\rm DC} |\Psi_0\rangle = E_0 |\Psi_0\rangle,$$ where $|\Psi_0\rangle$ and $E_0$ are the ground state exact wave function and energy, respectively. In the RCC theory, the exact ground state wave function $$|\Psi_0\rangle = e^T|\Phi_0\rangle,
\label{cc_close}$$ where $T$ is the CC operator for closed-shell systems and $|\Phi_0\rangle$ is the Dirac-Hartree-Fock reference state. For the present case, the CC operator is $$T= \sum_{i=1}^{N} T_i,
\label{t_def}$$ here, the index $i$ indicates the level of excitation. The eigenvalue equation using the normal form of an operator $O_N = O - \langle\Phi_0|O|\Phi_0\rangle$ can be rewritten as $$H_Ne^T|\Phi_0\rangle = \Delta E e^T|\Phi_0\rangle,
\label{ccsd_eq}$$ where $H_N = H^{\rm DC} - \langle\Phi_0|H^{\rm DC}|\Phi_0\rangle$ is the normal form of $H^{\rm DC}$ and $\Delta E = E_0 - \langle\Phi_0|H^{\rm DC}|\Phi_0\rangle$ is the correlation energy. Multiplying the equation from left by $e^{-T} $, and projecting on $\langle\Phi_0|$, and the excited states $\langle\Phi^*| $, we get
\[cc\_sing-doub\] $$\begin{aligned}
\langle\Phi_0|e^{-T}H_{\rm N}e^T|\Phi_0\rangle &= &\Delta E,
\label{cc_corr} \\
\langle\Phi^*|e^{-T}H_{\rm N}e^T|\Phi_0\rangle &=& 0.
\label{cc_amp}\end{aligned}$$
The first equation gives the correlation energy, and the second equation is a set of coupled nonlinear equations for the cluster amplitudes. For compact notation, define $\bar{H}_{\rm N} = e^{-T}H_{\rm N}e^T$ as the dressed or the similarity transformed Hamiltonian. As $H^{\rm DC}$ consists of only one- and two-body terms, and following Wick’s theorem we can write $$\bar{H}_{\rm N}=H_{\rm N}
+ \bigg \{\contraction[0.4ex]{}{H}{_{\rm N}}{T} H_{\rm N}T\bigg \} +
%
+ \frac{1}{2!}\bigg \{\contraction[0.4ex]{}{H}{_{\rm N}}{T}
\contraction[0.7ex]{}{H}{_{\rm N}T}{T} H_{\rm N}TT\bigg \}
%
+ \frac{1}{3!}\bigg \{\contraction[0.4ex]{}{H}{_{\rm N}}{T}
\contraction[0.7ex]{}{H}{_{\rm N}T}{T}
\contraction[1.0ex]{}{H}{_{\rm N}TT}{T}
H_{\rm N}TTT\bigg \}
%
+ \frac{1}{4!}\bigg \{\contraction[0.4ex]{}{H}{_{\rm N}}{T}
\contraction[0.7ex]{}{H}{_{\rm N}T}{T}
\contraction[1.0ex]{}{H}{_{\rm N}TT}{T}
\contraction[1.3ex]{}{H}{_{\rm N}TTT}{T}
H_{\rm N}TTTT\bigg \},
\label{hn_bar}$$ where $\contraction[0.4ex]{}{A}{\cdots}{B}A\cdots B$ represents contraction between the operators $A$ and $B$, and $\{\cdots\}$ denote the operators are normal ordered. This shows, despite the exponential nature of the ansatz, the dressed Hamiltonian consists of terms up to quartic order in $T$, and hence, the CCT equations contains terms of fourth order as the highest degree of non-linearity.
Coupled-cluster singles and doubles approximation
-------------------------------------------------
In CCT, the number of cluster amplitudes increase exponentially with order of excitation $i$ in Eq. (\[t\_def\]). So, for systems with large $N$, it is nontrivial to include all the cluster amplitudes of all possible excitations. An approximation which encapsulates a major part of the correlation effects is the CCSD approximation [@purvis-82], in which we retain only $T_1$ and $T_2$. Going beyond CCSD by inclusion of $i>2 $ is nontrivial and computationally resource intensive. For closed-shell systems, the CCSD gives an accurate description of the structure and properties. Using the occupation number representation and in normal ordered form, the cluster operators are
$$\begin{aligned}
T_1 & = &\sum_{a, p}t_a^p a_p^{\dagger}a_a, \\
T_2 & = &\frac{1}{2!}\sum_{a, b, p, q}t_{ab}^{pq}
a_p^{\dagger}a_q^{\dagger}a_ba_a,\end{aligned}$$
where $t_{\cdots}^{\cdots}$ represent the closed-shell CC amplitudes, and the indices $abc\ldots (pqr\ldots)$ represent the core (excited) single particle states. Replacing $\langle\Phi^*|$ in Eq. (\[cc\_amp\]) with $\langle\Phi^p_a|$ and $\langle\Phi^{pq}_{ab}|$, which are the single and double excited unperturbed or Dirac-Hartree-Fock states, respectively, we get the cluster equations for $T_1$ and $T_2$. So, the CC amplitudes $t_a^p$ and $t_{ab}^{pq}$ are solutions of the coupled nonlinear equations
$$\begin{aligned}
\langle\Phi^p_a|\bar{H}_{\rm N}|\Phi_0\rangle = 0,
\label{cc_sing} \\
\langle\Phi^{pq}_{ab}|\bar{H}_{\rm N}|\Phi_0\rangle = 0.
\label{cc_doub}\end{aligned}$$
The general details of the derivations, in the context of non-relativistic description, are given in ref. [@lindgren-86; @shavitt-09]. For RCC, the relevant details for closed-shell systems is described in our previous work [@mani-09]. To simplify the evaluation of the terms in the CC equations we use Goldstone diagrams, and angular integration are performed using angular momentum diagrams. The diagrammatic representation of cluster operators $T_1$ and $T_2$ are as shown in Fig. \[t1t2\_fig\]. In the present work, for the diagrammatic analysis, we follow the conventions and notations in ref. [@lindgren-86].
Linearized RCC
--------------
The dressed Hamiltonian $\bar{H}_{\rm N}$, as given in Eq. (\[hn\_bar\]) have contributions from different orders of $T$, up to quartic. Hence, the Eqs. (\[cc\_sing\]) and (\[cc\_doub\]) form a set of non-linear coupled algebraic equations. However, an approximation often used as a starting point of RCC computations is the linearized RCC, where only the linear terms are retained in the computations. In this approximation, the dressed Hamiltonian is $$\bar{H}_{\rm N} = H_{\rm N}
+ \bigg \{\contraction[0.4ex]{}{H}{_{\rm N}}{T}H_{\rm N} T\bigg \}.
\label{hbar_lin}$$ Using Eq. (\[hbar\_lin\]), from Eq. (\[cc\_sing-doub\]) single and double RCC equations are then
$$\begin{aligned}
\langle\Phi^p_a|H_{\rm N}
+ \bigg \{\contraction[0.4ex]{}{H}{_{\rm N}}{T}H_{\rm N} T\bigg \}
|\Phi_0\rangle = 0, \\
\langle\Phi^{pq}_{ab}|H_{\rm N}
+ \bigg \{\contraction[0.4ex]{}{H}{_{\rm N}}{T}H_{\rm N}T\bigg \}
|\Phi_0\rangle = 0. \end{aligned}$$
For the CCSD approximation $T = T_1 + T_2$, these equations are then
\[lcc\_sing-doub\] $$\begin{aligned}
\langle\Phi^p_a|\bigg \{\contraction[0.4ex]{}{H}{_{\rm N}}{T}H_{\rm N} T_1
\bigg \} + \bigg \{\contraction[0.4ex]{}{H}{_{\rm N}}{T}H_{\rm N} T_2
\bigg \}|\Phi_0\rangle &=&
-\langle\Phi^p_a|H_{\rm N}|\Phi_0\rangle, \\
\langle\Phi^{pq}_{ab}|\bigg \{\contraction[0.4ex]{}{H}{_{\rm N}}{T}H_{\rm N}
T_1\bigg \} + \bigg \{\contraction[0.4ex]{}{H}{_{\rm N}}{T}H_{\rm N}
T_2\bigg \}|\Phi_0\rangle &=&
-\langle\Phi^{pq}_{ab}|H_{\rm N} |\Phi_0\rangle.\end{aligned}$$
The CC diagrams which contribute to $T_1$ and $T_2$ in the above equations are shown in the Figs. \[lcc\_fig\_sing\] and \[lcc\_fig\_doub\], respectively. Up to this point we have used the notation $\contraction[0.4ex]{}{A}{\ldots}{B}A\ldots B$ to represent contraction between two operators $A$ and $B$. Here after we drop this explicit notation, and the contractions are implied in expressions with products of operators.
The other form of RCC equations is to write in terms of cluster amplitudes, $t^p_a$ and $t^{pq}_{ab}$. The linearized RCC equation of $T_1$ is then $$\epsilon_a^p t^p_a = \sum_{bq}\tilde{v}^{bp}_{qa} t^q_b +
\sum_{bqr}\tilde{v}^{bp}_{qr} t^{qr}_{ba}
-\sum_{bcq} v^{bc}_{qa} \tilde{t}^{qp}_{bc},
\label{lin_sing}$$ where $\epsilon_a^p = \epsilon_a - \epsilon_p $, $v^{ij}_{kl}$ is the matrix element of electron-electron Coulomb interaction $\langle ij|(1/r_{12})|kl\rangle$, and $\tilde{v}^{ij}_{kl}=v^{ij}_{kl} - v^{ij}_{lk} =v^{ij}_{kl} - v^{ji}_{kl}$ is the antisymmetrized matrix element. Similarly, the compact notation the antisymmetrized CC amplitude is ${\widetilde t}^{ij}_{kl}$. Like the $T_1$, the linearized RCC equation for $T_2$ is $$\begin{aligned}
\epsilon_{ab}^{pq} t^{pq}_{ab} &=& v^{pq}_{ab} + \bigg [
\sum_{r} v^{pq}_{rb} t^r_a - \sum_{c} v^{cq}_{ab} t^p_c
+\sum_{rc} \Big ( v^{pc}_{ar} \tilde {t}^{rq}_{cb}
- v^{pc}_{rb} t^{rq}_{ac} - v^{cp}_{ar} t^{rq}_{cb}
\Big ) \bigg ]
\nonumber \\
&&+\left [ \begin{array}{c}
p\leftrightarrow q \\
a\leftrightarrow b
\end{array} \right ]
+\sum_{rs} v^{pq}_{rs} t^{rs}_{ab}
+\sum_{cd} v^{cd}_{ab} t^{pq}_{cd},
\label{lin_doub}\end{aligned}$$ where $ \epsilon_{ab}^{pq} = \epsilon_a + \epsilon_b - \epsilon_p - \epsilon_q$ and $\bigl[ \begin{smallmatrix}p\leftrightarrow q \\ a\leftrightarrow b
\end{smallmatrix} \bigr ]$ represents terms similar to those within parenthesis but with the combined permutations $p\leftrightarrow q$ and $a\leftrightarrow b$. These equations are the algebraic equivalent of the diagrams shown in Figs. \[lcc\_fig\_sing\] and \[lcc\_fig\_doub\], respectively. The evaluations are based on the rules to analyze Goldstone diagrams. It is the preferred scheme as the angular momentum diagram evaluation is easier. At the implementation level, the angular integrals are evaluated so that the equations are in terms of reduced matrix elements of $T$ operators. This minimizes the number of cluster amplitudes and simplify the computations.
Correlation energy
------------------
The correlation energy of a closed-shell system, as defined in Eq. (\[cc\_corr\]), is the expectation value of $\bar{H}_N$ with respect to $|\Phi_0\rangle$. That is $$\Delta E = \langle\Phi_0|\bar{H}_{\rm N}|\Phi_0\rangle,
\label{delta_e}$$ and in the CCSD approximation it has contributions from $T_1$ and $T_2$. The diagrams which contribute to $\Delta E$ are shown in the Fig. \[delta\_e\_fig\]. The dominant contributions are from the diagrams (a) and (b), which is natural as the $t_{ab}^{pq}$ are larger in value than $t_a^p$. The other two diagrams, (c) and (d), arise from terms which are second order in $T_1$ and have smaller contribution. The last diagram Fig. \[delta\_e\_fig\](e), following Koopman’s theorem, is zero when Dirac-Hartree-Fock orbitals are used. Neglecting this diagram, the algebraic expression of $\Delta E$ corresponding to the first four diagrams in Fig. \[delta\_e\_fig\] is $$\Delta E = \tilde{v}_{pq}^{ab}\Big ( t_{ab}^{pq} + t_a^pt_b^q \Big ).$$ This can be computed once the cluster amplitudes are known. Albeit, the correlation equation is written first in eq. \[cc\_sing-doub\], but in computations, it is evaluated later.
Fock-space CC theory and properties of one-valence systems {#rcc_1v}
==========================================================
The key difference of one-valence atom or ions from the closed-shell ones is the presence of a single electron in the outer most or the valence shell. To account for the correlation effects arising from the valence electron, we use Fock-space coupled-cluster theory and introduce a new set of cluster operators $S$. In the CCSD approximation $S =S_1 + S_2 $ and these are defined as
$$\begin{aligned}
S_1 & = &\sum_{p}s_v^p a_p^{\dagger}a_v, \\
S_2 & = &\frac{1}{2!}\sum_{a, p, q}s_{va}^{pq}
a_p^{\dagger}a_q^{\dagger}a_aa_v,\end{aligned}$$
where, $v$ is the index which identifies the valence electron and $s_{\ldots}^{\ldots}$ are the cluster amplitudes corresponding to the valence sector. In the Fock-space coupled-cluster of one-valence systems, as the name indicates, the starting point of the calculation is the closed-shell coupled-cluster. Based on the Hilbert space of the closed-shell system, we generate the one-valence Hilbert space by adding an electron. These two Hilbert spaces together form the Fock-space for the one-valence system. Thus, the reference state of the one-valence system, starting from the closed-shell system, is $|\Phi_v\rangle = a_v^{\dagger}|\Phi_0\rangle$. Here, recall that $|\Phi_0\rangle$ is the Dirac-Hartree-Fock state of the closed-shell system and $a_v^{\dagger}$ adds the valence electron. The exact state of the system is $$|\Psi_{v}\rangle = e^{(T + S)}|\Phi_{v}\rangle = e^T(1+S)|\Phi_{v}\rangle .
\label{onev_exact}$$ It is to be noted that the closed-shell part, which involves $T$, are calculated to all orders, or we retain the exponential form of the CCT in the closed-shell sector, but $S$ restricted to linear terms only. This is due to the presence of a single valence electron, and the diagrammatic representations of $S$ are shown in Fig. \[s1s2\_fig\].
The schematic representation of converting the computation of $T$ to $S$ cluster amplitudes is shown in the figure. It is equivalent to converting one of the core orbitals in the driver programs to valence orbital. Once the cluster amplitudes are obtained, the coupled-cluster wavefunctions can be used for properties computations. For atoms or ions there are, in general, two classes of properties. First, the properties associated with a state which are calculated as expectations, and second, transition properties associated with an initial and final states. The hyperfine structure constants, and electric dipole $E1$ transition properties are described as examples of the former and latter classes, respectively.
One-valence coupled-cluster equations
-------------------------------------
The one-valence exact state $|\Psi_v\rangle$ satisfies the Schrödinger equation $$H^{\rm DC} e^{T}(1+S)|\Phi_v\rangle = E_v |\Phi_v\rangle,$$ where $H^{\rm DC}$ is now the Dirac-Coulomb Hamiltonian in the one-valence sector. Projecting this equation on $e^T$, and using the normal form of the Hamiltonian the one-valence cluster amplitudes, in the CCSD approximation, are solutions of the coupled linear equations
$$\begin{aligned}
\langle \Phi_v^p|\bar H_N \! +\! \{\contraction[0.5ex]
{\bar}{H}{_N}{S} \bar H_N S\} |\Phi_v\rangle
&=&E_v^{\rm att}\langle\Phi_v^p|S_1|\Phi_v\rangle ,
\label{ccsingles} \\
\langle \Phi_{va}^{pq}|\bar H_N +\{\contraction[0.5ex]
{\bar}{H}{_N}{S}\bar H_N S\} |\Phi_v\rangle
&=& E_v^{\rm att}\langle\Phi_{va}^{pq}|S_2|\Phi_v\rangle,
\label{ccdoubles}\end{aligned}$$
\[cct\_1v\]
where, $E_v^{\rm att}$ is the attachment energy of the valence shell or the energy released when an electron is attached to the open shell $v$ in the closed-shell ion. The excited determinants $|\Phi^p_v\rangle$ and $|\Phi^{pq}_{va}\rangle$, like in the case of closed-shell system, are obtained by exciting one and two electron from the reference state $|\Phi_v\rangle$. By definition $$E_v^{\rm att} = E_v - E_0,$$ where $E_v = \langle \Phi_v|\bar H_N + \{\contraction[0.5ex]
{\bar}{H}{_N}{S} \bar H_N S\} |\Phi_v\rangle$ and $E_0=\langle\Phi_0|\bar H |\Phi_0\rangle$ are the exact energies of states $|\Psi_v\rangle$ and $|\Psi_0\rangle$ respectively. A detailed description of the derivation and interpretations of these equations are given ref [@Mani-10]. One key difference of Eqs. \[cct\_1v\] from the closed-shell case are the terms on the right hand side of the equations, and these are the renormalization terms. In diagrammatic representation, these are the folded diagrams, and have very different topological structure from the $\bar H$ or $\contraction[0.5ex] {\bar}{H}{_N}{S}\bar H_N S$.
Hyperfine Structure Constants of one-valence systems
----------------------------------------------------
For atom or ions in the state $|\Psi_v\rangle $ the experimentally measured property $A$ is the expectation $$\langle A \rangle = \frac{\langle \Psi_v|A|\Psi_v \rangle}
{\langle \Psi_v |\Psi_v \rangle}.
\label{a_expect}$$ The property could be associated with either an interaction which is internal or in response to an external perturbation. In the present case, we consider $A$ as the hyperfine interaction $H_{\rm hfs}$ which is internal to the atom or ion. It arises from the coupling of the nuclear electromagnetic moments to the electromagnetic field of the electrons. The total angular momentum of the system is then $F = I + J$, where $I$ and $J$ are the nuclear spin, and total angular momentum of the electrons. The states of the system are represented as $|(IJ)FM_F\rangle$, and the form of the hyperfine interaction is [@schwartz-55] $$H_{\rm hfs} = \sum_i\sum_{k, q}(-1)^q t^k_q(\hat {\bf r}_i) T^k_{-q},
\label{hfs_ham}$$ where $t^k_q(\bm{r})$ and $T^k_{q}$ represent irreducible tensor operators of rank $k$ in the electron and nuclear spaces, respectively, and index $i$ is summed over all the electrons in the system. Following the parity considerations, only the even and odd values of $k$ are possible for the electric and magnetic interactions, respectively. In general, the parameters which represent the energy shift due to hyperfine interactions are the hyperfine structure constants. For one valence systems, the magnetic dipole hyperfine structure constant is $$a = \frac{g_I\mu_N}{\sqrt{j_v(j_v+1)(2j_v+1)}}
\langle \Psi_v ||\sum_it^1(\mathbf{r}_i)||\Psi_v \rangle,
\label{hfs_mdipole}$$ where, $j_v$ is the total angular momentum of the valence electron, $g_I$ is the gyromagnetic ratio and $\mu_N$ is the nuclear magneton. In terms of the coupled-cluster wave functions, the reduced matrix element of the hyperfine interaction Hamiltonian is $$\langle \Psi_v\parallel H_{\rm hfs}\parallel \Psi_v \rangle =
\langle \Phi_v\parallel \tilde H_{\rm hfs}
+ 2 S^\dagger \tilde H_{\rm hfs}
+ S^\dagger \tilde H_{\rm hfs} S \parallel \Phi_v\rangle ,
\label{hfs_num}$$ where, $\tilde H_{\rm hfs} = e{^T}^\dagger H_{\rm hfs} e^T$ is the dressed operator. We arrive at the factor of two on the second term on the right hand side as $S^\dagger \tilde H_{\rm hfs} = \tilde H_{\rm hfs} S $. A convenient form of $\tilde H_{\rm hfs}$ is $$\tilde H_{\rm hfs} = H_{\rm hfs} e^T + \sum_{n = 1}^\infty \frac{1}{n!}
\left ( T^\dagger \right )^n H_{\rm hfs} e^T,
\label{A_tilde}$$ and the normalization factor is $$\langle \Psi_v |\Psi_v \rangle =
\langle \Phi_v|\left (1 + S^\dagger\right ) e{^T}^\dagger e^T
\left ( 1 + S\right )|\Phi_v\rangle.$$ In the computations we consider the first few terms in order of the cluster operators from the non-terminating series of $ \tilde H_{\rm hfs}$, and the operator $ e{^T}^\dagger e^T$ in the normalization factor. As example, the diagrams corresponding to dominant terms are shown in Fig. \[hfs\_diagrams\].
Electric dipole transition amplitudes for one-valence systems
-------------------------------------------------------------
The electromagnetic transition amplitudes is another class of properties of atoms or ions which involve two states, an initial and final state. Among the various electromagnetic multipole transitions, the electric dipole $E1$ is the most dominant, and occures between two states of opposite parities. In terms of theoretical description, the important quantity related to $E1$ transition between the initial and final states $|\Psi_i\rangle$ and $|\Psi_f\rangle$, respectively, is $$D_{if} = \frac{\langle \Psi_f\parallel \mathbf{D}\parallel \Psi_i\rangle}
{\sqrt{\langle \Psi_f|\Psi_f\rangle\langle\Psi_i |\Psi_i\rangle}},
\label{d_if}$$ where $\mathbf{D}$ is the electric dipole operator. To simplify the expression we can partition the coupled-cluster wave operator as $$e^{T}(1+S) = \Omega = \Omega ^+ + \Omega ^-.$$ Where $\Omega ^+ $ and $ \Omega ^-$ are the components of the wave operator which operates on the even and odd parity reference states. We can, then, write $$D_{if} = \frac{\langle \Psi_f^0\parallel{\Omega^{\mp}}^\dagger D\Omega^{\pm}
\parallel\Psi_i^0\rangle}
{\sqrt{\langle \Psi_f|\Psi_f\rangle\langle\Psi_i |\Psi_i\rangle}}.$$ For the one-valence system if $|\Psi_v\rangle$ and $|\Psi_w\rangle$ are the initial and final states, respectively, then the reduced matrix element is $$\langle \Psi_w\parallel \mathbf{D}\parallel\Psi_v \rangle =
\langle \Phi_v\parallel \tilde {\mathbf{D}}
+ S^\dagger \tilde {\mathbf{D}} + \tilde{\mathbf{ D}} S
+ S^\dagger \tilde {\mathbf{D}} S \parallel\Phi_v\rangle .
\label{dip_1v}$$ Albeit the expressions are similar to Eq.(\[hfs\_num\]), there is one important difference. Unlike in the case of hyperfine structure constant $S^\dagger \tilde{\mathbf{ D}} \neq \tilde{\mathbf{ D}}S$ as the $|\Psi_v\rangle$ and $|\Psi_w\rangle$ are different states. The code in the present work computes the $E$1 reduced matrix elements as the $E$1 transition properties can be obtain from it in combination with the excitation energies. In terms of diagrams, we can obtain the dominant contributions after appropriate modification of the diagrams in Fig. \[hfs\_diagrams\]. And, the modifications are: changing $H_{\rm hfs}$ to $\mathbf{D}$, and relabelling the final state as the valence state $v$.
Computational details {#comp_detail}
=====================
Radial grid
-----------
For numerical evaluation of the two-electron Slater integrals, the radial wave functions are defined in an exponential grid. So that the $i$th radial grid point has the value, in atomic units, $$r(i) = r_0 \left [ e^{(i-1)h} - 1 \right ],$$ where, for the present work, we use $r_0=2.0\times 10^{-6}$ and $h=0.05$. This choice of radial grid representation samples the nuclear Coulomb potential very well: smaller separation in the $r\ll1$ and larger separation at $r\gg 1$, where the potential is strong and weak, respectively. This choice is similar to the grid used in GRASP2K [@jonsson-07]. In the present implementation of the code, the details of the grid are read from the orbital basis file. The obvious advantage of this implementation is the consistent choice of grid parameters across codes as we generate the basis set using another code.
Orbital basis set
-----------------
The single particle state $\psi_{n\kappa m}$ with principal quantum number $n$, relativistic total quantum number $\kappa$, and magnetic quantum number $m$ is defined as the four-component spin-orbital $$\psi_{n\kappa m}(\bm{r})=\frac{1}{r}
\left(\begin{array}{r}
P_{n\kappa}(r)\chi_{\kappa m}(\mathbf{r}/r)\\
iQ_{n\kappa}(r)\chi_{-\kappa m}(\mathbf{r}/r)
\end{array}\right),$$ where $P_{n\kappa}(r)$ and $Q_{n\kappa}(r)$ are the large and small component of the radial wave functions, respectively, and $\chi_{\kappa m}(\mathbf{r}/r)$ are the spinor spherical harmonics. In the example calculations, the radial functions are even tempered Gaussian type orbitals (GTOs) [@mohanty-90] on a grid [@chaudhuri-99]. The large component $P_{n\kappa}(r) $ are then linear combination of the Gaussian type functions $$g_{\kappa p}^{L}(r) = {\rm N}^{L}_{\kappa p} r^{n_{\kappa}}
e^{-\alpha_{p}r^{2}},$$ where, $ {\rm N}^{L}_{\kappa p}$ is the normalization constant, and $\alpha_{p}$ is the exponent. The exponents are defined in terms of two parameters and forms a geometric series $\alpha_p = \alpha_0 \beta ^{p-1}$, where $\alpha_0$ and $\beta$ are two constants. The choice of these constants are optimized to matched the self consistent field and single particle energies obtained from GRASP2K [@jonsson-07]. The large component can then be written as $$P_{n\kappa m}(r) = \sum_p^{n_\kappa} C^L_{\kappa p} g_{\kappa p}^{L}(r),$$ where $ C^L_{\kappa p}$ is the coefficient of linear combination and $n_\kappa$ is the number of Gaussian type functions considered for the symmetry. Using the GTOs, the Slater integrals or the two-electron Coulomb interaction matrix elements are computed using the subroutines from GRASP2K [@jonsson-07].
Details of implementation {#detail_impl}
=========================
Loop structures
---------------
To aid the conversion from closed-shell to open shell calculations, the implementation has a two-tier structure. These translate to heirarchies of loop structures in terms of the orbitals. For single excitation cluster operator $t_a^p$ , the first tier consists of loops corresponding to the free orbital lines $p$ and $a$. Similarly, for double excitation cluster operators $t_{ab}^{pq}$, the $p$, $q$, $a$ and $b$ form the outer loops. We refer to this outer loop structure as [*cluster* ]{} driven.
To describe the second tier of loops, we classify the Slater integrals into different categories. In total there are ten topologically unique diagrammatic representations, and these are shown in Fig. \[slater\_fig\](a-j). The diagrams in the figure correspond to, following the notations introduced earlier, $v_{ab}^{pq} $, $v_{ra}^{qp}$, $v_{ba}^{cp}$, $v_{ar}^{cp}$, $v_{ra}^{cp}$, $v_{ab}^{cd}$, $v_{ar}^{cd}$, $v_{rs}^{pq}$, $v_{rs}^{pc}$ and $v_{rs}^{cd}$. While evaluating the terms in the cluster equations, the lines below the interaction line (dashed lines) or the orbitals with the indexes $r$, $s$, $c$ and $d$, contract with the cluster operators. We refer to these lines as the [*internal*]{} indices. The others, namely $p$, $q$, $a$ and $b$ are the [*external*]{} indices. An advantage of these classifications and definitions is, one immediately notices that the Slater integrals with more than two [*external*]{} lines do not contribute to the $T_1$ equation. In particular, the Slater integrals which do not contribute to $T_1$ are $v_{ab}^{pq} $, $v_{ra}^{qp}$ and $v_{bc}^{cp}$ but, all the Slater integrals contribute to the $T_2$ equation.
In the second tier, the loops are grouped depending on the Slater integrals. For example, in the linearized RCC, $H_{\rm N}T_1^{(0)}$ contributes through two channels of contractions $v_{rb}^{pq}t_a^r$ and $v_{ab}^{cq}t_c^p$. Here, as mentioned earlier, the product of the operators $H_{\rm N}T_1^{(0)}$ imply all possible contractions. The two terms arise from two different types of Slater integrals. A more complicated example is the contribution from $v_{rs}^{pc}$, it does not contribute to the $T_2$ equations at the linear level but contributes through the nonlinear terms $H_{\rm N}T_2^{(0)}T_1^{(0)}$ and $H_{\rm N}T_1^{(0)}T_1^{(0)}T_1^{(0)}$. This grouping of diagrams based on the Slater integrals is equivalent of [*integral*]{} driven in a limited sense. Collectively, we refer to the two-tiered loop structure as the [*cluster-integral*]{} driven.
Memory parallel integral storage
--------------------------------
The RCC equations are nonlinear algebraic equations and are solved iteratively using standard numerical methods. In the present work, we use Jacobi iteration and convergence is accelerated with DIIS [@pulay-80]. For improved performance, we store the Slater integrals in memory (RAM). The storage of the four particle integrals $v_{rs}^{pq}$, however, require very large memory. For example, in the present calculations the number of the particle states $N_v > 100$ and the order of memory required to store all the $v_{rs}^{pq}$ in double precision scales as $O[10N_v^4]= O[10^9]$ bytes. Where, the factor of ten accounts for the eight bytes to represent a real number in double precision, and the number of multipoles in each integral. This is a conservative estimate, the actual requirement may exceed this by a factor between five and ten. Although the memory required is manageable with current technologies, it is still a large requirement.
With a straight forward and trivial parallelization, it is possible to divide and parallelize the compute intensive part of the calculations. In a distributed memory environment or cluster computers, one of the more prevalent architecture within the high performance computing community, the storage of $v_{rs}^{pq}$ has a large memory foot print. More over, the same set of integrals are stored across all nodes and leads to replication of data. This is rather expensive and could be a severe bottle neck to exploit parallel computing for calculations with large basis sizes. In the present work, we present an implementation where there are no memory replications while storing $v_{rs}^{pq}$. In other words, the storage of the $v_{rs}^{pq}$ is distributed across the nodes or done in parallel. We refer to this scheme as the [*memory parallel* ]{} implementation.
The [*memory parallel* ]{} storage of the $v_{rs}^{pq}$ takes advantage of the [*cluster-integral*]{} driven structure of the code. The implementation exploits one feature of this structure: the orbitals lines of the [*external*]{} loops are not contracted. So, we can parallelize any of the external loops, as it is common to all the cluster diagrams. However, for improved performance we choose the particle line for parallelization. This ensures nearly equal workload for all the nodes as the number of particle states is usually an order magnitude larger than the number of core states. For the present discussion, let us assume that the $p$ loop is parallelzed across $N_n$ processors of a distributed memory system. In general, for the type of calculations we are interested $N_n < N_v$, and each of the processors, then, store $O[(10N_v^4)/N_n]= O[10^9/N_n]$ of the four particle Slater integrals $v_{rs}^{pq}$. For example, if $5N_n\approx N_v$, a condition met in most of our routine computations, we get the memory required per processor as $\approx 2\times 10^8 $. This is less than one gigabyte and hence, we can increase the basis set size without memory constraints.
Intermediate storage
--------------------
The group of CC diagrams for $T_2$ which arise from the Slater integral $v^{pq}_{ab}$ involves four contractions, total of eight orbital lines and summation over three multipoles. The evaluation of these diagrams requires the maximum number of loops, and hence the CPU time. Consider, for example, one of the nonlinear terms $ \langle \Phi^{pq}_{ab}|H_{\rm N}T_2T_2 |\Phi_0 \rangle$, which is quadratic in $T_2$. There are 22 diagrams which contribute to this term and two are shown in the Fig \[ims\_cc\_fig\]. The second diagram in this figure arise due to exchange at one of the $T_2$.
In both the diagrams, the number of hole and particle orbital lines are four each, and three multipole lines. The total number of operations (NOP) required to evaluate the diagram in Fig. \[ims\_cc\_fig\](a) is ${N_h}^4 {N_p}^4 {N_k}^3$. Here, $N_h$, $N_p$ and $N_k$ represent the number of holes, particles and multipoles used in the computations, respectively. Considering the case of Na$^+$ as an example, $N_h$ is 4, for a reasonable basis size $N_p$ can be 100, and since we include orbitals up to $h$-symmetry we may take $N_k=11$. The total NOP is then $\approx 3.4 \times 10^{13}$. An important point to note is, this number corresponds to Na$^+$ which is a lighter ionic system. In the case of high-$Z$ atoms, where the number of holes states are large, the total NOP may increase significantly.
One way to reduce the computational time is through the use of IMS scheme. In this approach, a common part of the CC diagrams is identified and calculated separately. This is then stored as an effective operator. This effective operator latter contracts with the CC operator to provide the contribution equivalent to the actual CC diagrams. The common part is referred to as the intermediate storage (IMS) diagram. As shown in the Fig. \[ims\_diag\_fig\](a), the portion within the dashed line is common to both diagrams in Fig. \[ims\_cc\_fig\], and is therefore an IMS diagram. The common portion is shown as a separate diagram in Fig. \[ims\_diag\_fig\](b). The next step is to evaluate this IMS diagram and store in the form of an effective operator. The angular reduction of the IMS diagram is shown in the Fig. \[ims\_angfac\_fig\], where the removal of the closed loop has reduced it to angular factors and a diagram of free lines. It is to be observed that the diagram with free lines is topologically similar to the effective operator shown in Fig. \[ims\_diag\_fig\](c). The final step to evaluate the CC diagram is to contract the effective operator with the $T_2$ operator. The diagrams which arise from the contractions are shown in the Fig. \[ims\_eff\_fig\]. These are equivalent to the diagrams in the Fig. \[ims\_cc\_fig\].
After the implementation of computations with the IMS diagrams, the total NOP required to compute the diagram in Fig. \[ims\_cc\_fig\](a) is the sum of NOP to compute the diagrams in Fig. \[ims\_diag\_fig\](b) and Fig. \[ims\_eff\_fig\](a). Using the analysis discussed earlier, this is $2 N^3_h N^3_p N^2_k$, which smaller by a factor of $1/2N_hN_pN_k$. For the example of Na$^+$, the NOP required is $\approx 1.5 \times 10^{10}$. The advantage of using IMS becomes more evident when we consider both diagrams in the Fig. \[ims\_cc\_fig\]. The total NOP require is $3 N^3_h N^3_p N^2_k$, which for Na$^+$ example is $\approx 2.3 \times 10^{10}$. However, without the use of IMS scheme it is $\approx 6.8 \times 10^{13}$.
Description of RCCPAC
=====================
Input data files
----------------
The package requires two input data files: the orbital basis file; and the data file which provides information about the type of orbitals.
[*Orbital file*]{}–The default name of the orbital file is `wfn.dat` and it is in binary format. The contents of the file are accessed with a call to the subroutine in `readorb.f`. It has the following data:\
\
The first two records pertains to the spatial grid on which the orbitals are defined. The first record has the grid parameters [h]{} and [n]{}. The second record contains the arrays [r]{}, [rp]{} and [rpor]{}. For the exponential grid used, the first is the grid point, second is the scaling factor required in the integration and last is the [rp/r]{}. These two records are accessed by the subroutine in `readorb.f` as follows:
read(WFNIN)h, n
read(WFNIN)(r(i), i = 1, n), (rp(i), i = 1, n), (rpor(i), i = 1, n)
\
In the remaining part of the file, there are two records for each orbital. The first is the orbital energy, and the second stores the arrays of the large and small components of the orbitals. The records are grouped into orbitals of the same symmetries with increasing $j$. For example, the core orbitals are accessed in [readorb.f]{} as follows:
read(WFNIN)eorb(indx1)
read(WFNIN)(pf(ii,indx1),ii=1,n),(qf(ii,indx1),ii=1,n)
and then, the virtual orbitals of the same symmetry are read next. This is repeated till orbitals of all the symmetries are read.
[*Basis and option file*]{}–The default name of the data file which has the information about the orbital basis is `rccpac.in`. It is an ASCII file and consists of the following lines: atomic weight, number of symmetries, and total number of orbitals, valence and core of each symmetry. For the closed-shell case, the number of valence orbitals is zero and the information is not really required. We, however, introduce it, so that the code may be upgraded for one-valence systems with minimal modifications. As an example, consider the case of atomic Na, the contents of `rccpac.in` for computation with an orbital set consisting of nine symmetries is as given below:
22.99
2
9
19 0 2
15 0 1
15 0 1
13 0 0
13 0 0
11 0 0
11 0 0
9 0 0
9 0 0
The entry ( [22.99]{}) in the first line is the atomic weight of $^{23}$Na and the next line is the [option]{} of the computation. The various possible values of [option]{} are: 2 for the closed-shell cluster amplitude computations; 4 for the one-valence cluster amplitude computations; and 8 for the one-valence properties computations. To combine the computations, the [option]{} of the individual cases must be summed. For example, the value of [option]{} to compute the cluster amplitudes of the closed-shell and one-valence sector is 6. The sum of 2 and 4, the values of [option]{} to do the computations of closed-shell and one-valence cluster amplitudes. The next line gives the number of symmetries (9) considered in the present computation. The symmetries are namely, $s_{1/2}$, $p_{1/2}$, $p_{3/2}$, $d_{3/2}$, $d_{5/2}$, $f_{5/2}$, $f_{7/2}$, $g_{7/2}$ and $g_{9/2}$. The third line provides information about the $s_{1/2}$ orbitals in the basis. In this line, the entry [19]{} is the total number of orbitals in $s_{1/2}$ symmetry, and the other two entries [0]{} and [2]{} are the number of valence and core orbitals in the $s_{1/2}$ symmetry. Similarly, the remaining lines provide information about the orbitals in the remaining symmetries and in the sequence listed earlier.
Next, as an example, we provide the contents of the input file of one-valence computations for $^{133}$Cs. In this case the value of [option]{} is set as 14, which is the sum of 2, 4, and 8. These are the options corresponding to the computations of close-shell and one-valence cluster amplitude, and one-valence properties. The contents of the input file is as given below:
132.91
14
9
17 1 5
13 1 4
13 1 4
13 1 2
13 1 2
11 0 0
11 0 0
11 0 0
11 0 0
13 0 0
13 0 0
13 0 0
13 0 0
The key difference of the input file compared to the previous example is the inclusion of data about the valence shells, the non-zero values in the second column on information about the basis functions. The non-zero values in the present case represent the valence orbitals of $6s$, $6p_{1/2}$, $6p_{3/2}$, $5d_{3/2}$, and $5d_{5/2}$, respectively.
Constant parameters
-------------------
The dimension of the arrays and various other parameters required in different sections of the package are defined as parameters in the module [param]{}. The module is part of the main subroutine file [rccpac.f]{} and in the present version of the package the module is defined as follows:
module param
integer, parameter :: NHO = 27, NPO = 170, MXL = 25, MXV = 20,
& MDIM = 6000000, MN = 950, MNSYM = 13,
& MNS = 13, MXVR = (MXV+1)/2, MNBAS = NHO+NPO,
& MNOCC = NHO, MNEXC = NPO,
integer, parameter :: STDIN = 5, WFNIN = 7,NTFILE = 16,
& STDOUT = 8,MASTER = 0, STDIMS = 9, NITMAX = 50,
& NPMAX = 128, PUNCH = 17
real (8), parameter:: SMALL = 1.2d-8
end module param
In the module, the first set of parameters define the maximum number of a data set and these are as follows:\
[ll]{} `NHO`: & core orbitals,\
`NPO`: & virtual orbitals,\
`MXL`: & multipoles of the cluster amplitudes,\
`MXV`: & multipoles of the two-electron interaction,\
`MDIM`: & cluster amplitudes,\
`MN`: & grid points used to define the orbitals,\
`MNSYM`: & symmetries of orbitals,\
`MNS`: & symmetries of orbitals,\
The second group of parameters are related to I/O and iterations used in the computations. These are:\
[ll]{} `STDIN`: & Unit number of the input file,\
`WFNIN`: & Unit number of the orbital data file,\
`NTFILE`: &\
`STDOUT`: & Unit number of default output,\
`MASTER`: & identity of the master in the MPI execution of the package,\
`STDIMS`: &\
`NITMAX`: & maximum number of iteration in the Jacobi method to solve the cluster equations,\
`NPMAX`: &\
The last element in the module, `SMALL`, is the parameter which is used to define the convergence criterion.
Output data
-----------
On the successful completion the package generates the coupled-cluster amplitudes and these are stored in the binary data file `ccamp_0v.dat`. The information related to computation are given in the output file `rccpac.out`. The file has data about the orbital basis, number of two-electron integrals, number of IMS diagrams in each group, convergence parameter, and details of the DIIS computation.
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
RELATIVISTIC COUPLED-CLUSTER PROGRAM
for
ATOMIC CALCULATIONS
(RCCPAC)
Relativistic coupled-cluster theory with single and double
excitation approximation is implemented in this code.
The cluster equations are solved using Jacobi iteration
with Direct Inversion in the Iterative Subspace (DIIS) to
accelerate the convergence.
Written by
Brajesh K. Mani Physical Research Laboratory
Siddhartha Chattopadhyay Theoretical Physics Division
Dilip Angom Navarangpura, Ahmedabad--09
Gujarat, INDIA
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
DATE :
Tue Jun 21 13:27:27 2016
The number of orbitals in the core (ncore) = 4
valence (nval) = 0
occupied (nocc) = 4
virtual (nexcit) = 111
total (nbasis) = 115
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
++Completed RCC (T0) skip calculations (symm.f)++
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of single excited cluster amplitudes: 62
double excited cluster amplitudes: 27364
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
++Completed reading radial wave functions++
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Core orbitals
-------------
Seq no. Orbital Energy
1 -40.82654629
2 -3.08240070
3 -1.80141924
4 -1.79401059
----------------
Virtual orbitals
----------------
Seq no. Orbital Energy
5 -0.18203250
6 -0.07016031
7 -0.03703966
8 -0.01737279
9 0.05584768
10 0.31893785
*** ************
113 14.53407907
114 38.87397690
115 105.24442393
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
++Entering coul_tab to tabulate two-electron Coulomb integrals++
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The maximum number of <ph|v|hp> ( nskip_phhp) is: 54204
<hh|v|hh> ( nskip_hhhh) is: 109
<ph|v|ph> ( nskip_phph) is: 50252
<pp|v|pp> ( nskip_pppp) is: 78252104
<hh|v|pp> ( nskip_hhpp) is: 54204
<pp|v|hp> ( nskip_pphp) is: 1945909
<hp|v|pp> ( nskip_hppp) is: 1945909
<ph|v|hh> ( nskip_phhh) is: 1785
<hh|v|ph> ( nskip_hhph) is: 1785
init_close1, nsing 0 62
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
++Linearised unperturbed closed-shell (ldrivert0_0v)++
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Convergence parameter is 0.120000D-07
Iteration 1
conv and convd are = 0.615626D-01 0.138845D+01
eps and epsd are = 0.992945D-03 0.507402D-04
Iteration 2
conv and convd are = 0.415324D-02 0.270568D+00
eps and epsd are = 0.669878D-04 0.988775D-05
DIIS matrix elements
1 1 0.139833D-02
1 2 -0.139262D-04
2 2 0.393844D-04
DIIS solution
0.363755D-01 0.963625D+00 0.374452D-04
********* ************ *********** *************
Iteration 7
conv and convd are = 0.211860D-04 0.157455D-03
eps and epsd are = 0.341710D-06 0.575409D-08
Converged in ** 7** iterations
Maximum number of nskip_ims4p is: 156081572
nskip_ims4h is: 406
nskip_ims2p2h is: 212722
nskip_imsphhh is: 7293
nskip_imspphp is: 7727007
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
++Nonlinear unperturbed closed-shell (nldrivert0_0v)++
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Convergence parameter is 0.120000D-07
Iteration 1
conv and convd are = 0.204806D-02 0.125925D+00
eps and epsd are = 0.330333D-04 0.460186D-05
Iteration 2
conv and convd are = 0.628172D-03 0.219799D-01
eps and epsd are = 0.101318D-04 0.803242D-06
DIIS matrix elements
1 1 0.149170D-04
1 2 0.146607D-05
2 2 0.390725D-06
DIIS solution
-0.868926D-01 0.108689D+01 0.297286D-06
********* ************ *********** *************
Iteration 5
conv and convd are = 0.165985D-04 0.301626D-03
eps and epsd are = 0.267719D-06 0.110227D-07
DIIS matrix elements
1 1 0.112876D-08
1 2 0.302626D-09
2 2 0.102218D-09
DIIS solution
-0.320281D+00 0.132028D+01 0.380308D-10
Converged in ** 5** iterations
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
++Compute correlation energy++
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Correlation energy ( in atomic units):
Contribution from direct diagrams: -0.5781920
Contribution from exchange diagrams: 0.2088729
Total: -0.3693191
DATE :
Tue Jun 21 13:41:38 2016
In the printout of the output file `rccpac.out`, the rows with `***` indicate additional lines of data, but not included in the above for compactness. Albeit, we have given the correlation energy as an example of the property computed using the CCSD wavefunction, any other properties of a closed-shell atom or ion may be computed using the cluster amplitudes in the output file `ccamp_0v.dat`.
For the case of one-valence systems, the contents of the output file of the properties computations of $^{133}$Cs is given below as an example. The computation of the E1 reduced matrix elements is given as an example of the one-valence properties. The hyperfine structure constants can also be computed in the same way.
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
RELATIVISTIC COUPLED-CLUSTER PROGRAM
for
ATOMIC CALCULATIONS
(RCCPAC)
Relativistic coupled-cluster theory with single and double
excitation approximation is implemented in this code.
The cluster equations are solved using Jacobi iteration
with Direct Inversion in the Iterative Subspace (DIIS) to
accelerate the convergence.
Written by
Brajesh K. Mani Physical Research Laboratory
Siddhartha Chattopadhyay Theoretical Physics Division
Dilip Angom Navarangpura, Ahmedabad--09
Gujarat, INDIA
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
DATE :
Mon Oct 17 12:24:45 2016
The number of orbitals in the core (ncore) = 17
valence (nval) = 5
occupied (nocc) = 22
virtual (nexcit) = 96
total (nbasis) = 113
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
++Completed RCC (T0) skip calculations (symm.f)++
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of single excited cluster amplitudes: 228
double excited cluster amplitudes: 868773
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
++Completed reading radial wave functions++
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Core orbitals
-------------
Seq no. Orbital Energy
1 -1330.11726503
2 -212.56429987
3 -45.96972982
4 -9.51278742
5 -1.48980491
6 -199.42944490
7 -40.44831432
8 -7.44627286
9 -0.90789762
10 -186.43662752
11 -37.89433600
12 -6.92099140
13 -0.84033940
14 -28.30956867
15 -3.48562841
16 -27.77522550
17 -3.39691055
----------------
Valence orbitals
----------------
Seq no. Orbital Energy
18 -0.12736841
19 -0.08561350
20 -0.08378191
21 -0.06440672
22 -0.06451711
----------------
Virtual orbitals
----------------
Seq no. Orbital Energy
23 -0.05283804
24 0.02231458
25 0.24902056
26 0.92053859
27 2.87599696
*** ************
111 70.38575916
112 207.56873070
113 611.39136250
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
++Entering coul_tab to tabulate two-electron Coulomb integrals++
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The maximum number of <ph|v|hp> ( nskip_phhp) is: 1734444
<hh|v|hh> ( nskip_hhhh) is: 97234
<ph|v|ph> ( nskip_phph) is: 1697124
<pp|v|pp> ( nskip_pppp) is: 53166820
<hh|v|pp> ( nskip_hhpp) is: 1734444
<pp|v|hp> ( nskip_pphp) is: 9290442
<hp|v|pp> ( nskip_hppp) is: 9290442
<ph|v|hh> ( nskip_phhh) is: 353553
<hh|v|ph> ( nskip_hhph) is: 353553
init_close1, nsing 0 228
********************************************************************************
Output from the closed-shell part
********************************************************************************
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
++Linearised unperturbed one-valence (ldrivert0_1v)++
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Convergence parameter is 0.120000D-07
Attachement energies
Valence Orb Corr Energy Orb Energy Attach Energy
18 -0.166919D-01 -0.127368D+00 -0.144060D+00
19 -0.655392D-02 -0.856135D-01 -0.921674D-01
20 -0.592481D-02 -0.837819D-01 -0.897067D-01
21 -0.100909D-01 -0.644067D-01 -0.744976D-01
22 -0.972703D-02 -0.645171D-01 -0.742441D-01
Iteration 1
conv and convd are = 0.229040D+01 0.630055D+02
eps and epsd are = 0.100456D-01 0.725224D-04
Attachement energies
Valence Orb Corr Energy Orb Energy Attach Energy
18 -0.134525D-01 -0.127368D+00 -0.140821D+00
19 -0.544351D-02 -0.856135D-01 -0.910570D-01
20 -0.492562D-02 -0.837819D-01 -0.887075D-01
21 -0.763087D-02 -0.644067D-01 -0.720376D-01
22 -0.738749D-02 -0.645171D-01 -0.719046D-01
********* ************ *********** *************
Iteration 10
conv and convd are = 0.580033D-03 0.117220D-01
eps and epsd are = 0.254401D-05 0.134926D-07
Attachement energies
Valence Orb Corr Energy Orb Energy Attach Energy
18 -0.169498D-01 -0.127368D+00 -0.144318D+00
19 -0.692914D-02 -0.856135D-01 -0.925426D-01
20 -0.620691D-02 -0.837819D-01 -0.899888D-01
21 -0.136117D-01 -0.644067D-01 -0.780185D-01
22 -0.128607D-01 -0.645171D-01 -0.773778D-01
Iteration 11
conv and convd are = 0.333555D-03 0.447109D-02
eps and epsd are = 0.146296D-05 0.514645D-08
Converged in ** 11** iterations
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
++Nonlinear unperturbed one-valence (nldrivert0_1v)++
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Convergence parameter is 0.120000D-07
Attachement energies
Valence Orb Corr Energy Orb Energy Attach Energy
18 -0.169508D-01 -0.127368D+00 -0.144319D+00
19 -0.692949D-02 -0.856135D-01 -0.925430D-01
20 -0.620722D-02 -0.837819D-01 -0.899891D-01
21 -0.136117D-01 -0.644067D-01 -0.780184D-01
22 -0.128606D-01 -0.645171D-01 -0.773777D-01
Iteration 1
conv and convd are = 0.410651D+00 0.359759D+01
eps and epsd are = 0.180110D-02 0.414100D-05
Attachement energies
Valence Orb Corr Energy Orb Energy Attach Energy
18 -0.164705D-01 -0.127368D+00 -0.143839D+00
19 -0.666249D-02 -0.856135D-01 -0.922760D-01
20 -0.588440D-02 -0.837819D-01 -0.896663D-01
21 -0.131382D-01 -0.644067D-01 -0.775449D-01
22 -0.124401D-01 -0.645171D-01 -0.769572D-01
********* ************ *********** *************
Iteration 9
conv and convd are = 0.492117D-03 0.474424D-02
eps and epsd are = 0.215841D-05 0.546085D-08
DIIS matrix elements
1 1 0.585631D-06
1 2 0.166541D-06
1 3 0.146858D-06
1 4 0.565027D-07
2 2 0.259704D-06
2 3 0.480579D-07
2 4 0.887415D-07
3 3 0.398448D-07
3 4 0.155797D-07
4 4 0.316634D-07
DIIS solution
-0.131591D+00 -0.321214D+00 0.549912D+00
0.902893D+00 0.121586D-08
Converged in ** 9** iterations
Attachement energies
Valence Orb Corr Energy Orb Energy Attach Energy
18 -0.163371D-01 -0.127368D+00 -0.143705D+00
19 -0.660373D-02 -0.856135D-01 -0.922172D-01
20 -0.583622D-02 -0.837819D-01 -0.896181D-01
21 -0.119459D-01 -0.644067D-01 -0.763527D-01
22 -0.113554D-01 -0.645171D-01 -0.758725D-01
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
++One-valence properties computations (prop_1v)++
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Normalization
State Normalization factor
18 0.993542
19 0.996916
20 0.997362
21 0.993279
22 0.993639
Final state Intial state E1 amplitude
1 2 DF value -5.228273
Total value -4.494237
1 3 DF value -7.360728
Total value -6.350515
2 1 DF value -5.228273
Total value -4.500968
2 4 DF value 8.874962
Total value 7.313672
2 5 DF value 0.000000
Total value 0.000000
3 1 DF value 7.360728
Total value 6.368736
3 4 DF value 4.015906
Total value 3.293150
3 5 DF value 12.051371
Total value 9.995387
4 2 DF value -8.874962
Total value -7.327270
4 3 DF value 4.015906
Total value 3.294046
5 2 DF value 0.000000
Total value 0.000000
5 3 DF value -12.051371
Total value -9.982575
DATE :
Mon Oct 17 19:10:23 2016
In the output file shown above, the states identified as 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 correspond to the $6s(^2S_{1/2})$, $6p (^2P_{1/2})$, $6p(^2P_{3/2})$, $5d(^2D_{3/2})$ and $5d(^2D_{5/2})$ states of Cs. The hyperfine structure constants can also be computed in the same way by choosing the hyperfine structure constant subroutine in the main driver subroutine `rccpac.f` where the properties driver subroutine `prop_1v.f` is called. In the case of hyperfine structure constants, the output from the code gives the matrix elements of the hyperfine interaction Hamiltonian in the electronic sector. So, to obtain the hyperfine structure constants in the units of MHz, the results obtain from the code should be multiplied by the gyromagnetic ratio of the atom or ion, and factor of 13074.69. For compactness we have not shown the contents of the output file for the hyperfine structure constant computations.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
We acknowledge the valuable discussions with S. A. Silotri, S. Gautam, and A. Roy on various topics related to many-body physics. We are grateful to B. P. Das and D. Mukherjee for many discussions on the theoretical details of coupled-cluster theory. We thank, Per Jonsson, Farid Parpia, K. V. P. Latha, and B. P. Das for allowing us the use of subroutines they have written as part of other scientific package. The example results shown in the paper are based on the computations using the HPC cluster Vikram-100 at Physical Research Laboratory, Ahmedabad.
References {#references .unnumbered}
==========
[31]{} natexlab\#1[\#1]{}\[2\][\#2]{} , () . , , () . , () . , () . , , , , () . , , , , , , , () . , , , , , () . , , , () . , , , , , , () . , , , () . , , , , Challenges and Advances in Computational Chemistry and Physics, , . , , () . , , () . , , , , () . , , , , () . , , , , , () . , , , () . , , , () . , , , () . , , , () . , , , () . , , , () . , , () . , , , , , . , , , , , . , , () . , () . , , , , () . , , () . , , , () . , () .
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We investigate the charm quark system using the relativistic heavy quark action on 2+1 flavor PACS-CS configurations previously generated on $32^3 \times 64$ lattice. The dynamical up-down and strange quark masses are set to the physical values by using the technique of reweighting to shift the quark hopping parameters from the values employed in the configuration generation. At the physical point, the lattice spacing equals $a^{-1}=2.194(10)$ GeV and the spatial extent $L=2.88(1)$ fm. The charm quark mass is determined by the spin-averaged mass of the 1S charmonium state, from which we obtain $m_{\rm charm}^{{\overline{\rm MS}}}(\mu = m_{\rm charm}^{{\overline{\rm MS}}}) = 1.260(1)(6)(35)$ GeV, where the errors are due to our statistics, scale determination and renormalization factor. An additional systematic error from the heavy quark is of order $\alpha_s^2 f(m_Q a)(a \Lambda_{QCD})$, which is estimated to be a percent level if the factor $f(m_Q a)$ analytic in $m_Q a$ is of order unity. Our results for the charmed and charmed-strange meson decay constants are $f_D=226(6)(1)(5)$ MeV, $f_{D_s}=257(2)(1)(5)$ MeV, again up to the heavy quark errors of order $\alpha_s^2 f(m_Q a)(a \Lambda_{QCD})$. Combined with the CLEO values for the leptonic decay widths, these values yield $|V_{cd}| = 0.205(6)(1)(5)(9)$, $|V_{cs}| = 1.00(1)(1)(3)(3)$, where the last error is on account of the experimental uncertainty of the decay widths.'
author:
- |
Y. Namekawa$^1$, S. Aoki$^{1,2}$, K. -I. Ishikawa$^3$, N. Ishizuka$^{1,2}$, T. Izubuchi$^4$, K. Kanaya$^2$, Y. Kuramashi$^{1,2,5}$, M. Okawa$^3$, Y. Taniguchi$^{1,2}$, A. Ukawa$^{1,2}$, N. Ukita$^1$ and T. Yoshié$^{1,2}$\
(PACS-CS Collaboration)
title: Charm quark system at the physical point of 2+1 flavor lattice QCD
---
[UTHEP-625]{}\
[UTCCS-P-62]{}\
Introduction {#section:introduction}
============
Precise determination of the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM) quark mixing matrix is an indispensable step to establish the validity range of the standard model, and to search for new physics at higher energy scales. Lattice QCD has been making steady progress in this direction. For the matrix elements such as $|V_{ud}|$ and $|V_{us}|$ in the first row which involve only light quarks, dynamical simulations including up, down and strange quarks have reached the point where the relevant pseudoscalar meson decay constants and form factors are being determined at subpercent precision. On the other hand, for $|V_{cd}|$ and $|V_{cs}|$ in the second row, the precision of lattice QCD calculation for the decay constants and form factors is still at 5 to 10% level. This is not clearly superior to non-lattice QCD determinations. Indeed, the estimate quoted in Particle Data Group (PDG) 2010, $|V_{cd}| = 0.230(11)$ [@PDG_2010] with an accuracy of 5%, is obtained from neutrino and anti-neutrino experiments. [^1] Much effort is needed on the part of lattice QCD toward a better precision in the charm sector.
One of the difficulties with the charm quark in lattice QCD simulations at a typical cutoff $a^{-1} \approx 2$ GeV resides in significant cutoff errors due to the charm quark mass. The heavy quark mass correction is $m_Q a \sim 1$, and hence we must control errors to all orders of $m_Q a$ to achieve a few percent accuracy. The Fermilab action [@Fermilab_action] and the relativistic heavy quark action [@RHQ_action_Tsukuba; @RHQ_action_Columbia] have been proposed to meet this goal. In the present work we employ the relativistic formalism of Ref. [@RHQ_action_Tsukuba] to explore the charm quark system.
Another source that prevents precise evaluations in lattice QCD is the error associated with chiral extrapolations in the light quark masses. This problem has been increasingly alleviated through progress toward simulations with lighter and lighter dynamical quark masses and sophisticated application of chiral perturbation theory techniques. The acceleration of dynamical lattice QCD simulation using multi-time steps for infrared and ultraviolet modes [@DDHMC; @mass_precondition] has made it possible to run simulations with light up, down and strange quark masses around their physical values [@PACS_CS_0]. In such simulations, uncertainties due to chiral extrapolations are drastically reduced.
In fact we can proceed one more step and reweight [@reweight] dynamical simulations such that dynamical quark masses take exactly the physical values. A potential difficulty with dynamical lattice QCD is a large fluctuation of quark determinant ratios necessary for reweighting. We have demonstrated the feasibility of this procedure in Ref. [@PACS_CS_1] by reweighting a set of PACS-CS configurations with $m_\pi=152(6)$ MeV and $m_K=509(2)$ MeV to those with $m_\pi=135(6)$ MeV and $m_K=498(2)$ MeV. Once the reweighting is successfully made, ambiguities associated with chiral extrapolations are completely removed. In the present work we employ the reweighting factors and the set of original dynamical configurations employed in Ref. [@PACS_CS_1]. Hence our light quark masses sit at the physical point.
In this paper we present our work for the charm quark system treated with the relativistic heavy quark formalism [@RHQ_action_Tsukuba] on the 2+1 dynamical flavor PACS-CS configurations of $32^3 \times 64$ lattice generated with the Wilson-clover quark and reweighted to the physical point for up, down and strange quark masses. The lattice spacing is estimated as $a^{-1}=2.194(10)$ GeV. We measure the masses and decay constants of charmonia, charmed mesons and charmed-strange mesons. We then calculate the charm quark mass and the CKM matrix elements.
This paper is organized as follows. Section II explains our method and simulation parameters. Section III describes our results for the charmonium spectrum and the charm quark mass. In Sec. IV, we show our charmed meson and charmed-strange meson spectrum. Section V is devoted to present our pseudoscalar decay constants and the CKM matrix elements. Our conclusions are given in Sec. VI.
Set up {#section:setup}
======
Our calculation is based on a set of $N_f=2+1$ flavor dynamical lattice QCD configurations generated by the PACS-CS Collaboration [@PACS_CS_1] on a $32^3\times 64$ lattice using the nonperturbatively $O(a)$-improved Wilson quark action with $c_{\rm SW}^{\rm NP}=1.715$ [@Csw_NP] and the Iwasaki gauge action [@RG] at $\beta=1.90$. The aggregate of 2000 MD time units were generated at the hopping parameter given by $(\kappa_{ud}^0,\kappa_{s}^0)=(0.13778500, 0.13660000)$, and 80 configurations at every 25 MD time units were used for measurements. We then reweight those configurations to the physical point given by $(\kappa_{ud},\kappa_{s})=(0.13779625, 0.13663375)$. The reweighting shifts the masses of $\pi$ and $K$ mesons from $m_\pi=152(6)$ MeV and $m_K=509(2)$ MeV to $m_\pi=135(6)$ MeV and $m_K=498(2)$ MeV, with the cutoff at the physical point estimated to be $a^{-1}=2.194(10)$ GeV.
Observables at the physical point are evaluated through the formula $$\begin{aligned}
{\left\langle}{\cal O}[U](\kappa_{\rm ud},\kappa_{\rm s})
{\right\rangle}_{(\kappa_{\rm ud},\kappa_{\rm s})}
=
\frac{{\left\langle}{\cal O}[U](\kappa_{\rm ud},\kappa_{\rm s})
R_{\rm ud}[U] R_{\rm s}[U]
{\right\rangle}_{(\kappa_{\rm ud}^0,\kappa_{\rm s}^0)} }
{{\left\langle}R_{\rm ud}[U] R_{\rm s}[U]
{\right\rangle}_{(\kappa_{\rm ud}^0,\kappa_{\rm s}^0)} },
\label{eq:reweight}\end{aligned}$$ where the reweighting factors are defined as $$\begin{aligned}
R_{\rm ud}[U]
&=& \left\vert \det \left[ \frac{D_{\kappa_{\rm ud}}[U]}
{D_{\kappa_{\rm ud}^0}[U]}
\right]
\right\vert^2,\\
R_{\rm s}[U]
&=& \det \left[ \frac{D_{\kappa_{\rm s}}[U]}
{D_{\kappa_{\rm s}^0[U]}}
\right],\end{aligned}$$ and $D_{\kappa_q}[U]$ is the Wilson-clover quark operator with the hopping parameter $\kappa_q$. We refer to Ref. [@PACS_CS_1] for details of our evaluation of the determinant ratio. Our parameters and statistics at the physical point are collected in Table \[table:statistics\].
The relativistic heavy quark formalism [@RHQ_action_Tsukuba] is designed to reduce cutoff errors of $O((m_Q a)^n)$ with arbitrary order $n$ to $O(f(m_Q a)(a \Lambda_{QCD})^2)$, once all of the parameters in the relativistic heavy quark action are determined nonperturbatively, where $f(m_Q a)$ is an analytic function around the massless point $m_Q a = 0$. The action is given by $$\begin{aligned}
S_Q
&=& \sum_{x,y}\overline{Q}_x D_{x,y} Q_y,\\
D_{x,y}
&=& \delta_{xy}
- \kappa_{Q}
\sum_i \left[ (r_s - \nu \gamma_i)U_{x,i} \delta_{x+\hat{i},y}
+(r_s + \nu \gamma_i)U_{x,i}^{\dag} \delta_{x,y+\hat{i}}
\right]
\nonumber \\
&& - \kappa_{Q}
\left[ (r_t - \nu \gamma_i)U_{x,4} \delta_{x+\hat{4},y}
+(r_t + \nu \gamma_i)U_{x,4}^{\dag} \delta_{x,y+\hat{4}}
\right]
\nonumber \\
&& - \kappa_{Q}
\left[ c_B \sum_{i,j} F_{ij}(x) \sigma_{ij}
+ c_E \sum_i F_{i4}(x) \sigma_{i4}
\right],\end{aligned}$$ where $\kappa_Q$ is the hopping parameter for the heavy quark. The parameters $r_t, r_s, c_B, c_E$ and $\nu$ are adjusted as follows. We are allowed to choose $r_t=1$, and we employ a one-loop perturbative value for $r_s$ [@RHQ_parameters]. For the clover coefficients $c_B$ and $c_E$, we include the non-perturbative contribution in the massless limit $c_{\rm SW}^{\rm NP}$ for three flavor dynamical QCD [@Csw_NP], and calculate the heavy quark mass dependent contribution to one-loop order in perturbation theory [@RHQ_parameters] according to $$\begin{aligned}
c_{B,E}=(c_{B,E}(m_Q a) - c_{B,E}(0))^{\rm PT} + c_{\rm SW}^{\rm NP}.\end{aligned}$$ The parameter $\nu$ is determined non-perturbatively to reproduce the relativistic dispersion relation for the spin-averaged $1S$ states of the charmonium. Writing $$E({\vec p})^2
= E({\vec 0})^2+c_{\rm eff}^2 |{\vec p}|^2,$$ for $|{\vec p}| = 0, (2 \pi / L), \sqrt{2} (2 \pi / L)$, and demanding the effective speed of light $c_{\rm eff}$ to be unity, we find $\nu=1.1450511$ with which we have $c_{\rm eff} = 1.002(4)$. It is noted that the remaining cutoff errors are $\alpha_s^2 f(m_Q a)(a \Lambda_{QCD})$, instead of $f(m_Q a)(a \Lambda_{QCD})^2$, due to the use of one-loop perturbative values in part for the parameters of our heavy quark action.
We tune the heavy quark hopping parameter to reproduce an experimental value of the mass for the spin-averaged $1S$ states of the charmonium, given by $$\begin{aligned}
M(1S)^{exp}
= (M_{\eta_c} + 3 M_{J/\psi})/4
= 3.0678(3) \mbox{~GeV~\cite{PDG_2010}}.\end{aligned}$$ This leads to $\kappa_{\rm charm}=0.10959947$ for which our lattice QCD measurement yields the value $M(1S)^{lat} = 3.067(1)(14)$ GeV, where the first error is statistical, and the second is a systematic from the scale determination. Our parameters for the relativistic heavy quark action are summarized in Table \[table:input\_parameters\_for\_RHQ\].
We use the following standard operators to obtain meson masses, $$\begin{aligned}
M_{\Gamma}^{fg}(x) = \bar{q}_f(x) \Gamma q_g(x),\end{aligned}$$ where $f,g$ are quark flavors and $\Gamma = I, \gamma_5, \gamma_{\mu}, i \gamma_{\mu} \gamma_5,
i[\gamma_{\mu},\gamma_{\nu}]/2$. The meson correlators are calculated with a point and exponentially smeared sources and a local sink. The smearing function is given by $\Psi(r) = A \exp(-B r)$ at $r \not = 0$ and $\Psi(0)=1$. We set $A = 1.2$, $B = 0.07$ for the $ud$ quark, $A = 1.2$, $B = 0.18$ for the strange quark, and $A = 1.2$, $B = 0.55$ for the charm quark. The number of source points is quadrupled and polarization states are averaged to reduce statistical fluctuations. Statistical errors are analyzed by the jackknife method with a bin size of 100 MD time units (4 configurations), as in the light quark sector [@PACS_CS_1].
We extract meson masses by fitting correlators with a hyperbolic cosine function. For charmonium, Fig. \[figure:m\_eff\_charmonium\] shows effective masses, from which we choose the fitting range to be $[t_{min},t_{max}] = [10,32]$. Similarly, Fig. \[figure:m\_eff\_ud\_charm\] and Fig. \[figure:m\_eff\_s\_charm\] represent effective masses for charmed mesons and charmed-strange mesons. We employ the fitting range $[t_{min},t_{max}] = [14,20]$ for pseudoscalar mesons, and $[t_{min},t_{max}] = [10,20]$ for the other channels.
We calculate the decay constant $f_{PS}$ of the heavy-light pseudoscalar meson using the improved axial vector current $A_{4}^{imp}$. $$\begin{aligned}
i f_{PS} p_{\mu}
&=& \langle 0 | A_{\mu}^{imp} | PS(p) \rangle,
\label{equation:f_PS}
\\
A_{4}^{imp}
&=& \sqrt{2 \kappa_q} \sqrt{2 \kappa_Q} Z_{A_{4}}
\left\{ \bar{q}(x) \gamma_{4} \gamma_{5} Q(x)
\right. \nonumber \\
&& \left. +c_{A_{4}}^{+} \partial_{4}^{+}
\left( \bar{q}(x) \gamma_{5} Q(x) \right)
+c_{A_{4}}^{-} \partial_{4}^{-}
\left( \bar{q}(x) \gamma_{5} Q(x) \right)
\right\},\end{aligned}$$ where $\vert PS \rangle$ is the pseudoscalar meson state and $\partial^{\pm}$ is the lattice forward and backward derivative. For the renormalization factor $Z_{A_{4}}$ and the improvement coefficients of the axial current $c_{A_{4}}^{+}$ and $c_{A_{4}}^{-}$, we employ one-loop perturbation theory to evaluate the mass-dependent contributions [@Z_factors], adding the nonperturbative contributions in the chiral limit by $$\begin{aligned}
c_{A_4}^{+} &=& (c_{A_4}^{+}(m_Q a) - c_{A_4}^{+}(0))^{\rm PT}
+ c_{A}^{\rm NP}, \\
Z_{A_4} &=& (Z_{A_4}(m_Q a) - Z_{A_4}(0))^{\rm PT} + Z_{A}^{\rm NP},\end{aligned}$$ with $c_{A}^{\rm NP} = -0.03876106$ [@NP-c_A] and $Z_{A}^{\rm NP} = 0.781(20)$ [@PACS_CS_2].
The bare quark mass is determined through the axial vector Ward-Takahashi identity, $$\begin{aligned}
m_f^{AWI} + m_g^{AWI}
= m_{PS}
\frac{{\left\langle}0 | A_4^{imp} | PS {\right\rangle}}
{{\left\langle}0 | P | PS {\right\rangle}},\end{aligned}$$ where $P$ is the pseudoscalar meson operator. The renormalized quark mass in the ${\overline{\rm MS}}$ scheme is given by $$\begin{aligned}
m_f^{{\overline{\rm MS}}}(\mu) = Z_m(\mu) m_f^{AWI}.
\label{equation:m_quark}\end{aligned}$$ Similar to the case of $Z_{A_4}$, the renormalization factor for the quark mass at the renormalization scale $\mu$, $Z_m (\mu)$, is nonperturbatively determined at the massless point, $$\begin{aligned}
Z_{m}(\mu) = (Z_{m}(m_Q a) - Z_{m}(0))^{\rm PT}(\mu) + Z_{m}^{\rm NP}(\mu),\end{aligned}$$ with $Z_{m}^{\rm NP}(\mu=1/a) = 1.308(35)$ [@PACS_CS_2]. The charm quark mass is then evolved to $\mu = m_{\rm charm}^{{\overline{\rm MS}}}$ using $N_f=3$ four-loop beta function [@beta_function]. We employ $N_f=3$ based on the fact that our simulation includes $N_f=2+1$ dynamical quarks.
Charmonium spectrum and charm quark mass {#section:result_1}
========================================
Our results for the charmonium spectrum on the physical point are summarized in Fig. \[figure:mass\_charmonium\_all\] and Table \[table:mass\_charmonium\]. Within the error of 0.5–1%, the predicted spectrum is in reasonable agreement with experiment.
Let us consider the $1S$ states more closely. Since these states are employed to tune the charm quark mass, the central issue here is the magnitude of the hyperfine splitting. Our result $m_{J/\psi}-m_{\eta_c}=0.108(1)(0)$ GeV, where the first error is statistical and the second error is systematic from the scale determination, is 7% smaller than the experimental value of 0.117 GeV. In Fig. \[figure:m\_V\_minus\_m\_PS\], we compare the present result on $N_f=2+1$ flavor dynamical configurations with previous attempts on $N_f=2$ dynamical and quenched configurations using the same heavy quark formalism and the Iwasaki gluon action [@RHQ-N_f_0_2]. We observe a clear trend that incorporation of dynamical light quark effects improves the agreement.
We should note that the continuum extrapolation is to be performed. A naive order counting implies that effects of $O(\alpha_s^2 f(m_Q a)(a \Lambda_{QCD}))$ from the relativistic heavy quark action is at a percent level. Another aspect is that dynamical charm quark effects and disconnected loop contributions, albeit reported to give a shift of only a few MeV [@disconnected], are not included in the present work. Additional calculations are needed to draw a definite conclusion for the hyperfine splitting of the charmonium spectrum.
Using Eq. (\[equation:m\_quark\]), the charm quark mass is obtained as $$\begin{aligned}
m_{\rm charm}^{{\overline{\rm MS}}}(\mu = m_{\rm charm}^{{\overline{\rm MS}}}) = 1.260(1)(6)(35) \mbox{~GeV},\end{aligned}$$ where the first error is statistical, the second is systematic from the scale determination, and the third from uncertainty in the renormalization factor. The systematic error due to the heavy quark of $O(\alpha_s^2 f(m_Q a)(a \Lambda_{QCD}))$ is also to be estimated. Figure \[figure:m\_charm\] compares our result with a recent $N_f=2+1$ lattice QCD estimation by the HPQCD Collaboration [@HPQCD_1] in the continuum limit, which uses the HISQ form of the staggered quark action for the heavy quark on the MILC dynamical configurations.
Charmed meson and charmed-strange meson spectrum {#section:result_2}
================================================
We calculate the charmed meson and charmed-strange meson masses which are stable on our lattice with the spatial size of $L = 2.88(1)$ fm and a lattice cutoff of $a^{-1}=2.194(10)$ GeV. The $D^*$ and $D_s^*$ meson decay channels are not open in our lattice setup. $D_{s0}^*$ and $D_{s1}$ meson masses are below the $D K$ threshold [@PDG_2010] but above the $D_s \pi$ threshold. Their decays, however, are prohibited by the isospin symmetry. On the other hand, $D_{0}^*$ and $D_1$ meson masses are not computed since their decay channels are open, and therefore a calculation involving $D \pi$ contributions is needed.
Our results are summarized in Fig. \[figure:mass\_ud\_charm\] and in Table \[table:mass\_ud\_charm\] and \[table:mass\_s\_charm\]. All our values for the heavy-light meson quantities are predictions, because the physical charm quark mass has already been fixed with the charmonium spectrum. The experimental spectrum are reproduced in $2 \sigma$ level. The potential model predicts the $D_{s0}^*$ meson mass is above the $D K$ threshold [@potential_model], which deviates from the experiment significantly. But, our result does not indicate such a large difference from the experimental value. A similar result is obtained in other lattice QCD calculations [@chi_QCD]. It should be noticed that our calculation does not cover $D K$ scattering states yet. $D K$ contamination for $D_{s0}^*$ and $D_{s1}$ meson masses can be considerably large. Further analysis is required to validate our results for $D_{s0}^*$ and $D_{s1}$ meson spectrum.
We compare our results for the hyperfine splittings $m_{D^*}-m_D$ and $m_{D_s}-m_D$ with experiments in Fig. \[figure:hyperfine\_splitting\_ud\_s\_charm\], where we also plot our previous results for $N_f=2$ and quenched QCD [@RHQ-N_f_0_2]. The deviation from the experimental value is $1.2 \sigma$ for charmed mesons, and $2.3 \sigma$ for charmed-strange mesons.
Charmed meson and charmed-strange meson decay constants and CKM matrix elements {#section:result_3}
===============================================================================
Table \[table:decay\_constants\] presents our estimate of the pseudoscalar decay constants for $D$ and $D_s$ mesons. Figure \[figure:f\_PS\_ud\_charm\_and\_f\_PS\_s\_charm\] shows the experimental values [@PDG_2010] and our decay constants, as well as three recent lattice QCD results: HPQCD and UKQCD Collaboration [@HPQCD_1] using HISQ heavy quark on the MILC staggered dynamical configurations, Fermilab lattice and MILC group [@FNAL_1] using the Fermilab heavy quark on the MILC configurations, and ETM Collaboration [@ETMC] who uses the twisted mass formalism. Our value for $f_{D_s}$ is in accordance with experiment, while that for $f_D$ is somewhat larger. Comparing four sets of lattice determinations, we observe, both for $f_D$ and $f_{D_s}$, an agreement between our values and those of the Fermilab group, while there seems to be a discrepancy between our values and those by the HPQCD and UKQCD Collaboration and ETM Collaboration, though continuum extrapolation is needed on our part.
We plot the ratio of $f_{D_s}$ to $f_D$ in Fig. \[figure:f\_D\_s\_over\_f\_D\]. Uncertainties coming from the renormalization factors cancel out, and that of the lattice cutoff to some extent. Our result is slightly smaller, but still $N_f=2+1$ lattice results are mutually consistent within the errors of a few percent.
Estimating the CKM matrix elements {#section:CKM}
----------------------------------
The standard model relates $|V_{cd}|$ to the leptonic decay width of the $D$ meson $\Gamma(D \rightarrow l \nu)$ by $$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma(D \rightarrow l \nu)
= \frac{G_F^2}{8 \pi} f_{D}^2 m_l^2 m_{D}
\left( 1 - \frac{m_l^2}{m_{D}^2} \right)^2 |V_{cd}|^2,\end{aligned}$$ where $G_F$ is the Fermi coupling constant, and $m_l$ is the lepton mass in the final state. A lattice determination of the $D$ meson decay constant $f_{D}$ with the experimental value of $\Gamma(D \rightarrow l \nu)$ gives $|V_{cd}|$. $|V_{cs}|$ can be obtained in the same way.
We estimate $|V_{cd}|$ from our $D$ meson mass and decay constant with the CLEO value of $\Gamma(D \rightarrow l \nu)$ [@CLEO_1]. Up to our heavy quark discretization error of $O(\alpha_s^2 f(m_Q a)(a \Lambda_{QCD}))$, we obtain $$|V_{cd}|({\rm lattice}) = 0.205(6)(1)(5)(9),$$ where the first error is statistical, the second is systematic due to the scale determination, the third is uncertainty of the renormalization factor, and the forth represents the experimental error of the leptonic decay width. For comparison, the PDG value given by $|V_{cd}|=0.230(11)$ [@PDG_2010] is about 10% larger (see Fig. \[figure:V\_cd\_and\_V\_cs\]).
Similarly, using the CLEO value of $\Gamma(D_s \rightarrow l \nu)$ [@CLEO_2], we find $$|V_{cs}|({\rm lattice}) = 1.00(1)(1)(3)(3),$$ as compared to $|V_{cs}|= 1.02(4)$ from PDG [@PDG_2010].
For completeness we also record the ratio $|V_{cs}| / |V_{cd}|$ for which the systematic errors are partially dropped out. $$\frac{|V_{cs}|}{|V_{cd}|}({\rm lattice})
= 4.87(14)(0)(0)(27).$$ The PDG value is $ |V_{cs}|/|V_{cd}|= 4.45(26)$.
Conclusion
==========
We have reported our study of the charm quark system in $N_f=2+1$ dynamical lattice QCD. Although carried out at a finite lattice spacing of $a^{-1}=2.194(10)$ GeV, our results for the spectra of mesons involving charm quarks are consistent with experiment at a percent level, and so are those for the decay constants within a few percent accuracy. These results indicate that the heavy quark mass correction $m_Q a$ in the charm quark system is under control by the relativistic heavy quark formalism of Ref. [@RHQ_action_Tsukuba]. Of course, the continuum extrapolation and further reductions of statistical noises are required to obtain the result competitive with other approaches in the literature.
From methodological point of view, we have shown that the realistic heavy quark simulations with the light dynamical quark masses precisely tuned to the physical values are feasible. With the technique of reweighting, configuration generations are needed to be carried out approximately around the physical point, and a residual fine tuning to reach the physical point only requires a much less time consuming evaluation of the quark determinant ratios. Combined with the PACS-CS configuration generation at a smaller lattice spacing of $a^{-1}\approx 3$ GeV underway, we hope to return to the issue of continuum extrapolation for the charm quark system in future.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
Numerical calculations for the present work have been carried out on the PACS-CS computer under the “Interdisciplinary Computational Science Program” of Center for Computational Sciences, University of Tsukuba. This work is supported in part by Grants-in-Aid of the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology-Japan (Nos. 18104005, 20105001, 20105002, 20105003, 20105005, 20340047, 20540248, 21340049, 22105501, 22244018, 22740138).
[99]{} K. Nakamura [*et al.*]{} (Particle Data Group), J. Phys. G [**37**]{}, 075021 (2010)
A.X. El-Khadra [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. D [**55**]{}, 3933 (1997); M.B. Oktay and A.S. Kronfeld, Phys. Rev. D [**78**]{}, 014504 (2008).
S. Aoki [*et al.*]{}, Prog. Theor. Phys. [**109**]{}, 383 (2003).
N.H. Christ [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. D [**76**]{}, 074505 (2007).
M. Lüscher, JHEP [**05**]{}, 052 (2003); Comput. Phys. Commun. [**165**]{}, 199 (2005).
M. Hasenbusch, Phys. Rev. Lett. B [**519**]{}, 177 (2001); M. Hasenbusch and K. Jansen, Nucl. Phys. B [**659**]{}, 299 (2003).
S. Aoki [*et al.*]{} (PACS-CS Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D [**79**]{}, 034503 (2009).
A.M. Ferrenberg and R.H. Swendsen, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**61**]{}, 2635 (1988).
S. Aoki [*et al.*]{} (PACS-CS Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D [**81**]{}, 074503 (2010).
S. Aoki [*et al.*]{} (CP-PACS and JLQCD Collaborations), Phys. Rev. D [**73**]{}, 034501 (2006).
Y. Iwasaki, Report No. UTHEP-118 (1983).
S. Aoki [*et al.*]{}, Nucl. Phys. B [**697**]{}, 271 (2004).
S. Aoki [*et al.*]{}, Nucl. Phys. B [**689**]{}, 127 (2004).
T. Kaneko [*et al.*]{} (CP-PACS/JLQCD and ALPHA Collaboration), JHEP [**0704**]{}, 092 (2007).
S. Aoki [*et al.*]{} (PACS-CS Collaboration), JHEP [**1008**]{}, 101 (2010).
K.G. Chetyrkin, Phys. Lett. B [**404**]{}, 161 (1997); J.A.M. Vermaseren [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Lett. B [**405**]{}, 327 (1997).
Y. Kayaba [*et al.*]{} (CP-PACS Collaboration), JHEP [**0702**]{}, 019 (2007); Y. Kayaba, Ph.D. thesis, University of Tsukuba, 2005.
C. McNeile [*et al.*]{} (UKQCD Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D [**70**]{}, 034506 (2004); P. de Forcrand [*et al.*]{} (QCD-TARO Collaboration), JHEP [**0408**]{}, 004 (2004); C. Ehmann and G.S. Bali, PoS(LATTICE 2008), 114 (2008); L. Levkova and C.E. DeTar, Phys. Rev. D [**83**]{}, 074504 (2011).
E. Follana [*et al.*]{} (HPQCD and UKQCD Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. [**100**]{} 062002 (2008); C. McNeile [*et al.*]{} (HPQCD Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D [**82**]{}, 034512 (2010); C.T.H. Davies [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. D [**82**]{}, 114504 (2010).
S. Godfrey and N. Isgur, Phys. Rev. D [**32**]{}, 189 (1985).
S.J. Dong [*et al.*]{} ($\chi$QCD Collaboration), PoS(LATTICE 2009), 090 (2009); M. Gong [*et al.*]{}, PoS(LATTICE 2010), 106 (2010).
J.A. Bailey [*et al.*]{} (Fermilab Lattice and MILC Collaboration), PoS(LATTICE 2010), 317 (2010). B. Blossier [*et al.*]{} (European Twisted Mass Collaboration), JHEP [**0907**]{}, 043 (2009). J.P. Alexander [*et al.*]{} (CLEO Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D [**79**]{}, 052001 (2009).
B.I. Eisenstein [*et al.*]{} (CLEO Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D [**78**]{}, 052003 (2008).
$\beta$ $\kappa_{\rm ud}$ $\kappa_{\rm s}$ \# conf MD time
--------- ------------------- ------------------ --------- ---------
1.90 0.13779625 0.13663375 80 2000
: Simulation parameters. MD time is the number of trajectories multiplied by the trajectory length. []{data-label="table:statistics"}
$\kappa_{\rm charm}$ $\nu$ $r_s$ $c_B$ $c_E$
---------------------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- --
0.10959947 1.1450511 1.1881607 1.9849139 1.7819512
: Parameters for the relativistic heavy quark action. []{data-label="table:input_parameters_for_RHQ"}
$J^{PC}$ $\Gamma$ operator lattice experiment
------------------------ ---------- --------------------- --------------- ------------
$m_{\eta_c}$\[GeV\] $0^{-+}$ $\gamma_5$ 2.986(1)(13) 2.980(1)
$m_{J/\psi}$\[GeV\] $1^{--}$ $\gamma_i$ 3.094(1)(14) 3.097(0)
$m_{\chi_{c0}}$\[GeV\] $0^{++}$ $I$ 3.444(33)(15) 3.415(0)
$m_{\chi_{c1}}$\[GeV\] $1^{++}$ $\gamma_i \gamma_5$ 3.506(30)(15) 3.511(0)
$m_{h_{c}}$\[GeV\] $1^{+-}$ $\gamma_i \gamma_j$ 3.510(42)(15) 3.525(0)
: Charmonium spectrum in GeV units. The first error is statistical, and the second is systematic from the scale determination. Experimental data are also listed [@PDG_2010]. []{data-label="table:mass_charmonium"}
$J^P$ $\Gamma$ operator lattice experiment
------------------ ------- ------------------- -------------- ------------
$m_{D}$\[GeV\] $0^-$ $\gamma_5$ 1.871(10)(8) 1.865(0)
$m_{D^*}$\[GeV\] $1^-$ $\gamma_i$ 1.994(11)(9) 2.007(0)
: Charmed meson mass spectrum in GeV units. The first error is statistical, and the second is systematic from the scale determination. Experimental data are also listed [@PDG_2010]. []{data-label="table:mass_ud_charm"}
$J^P$ $\Gamma$ operator lattice experiment
----------------------- ------- --------------------- --------------- ------------
$m_{D_s}$\[GeV\] $0^-$ $\gamma_5$ 1.958(2)(9) 1.968(0)
$m_{D_s^*}$\[GeV\] $1^-$ $\gamma_i$ 2.095(3)(10) 2.112(1)
$m_{D_{s0}^*}$\[GeV\] $0^+$ $I$ 2.335(35)(10) 2.318(1)
$m_{D_{s1}}$\[GeV\] $1^+$ $\gamma_i \gamma_5$ 2.451(28)(11) 2.460(1)
: Charmed-strange meson mass spectrum in GeV units. The first error is statistical, and the second is systematic from the scale determination. Experimental data are also listed [@PDG_2010]. []{data-label="table:mass_s_charm"}
lattice experiment
------------------ --------------- ------------
$f_{D}$\[MeV\] 226(6)(1)(5) 206.7(8.9)
$f_{D_s}$\[MeV\] 257(2)(1)(5) 257.5(6.1)
$f_{D_s}/f_{D}$ 1.14(3)(0)(0) 1.25(6)
: Our results for decay constants of $D$ meson and $D_s$ meson. The first error is statistical, the second is systematic from the scale determination, and the third is from the renormalization factor. Experimental data are also listed [@PDG_2010]. []{data-label="table:decay_constants"}
![ Effective masses for charmonium. []{data-label="figure:m_eff_charmonium"}](fig1_a.eps "fig:"){width="75mm"} ![ Effective masses for charmonium. []{data-label="figure:m_eff_charmonium"}](fig1_b.eps "fig:"){width="75mm"} ![ Effective masses for charmonium. []{data-label="figure:m_eff_charmonium"}](fig1_c.eps "fig:"){width="75mm"} ![ Effective masses for charmonium. []{data-label="figure:m_eff_charmonium"}](fig1_d.eps "fig:"){width="75mm"} ![ Effective masses for charmonium. []{data-label="figure:m_eff_charmonium"}](fig1_e.eps "fig:"){width="75mm"}
![ Effective masses for charmed mesons. []{data-label="figure:m_eff_ud_charm"}](fig2_a.eps "fig:"){width="75mm"} ![ Effective masses for charmed mesons. []{data-label="figure:m_eff_ud_charm"}](fig2_b.eps "fig:"){width="75mm"}
![ Effective masses for charmed-strange mesons. []{data-label="figure:m_eff_s_charm"}](fig3_a.eps "fig:"){width="75mm"} ![ Effective masses for charmed-strange mesons. []{data-label="figure:m_eff_s_charm"}](fig3_b.eps "fig:"){width="75mm"} ![ Effective masses for charmed-strange mesons. []{data-label="figure:m_eff_s_charm"}](fig3_c.eps "fig:"){width="75mm"} ![ Effective masses for charmed-strange mesons. []{data-label="figure:m_eff_s_charm"}](fig3_d.eps "fig:"){width="75mm"}
![ Our results for the charmonium mass spectrum normalized by the experimental values. []{data-label="figure:mass_charmonium_all"}](fig4.eps){width="75mm"}
![ Hyperfine splitting of the charmonium with different number of flavors. []{data-label="figure:m_V_minus_m_PS"}](fig5.eps){width="75mm"}
![ Comparison of the charm quark mass. The charm quark mass is obtained at $\mu = a^{-1}$, and evolved to $\mu = m_{charm}^{{\overline{\rm MS}}}$ using four-loop beta function [@beta_function]. We employ $N_f=3$ running based on the fact that our simulation includes $N_f=2+1$ dynamical quarks, while HPQCD collaboration uses $N_f=4$ reflecting fictitious dynamical charm quark effects [@HPQCD_1]. []{data-label="figure:m_charm"}](fig6.eps){width="75mm"}
![ Our results for charmed meson masses(left panel) and charmed-strange meson masses(right panel) normalized by the experimental values. []{data-label="figure:mass_ud_charm"}](fig7_a.eps "fig:"){width="75mm"} ![ Our results for charmed meson masses(left panel) and charmed-strange meson masses(right panel) normalized by the experimental values. []{data-label="figure:mass_ud_charm"}](fig7_b.eps "fig:"){width="75mm"}
![ Our results for the hyperfine splittings of charmed meson(left panel) and charmed-strange meson(right panel). []{data-label="figure:hyperfine_splitting_ud_s_charm"}](fig8_a.eps "fig:"){width="75mm"} ![ Our results for the hyperfine splittings of charmed meson(left panel) and charmed-strange meson(right panel). []{data-label="figure:hyperfine_splitting_ud_s_charm"}](fig8_b.eps "fig:"){width="75mm"}
![ Comparison of pseudoscalar decay constants for the charmed meson(left panel) and charmed-strange meson(right panel). []{data-label="figure:f_PS_ud_charm_and_f_PS_s_charm"}](fig9_a.eps "fig:"){width="75mm"} ![ Comparison of pseudoscalar decay constants for the charmed meson(left panel) and charmed-strange meson(right panel). []{data-label="figure:f_PS_ud_charm_and_f_PS_s_charm"}](fig9_b.eps "fig:"){width="75mm"}
![ Ratios of pseudoscalar decay constants for the charmed meson and charmed-strange meson. []{data-label="figure:f_D_s_over_f_D"}](fig10.eps){width="75mm"}
![ Comparison of the CKM matrix elements, $|V_{cd}|$(left panel) and $|V_{cs}|$(right panel). []{data-label="figure:V_cd_and_V_cs"}](fig11_a.eps "fig:"){width="75mm"} ![ Comparison of the CKM matrix elements, $|V_{cd}|$(left panel) and $|V_{cs}|$(right panel). []{data-label="figure:V_cd_and_V_cs"}](fig11_b.eps "fig:"){width="75mm"}
![ Ratio of the CKM matrix elements, $|V_{cs}|$ and $|V_{cd}|$. []{data-label="figure:V_cd_over_V_cs"}](fig12.eps){width="75mm"}
[^1]: $|V_{cs}|$ is hard to be estimated from neutrino and anti-neutrino experiments, $|V_{cs}| = 0.94^{+0.32}_{-0.26} \pm 0.13$ [@PDG_2010].
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'In this paper we characterize, in terms of the prime divisors of $n$, the pairs $(k,n)$ for which $n$ divides $\sum_{j=1}^n j^{k}$. As an application, we study the sets $\mathcal{M}_f :=\{n: n \textrm{ divides } \sum_{j=1}^n j^{f(n)} \}$ for some choices of $f$.'
address:
- |
Departamento de Matemáticas, Universidad de Oviedo\
Avda. Calvo Sotelo, s/n, 33007 Oviedo, Spain
- |
Centro Universitario de la Defensa\
Ctra. Huesca s/n, 50090 Zaragoza, Spain
author:
- José María Grau
- 'Antonio M. Oller-Marcén'
title: 'About the congruence $\sum_{k=1}^n k^{f(n)} \equiv 0 \textrm{ (mod n)} $'
---
Introduction
============
In the literature on power sums $$S_k(n):=\displaystyle{\sum_{j=1}^{n} j^k}$$ the following congruence is well known
Let $p$ be a prime and let $k>0$ be an integer. Then, we have: $$S_k(p)\equiv\begin{cases}
-1 & {\rm{if}}\ p-1\mid k\\
0 & {\rm{if}}\ p-1\nmid k\\
\end{cases}\ (mod\ p).$$
See ([@HARDY]) for the standard proof using primitive roots, or ([@MAC]) for a recent elementary proof.
The following proposition gives a more general result for $S_{k}(n)$.
(Carlitz-von Staudt, 1961, [@CARLITZ]). Let $k>1$ and $n$ be positive integers with $n$ even, then $$S_k(n)\equiv - \sum_{\substack{p \mid n\\ p-1 \mid k}}\frac{n}{p}\ (mod\ n).$$
These results motivate an interest in studying $S_{k}(n)$ (mod $n$) and, more generally, in studying $S_{f(n)}(n)$ (mod $n$) for different arithmetic functions $f$. Thus, if $p-1 \mid f(p)$, for every prime $p$, we have that the congruence $S_{f(n)}(n) \equiv -1$ (mod $n$) holds for every $n=p$ prime and it is interesting to find the composite numbers which also satisfy it. In this direction we have the *Giuga numbers* (see [@BOR]), which are composite numbers such that $S_{\phi(n)}(n) \equiv -1$ (mod $n$), the *strong Giuga numbers*, which are composite numbers such that $S_{n-1}(n) \equiv -1$ (mod $n$) (Giuga’s conjecture [@GIUGA] states that there are no strong Giuga numbers), or the *$K$-strong Giuga numbers*, which are composite numbers such that $S_{K(n-1)}(n) \equiv -1$ (mod $n$) (see [@nos1]).
In this paper we characterize, in terms of the prime divisors of $n$, the pairs $(k,n)$ for which $n$ divides $S_{k}(n)$. This characterization is given in the following theorem.
Let $n$ and $k$ be any integers. Then, $S_k(n)\equiv 0$ (mod $n$) if and only if one of the following holds:
- $n$ is odd and $p-1 \nmid k $ for every $p$ prime divisor of $n$.
- $n$ is a multiple of 4 and $k>1$ is odd.
Moreover, inspired in Giuga’s ideas we investigate the congruence $S_{f(n)}(n) \equiv 0$ (mod $n$) for some functions $f$. This work started in [@nos2]) with the case $f(n)=\frac{(n-1)}{2}$. It will be of special interest the case of arithmetic functions $f$ such that $p-1 \nmid f(p)$ for any prime $p$. Let $f:\mathbb{N}\longrightarrow\mathbb{N}$ be a function. In what follows we will consider the following subset of $\mathbb{N}$ associated to $f$: $$\mathcal{M}_f :=\{n: n\ \textrm{divides}\ S_{f(n)}(n) \}$$
We have studied the sets $\mathcal{M}_f$ in the affine case ($f(n)=a n +b $) and in some cases such that $\mathcal{M}_f$ contains the set of prime numbers. We have characterized the elements of these sets and, in some cases, we have computed their asymptotic density.
Sum of the $n$ initial $k$-th powers modulo $n$
===============================================
Recall that, given two integers $n$ and $k$, we define $S_k(n):=\displaystyle{\sum_{j=1}^{n} j^k}$. In this section we present the main results of the paper. In particular we will characterize the pairs $(n,k)$ such that $n$ divides $S_k(n)$. If $k=0$, clearly $S_k(n)=n$ and there is no problem to study. Thus, in what follows we will assume $k\neq 0$.
We will start this section with a technical lemma.
Let $k>0$ be any integer and let $p$ be a prime such that $p-1 \mid k$. Then, for every $m>0$: $$\sum_{j=1}^{p^m}j^k\equiv -p^{m-1}\ (mod\ p^m).$$
Clearly $\displaystyle{\sum_{j=1}^{p^m}j^k\equiv \sum_{\substack{1\leq j\leq p^m\\ (j,p^m)=1}} j^k}$ (mod $p^m$), with this latter sum consisting of $p^{m-1}(p-1)$ summands. Since $p-1 \mid k$, if $a$ and $b$ are such that $p \nmid a,b$ then $a^k-b^k\equiv 0$ (mod $p$). This implies that these summands are the elements of the arithmetic sequence $\{1,p+1,\dots,p(p^{m-1}-1)+1\}$, where every element appears exactly $p-1$ times. Consequently: $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{j=1}^{p^m}j^k&\equiv \sum_{\substack{1\leq j\leq p^m\\ (j,p^m)=1}} j^k=(p-1)\sum_{i=1}^{p^{m-1}-1} 1+ip=(p-1)\frac{p^{m-1}[1+(1+p^m-p)]}{2}\\&\equiv (p-1)p^{m-1}\equiv -p^{m-1}\ \textrm{(mod $p^m$)}.\end{aligned}$$
With the help of this lemma we can prove the following proposition
Let $n$ be an odd integer and $k$ be any integer. Then $n$ divides $S_k(n)$ if and only if $\gcd(k,p-1)<p-1$ for every $p$, prime divisor of $n$.
Put $n=p_1^{r_1}\cdots p_s^{r_s}$ the prime decomposition of $n$.
Assume that there exists $i\in\{1,\dots,s\}$ such that $p_i-1=\gcd(k,p_i-1)$; i.e., such that $p_i-1|k$. Then, since $S_k(n)=\displaystyle{\sum_{j=1}^nj^k\equiv \frac{n}{p_i^{r_i}}\sum_{j=1}^{p_i^{r_i}}j^k}$ (mod $p_i^{r_i}$), it follows by the previous lemma that $S_k(n)\equiv\frac{n}{p_i^{r_i}}(p_i-1)p_i^{r_i-1}\not\equiv 0$ (mod $p_i^{r_i}$) and $n$ does not divide $S_k(n)$.
Conversely, let us assume that $\gcd(k,p_i-1)<p_i-1$ for every $i$. We claim that $\displaystyle{\sum_{\substack{(j,n)=1\\1\leq j\leq n}} j^k\equiv 0}$ (mod $n$). Let $i\in\{1,\dots,s\}$ and let $\alpha$ be a generator of $\mathcal{U}\left(\mathbb{Z}/p_i^{r_i}\mathbb{Z}\right)$, we put $x=\alpha^k$. If $x-1$ was not a unit, then $p_i\mid x-1=\alpha^k-1$. Since $p_i\mid \alpha^{p_i-1}-1$ it follows that $\alpha^d\equiv 1$ (mod $p_i$) with $d=\gcd(k,p_i-1)$. Consequently $\alpha^{dp_i^{r_i-1}}\equiv 1$ (mod $p_i^{r_1}$) which is impossible since $dp_i^{r_i-1}<\varphi(p_i^{r_1})$. Thus: $$\sum_{\substack{(j,p_i^{r_1})=1\\1\leq j\leq p_i^{r_i}}}j^k\equiv\frac{x^{\varphi(p_i^{r_i})+1}-x}{x-1}\equiv 0\ \textrm{(mod $p_i^{r_i}$)}.$$ Moreover, since $\displaystyle{\sum_{\substack{(j,n)=1\\1\leq j\leq n}}j^k\equiv \varphi\left(\frac{n}{p_i^{r_i}}\right)\sum_{\substack{(j,p_i^{r_i})=1\\1\leq j\leq p_i^{r_i}}}j^k\equiv 0}$ (mod $p_i^{r_i}$) and this holds for every $i$, the claim follows.
Now, let $d$ be any divisor of $n$. We have that $\displaystyle{\sum_{\substack{(j,n)=d\\1\leq j\leq n}}j^k=d^k\sum_{\substack{(j,n/d)=1\\1\leq j\leq n/d}}j^k}$ so it is enough to apply the previous considerations and to sum over $d$ in order to complete the proof.
Now we will turn to the even case. This is done in the following propositions.
Let $n$ be an integer with $n\equiv 2$ (mod 4) and let $k$ be any integer. Then:
- $S_k(n)\not\equiv 0$ (mod $n$).
- $S_k(n)\equiv 0$ (mod $\frac{n}{2}$) if and only if $\gcd(k,p-1)<p-1$ for every $p$, odd prime divisor of $n$.
<!-- -->
- We have that $j^k\equiv 0,1$ (mod 2) if $j$ even or odd respectively. This implies that $S_k(n)\equiv\frac{n}{2}\not\equiv 0$ (mod 2).
- Proposition 3 implies that $S_{k}\left(\frac{n}{2}\right)\equiv 0$ (mod $\frac{n}{2}$) if and only if $\gcd(k,p-1)<p-1$ for every $p$ prime divisor of $\frac{n}{2}$. Since $S_k(n)\equiv 2S_{k}\left(\frac{n}{2}\right)$ (mod $\frac{n}{2}$), the result follows.
Let $n$ be a multiple of 4 and let $k$ be an odd integer. Then:
- If $k=1$, $S_k(n)\not\equiv 0$ (mod $n$).
- If $k>1$, $S_k(n)\equiv 0$ (mod $n$).
The first part is obvious. For the second part, put $n=2^mn'$ with $m>1$ and $n'$ being odd.
Since $k$ is odd it follows that $\gcd(k,p-1)<p-1)$ for every $p$ prime divisor of $n'$ and Proposition 1 implies that $S_k(n)\equiv 0$ (mod $n'$). On the other hand, we have that $S_k(n)\equiv 2^mS_k(n')\equiv 0$ (mod $n'$).
Moreover, $S_k(n)\equiv n'S_{k}(2^m)$ (mod $2^m$). Now, $k>1$ being odd, if $j\in\{1,\dots,2^m-1\}$ we have that $j^k\equiv -(2^m-j)^k$ (mod $2^m$) so $S_k(2^m)\equiv (2^{m-1})^k\equiv 0$ (mod $2^m$) and the result follows.
Let $n$ be a multiple of 4 and let $k$ be an even integer. Then:
- $S_k(n)\not\equiv 0$ (mod $n$).
- $S_k(n)\equiv 0$ $\left(\ \textrm{mod}\ \frac{n}{2}\right)$ if and only if $\gcd(k,p-1)<p-1$ for every $p$, odd prime divisor of $n$.
<!-- -->
- Put $n=2^mn'$ with $m>1$ and $n'$ being odd.
Again $S_k(n)\equiv n'S_k(2^m)$ (mod $2^m$) and, since $k$ is even, we have that $j^k\equiv (2^m-j)^k$ (mod $2^m$). This implies that $S_k(2^m)\equiv 2S_k(2^{m-1})$ (mod $2^m$). This allows us to reason inductively and conclude that: $$S_k(2^m)\equiv 0 \Leftrightarrow S_k(1)\equiv 0\ \textrm{(mod 2)}.$$ Since the latter is false the result follows.
- By Proposition 1 we have that $S_k(n)\equiv 2^mS_k(n')\equiv 0$ (mod $n'$) if and only if $\gcd(k,p-1)<p-1$ for every $p$ prime divisor of $n'$. Now $S_k(n)\equiv n'S_{k}(2^m)$ (mod $2^m$). Clearly $S_k(1)=1$ and if $a>1$ we have that $S_k(2^a)\equiv 2S_k(2^{a-1})$ (mod $2^a$). This implies that $S_k(2^m)\equiv 2^{m-1}$ (mod $2^m$) and, consequently, $S_k(n)\equiv n'S_k(2^m)\equiv n'2^{m-1}=\frac{n}{2}$ (mod $2^m$) and the proof is complete.
All the previous work can be summarized in the following theorem.
\[TI\] Let $n$ and $k$ be any integers. Then, $S_k(n)\equiv 0$ (mod $n$) if and only if one of the following holds:
- $n$ is odd and $ p-1 \nmid k$ for every $p$ prime divisor of $n$.
- $n$ is a multiple of 4 and $k>1$ is odd.
We have just characterized the pairs $(n,k)$ such that $n$ divides $S_k(n)$. It follows immediately from this characterization that, given $n \in \mathbb{N}$ the complement of the set $\mathcal{W}_n:=\{k: S_{k}(n) \equiv 0\textrm{ (mod }n) \}$ is: $$\mathbb{N} \setminus \mathcal{W}_{n}=\begin{cases}
2\mathbb{N}\cup\{1\} & \textrm{if}\ n\equiv 0\ \textrm{(mod 4)},\\
\mathbb{N} & \textrm{if}\ n\equiv 2\ \textrm{(mod 4)},\\
\bigcup_{p \mid n} (p-1)\mathbb{N} & \textrm{if}\ n\equiv 1,3\ \textrm{(mod 4)}.
\end{cases}$$ In the same way, for every $k \in \mathbb{N}$ the complement of $\mathcal{H}_k:=\{n : S_{k}(n) \equiv 0\textrm{ (mod }n) \}$ consists of a finite union of arithmetic sequences. Namely, if we denote $\mathcal{P}_k:=\{p\ \textrm{odd prime}: p-1 \mid k\}$, we have that:
$$\mathbb{N} \setminus\mathcal{H}_{k}=\begin{cases}
2\mathbb{N} & \textrm{if}\ k=1,\\
\bigcup_{p\in\mathcal{P}_k}2p(2\mathbb{N}+1) & \textrm{if}\ k>1\ \textrm{is odd},\\
\bigcup_{p\in\mathcal{P}_k}p\mathbb{N} & \textrm{if}\ k\ \textrm{is even}.
\end{cases}$$
Now, we could consider cases when $k=f(n)$ depends on $n$ and then we will be interested in characterizing the values of $n$ such that $S_{f(n)}(n)\equiv 0$ (mod $n$). This will be done in the following sections for various choices of the function $f$.
The affine case
===============
In this section we will focus in the case when $f$ is a affine function; i.e., $f(n)=an+b$. In what follows we will denote by $f_{a,b}(n):= an + b$. Recall that we defined $\mathcal{M}_f :=\{n:n\ \textrm{divides}\ S_{f(n)}(n) \}$. In what follows it will be easier to characterize the complement $\mathbb{N}\setminus\mathcal{M}_f$ instead of $\mathcal{M}_f$ itself.
Let us introduce some notation. Given $(a,b) \in \mathbb{N}\times \mathbb{Z}$, we will consider the set: $$\mathcal{P}_{a,b}:=\{p\ \textrm{odd prime}: b\equiv 0\ \textrm{(mod $\gcd(ap,p-1)$)}\}.$$ and if $(a,b,p) \in \mathbb{N}\times \mathbb{Z} \times \mathcal{P}_{a,b} $ we define $$\Xi(a,b,p):=a^{-1}\min \{ x\in \mathbb{N} : x \equiv 0\textrm{ (mod }ap), x \equiv -b\textrm{ (mod }(p-1))\}.$$ With this notation in mind we can prove the following result [@NIVEN].
Let $(a,b) \in \mathbb{N}\times \mathbb{Z}$. Then:
- If $a$ and $b$ are even, $$\mathbb{N} \setminus \mathcal{M}_{f_{a,b}}=2 \mathbb{N}\ \cup\bigcup_{p \in \mathcal{P}_{a,b}}\{ \Xi(a,b,p)+\frac{s}{a} {\rm{lcm}}(ap,p-1):s \in \mathbb{N} \}.$$
- If $a$ and $b$ are odd, $$\mathbb{N} \setminus \mathcal{M}_{f_{a,b}}=\{n: n\equiv 2\ {\rm{(mod\ 4)}}\}\ \cup\bigcup_{p \in \mathcal{P}_{a,b}}\{ \Xi(a,b,p)+\frac{s}{a} {\rm{lcm}}(ap,p-1):s \in \mathbb{N} \}.$$
- If $a$ is even and $b$ is odd, then $$\mathbb{N} \setminus \mathcal{M}_{f_{a,b}}=\{n:n\equiv 2\ \rm{(mod\ 4)}\}.$$
- If $a$ is odd and $b$ is even, then $$\mathbb{N} \setminus \mathcal{M}_{f_{a,b}}=2\mathbb{N}.$$
We will give a complete proof of i), the other cases being analogous.
First observe that $a$ and $b$ being even, then $f_{a,b}(n)$ is even. Consequently, by Theorem \[TI\], we have that $2\mathbb{N}\subseteq\mathbb{N}\setminus\mathcal{M}_{f_{a,b}}$.
Now, assume that $n\not\in\mathcal{M}_{f_{a,b}}$ is odd. Then, by Theorem \[TI\] again, there must exist an odd prime $p \mid n$ such that $p-1\mid an+b$. Since $an\equiv 0$ (mod $ap$) and $an\equiv -b$ (mod $p-1$) it readily follows that $an\in\{A+(s)\textrm{lcm}(ap,p-1):s\in\mathbb{N}\}$ with $A=\min \{ x\in \mathbb{N} : x \equiv 0\textrm{ (mod }ap), x \equiv -b\textrm{ (mod }(p-1))\}$. Since it is obvious that $A$ is a multiple of $ap$ we have that $n\in\{\frac{A}{a}+\frac{(s)}{a}\textrm{lcm}(ap,p-1):s\in\mathbb{N}\}$ with $\frac{A}{a}=\Xi(a,b,p)$ by definition. To finish the proof it is enough to observe that if $ap\mid an$ and $p-1\mid an+b$, then $p\in\mathcal{P}_{a,b}$ as claimed.
Here and throughout, we denote by $\delta(A)$ (resp. $\underline{\delta}(A)$, $ \overline{\delta}(A)$) the asymptotic (resp. upper, lower asymptotic) density of an integer sequence $A$. We will be interested in computing the asymptotic density of the sets $\mathcal{M}_{f_{a,b}}$, at least for some particular values of $a$ and $b$. To do so we must first show that this density exists and the following lemma will be our main tool.
Let $\mathcal{A}:=\{a_k\}_{k\in\mathbb{N}}$ and $\{c_k\}_{k\in\mathbb{N}}$ be two sequences of positive integers and $\mathcal{B}_{k}:=\{a_k+ (s-1)c_k: s \in \mathbb{N} \}$. If $\displaystyle{\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\frac{1}{c_{k}}}$ is convergent and $\mathcal{A}$ has zero asymptotic density, then $\displaystyle{\bigcup_{k=1}^{\infty}\mathcal{B}_{k}}$ has an asymptotic density with: $$\delta(\bigcup_{k=1}^{\infty}\mathcal{B}_{k})=\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\delta(\bigcup_{k=1}^{n}\mathcal{B}_{k})$$ and $$\delta(\bigcup_{k=1}^{\infty}\mathcal{B}_{k})-\delta(\bigcup_{k=1}^{n}\mathcal{B}_{k})\leq \sum_{i=n+1}^\infty \frac{1}{c_i}.$$
Let us denote $B_{n}:=\bigcup_{k=n+1}^{\infty}\mathcal{B}_{k}$ and $\vartheta(n,N):=\textrm{card}([0,N]\cap B_n)$. Then: $$\vartheta(n,N) \leq \textrm{card}([0,N]\cap \mathcal{A})+ N \sum_{k=n+1}^{\infty}\frac{1}{c_{k}}.$$ From this, we get: $$\bar{\delta}(B_{n})=\lim\sup\frac{\vartheta(n,N)}{N}\leq \lim \sup\frac{ \textrm{card}([0,N]\cap \mathcal{A})}{N} + \sum_{k=n+1}^{\infty}\frac{1}{c_{k}}= \sum_{k=n+1}^{\infty}\frac{1}{c_{k}}.$$
Now, for every $n$, $\displaystyle{\bigcup_{k=1}^{n}\mathcal{B}_{k}}$ has an asymptotic density and the sequence $\delta_{n}:=\delta\left(\displaystyle{\bigcup
_{k=1}^{n}\mathcal{B}_{k}}\right)$ is non-decreasing and bounded (by 1), thus convergent. Consequently:
$$\begin{aligned}
\delta\left(\bigcup_{k=1}^{n}\mathcal{B}_{k}\right) & \leq \underline{\delta} \left(\bigcup
_{k=1}^{\infty}\mathcal{B}_{k}\right)\leq \overline{\delta} \left(\bigcup_{k=1}^{\infty}
\mathcal{B}_{k}\right)=\overline{\delta}\left(\bigcup_{k=1}^{n}\mathcal{B}_{k}\cup B_{n}\right)\\
& \leq \delta \left(\bigcup_{k=1}^{n}\mathcal{B}_{k}\right)+\bar{\delta}(B_{n})\leq
\delta\left(\bigcup_{k=1}^{n}\mathcal{B}_{k}\right)+\sum_{k=n+1}^{\infty}\frac{1}{c_{k}},\end{aligned}$$
and considering that $\displaystyle{\sum_{k=n+1}^{\infty}\frac{1}{c_{j}}}$ converges to zero it is enough to take limits in order to finish the proof.
With the help of this lemma the following proposition is easy to prove.
For every $a,b \in \mathbb{N}$, $\mathcal{M}_{f_{a,b}}$ has an asymptotic density and it is a computable number.
It is enough to see that $\mathbb{N} \setminus \mathcal{M}_{f_{a,b}}$ has an asymptotic density and that it is a computable number.
Cases ii) y iii) above are obvious. In cases i) and iv) it is enough to apply the previous lemma since $\mathbb{N} \setminus \mathcal{M}_{f_{a,b}}$ is a countable union of arithmetic sequences whose initial terms ($\Xi(a,b,p)$) form a set of zero asymptotic density, and the series $\displaystyle{\sum_{p\textrm{ prime}}\frac{a}{\textrm{lcm}(ap,p-1)}}$ is convergent.
The rest of this section will be devoted to study $\delta(\mathcal{M}_{f_{_{a,b}}})$ in some particular cases. Namely, the cases $(a,b)=(1,b)$. When $b$ is even, $\mathcal{M}_{f_{_{1,b}}}$ is exactly the set of odd integers and its asymptotic density is $\frac{1}{2}$. The case when $b$ is odd is much more interesting. In particular we will see that, in this case, the asymptotic density of $\mathcal{M}_{f_{1,b}}$ is slightly greater than $\frac{1}{2}$.
In the following lemma we give a more explicit description of the elements of $\mathbb{N}\setminus\mathcal{M}_{f_{1,b}}$ with odd b. This description will be useful to compute $\delta(\mathcal{M}_{f_{{1,b}}})$.
Let $n$ be an integer and let $b\in\mathbb{Z}$ be odd. Then $n\in \mathbb{N} \setminus \mathcal{M}_{f_{1,b}}$ if and only if $n\equiv 2$ (mod 4) or $n$ is odd and it is of the form $kp^2-kp-bp$ for some $p$ odd prime and $\frac{b}{p-1}<k\in\mathbb{Z}$. In other words, if $\mathcal{G}_p^b:=\mathbb{N} \cap \{-bp\ \textrm{(mod $p(p-1)$)}\}$, we have that: $$\mathbb{N}\setminus \mathcal{M}_{f_{_{1,b}}}=\bigcup_{p\geq3} \mathcal{G}_p^b \cup \{(2\ \textrm{(mod 4)}\}.$$
Let $n\in \mathbb{N} \setminus \mathcal{M}_{f_{1,b}}$. Then, by Theorem \[TI\], $n\equiv 2$ (mod 4) or it is odd and there exists $p$ prime divisor of $n$ such that $p-1$ divides $n+b$. Put $n=pm$, then $n+b=pm+b=(p-1)m+m-b$ so $p-1$ must divide $m-b$ and $m=k(p-1)+b$ for some $k$ and $n=pm=kp^2-kp-bp$ as claimed.
The converse is obvious due to Theorem \[TI\] again.
In order to compute $\delta(\mathcal{M}_{f_{_{1,b}}})=1-\delta(\mathbb{N} \setminus \mathcal{M}_{f_{1,b}})$ with the help of lemmata 2 and 3 and of the Principle of Inclusion and Exclusion it will be necessary to have a good criterion to determine when the intersection of $\mathcal{ G}_p^b$ for various odd primes $p$ is empty. Put $$\mathcal{R}_b:=\{m>2:\gcd (m,\phi(m))\textrm{ divides }b\}.$$
Thus, we have the following result.
Let ${\mathcal P}$ be a finite set of primes and put $m:=\prod_{p\in {\mathcal P}} p$. Then $\bigcap_{p\in {\mathcal P}} {\mathcal G}_p^b$ is nonempty if and only if $m \in \mathcal{R}_b$, where this set is defined above. If this is the case, then the set $\bigcap_{p\in {\mathcal P}} {\mathcal G}_p^b$ is an arithmetic progression of difference $\textrm{lcm}(m,\lambda(m))$.
It is clear that $\bigcap_{p\in\mathcal{P}}\mathcal{G}_b^b$ is nonempty if and only if there exists $n$ such that $n\equiv -b$ (mod $p-1$) and $n\equiv 0$ (mod $p$) for every $p\in\mathcal{P}$. This happens if and only if there exists $n$ such that $n\equiv -b$ (mod $\lambda(m)$) and $n\equiv 0$ (mod $m$) and this set of congruences have a solution if and only if $\gcd(m,\lambda(m))$ divides $b$. To finish the proof it is enough to observe that, $m$ being square-free, $\gcd(m,\lambda(m))=\gcd(m,\phi(m))$ and apply the Chinese Remainder Lemma.
To compute the density of the set $\mathbb{N} \setminus \mathcal{M}_{f_{1,b}}$ we consider $3=p_1<p_2<\cdots$ the increasing sequence of all the odd primes and $k:=k(\varepsilon)$ minimal such that $$\sum_{j\ge k} \frac{1}{p_j(p_j-1)}<\varepsilon.$$ Thus, with an error of at most $\varepsilon$, the density of the set $\mathbb{N} \setminus \mathcal{M}_{f_{1,b}}$ is the same as the density of $\bigcup_{j<k} {\mathcal G}_{p_j}^b: $ $$\delta \left( \bigcup_{j<k} {\mathcal G}_{p_j}^b \right)< \delta(\mathbb{N} \setminus \mathcal{M}_{f_{1,b}}) <\delta \left( \bigcup_{j<k} {\mathcal G}_{p_j}^b \right)+\varepsilon$$
and, by the Principle of Inclusion and Exclusion, $$\delta \left( \bigcup_{j<k} {\mathcal G}_{p_j}^b \right)=\sum_{s\ge 1} \sum_{1\le i_1<i_2<\cdots<i_s\le k-1}\frac{\varepsilon_{i_1,i_2,\ldots,i_s}}{\textrm{lcm}[p_{i_1}(p_{i_1}-1),\ldots, p_{i_s}(p_{i_s}-1)]},$$ with the coefficient $\varepsilon_{i_1,i_2,\ldots,i_s}$ being zero if $\bigcap_{t=1}^s {\mathcal G}_{p_{i_t}}^b=\emptyset$, and being $(-1)^{s-1}$ otherwise. In other terms, putting $\Pi_k:=\prod_{i=2}^k p_i$, $$\delta \left( \bigcup_{j<k} {\mathcal G}_{p_j}^b \right)=-\sum_{\substack{m \mid \Pi_k\\ m \in \mathcal{R}_b}} \frac{(-1)^{\omega(m)}}{\textrm{lcm} ( m ,\lambda(m))}$$ where, $\omega(m)$ is the number of distinct prime factors of $m$.
In the case $b=\pm1$ the asymptotic density of $\mathcal{M}_{f_{_{1,b}}}$is closely related to that of the set $\mathfrak{P}:=\{n \in \mathbb{N}\textrm{ odd } : S_{\frac{n-1}{2}} \equiv 0\textrm{ (mod n)} \}$ which was defined and studied in [@nos2]. In this previous work $\delta(\mathfrak{P})$ was computed up to 3 digits: 0.379... More specifically, it was seen that $\delta(\mathfrak{P}) \in [0.379005, 0.379826]$.
For $b\in \{-1,1\}$ the following holds: $$\delta(\mathcal{M}_{f_{_{1,b}}})=2 \delta(\mathfrak{P})-\frac{1}{4} \in [0.50801, 0.50966].$$
Let $\mathbb{I}$ denote the set of odd positive integers. For any odd prime $p$ let us define the following set: $$\mathcal{F}_p := \{p^2\ \textrm{(mod $2p(p-1)$)}\},$$ and recall the definition: $$\mathcal{G}_p^b:=\mathbb{N} \cap \{-bp\ \textrm{(mod $p(p-1)$)}\}.$$ In [@nos2] it was seen that: $$\mathbb{I}\setminus \mathfrak{P} = \bigcup_{p\geq3} \mathcal{F}_p$$ and in the previous proposition we have just proved that: $$\mathbb{N}\setminus \mathcal{M}_{f_{_{1,b}}}=\bigcup_{p\geq3} \mathcal{G}_p^b \cup \{(2\ \textrm{(mod 4)}\}.$$ If $b=\pm 1$ and for every prime $p$ we have $\delta(\mathcal{G}_p^b)= 2 \delta(\mathcal{F}_p)$. Reasoning in a way similar to that in [@nos2], we can see that for every odd $b$ and every set of primes $\mathcal{P}$ it holds: $$2\delta \left(\bigcap_{p \in \mathcal{P}}\mathcal{F}_p\right) = \delta \left(\bigcap_{p \in \mathcal{P}}\mathcal{G}_p^b\right).$$ Consequently: $$\delta (\mathbb{N}\setminus \mathcal{M}_{f_{_{1,b}}})= \frac{1}{4}+\delta\left(\bigcup_{p\geq3} \mathcal{G}_p^b\right)=\frac{1}{4}+ 2 \delta (\mathbb{I}\setminus \mathfrak{P}) =\frac{1}{4}+2\left(\frac{1}{2}- \delta (\mathfrak{P})\right)$$ and finally, since $\delta(\mathfrak{P})$ belongs to $[0.379005, 0.379826]$ we obtain that: $$\delta ( \mathcal{M}_{f_{_{1,b}}})= 1- \delta (\mathbb{N}\setminus \mathcal{M}_{f_{_b}})=2 \delta (\mathfrak{P})-1/4 \in [0.50801, 0.50966].$$
It is easy to observe that of $b$ is odd and $|b|>1$ then $\delta ( \mathcal{M}_{f_{_{1,b}}})>\delta ( \mathcal{M}_{f_{_{1,1}}})$. Moreover, if $b$ and $b'$ are odd with $|b|\neq |b'|$ and $b$ divides $b'$ then $\delta ( \mathcal{M}_{f_{_{1,b'}}})>\delta ( \mathcal{M}_{f_{_{1,b}}})$. In addition it is also easy to observe that the supremum of the densities $\delta ( \mathcal{M}_{f_{_{1,b}}})$ is:
$$\mathfrak{S}:=\lim_{k\rightarrow \infty} \sum_{m \mid \Pi_k} \frac{(-1)^{\omega(m)}}{\textrm{lcm} ( m \lambda(m))}-\frac14.$$
since this is a decreasing sequence any value of $k$ will provide an upper bound for $\mathfrak{S}$. Computing the value for $k=22$, we can say that for every odd $b\neq\pm1$
$$0.50801<\delta ( \mathcal{M}_{f_{_{1,1}}})<\delta ( \mathcal{M}_{f_{_{1,b}}})<\mathfrak{S}<0.647.$$
We will say that a positive integer $n$ is an *anti-Korselt number* if for every $p$ prime divisor of $n$, $p-1$ does not divide $(n-1)$. This section will be closed computing the asymptotic density of anti-Korselt numbers. In order to do this we observe that Theorem \[TI\] gives the following characterization.
An integer $n$ is an anti-Korselt number if and only if $\displaystyle{\sum_{j=1}^{n} j^{n-1} \equiv 0\textrm{ (mod n)}}$ and $4\nmid n$.
Just apply Theorem \[TI\] and observe that, by definition, anti-Korselt numbers are odd.
The set of anti-Korselt numbers has asymptotic density whose value is: $$2\delta(\mathfrak{P})-\frac{1}{2} \in [0.25801, 0.259652].$$
By the previous lemma the set of anti-Korselt numbers is $\mathfrak{K}:=\mathcal{M}_{f_{1,-1}} \setminus 4 \mathbb{N}$. Since, $4\mathbb{N} \subset\mathcal{M}_{f_{1,-1}}$, it follows that $$\delta (\mathfrak{K})=\delta(\mathcal{M}_{f_{_{1,-1}}})-\frac{1}{4}=2 \delta(\mathfrak{P})-\frac{1}{2}$$ as claimed.
$\mathcal{M}_f$ containing the prime numbers
============================================
In this section we will characterize the set $\mathcal{M}_f$ for some functions $f$ such that $f(p)=\frac{p-1}{2}$ for every odd prime. Note that in this case $\mathcal{M}_f$ contains all odd primes. In particular, we will focus on $f=\frac{\varphi}{2}$ and $f=\frac{\lambda}{2}$, where $\varphi$ and $\lambda$ denote Euler and Carmichael function, respectively.
$\mathcal{M}_{\frac{\varphi}{2}}=\{p^k: p\ \textrm{odd prime}\}$.
If $p$ is an odd prime and $k\in\mathbb{N}$, $\frac{\varphi(p^k)}{2}=\frac{p^{k-1}(p-1)}{2}$ and $\gcd\left(\frac{p^{k-1}(p-1)}{2},p-1\right)<p-1$. Consequently we can apply Proposition 1 to get that $p^k\in\mathcal{M}_{\frac{\varphi}{2}}$.
Now, if $n$ is odd and there exists $p,q$ distinct odd primes dividing $n$ it readily follows that $p-1$ divides $\frac{\varphi(n)}{2}$ so Proposition 3 applies and it follows that $n\not\in\mathcal{M}_{\frac{\varphi}{2}}$. Thus, if an odd $n\in\mathcal{M}_{\frac{\varphi}{2}}$ it must be $n=p^k$.
Finally, if $n\in\mathcal{M}_{\frac{\varphi}{2}}$ is even Proposition 4 implies that 4 divides $n$ and Proposition 6 implies that $\frac{\varphi(n)}{2}$ is odd. Since these statements are contradictory the result follows.
In what follows we will use the notation $\mathcal{E}(m):=\max\{k \in \mathbb{N}: 2^k\ \textrm{divides } m\}$.
Let $n=2^mp_{1}^{r_1} \cdots p_{s}^{r_s}$ with $s>0$. Then $n\in \mathcal{M}_{\frac{\lambda}{2}}$ if and only if one of these conditions holds:
- $m=0$ and $\mathcal{E}(p_i-1)=\mathcal{E}(p_j-1)$ for every $i,j$.
- $m=2$ or $3$, $\mathcal{E}(p_i-1)=1$ for every $i$ and $\frac{n}{2^m}\neq 3$.
If condition i) holds, $n=p_1^{r_1}\cdots p_s^{r_s}$ and $p_i=2^tq_i+1$ with $q_i$ even and $t$ not depending on $i$. In this case $\lambda(n)=\textrm{lcm}(\varphi(p_1^{r_1}),\dots,\varphi(p_s^{r_s}))=2^t\textrm{lcm}(p_1^{r_1-1}q_1,\dots,p_s^{r_s-1}q_s)=2^tL$ with $L$ odd. Consequently $\frac{\lambda(n)}{2}=2^{t-1}L$ and since $L$ is odd it follows that $p_i-1$ does not divide $\frac{\lambda(n)}{2}$ and Proposition 3 implies that $n\in\mathcal{M}_{\frac{\lambda}{2}}$.
If condition ii) holds, it follows that $\lambda(n)=2L$ with $L>1$ odd. Consequently $\frac{\lambda(n)}{2}=L>1$ is odd and Proposition 5 applies to conclude that $n\in\mathcal{M}_{\frac{\lambda}{2}}$.
Finally, assume that $n=2^mp_{1}^{r_1} \cdots p_{s}^{r_s}$ with $s>0$ and $p_i=2^{m_i}q_i+1$ with $q_i$ odd is such that $n\in\mathcal{M}_{\frac{\lambda}{2}}$. First of all, Proposition 4 implies that $m=0$ or $m>1$.
If $m>1$, Proposition 5 (i) implies that $\frac{n}{2^m}\neq 3$ and Proposition 6 implies that $\frac{\lambda(n)}{2}$ is odd so $m=2$ or $3$ and $p_i^{r_i-1}(p_i-1)=\varphi(p_i^{r_i})=2L_i$ with $L_i$ odd; i.e., $p_i-1=2q_i$ with $q_i$ odd as claimed.
If, on the other hand, $m=0$, Proposition 3 implies that $p_i-1$ does not divide $\frac{\lambda(n)}{2}$ for any $i$. But if $m_i>m_j$ for some $i\neq j$ we have that $2^{m_i-1}q_j$ divides $\frac{\lambda(n)}{2}$ and, consequently, $p_j-1$ divides $\frac{\lambda(n)}{2}$. A contradiction.
Before we proceed we will introduce some notation and technical results. Given a prime $p$ and a subset $A\subseteq\mathbb{N}$, we define the set: $$A_{p}:=\{n\in A: p\mid n\ \textrm{but}\ p^{2}\nmid n\}.$$
With this notation we have the following result.
If for a set of primes $\{p_{i}\}_{i\in I}$ we have $\delta(A_{p_{i}})=0$ for every $i\in I$, and $\sum\limits_{i\in I}p_{i}^{-1}=\infty,$ then $\delta(A)=0$.
Now, given a positive integer $k$ we define the set: $$\Upsilon_k:= \{n\textrm{ odd }: \mathcal{E}(p-1)=k\ \textrm{for every $p\mid n$}\}.$$ With this notation, Proposition 11 states that: $$\mathcal{M}_{\frac{\lambda}{2}}=\left(\bigcup_{k=1}^\infty \Upsilon_k \cup 4 \Upsilon_1 \cup 8 \Upsilon_1\right) \setminus\{12,24\}.$$
We are in the condition to compute the asymptotic density of $\mathcal{M}_{\frac{\lambda}{2}}$.
$\mathcal{M}_{\frac{\lambda}{2}}$ has zero asymptotic density.
Since $$\mathcal{M}_{\frac{\lambda}{2}}=\left(\bigcup_{k=1}^\infty \Upsilon_k \cup 4 \Upsilon_1 \cup 8 \Upsilon_1\right) \setminus\{12,24\},$$ it will be enough to show that $A=\bigcup_{n=1}^\infty \Upsilon_n$ has zero asymptotic density.
For any prime $p$ let us introduce the following sets: $$\mathcal{I}_{p}:=\{p\}\cup\{q\ \textrm{prime}: \mathcal{E}(p-1)\neq\mathcal{ E}(q-1)\},$$ $$\mathcal{T}_{p}:=\{n\in \mathbb{N}: p\nmid n\},$$ $$\mathcal{K}_{p}:=\{pk: k\in \mathbb{N}\}.$$
It is easy to observe that, for any prime $p$: $$\mathbb{N}\setminus A_{p}=\bigcup_{q\in \mathcal{I}_{p}}p\mathcal{K}_{q}\cup \mathcal{T}_{p}.$$
Now, considering that $$\mathcal{I}_{p}=\{p\}\bigcup \{ q\ \textrm{prime}: q \not\equiv 2^{k}+1\ \textrm{(mod $2^{k+1}$) with}\ k=\mathcal{E}(p-1)\}$$ it is clear that $\displaystyle{\delta\left(\bigcup_{q\in \mathcal{I}_{p}} \mathcal{K}_{q}\right)=1}$. Thus, $\displaystyle{\delta\left(\bigcup_{q\in \mathcal{I}_{p}} p\mathcal{K}_{q}\right)=\dfrac{1}{p}}$ and since $\delta(\mathcal{T}_{p})=\dfrac{p-1}{p}$ it follows that, for any prime $p$: $$\delta(A_p)=1- \delta(\mathbb{N}\setminus {A}_{p})=1-\delta\left(\bigcup_{q\in\mathcal{I}_{p}} p \mathcal{K}_{q}\right)-\delta(\mathcal{T}_{p})=0$$ and the result follows from the previous lemma.
[1]{}
D. Borwein, J. M. Borwein, P. B. Borwein, and R. Girgensohn. Giuga’s conjecture on primality. , 103(1):40–50, 1996.
L. Carlitz. The [S]{}taudt-[C]{}lausen theorem. , 34:131–146, 1960/1961.
G. Giuga. Su una presumibile proprietá caratteristica dei numeri primi. , 14(83):511–528, 1950.
J.M. Grau and A.M. Oller-Marcén. Generalizing giuga’s conjecture. , arXiv:1103.3483v1 \[math.NT\].
J.M. Grau, F. Luca and A.M. Oller-Marcén. On a variant of giuga numbers. , 28(4):653–660, 2011.
G. H. Hardy and E. M. Wright. . Oxford University Press, Oxford, sixth edition, 2008. Revised by D. R. Heath-Brown and J. H. Silverman, With a foreword by Andrew Wiles.
K. MacMillan and J. Sondow. Proofs of power sum and binomial coefficient congruences via [P]{}ascal’s identity. , 118(6):549–551, 2011.
I. Niven. Sets of integers of density zero. In [*Proceedings of the [I]{}nternational [C]{}ongress of [M]{}athematicians.*]{}, page 298, Cambridge, 1950.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Results are presented on $\Omega$ production in central Pb+Pb collisions at 40 and 158 beam energy. For the first time in heavy ion reactions, rapidity distributions and total yields were measured for the sum [$\Omega^-$]{}+[$\bar{\Omega}^+$]{} at 40 and for [$\Omega^-$]{} and [$\bar{\Omega}^+$]{} separately at 158. The yields are strongly underpredicted by the string-hadronic UrQMD model but agree better with predictions from hadron gas models.'
author:
- 'C. Alt'
- 'T. Anticic'
- 'B. Baatar'
- 'D. Barna'
- 'J. Bartke'
- 'L. Betev'
- 'H. Bia[ł]{}kowska'
- 'A. Billmeier'
- 'C. Blume'
- 'B. Boimska'
- 'M. Botje'
- 'J. Bracinik'
- 'R. Bramm'
- 'R. Brun'
- 'P. Bunčić'
- 'V. Cerny'
- 'P. Christakoglou'
- 'O. Chvala'
- 'J.G. Cramer'
- 'P. Csató'
- 'N. Darmenov'
- 'A. Dimitrov'
- 'P. Dinkelaker'
- 'V. Eckardt'
- 'G. Farantatos'
- 'D. Flierl'
- 'Z. Fodor'
- 'P. Foka'
- 'P. Freund'
- 'V. Friese'
- 'J. Gál'
- 'M. Gaździcki'
- 'G. Georgopoulos'
- 'E. G[ł]{}adysz'
- 'K. Grebieszkow'
- 'S. Hegyi'
- 'C. Höhne'
- 'K. Kadija'
- 'A. Karev'
- 'M. Kliemant'
- 'S. Kniege'
- 'V.I. Kolesnikov'
- 'T. Kollegger'
- 'E. Kornas'
- 'R. Korus'
- 'M. Kowalski'
- 'I. Kraus'
- 'M. Kreps'
- 'M. van Leeuwen'
- 'P. Lévai'
- 'L. Litov'
- 'B. Lungwitz'
- 'M. Makariev'
- 'A.I. Malakhov'
- 'C. Markert'
- 'M. Mateev'
- 'B.W. Mayes'
- 'G.L. Melkumov'
- 'C. Meurer'
- 'A. Mischke'
- 'M. Mitrovski'
- 'J. Molnár'
- 'St. Mrówczyński'
- 'G. Pálla'
- 'A.D. Panagiotou'
- 'D. Panayotov'
- 'A. Petridis'
- 'M. Pikna'
- 'L. Pinsky'
- 'F. Pühlhofer'
- 'J.G. Reid'
- 'R. Renfordt'
- 'A. Richard'
- 'C. Roland'
- 'G. Roland'
- 'M. Rybczyński'
- 'A. Rybicki'
- 'A. Sandoval'
- 'H. Sann'
- 'N. Schmitz'
- 'P. Seyboth'
- 'F. Siklér'
- 'B. Sitar'
- 'E. Skrzypczak'
- 'G. Stefanek'
- 'R. Stock'
- 'H. Ströbele'
- 'T. Susa'
- 'I. Szentpétery'
- 'J. Sziklai'
- 'T.A. Trainor'
- 'D. Varga'
- 'M. Vassiliou'
- 'G.I. Veres'
- 'G. Vesztergombi'
- 'D. Vranić'
- 'A. Wetzler'
- 'Z. W[ł]{}odarczyk'
- 'I.K. Yoo'
- 'J. Zaranek'
- 'J. Zimányi'
title: '[$\mathbf{\Omega^-}$]{} and [$\mathbf{\bar{\Omega}^+}$]{} production in central Pb+Pb collisions at 40 and 158'
---
[^1]
The measurement of multi-strange particles is of particular interest in heavy ion collisions at ultra-relativistic energies. One important aspect is the observation that the inverse slope parameter $T$ of the $\Omega$ [$m_{{\mbox{\textrm{\scriptsize t}}}}$]{}spectrum [@WA97MT] is significantly smaller than expected from the linear mass dependence of $T$ naively implied by the presence of radial flow. This led to the hypothesis that multi-strange hyperons are not affected by the pressure generated by the hadronic matter in later stages of the reaction [@NUXU]. Originally, the increase of the production of multi-strange particles as compared to elementary hadron-hadron collisions was suggested as a signature of quark-gluon plasma formation [@RAFELS]. However, existing experimental data on $\Xi$ and [$\Lambda$]{} production at lower beam energies [@NA49LP; @E895XI] exhibit a much stronger enhancement than observed at top SPS energies. Generally, it is found that the abundances of strange particles are close to those calculated in statistical models assuming the creation of an equilibrated hadron gas [@BECAT1]. In a hadronic environment, as expected at lower beam energies, this equilibration is generally difficult to achieve. At larger energy densities, when the hadronic system might be close to the QGP phase boundary, multi-particle fusion processes could lead to fast equilibration [@PBMJS2]. However, there exists no dynamic explanation in a hadronic scenario at lower energy densities. The present measurement of $\Omega$ at 40 provides an important test for these models. Recent results on the energy dependence of the ratio ${\ensuremath{\langle \textrm{K}^+ \rangle}}/ {\ensuremath{\langle \pi \rangle}}$ [@NA49KP; @NA49QM] indicate a sharp maximum of relative strangeness production at a beam energy of 30. This observation can be interpreted as a signal for the onset of deconfinement [@SMES] and might be reflected in the energy dependence of multi-strange particle production.
The data were taken with the NA49 large acceptance hadron spectrometer at the CERN SPS. With this detector, tracking is performed by four large-volume TPCs. A measurement of the specific energy loss [$\textrm{d}E/\textrm{d}x$]{}provides particle identification at forward rapidities. Time-of-flight detectors improve the particle identification at mid-rapidity. Centrality selection is based on a measurement of the energy deposited in a forward calorimeter by the projectile spectators. A detailed description of the apparatus can be found in [@NA49NM].
We present in this paper an analysis of two samples of central Pb+Pb events taken at beam energies of 40 and 158 in the years 1999 and 2000, respectively. About $5.8 \times 10^{5}$ events were recorded at 40 with a centrality selection of 7.2% of the total inelastic cross section corresponding, on average, to ${\ensuremath{\langle N_{{\mbox{\textrm{\scriptsize w}}}} \rangle}}= 349$ wounded nucleons [@BIALAS]. At 158, $2.8 \times
10^{6}$ events were taken at 23.5% centrality corresponding to ${\ensuremath{\langle N_{{\mbox{\textrm{\scriptsize w}}}} \rangle}}= 262$.
The $\Omega$ were identified in the decay channel , (68% branching fraction). To reconstruct the [$\Omega^-$]{} ([$\bar{\Omega}^+$]{}), the [$\Lambda$]{} ([$\bar{\Lambda}$]{}) candidates were selected in an invariant-mass window of 1.101–1.131 and combined with all negatively (positively) charged tracks in the event. The same procedure as in the $\Xi$ analysis of [@NA49XI] was used to identify the secondary vertex of the $\Omega$ decay.
To reduce the combinatorial background several cuts were applied. Identification of the (anti-)protons by [$\textrm{d}E/\textrm{d}x$]{} in the TPCs reduced the contribution from fake [$\Lambda$]{} ([$\bar{\Lambda}$]{}). The measured [$\textrm{d}E/\textrm{d}x$]{} was required to be within 3.5 standard deviations from the predicted Bethe-Bloch value. Likewise an enriched kaon sample was extracted from the charged tracks. A further background reduction was achieved by requiring a minimal distance of 25 cm in the beam direction between the target and the $\Omega$ decay vertex position. The $\Omega$ candidates were extrapolated back to the target plane to obtain the transverse coordinates $b_x$ (magnetic bending plane) and $b_y$ of the impact point with respect to the primary interaction vertex. To reject non-vertex candidates, cuts of $|b_x| < 0.5$ cm and $|b_y| < 0.25$ cm were applied. Kaons from the primary vertex were excluded by imposing a cut of $|b_y| > 1.0$ cm on the kaon tracks. In addition, $|b_y| > 0.4$ cm was required for the $\Lambda$ candidates at 40. With these cuts an acceptable separation of signal and background was achieved for $\Omega$ transverse momenta above 0.9 .
In [Fig. \[fig:omega\]]{}
![\[fig:omega\] The invariant-mass distributions of [$\Omega^-$]{} and [$\bar{\Omega}^+$]{} candidates. Left: summed distribution of [$\Lambda$]{}[$\textrm{K}^-$]{} and [$\bar{\Lambda}$]{}[$\textrm{K}^+$]{} pairs at 40. Middle: [$\Lambda$]{}[$\textrm{K}^-$]{} pairs at 158. Right: [$\bar{\Lambda}$]{}[$\textrm{K}^+$]{} pairs at 158. The full curves represent a fit to signal and background described in the text. The dashed curves show the background contribution.](fig1.ps){width="0.95\linewidth"}
the invariant-mass distributions of the [$\Omega^-$]{} and [$\bar{\Omega}^+$]{}candidates are shown for ${\ensuremath{p_{{\mbox{\textrm{\scriptsize t}}}}}}> 0.9$ GeV/$c$ and $-0.5 < y < 0.5$. Note that the available statistics at 40 is not sufficient to separately analyze the [$\Omega^-$]{} and [$\bar{\Omega}^+$]{}[@MICHI]. Clear signals are observed at the $\Omega$ mass of $m_0 = 1672.5$ [@PDG02] with a resolution of 5 and 4 at 40 and 158, respectively.
The spectra were fitted to the sum of a polynomial background and a signal distribution, determined from the simulation described below. The raw $\Omega$ yield is obtained by subtracting the fitted background in a mass window of $\pm 7$ around the nominal $\Omega$ mass.
Detailed simulations were made to correct the yields for geometrical acceptance and losses in the reconstruction. For this purpose, a sample of $\Omega$ was generated in the full phase space accessible to the experiment. The Geant 3.21 package [@GEANT3] was used to track the generated $\Omega$ and their decay particles through a detailed description of the NA49 detector geometry. NA49 specific software was used to simulate the TPC response taking into account all known detector effects. The simulated signals were added to those of real events and subjected to the same reconstruction procedure as the experimental data. The acceptance and efficiency were calculated in bins of [$p_{{\mbox{\textrm{\scriptsize t}}}}$]{} and $y$ as the fraction of the generated $\Omega$ which traverse the detector, survive the reconstruction and pass the analysis cuts. This fraction amounts in total to 0.4–0.5% (0.2–0.5%) for 40 (158) data, depending on [$p_{{\mbox{\textrm{\scriptsize t}}}}$]{} and $y$. The geometric acceptance is of the order of 20%, which in turn is reduced to 0.6–1.2% by the cuts that suppress the combinatorial background. A further reduction of the reconstruction efficiency at 158 by 30–60% is due to the high track density.
The statistical error is given by the quadratic sum of three contributions: the signal, the background and the efficiency correction, the latter being smaller at 40 than at 158. The systematic uncertainties are dominated by the background subtraction method and by imperfections in the simulation. By varying the analysis strategy and the cuts applied, a systematic error of 10% is estimated in the transverse-mass region $({\ensuremath{m_{{\mbox{\textrm{\scriptsize t}}}}}}- m_0) >
0.3$ GeV. At lower [$m_{{\mbox{\textrm{\scriptsize t}}}}$]{} this error is about 25%
In [Fig. \[fig:omegamt\]]{}
![\[fig:omegamt\] The transverse-mass spectra of [$\Omega^-$]{} and [$\bar{\Omega}^+$]{} at mid-rapidity. Left: ${\ensuremath{\Omega^-}}+ {\ensuremath{\bar{\Omega}^+}}$ at 40 (triangles) and [$\Omega^-$]{} at 158 (circles). Right: [$\bar{\Omega}^+$]{} at 158. The errors shown are statistical only. The dashed curve shows the exponential fit described in the text. The full, dotted, and dash-dotted curves show a model including transverse expansion.](fig2.ps){width="0.95\linewidth"}
the transverse-mass spectra of the $\Omega$ are shown integrated over the range $\pm 0.5$ (40) and $\pm 1$ (158) around mid-rapidity. The transverse-mass spectra were fitted to an exponential function $$\label{eq:expo}
\frac{{\ensuremath{\textrm{d}}}N}{{\ensuremath{m_{{\mbox{\textrm{\scriptsize t}}}}}}{\ensuremath{\textrm{d}}}{\ensuremath{m_{{\mbox{\textrm{\scriptsize t}}}}}}{\ensuremath{\textrm{d}}}y}
\propto \exp \left( -\frac{{\ensuremath{m_{{\mbox{\textrm{\scriptsize t}}}}}}}{T} \right)$$ in the range $({\ensuremath{m_{{\mbox{\textrm{\scriptsize t}}}}}}- m_0) > 0.2$ GeV. The results are plotted in [Fig. \[fig:omegamt\]]{} (dashed curves) and the inverse slope parameters $T$ are listed in [Table \[tab:results\]]{}.
------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------
$T$ $218 {\ensuremath{\! \pm \!}}39 {\ensuremath{\! \pm \!}}39 $ $267 {\ensuremath{\! \pm \!}}26 {\ensuremath{\! \pm \!}}10 $ $259 {\ensuremath{\! \pm \!}}35 {\ensuremath{\! \pm \!}}18 $
$\sigma$ $0.6 {\ensuremath{\! \pm \!}}0.1 {\ensuremath{\! \pm \!}}0.1 $ $1.2 {\ensuremath{\! \pm \!}}0.4 {\ensuremath{\! \pm \!}}0.2 $ $1.0 {\ensuremath{\! \pm \!}}0.4 {\ensuremath{\! \pm \!}}0.2 $
${\ensuremath{\textrm{d}N/\textrm{d}y}}$ $0.10 {\ensuremath{\! \pm \!}}0.02 {\ensuremath{\! \pm \!}}0.02$ $0.14 {\ensuremath{\! \pm \!}}0.03 {\ensuremath{\! \pm \!}}0.01$ $0.07 {\ensuremath{\! \pm \!}}0.02 {\ensuremath{\! \pm \!}}0.01$
${\ensuremath{\langle N \rangle}}$ $0.14 {\ensuremath{\! \pm \!}}0.03 {\ensuremath{\! \pm \!}}0.04$ $0.43 {\ensuremath{\! \pm \!}}0.09 {\ensuremath{\! \pm \!}}0.03$ $0.19 {\ensuremath{\! \pm \!}}0.04 {\ensuremath{\! \pm \!}}0.02$
------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------
: \[tab:results\] The inverse slope parameter $T$ (MeV), the width $\sigma$ of the rapidity distribution, the mid-rapidity yield [$\textrm{d}N/\textrm{d}y$]{} and the total yield [$\langle N \rangle$]{} of $\Omega$ production at 40 and 158. The first error is statistical and the second systematic.
No significant difference can be observed in the shape of the [$\Omega^-$]{}and [$\bar{\Omega}^+$]{} spectra at 158. The inverse slope parameters are close to the values obtained by the WA97 and NA57 collaborations [@WA97MT; @NA57MT]. The inverse slope parameter at 40 is somewhat lower but, within errors, compatible with the 158 result.
To investigate whether the $\Omega$ decouples earlier from the fireball than lighter hadrons, we use a hydrodynamical model which assumes a transversely expanding emission source [@BLASTW]. The parameters of this model are the freeze-out temperature [$T_{{\mbox{\textrm{\scriptsize f}}}}$]{} and the transverse flow velocity [$\beta_{{\mbox{\textrm{\scriptsize s}}}}$]{} at the surface. Assuming a linear radial velocity profile ${\ensuremath{\beta_{{\mbox{\textrm{\scriptsize t}}}}}}(r) = {\ensuremath{\beta_{{\mbox{\textrm{\scriptsize s}}}}}}\; r/R$, which is motivated by hydrodynamical calculations, the [$m_{{\mbox{\textrm{\scriptsize t}}}}$]{}spectrum can be computed from $$\label{eq:blast}
\!\! \frac{{\ensuremath{\textrm{d}}}N}{{\ensuremath{m_{{\mbox{\textrm{\scriptsize t}}}}}}{\ensuremath{\textrm{d}}}{\ensuremath{m_{{\mbox{\textrm{\scriptsize t}}}}}}{\ensuremath{\textrm{d}}}y}
\propto \! \int_{0}^{R} \!\!\! r {\ensuremath{\textrm{d}}}r\; {\ensuremath{m_{{\mbox{\textrm{\scriptsize t}}}}}}I_{0} \!\!\left(\!\frac{{\ensuremath{p_{{\mbox{\textrm{\scriptsize t}}}}}}\sinh \rho}{{\ensuremath{T_{{\mbox{\textrm{\scriptsize f}}}}}}} \!\right)\!
K_{1} \!\!\left(\!\frac{{\ensuremath{m_{{\mbox{\textrm{\scriptsize t}}}}}}\cosh \rho}{{\ensuremath{T_{{\mbox{\textrm{\scriptsize f}}}}}}} \!\right),$$ where $R$ is the radius of the source and $\rho = \tanh^{-1}\! {\ensuremath{\beta_{{\mbox{\textrm{\scriptsize t}}}}}}$ is the boost angle. The full curve (A) in [Fig. \[fig:omegamt\]]{} shows the result of a calculation with ${\ensuremath{T_{{\mbox{\textrm{\scriptsize f}}}}}}= 90$ MeV and an average flow velocity ${\ensuremath{\langle \beta_{{\mbox{\textrm{\scriptsize t}}}} \rangle}}= 0.5$. These parameters were obtained from a simultaneous fit of the model to the [$m_{{\mbox{\textrm{\scriptsize t}}}}$]{}spectra of [$\textrm{K}^+$]{}, [$\textrm{K}^-$]{}, p, $\bar{\textrm{p}}$, $\phi$, [$\Lambda$]{}, and [$\bar{\Lambda}$]{}, all measured by NA49 at 158 [@NA49KP; @NA49PR; @NA49PH; @NA49LP]. The dotted curve (B) is calculated with ${\ensuremath{T_{{\mbox{\textrm{\scriptsize f}}}}}}= 170$ MeV and ${\ensuremath{\langle \beta_{{\mbox{\textrm{\scriptsize t}}}} \rangle}}= 0.2$, obtained from a fit to [$\textrm{J}/\psi$]{} and [$\psi^{\prime}$]{} spectra [@MAREK1]. The disagreement of curve (A) and the agreement of curve (B) with the data suggest that in this version of the model, the freeze-out conditions of the $\Omega$ are similar to those of the [$\textrm{J}/\psi$]{} or [$\psi^{\prime}$]{} but are different from those of the lighter hadrons. The use of a constant expansion velocity, on the other hand, results in a fair agreement of the measured hadron spectra, including the $\Xi$ and the $\Omega$, with ${\ensuremath{T_{{\mbox{\textrm{\scriptsize f}}}}}}= 127$ MeV and ${\ensuremath{\langle \beta_{{\mbox{\textrm{\scriptsize t}}}} \rangle}}= 0.5$ [@MARCO], as shown by curve (C) for the Omega. It predicts, however, a significant decrease of the spectrum for heavy hadrons for ${\ensuremath{m_{{\mbox{\textrm{\scriptsize t}}}}}}- m_{{\mbox{\textrm{\scriptsize 0}}}} \rightarrow 0$. This dip is already quite pronounced for the Omega but not suggested by the measurements [^2]. Thus, a radius independent transverse expansion velocity may be too crude an approximation of the velocity profile.
The parameterizations of [Eqs. (\[eq:expo\]) and (\[eq:blast\])]{} were used to extrapolate the $\Omega$ yields into the unmeasured regions of [$m_{{\mbox{\textrm{\scriptsize t}}}}$]{}. Assuming that the shape of the [$m_{{\mbox{\textrm{\scriptsize t}}}}$]{}distribution does not depend on rapidity, extrapolation factors of 2.3 (2.2) at 40 (158) were obtained from fits to the summed [$\Omega^-$]{} and [$\bar{\Omega}^+$]{} data. A systematic uncertainty of 6% is due to the choice of parameterization.
The extrapolated $\Omega$ yields at 40 and 158 are shown in [Fig. \[fig:omegarap\]]{} as a function of rapidity.
![\[fig:omegarap\] The rapidity dependence of $\Omega$ production in central Pb+Pb collisions. Left: ${\ensuremath{\Omega^-}}+ {\ensuremath{\bar{\Omega}^+}}$ at 40 (triangles) and [$\Omega^-$]{} at 158 (circles). Right: [$\bar{\Omega}^+$]{} at 158. The errors shown are statistical only. The open symbols show the measured points (full symbols) reflected around mid-rapidity. The curves correspond to Gaussian fits to the data.](fig3.ps){width="0.95\linewidth"}
All spectra can be described by a Gaussian with zero mean and a width $\sigma$ obtained from a fit to the data, see [Table \[tab:results\]]{}. The widths of the [$\Omega^-$]{} and [$\bar{\Omega}^+$]{} spectra at 158 are compatible but are both significantly larger than the width measured at 40. Also given in [Table \[tab:results\]]{} are the mid-rapidity yields [$\textrm{d}N/\textrm{d}y$]{}($-0.5 < y < 0.5$) and the total yields [$\langle N \rangle$]{} obtained by extrapolating the rapidity spectra into the unmeasured region using the Gaussian fits. The mid-rapidity yields are slightly below the values given by the NA57 collaboration [@NA57DN], however, they agree within statistical errors, if the difference in the centrality selection at 158 is taken into account.
In the following we denote by [$\langle \Omega \rangle$]{} the sum of the total [$\Omega^-$]{} and [$\bar{\Omega}^+$]{} yields and by [$\langle \pi \rangle$]{} the total charged pion yields from [@NA49KP], multiplied by a factor 1.5. The pion yields at 158 were scaled by the ratio of the numbers of wounded nucleons to account for the difference in the centrality selection of the pion and the $\Omega$ measurement (note the centrality selection at 40 of 7% and at 158 of 23.5% most central events.). Figure \[fig:omegaedep\]
![\[fig:omegaedep\] The ratio ${\ensuremath{\langle \Omega \rangle}}/ {\ensuremath{\langle \pi \rangle}}$ (see text) versus the center-of-mass energy. Statistical errors are shown as lines, while the brackets denote the systematic errors. The dashed curve shows the prediction from the hadronic string model UrQMD [@URQMD] and the gray box that of RQMD [@RQMD]. A hadron gas model without strangeness suppression [@REDLIC] is shown by the full curve. The open squares represent the fits from [@BECAT2] including strangeness under-saturation.](fig4.ps){width="0.85\linewidth"}
shows the ratio ${\ensuremath{\langle \Omega \rangle}}/ {\ensuremath{\langle \pi \rangle}}$ as function of the center-of-mass energy. The ratio tends to increase with energy. It is clearly underpredicted by the UrQMD string-hadronic model [@URQMD] as shown by the dashed curve in [Fig. \[fig:omegaedep\]]{}. A better description of the 158 data is provided by RQMD version 2.3 including the color rope mechanism [@RQMD].
On the other hand, the data are close to the predictions of statistical hadron gas models which use a grand canonical ensemble. In these models, the chemical freeze-out temperature and the baryonic chemical potential are fitted to the yields of other measured hadrons. The hadron gas model of [@BECAT2] (labeled B in [Fig. \[fig:omegaedep\]]{}) introduces in addition a strangeness undersaturation parameter $\gamma_{{\mbox{\textrm{\scriptsize s}}}}$ in the fits, which have been performed at each energy separately. The fit results at 30 reflect the sharp maximum of the [$\textrm{K}^+$]{}/[$\pi^+$]{}-ratio observed around this energy. The present measurement at 40 seems to favor this model, compared to that of [@REDLIC] (labeled A in [Fig. \[fig:omegaedep\]]{}) which does not allow for strangeness undersaturation ($\gamma_{{\mbox{\textrm{\scriptsize s}}}} = 1$ for all energies). The data point at 158, however, does not discriminate between the two models. Nevertheless, the observation that $\Omega$ production is compatible with phase-space undersaturation at higher SPS energies ($> 30{\mbox{$A$~GeV}}$), would be in line with a similar behavior of the kaon excitation function in the same energy regime [@NA49QM].
In summary, NA49 has performed a measurement of $\Omega$ production in central Pb+Pb reactions over a wide region of phase space. At a beam energy of 158 the available statistics allowed to separately analyze [$\Omega^-$]{} and [$\bar{\Omega}^+$]{}. The shapes of the transverse-mass spectra at this energy reveal no difference between [$\Omega^-$]{} and [$\bar{\Omega}^+$]{} and are in agreement with previous results by WA97 and NA57. In a hydrodynamically inspired model with radially increasing velocity profile, the data favor a low transverse expansion velocity and high freeze-out temperature. The rapidity spectra of the $\Omega$, which have not been measured before in heavy ion reactions, are compatible with a Gaussian shape. The widths for [$\Omega^-$]{} and [$\bar{\Omega}^+$]{} appear to be similar. The yields are strongly under-predicted by the string-hadronic UrQMD model. The data agree better with predictions from hadron gas models.
Acknowledgments: This work was supported by the US Department of Energy Grant DE-FG03-97ER41020/A000, the Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung and the Virtual Institute VI-146 of the Helmholtz Gemeinschaft, Germany, the Polish State Committee for Scientific Research (2 P03B 130 23, SPB/CERN/P-03/Dz 446/2002-2004, 2 P03B 04123), the Hungarian Scientific Research Fund, OTKA (T032648, T032293, T043514, F034707), the Polish-German Foundation, and the Korea Research Foundation Grant (KRF-2003-070-C00015).
[9]{}
F. Antinori et al. \[WA97 Collaboration\], Eur. Phys. J. C [**14**]{}, 633 (2000).
H. van Hecke, H. Sorge, and N. Xu, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**81**]{}, 5764 (1998).
J. Rafelski and B. Müller, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**48**]{}, 1066 (1982).
T. Anticic et al. \[NA49 Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. Lett. [**93**]{}, 022302 (2004).
P. Chung et al. \[E895 Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. Lett. [**91**]{}, 202301 (2003).
F. Becattini, J. Cleymans, A. Keranen, E. Suhonen, and K. Redlich, Phys. Rev. C [**64**]{}, 024901 (2001).
P. Braun-Munzinger, J. Stachel, and C. Wetterich, Phys. Lett. B [**596**]{}, 61 (2004).
S.V. Afanasiev et al. \[NA49 Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. C [**66**]{}, 054902 (2002).
M. Gaździcki et al. \[NA49 Collaboration\], J. Phys. G [**30**]{}, 701 (2004).
M. Gaździcki and M.I. Gorenstein, Acta Phys. Polon. B [**30**]{}, 2705 (1999).
S.V. Afanasiev et al. \[NA49 Collaboration\], Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect A [**430**]{}, 210 (1999).
A. Bia[ł]{}as, M. B[ł]{}eszyński, and W. Czyż, Nucl. Phys. [**B111**]{}, 461 (1976).
S.V. Afanasiev et al. \[NA49 Collaboration\], Phys. Lett. B [**538**]{}, 275 (2002).
M. Mitrovski, Diploma Thesis, University of Frankfurt (2004).
K. Hagiwara et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D [**66**]{}, 010001 (2002).
R. Brun et al., Geant 3 manual, CERN Program Library Long Writeup W5013 (1994).
F. Antinori et al., J. Phys. G [**30**]{}, 823 (2004).
E. Schnedermann and U. Heinz, Phys. Rev. C [**50**]{}, 1675 (1994).
T. Anticic et al. \[NA49 Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. C [**69**]{}, 024902 (2004).
S.V. Afanasiev et al. \[NA49 Collaboration\], Phys. Lett. B [**491**]{}, 59 (2000).
M.I. Gorenstein, K.A Bugaev, and M. Gaździcki, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**88**]{}, 132301 (2002).
M. van Leeuwen et al. \[NA49 Collaboration\], Nucl. Phys. [**A715**]{}, 161c (2003).
F. Antinori et al., Phys. Lett. B [**595**]{}, 68 (2004).
M. Bleicher et al., J. Phys. G [**25**]{}, 1859 (1999) and private communication.
U. Heinz, J. Sollfrank, H. Sorge, and N. Xu, Phys. Rev. C [**59**]{}, 1637 (1999).
F. Becattini, M. Gaździcki, A. Keränen, J. Manninen, and R. Stock, Phys. Rev. C [**69**]{}, 024905 (2004).
P. Braun-Munzinger, J. Cleymans, H. Oeschler, and K. Redlich, Nucl. Phys. [**A697**]{}, 902 (2002) and private communication.
[^1]: deceased
[^2]: Note that the transverse-mass spectra at 158 presented here deviate in the first data point from the result of a preliminary analysis shown in [@MARCO].
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
author:
- |
Peter Kramer,\
Institut für Theoretische Physik der Universität Tübingen,\
Germany.
title: 'Gateways towards quasicrystals.'
---
Introduction. {#sec:intro}
=============
The experimental discovery of quasicrystals by D Shechtman, D Gratias, I Blech, and J W Cahn in 1984 [@SH84] provided the paradigm for a new type of long-range order of solid matter in nature. This discovery stimulated an explosion of new experimental and theoretical research. In years prior to the discovery, there was a very active development of various gateways to quasicrystals in theoretical and mathematical physics. Without this conceptual basis, it would have been impossible to grasp and explore efficiently the structure and physical properties of quasicrystrals. The aim in what follows is to give a non-technical and condensed account of the conceptual gateways to quasicrystals prior to their discovery.
A Bravais, J B J Fourier, A M Schönflies and E S Fedorov: Classical periodic crystallography. {#sec:classical}
=============================================================================================
Crystals in the natural world caught the attention by their regular geometrical polyhedral form. It was A Bravais [@BR50] who found the fundamental insight into their internal structure by introducing the idea of an underlying periodic lattice $\Lambda$, see Fig. \[vorde\]. Bravais was able to explain the regularity of crystal faces by associating them with planes uniformly occupied by lattice points. The finite translations that connect lattice points form the translation group of the lattice, denoted also for short by $\Lambda$. If the next distances and directions in a lattice are tuned in particular ways, finite rotations with respect to a fixed lattice point may turn lattice points into lattice points. The lattice then is compatible with a point group. The combined symmetry under lattice translations and rotations led to the concept of space group symmetries. The question then arose: what are the possible crystal structures in 3-dimensional space? This question was explored in the 19th century and culminated in the systematic classification of all possible crystal structures in terms of space group theory by Schönflies [@SC86/87] and Fedorov [@FE91]. The emergence of an atomic structure of solid matter in the 19th century offered the possibility of viewing a crystal lattice as being formed by atoms. This structure was verified in 1912 in diffraction experiments with X rays following von Laue [@LA12] and Bragg [@BR12].
![\[vorde\] [**Hexagonal and dual triangular periodic lattices**]{}. The centers (white and black circles) of the dual triangular cells are located at the vertices of the hexagonal lattice cells (centers black squares). The hexagons and triangles are examples of the Voronoi and dual Delone cells in general periodic lattices.](vorde){width="40.00000%"}
The concept of a periodic lattice implies other basic notions for crystals: The periodic lattice symmetry requires that the long-range distribution of atoms is completely determined once it is known inside a unit cell. The analysis of periodic systems was fundamentally advanced by Fourier’s [@FO22] concept of the series expansion of a periodic function into elementary periodic functions. For a complex-valued periodic function $f^p(x)$ on the real line, this expansion in a condensed complex version takes the form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{qu1}
&&f^p(x)= \sum_{\nu} a(k_{\nu}) \exp (ik_{\nu} x),\: k_{\mu}= \frac{1}{2\pi} \mu, \mu= 0,\pm 1,\pm 2,...
\\ \nonumber
&& a(k_{\mu})= \int_{-1/2}^{1/2}dx\; f^p(x) \exp (-ik_{\mu}x).\end{aligned}$$ The Fourier coefficients $a(k_{\mu})$ in this expansion, given as integrals over the function $f^p(x)$ inside the unit interval, may be considered as functions defined on the points $k_{\nu}$ of a lattice $\Lambda^R$ in a Fourier $k$-space. Then the Fourier series represents the function $f^p(x)$ with domain the unit interval as a function $f^p(k)$ on the points of the so-called reciprocal lattice $\Lambda^R$ in $k$-space. For crystals with lattices in 3-dimensional space $E^3$, the Fourier coefficients live on a $E^3$ $k$-space equipped with a 3-dimensional reciprocal lattice $\Lambda^R$.
With the advent of scattering theory by quantum wave mechanics, von Laue [@LA12] and Bragg [@BR12] related the magnitude of the Fourier coefficients directly to the observed intensity of waves scattered from crystals. The intensity in scattering from crystals is characterized by sharp peaks in selected directions. In mathematical terms one speaks of a Fourier point spectrum. The determination of the atomic structure of matter up to date is based on the interpretation of scattering data by Fourier series analysis.
The three related notions of a periodic lattice $\Lambda$, an atomic unit cell, and a Fourier series analysis characterize crystals as periodic atomic long-range structures.
Point symmetry: Das Pentagramma macht Dir Pein? {#sec:penta}
===============================================
Another geometric aspect of crystals observed in nature were the systematic angles between their outer faces. With respect to the center of the crystal, these faces often displayed 2fold, 4fold or 6fold point symmetry as part of their polyhedral symmetry. These properties found an explanation in terms of the Bravais periodic lattice theory: It was shown that all the observed point symmetries could be related to what became known as the seven Bravais lattices. The compatibility of point and periodic lattice symmetry in the framework of space groups formed the basis of the classification by Schoenflies and Fedorov.
There remained an enigma expressed by J W Goethe in his drama Faust [@GO08]: [*Das Pentagramma macht Dir Pein?*]{} Certain well-known point symmetries did not fit into lattice theory. Among them are the 5fold and the icosahedral symmetry, associated with the cyclic group $C_5$ and the icosahedral group ${\cal J}$ of rotations in 2- and 3-dimensional space. Already Plato [@PL91] in his study of regular polyhedra had noted the regular dodecahedron and icosahedron with icosahedral symmetry. For him, four regular polyhedra were geometric building blocks of the four elements whereas the dodecahedron he associated with the overall symmetry.
J Kepler [@KE38] was impressed by the Platonic catalogue. In a first attempt he tried to use them for the determination of the radii of spheres of the planets. Later, after his discovery of the elliptic orbits for the planets, he studied [@KE40] regular polygons, see Fig. \[fig\_kepler\], and polyhedra in order to deduce rational relations between astronomical data for the orbits of the planets. In his studies he also looked at tilings of the plane by regular pentagons, and enlarged the list of polyhedra by the half-regular triacontahedron.
![\[fig\_kepler\] [**Kepler’s planar tiling with decagons and pentagons.**]{} He found that, to leave no gaps, he needed pentagons and pentagonal stars in addition to decagons.](fig_kepler){width="50.00000%"}
With the success of crystallographic lattice theory in the 19th century and thereafter its atomic setting by quantum theory, 5fold and icosahedral point symmetry, being incompatible with any 2- or 3-dimensional lattice, were stigmatized as being non-crystallographic. Of course, the 5fold and icosahedral point symmetry can and does appear in molecules. But all the known paradigms of long-range order, thought to be periodic and so lattice-based, excluded these point symmetries.
In view of their geometrical possibility in 3-dimensional space the enigma remained: Are these point symmetries simply forbidden in nature, since they are not compatible with any lattice, or can they be the gateways towards a new type of long-range order in nature?
H Zassenhaus and C Hermann 1948,49: Mathematical crystallography in $n$ dimensions for $n>3$. {#sec:ndim}
=============================================================================================
The determination of all space groups in 3-dimensional space was a clear classification problem in mathematical physics. This classification obviously had a counterpart in Euclidean spaces of higher dimension. The systematic analysis of these symmetries and lattices was advanced in particuar by H Zassenhaus [@ZA48] and by C Hermann [@HE49]. This work, reviewed by Schwarzenberger [@SC], showed that the counterparts of all essential findings of classical crystallography in $E^3$ can be found in $nD$ lattices. In $E^4$ the classification of space groups was completed in the work of Brown et al. [@BR78]. Of course the lattices in $E^4$ also include 5fold point symmetry.
The work on high dimensional crystallography gained new weight in physics with the advent of quasicrystals.
R Penrose 1974: Aperiodic tilings of the plane. {#sec:penrose}
===============================================
In mathematical crystallography, the Euclidean space $E^n$ is tiled without gaps or overlaps by repeated copies of the unit cell of the lattice. The position of the centers of these copies is given by all the lattice translations. A natural generalization of periodicity are tilings into copies of a finite number of cells. If such a tiling cannnot be organized by a lattice, one has to find new ways to introduce a long-range order. R Penrose [@PE74] proposed such a tiling of the plane with two rhombus tiles, known as the Penrose pattern, Fig. \[penq\]. The edges of the two tiles have the same length. The angles between the edges of these tiles are multiples of $2\pi/5$ and so are adapted to 5fold symmetry. It follows that all the edges in the tile point in only five directions. This already suggests an average 5fold symmetry. Of course the tiles could be arranged into periodic tilings, but Penrose wanted to avoid a lattice periodicity. As a local rule for the long-range order he introduced the concept of matching rules. The matching rules demand that the marked directed edges of adjacent tiles must correspond to one another. Penrose demonstrated a number of interesting properties of his patterns.
![\[penq\] [**The Penrose pattern**]{}: The tiles have thin or thick rhombus shape.](penq){width="50.00000%"}
The paradigm of the Penrose pattern was very appealing to scientists as a template for a generalizations of classical crystallography. One could imagine to fix atoms to positions on the rhombus tiles and study the properties of the resulting generalized crystals.
Of particular interest was the question what other properties of classical crystallography extend to Penrose patterns.
A first question about the Penrose patterns was the long-range order implied. Can any patch of a tilings, built according to the local rules, be extended to cover the full plane? This question has a negative answer: There are finite patches of tilings obeying the matching rules which cannot be extended in some parts without violating the matching rules. Penrose later in [@PE89] called this the non-locality of the pattern. Another problem were the Fourier and diffraction properties of the Penrose pattern.
A L Mackay 1981/2: Cells and diffraction properties from the Penrose pattern. {#sec:mackay}
=============================================================================
A L Mackay [@MA81] presented the Penrose pattern as a paradigm for crystallography with 5fold point symmetry. He discussed the planar Penrose rhombus pattern, suggested its two cells as non-periodic generalizations of crystallographic cells, and proposed the name quasi-lattice for the pattern. He also pointed out a 3D generalization to two rhombohedra whose edges point in the six directions perpendicular to the faces of the regular dodecahedron. He demonstrated in [@MA81] Figure 8 that these rhombohedra can build Kepler’s triacontahedron.
In [@MA82] he posed the question what diffraction would result if one placed scatterers to the vertices of the Penrose pattern. By an optical transform of circles, placed at vertex positions of a portion of a Penrose pattern, he arrived at a diffraction pattern governed by sharp peaks of intensity whose distribution exhibited 10-fold point symmetry. Mackays result strongly suggested that the Penrose generalization of crystals shared with classical crystals the discrete point spectrum in diffraction which was the classical basis of structure determination by Fourier series analysis, section \[sec:classical\].
H Bohr 1925: Quasiperiodicity and Fourier module from n-dimensional lattice embedding. {#sec:bohr}
======================================================================================
H Bohr back in the year 1925, in part II of two papers [@BO25], devoted to a a careful mathematical analysis of almost periodicity, had on pp. 111-117, pp. 137-140, pp. 160-162 explored the notion of quasiperiodicity. He considered a lattice $\Lambda$ in a Euclidean space $E^n$ of dimension $n>3$ and functions $f^p$ periodic on this space. His approach can be described as follows: He introduced a decomposition of Euclidean space $E^n= E^m_{\parallel}+E^{(n-m)}_{\perp}$, with $E_{\parallel} \perp E_{\perp},$ into two orthogonal subspaces, chosen w.r.t. the lattice $\Lambda$ such that $E_{\parallel}$ was irrational. Irrationality meant: If $E^m_{\parallel}$ is parallel shifted by a vector $t$ so as to intersect with a lattice point $P$, then the intersection of the shifted subspace with the set of all lattice point contains only $P$, $(E_{\parallel}+t) \cap \Lambda= P$. The Fibonacci tiling, see section \[sec:fibon\], provides the simplest example of an irrational section.
Bohr then analyzed the restriction of a periodic function $f^p$ on $E^n$, with domain restricted to the subspace $E_{\parallel}$. He showed that this restriction has quasiperiodic properties. Moreover he considered the Fourier series of $f^p$. He analyzed the Fourier transform of a function restricted to the irrational parallel subspace. His finding can be expressed in terms of the lattice $\Lambda^R$ reciprocal to the original lattice $\Lambda$ in $E^n$ in Fourier $k$-space: If he projects the points of the reciprocal lattice to the parallel $k$-subspace $E^m_{\parallel}$, the discrete set of these projections carries the Fourier coefficients of the quasiperiodic function. The discrete set of projected reciprocal lattice points forms what in mathematical terminology is called a [**Z-module**]{}. Its points by construction can be related in $E^m_{\parallel}$ by integer linear combinations of basis vectors of the reciprocal lattice, projected to this subspace. In contrast to the reciprocal lattice points of periodic crystals, the points belonging the quasiperiodic module are discrete but become dense, that is come arbitrarily close, to any other point of the module.
The ingredients of Bohr’s description of quasiperiodic functions were then a periodic lattice $\Lambda$ in $E^n, n>3$, and an irrational subspace $E^m_{\parallel}$. On this basis Bohr provided a discrete Fourier module whose points carried the Fourier coefficients for quasiperiodic functions.
The Fibonacci paradigm, discussed in the next section, provides a simple example of Bohr’s theory. For general applications of Bohr’s ideas there remained a problem: The points of a lattice form only a countable subset in $E^n$ leaving ample gaps for irrational subspaces. Among the infinite set of irrational subspaces, what guideline can lead to a significant choice?
Fibonacci 1202, M Lothaire 1983: Scaling and the square lattice. {#sec:fibon}
================================================================
Leonardo de Pisa published in 1202 in Pisa the hand-written monograph [*Liber abaci*]{}. In it he presented his famous series of the integer Fibonacci numbers defined recursively by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{qu1b}
&& f_{n+1}=f_n+f_{n-1},
\\ \nonumber
&&f_1=f_2=1, f_3=2, f_4=3, f_5=5,...\end{aligned}$$ The Fibonacci numbers appear in mathematical combinatorics, M Lothaire [@LO83] p. 10, as follows: Consider an alphabet $A=\{a,b\}$ and words formed recursively by the concatenation of letters $$\begin{aligned}
\label{qu1bb}
&&fi_{n+1}=fi_nfi_{n-1},\: n \geq 2,
\\ \nonumber
&&fi_1=b, fi_2=a, fi_3=ab, fi_4=aba, fi_5=abaab,... .\end{aligned}$$ Counting the number of letters in successive words, called the word length $|fi_n|$, one finds $$\label{qu1bc}
|fi_1|=|fi_2|=1, |fi_{n+1}|=|fi_n|+|fi_{n-1}|=f_{n+1}.$$ So the word length is a Fibonacci number. From the relative frequency of the letters $\{a,b\}$ in the words one can easily proof that the Fibonacci words cannot be periodic. The Fibonacci words can be converted into an aperiodic tiling by interpreting the letters $(a,b)$ as intervals on the line of length $(1,\tau)$ respectively.
![\[fiboq\] The Fibonacci tiling from the square lattice. The black squares denote the points of the square lattice. The two squares $A,B$ give a periodic tiling of the plane. The Fibonacci matrix $g$ determines scalings in two perpendicular directions $e_{\parallel}, e_{\perp}$. A line parallel to $e_{\parallel}$ intersects the two squares in two intervals of length in proportion $\tau$. The sequence of intervals generates on the line the Fibonacci tiling, beginning with $abaab$, eq. \[qu1bb\].](fiboq){width="100.00000%"}
The recursive construction in eq. \[qu1bb\] is the first approach to the Fibonacci tiling. In a second step we now relate the Fibonacci tiling to Bohr’s theory of quasiperiodic functions. For this we follow [@KR06] pp. 311-12 and define $$\label{qu1c}
g =
\left[ \begin{array}{ll}
1& 1\\
1&0\\
\end{array}
\right]$$ This matrix belongs to the group $GL(2,Z)$ with integer matrix elements and determinant $\pm 1$. Computation of the powers of this matrix relates them to the Fibonacci numbers since $$\label{qu1d}
g^n=
\left[ \begin{array}{ll}
f_n& f_{n-1}\\
f_{n-1}&f_{n-2}\\
\end{array}
\right],\: {\rm det}(g^n)=(-1)^n.$$ We determine the two eigenvalues of $g$ as $$\label{qu1e}
\lambda_1= -\tau^{-1}=-\tau+1,\: \lambda_2=\tau= (1+\sqrt{5})/2.$$ and get the eigenvectors from $$\label{qu1f}
BgB^{-1}=
\left[
\begin{array}{ll}
-\tau^{-1}&0\\
0&\tau\\
\end{array}
\right],\:
B=
\left[
\begin{array}{ll}
-\sqrt{\frac{-\tau+3}{5}}&\sqrt{\frac{\tau+2}{5}}\\
\sqrt{\frac{\tau+2}{5}}&\sqrt{\frac{-\tau+3}{5}}\\
\end{array}
\right].$$ as the two orthonormal column vectors $B=:(b^1,b^2)$ of the matrix $B$. These two vectors are obtained from an initial orthogonal basis by application of the matrix $B$. Writing eq. \[qu1f\] as $$\label{qu1g}
\left[
\begin{array}{ll}
-\tau^{-1}&0\\
0&\tau\\
\end{array}
\right]B
=B \left[ \begin{array}{ll}
1& 1\\
1&0\\
\end{array}
\right]$$ gives the following interpretation: The basis vectors $(b^1,b^2)$ span a square lattice. The integer linear combinations of the basis vectors $(b^1,b^2)$, given on the right-hand side by the right action of $g$ on $B$, transform lattice points into lattice points. The left-hand side shows that the two vectors $(b^1,b^2)$ are scaled respectively by the factors $(\lambda_1, \lambda_2)$. We can combine this result with the Bohr theory of quasiperiodic functions: The orthogonal basis vectors $e_{\parallel}=(1,0)\: e_{\perp}=(0,1)$ determine two irrational orthogonal directions through the square lattice and provide one-dimensional irrational subspaces $E_{\parallel},E_{\perp}$. With respect to these vectors, the original matrix $g$ becomes diagonal. One can construct [@KR06] a new periodic tiling of $E^2$ by two squares whose boundaries run in the directions of these subspaces, see Fig \[fiboq\].
Now let a line parallel to $e_{\parallel}$ intersect these two squares in two intervals. These intervals belong to a module on the line. Their length is in the golden ration $\tau$. The tiling on the parallel line is the Fibonacci tiling. A parallel scaling with factor $\tau$ transforms end points of intervals into end points. So the Fibonacci tiling has a scaling symmetry and displays a cell structure. The scaling symmetry selects a particular one-dimensional irrational subspace in the square lattice, and so by Bohr’s theory becomes a source of quasiperiodicity. Similar lattice scalings by powers of $\tau$ appear in lattices of $E^4, E^6$ with 5fold and icosahedral symmetry. These scalings underly the notions of inflation and self-similarity.
It follows from Bohr’s theory that the Fibonacci tiling is quasiperiodic and has a discrete Fourier module.
Y Meyer 1970, 1972: Harmonious sets. {#sec:meyer}
=====================================
In [@ME70], [@ME72], Y Meyer, starting from a mathematical study of harmonic analysis on locally compact abelian groups, introduced certain discrete point sets he called harmonious sets. After the discovery of quasicrystals it was realized that these harmonious or Meyer sets generalize the notion of lattices to in general aperiodic structures, and so provide a mathematical frame including and generalizing quasicrystals.
Of the seven equivalent characterizations of Meyer sets given by R V Moody [@MO97] pp. 403-41, we mention here only a geometric one: It starts from a Delone set $\Lambda \in R^k$, defined as a relatively dense and uniformly discrete set. This Delone set becomes a Meyer set if there is a finite set $F$ such that the set of differences obeys $\Lambda-\Lambda= \Lambda+F$. Clearly one sees the generalization from the notion of a lattice, whose set of differences would result in $F=0$.
R V Moody [@MO97] pp. 403-41 gives a detailed mathematical account of Meyer’s harmonious sets in the light of our present knowledge of aperiodic structures. The broader field of mathematics for aperiodic structures is the subject of the volume [@MO97], edited in 1997 by R V Moody.
A Janner and T Janssen 1977: Fourier analysis of incommensurate and modulated crystals. {#sec:incomodul}
========================================================================================
A first and successful application in line with Bohr’s theory of quasiperiodic functions to crystallography was made by A Janner and T Janssen [@JA77], [@JA78], based on previous work of P M de Wolff [@WO72]. The idea was to describe so-called incommensurate and modulated structures, found in certain classes of crystals, by the extension of 3D space to a superspace equipped with a superlattice. The extra dimensions then are used to describe incommensuration and modulation.
Introduction of a reciprocal Fourier superspace, and projection to the usual Fourier space then provided, beyond the usual diffraction pattern, a pattern of sattellite diffraction peaks whose structure encodes the specific nature of the incommensuration or modulation. Here the Fourier analysis beyond periodicity was developed, extended and applied in the spirit of Bohr’s frame of quasiperiodicity.
N de Bruijn 1981: The quasiperiodic Penrose pattern in 2 dimensions derived from a lattice. {#sec:bruijn}
===========================================================================================
From the mathematical side, de Bruijn [@BR81] presented the first analysis of the Penrose pattern by use of a lattice embedding into 4-dimensional space $E^4$. His choice of $E^4$ was guided by the wish to incorporate 5fold point symmetry. The Euclidean space $E^4$ has the lowest dimension to allow for a lattice embedding with 5fold point symmetry. If one examines the action of the cyclic group $C_5$ on $E^4$, one finds two orthogonal subspaces of dimension $2$. The unique subspace $E^2_{\parallel}$ of $E^4$ in which the cyclic group generator acts as a rotation by an angle $2\pi/5$ is the natural choice of $E^2_{\parallel}$ for a quasiperiodic function. This subspace has the property of being irrational with respect to the chosen lattice in $E^4$.
The next task of de Bruijn was to identify the Penrose rhombus tiles as projections. We take the liberty to describe his finding in the terminology of a later analysis of the same lattice in $E^4$ given in [@BA90]. The lattice provides two tilings of $E^4$ by 4-polytopes: One is a tiling by Voronoi polytopes, which are the Wigner-Seitz cells of the lattice centered at the lattice points. The second, dual tiling is given by so-called Delone polytopes, centered at the vertices of the Voronoi domains. His geometric view allowed de Bruijn to identify the Penrose rhombus tiles with what is denoted in [@BA90] as the projections of 2-dimensional boundaries of the so-called Delone cells. De Bruijn introduced a so-called pentagrid for the construction by projection of a Penrose rhombus tiling.
De Bruijn’s contribution to the theory of quasicrystal presented major advances: His construction of an irrational lattice embedding into 4 dimensional space related the planar Penrose tiling construction to the theory of Bohr. This construction showed that the requirement of 5fold point symmetry uniquely determines the irrational subspace required by Bohr’s theory. So indeed the 5fold point symmetry promised to be the gateway to a new type of long-range order. When combined with Bohr’s theory, it followed from de Bruijn’s construction that the Fourier transform of a Penrose pattern can be described by a module of sharp diffraction points, with positions the projections of the reciprocal lattice to a 2-dimensional Fourier k-subspace. This consequence confirmed that Mackay’s conjecture of sharp diffraction peaks from a Penrose pattern had a strict mathematical basis.
P Kramer 1982/84: Icosahedral tilings in 3 dimensions. {#sec:kramer}
======================================================
The pentagram had led to the Penrose paradigm of a quasiperiodic planar tiling in 2 dimensions. Crystals in physics are phenomena in 3 dimensions. The counterpart of the pentagram is the icosahedron, whose point symmetry is forbidden in 3-dimensional lattices. There arose now in 3 dimensional space the question of tiles and tilings with forbidden icosahedral point symmetry. The first recursive and the second lattice approach discussed in section \[sec:fibon\] for the Fibonacci tiling looked promising. Kramer in [@KR82] constructed a first set of seven elementary convex polyhedral tiles with two properties:\
(i) Copies of them could be packed into a regular dodecahedron.\
(ii) Copies of the seven tiles could be packed into polyhedra of the same seven shapes, but scaled by a factor which was the third power of the golden section number $\tau=\frac{1}{2}(1+\sqrt{5})$. It was clear then that, by repeated application of this self-similar scaling, any region of 3-dimensional space could be covered by a tiling of the seven elementary tiles. Mosseri and Sadoc [@MO82] managed to reduced the number of these tiles from seven to four.
The findings by de Bruijn [@BR81] and by Bohr [@BO25] suggested the following lattice construction for icosahedral quasicrystals:\
(1) One had to find a lattice in $E^n$ which under the action of the icosahedral group ${\cal J}$ is transformed into itself, (2) Moreover one should find a subspace $E^3_{\parallel}\in E^n$ of dimension 3, invariant under the action of ${\cal J}$.\
Kramer and Neri [@KR84] showed that the hypercubic lattice in 6-dimensional space was compatible with icosahedral point symmetry, and moreover provided a unique 3-dimensional subspace invariant under the icosahedral rotation group ${\cal J}$.
By considering the Voronoi 6-polytopes of the hypercubic lattice in $E^6$ and their 3-dimensional boundaries, both projected to the parallel space $E^3_{\parallel}$ with icosahedral symmetry, there emerged Kepler’s triacontahedron from the Voronoi polytope, and rhombohedra in two shapes from the 3-dimensional boundaries. So this icosahedral tiling is organized exactly by the tiles considered by Mackay [@MA82]. As was found out later, Kowalewski [@KO38] in 1938 in a book on recreational mathematics had already decribed Kepler’s triacontahedron and the two rhombohedra as icosahedral projections of the hypercube in 6 dimensions and its boundaries.
![\[tiles1q\] The icosahedral projection to $E^3_{\parallel}$ of the hypercubic Voronoi polytope in $E^6$ is Kepler’s triacontahedron. The 3-dimensional boundaries of the hypercube project then into a thin and a thick rhombohedron. ](tiles1q){width="40.00000%"}
This work generated in three dimensions the first paradigm of a quasicrystal with icosahedral point symmetry. Combined with Bohr’s general theory, a diffraction analysis on an appropriate icosahedral Fourier module could be devised. A generalization of de Bruijn’s planar pentagrid to a hexagrid in 3-dimensional provided [@KR85], [@KR85a] the construction of an icosahedral tiling from the two rhombohedral tiles. Duality in the high-dimensional lattice, in analogy of what is shown in Figure \[vorde\], plays a major role.
The enigma of the pentagram was finally solved, 5fold and icosahedral symmetry were back on their way into physics.
D Shechtman, D Gratias, I Blech and J W Cahn 1984: Discovery of iscosahedral quasicrystals. {#sec:shechtman}
===========================================================================================
In the previous sections we surveyed the theoretical approaches to quasicrystals prior to their experimental discovery.
In 1984 D Shechtman, D Gratias, I Blech and J W Cahn [@SH84] announced the discovery of quasicrystals exhibiting a diffraction pattern with sharp peaks of icosahedral point symmetry. This discovery implied that atomic matter could organize itself in the new paradigm of quasiperiodic long-range order. An international workshop at Les Houches in 1986 [@HO86] brought together many protagonists of quasicrystal theory with D Shechtman and his collegues. A brief review along similar lines as given here can be found in the epilogue by J W Cahn [@JA95], pp. 807-10 to the 5th International Conference on Quasicrystals, Avignon 1995.
Postscriptum: D Levine and P J Steinhardt 1984, A Katz and M Duneau 1986, B Grünbaum and G C Shepard 1987, H Q Ye and K H Kuo et al. 1984, Ishimasa et al. 1985. {#sec:post}
================================================================================================================================================================
The extraordinary development of quasicrystals after 1984, both on the experimental and the theoretical level, is a new story. Here it remains to briefly postscribe theoretical and experimental work by authors that was published shortly after the experimental discovery of quasicrystals.
D Levine and P J Steinhardt [@LE84] in 1984 devised a construction method based on the Fibonacci sequence, and proposed the name quasicrystals for the new ordered structures. A Katz and M Duneau [@KA86] in 1986 developed projection methods for the construction of icosahedral tilings by rhombohedra. Tilings were well described in a monograph written in 1987 by B Grünbaum and G C Shepard [@GR87].
Enlarging the field of quasicrystals on the experimental side, H Q Ye and K H Kuo [@YE84] in 1984 studied quasicrystals with layers of forbidden 10fold point symmetry. T Ishimasa, H U Nissen, and Y Fukano [@IS85] in 1985 prepared structures with $(Ni, Cr)$ atomic composition and non-crystallographic 12fold point symmetry.
After 1984, the broad development of quasicrystal preparation, structure analysis and new physical properties became manifest in the Proceedings of International Conferences on Quasicrystals, 1986 [@HO86] in Les Houches (France), 1989 [@YA90] in Vista Hermosa (Mexico), 1992 [@KEL93] in St Louis (USA), 1995 [@JA95] in Avignon (France), 1997 [@TA98] in Tokyo (Japan), and 1999 [@GA00] in Stuttgart (Germany).
[99]{}
Baake M, Kramer P, Schlottmann M, and Zeidler D,\
[*Planar patterns with fivefold symmetry as sections of periodic structures in 4-space.*]{} Int. J. Mod. Phys.[**B4**]{} (1990) 2217-86
Bohr H,\
[*Zur Theorie fastperiodischer Funktionen.*]{}\
I: Acta Mathematicae [**45**]{} (1925) 29-127\
II: Acta Mathematicae [**46**]{} (1925) 101-214
Bragg W L,\
see: N F M Henry and K Lonsdale eds., Internat. Tables for X-ray crystallography, Birmingham 1952-62
Bravais A,\
[*Les systemes formes par des points distribues regulierement sur un plan ou dans l’ espace.*]{} J. Ecole Polytech. [ **19**]{} (1850) 1-128
Brown H, Bülow R, Neubüser J, Wondratschek H, Zassenhaus H,\
[*Crystallographic groups of four-dimensional space.*]{} John Wiley, New York 1978
de Bruijn N G,\
[*Algebraic theory of Penrose’s non-periodic tilings of the plane.*]{} Math. Proc. [**A84**]{} (1981) 39-66
de Wolff P M and van Aalst W,\
[*The four-dimensional space group of $\gamma-Na_2Co_3$.*]{}\
Acta Cryst. [**A 28**]{} (1972) 111
Fedorov E S,\
[*Symmetry of regular systems of figures.*]{} Proc. S. Peterb. Mineral. Soc. [**28**]{} (1891) 1-146
Fourier J B J,\
[*Théorie analytique de la chaleur.*]{} Paris 1822
Gähler F, Kramer P, Trebin H-R, Urban K eds.,\
[*Proc. 7th Int. Conf. Quasicrystals, Stuttgart, Germany 1999.*]{} Mat. Sci. Eng. [**A 294-296**]{} Elsevier, Netherlands (2000)
Goethe J W von,\
Faust, part I, J. G. Cotta, Tübingen 1808
Grünbaum B and Shepard G C,\
[*Tilings and patterns.*]{} Freeman (1987)
Hermann C,\
[*Kristallographie in Räumen beliebiger Dimensionszahl I. Die Symmetrieoperationen.*]{} Acta Cryst. [**2** ]{} (1949) 139-145
, J. Physique, Colloque [**C3**]{} (1986), Suppl. au [**47**]{}
Ishimasa T, Nissen H U, Fukano Y,\
Phys Rev Lett [**55**]{} (1985) 511
Janot Ch and Mosseri R eds.,\
[*Proc. 5th Int. Conf. Quasicrystals, Avignon 1995, France.*]{}, World Scientific, Singapore 1995
Janner A and Janssen T,\
Phys. Rev. [**B 15**]{} (1977) p. 643
Janner A and Janssen T,\
[*Bravais lattices associated with incommensurate crystal phases.*]{} in: Lecture Notes in Physics [**79**]{}, eds. P. Kramer and A Rieckers, Springer, Berlin (1978), pp. 414-6.
Katz A and Duneau M,\
J Phys France [**47**]{} (1986) 181
Kepler J,\
[*Mysterium cosmographicum.*]{} in: Collected Works vol 1, ed. M Caspar, C H Beck, München 1938, pp. 5-128
Kepler J,\
[*Harmonice Mundi.*]{} in: Collected Works vol 6, ed. M Caspar, C H Beck, München 1941,
Kelton K F,, Gibbons P C, and Goldman, A I eds.,\
[*Proc. 4th Int. Conf. Quasicrystals, St. Louis, USA*]{} J. Non-Cryst. Solids [**153, 154**]{}, Elsevier, Netherlands, 1993
Kowalewski W, Köhlers Antiquarium, Leipzig 1938
Kramer P,\
[*Non-periodic central space filling with icosahedral symmetry using copies of seven elementary cells.*]{} Acta Cryst. [**A 38**]{} (1982) 257-64
Kramer P and Neri R,\
[*On periodic and non-periodic space fillings of $E^m$ obtained by projection.*]{} Acta Cryst. [**A 40**]{} (1984) 580-7
Kramer P,\
[*On the theory of a quasilattice associated with the icosahedral group.*]{} I: Z. Naturforsch. [**40a**]{} (1985) 775-88, II: Z. Naturforsch. [**41a**]{} (1986) 897-911
Kramer P and Kramer L,\
[ Diffraction and layer structure of a quasilattice.]{} Z. Naturforsch. [**40a**]{} (1985) 1162-3
Kramer P,\
[*Quasiperiodic systems.*]{} in: Encyclopedia of Mathematical Physics, Eds. J.-P. Francoise, G. L. Naber, Sh. Tsun Tsou, Elesevier, Amsterdam (2006) pp. 306-315
Levine D and Steinhardt P J,\
[*Quasicrystals: A new class of ordered structures.*]{} Phys Rev Lett [**53**]{} (1984) 2477-80
Laue M von,\
see: N F M Henry and K Lonsdale, Internat. Tables for X-ray crystallography, Birmingham 1952-62
Lothaire M,\
[*Combinatorics on words.*]{} Addison-Wesley, Reading Mass. (1983)
Mackay A L,\
[*De Nive Quinquangula: On the pentagonal snowflake.*]{} Kristallografiya [**26**]{} (1981) 910-9
Mackay A L,\
[*Crystallography and the Penrose pattern.*]{} Physica [**114a**]{} (1982) 609-613
Meyer Y,\
[*Nombres de Pisot, nombres de Salem et analyse harmonique.*]{} Lecture notes in Math. [**117**]{}, Springer, New York (1970)
Meyer Y,\
[*Algebraic numbers and Harmonic Analysis.*]{} North Holland, New York (1972)
Moody R V ed.,\
[*The Mathematics of Long-Range Aperiodic Order.*]{}\
Kluwer, Dordrecht (1997)
Mosseri R and Sadoc J F,\
[*Non-periodic networks obtained from self-similar tilings.*]{} in: The structure of non-crystalline materials, Francis and Taylor, London 1982, pp. 137-50
Penrose R,\
[*The role of aesthetics in pure and applied mathematical research.*]{}\
Bull. I)nst. Math. Applications [**10**]{} (1974) 266-271
Penrose R,\
[*Tilings and quasi-crystals: a non-local growth problem?*]{} in: Introduction to the Mathematics of quasicrystals, ed. M V Jaric, Academic Press, New York 1989, pp. 53-79
Platon\
[*Timaios*]{}, dialogue in: Collected works vol 8, ed. K Hülser, Insel, Frankfurt 1991, pp. 197-425
Schönflies A M,\
[*Über Gruppen von Bewegungen.*]{} Math. Ann. [**28**]{} (1886) 319-42, Math. Ann. [**29**]{} (1887) 50-80
Schwarzenberger R L E,\
[*N-dimensional crystallography.*]{} Pitman, San Francisco 1980
Shechtman D, Blech I, Gratias D, and Cahn J W,\
[*Metallic phase with long-ranged orientational order and no translational symmetry.*]{} Phys. Rev. Lett. [**53**]{} (1984) 1951-3+
Takeuchi S and Fujiwara T eds.,\
[*Proc. 6th Int. Conf. Quasicrystals, Tokyo, Japan 1997.*]{} World Scientific, Singapore (1998).
Yacaman M J, Romeu D, Castano V, and Gomez A eds.,\
[*Proc. 3rd Int. Conf. Quasicrystals, Vista Hermosa, Mexico 1989.*]{} World Scientific, Singapore (1990).
Ye H Q and Kuo K H,\
Phil Mag A[**50**]{} (1984) 117
Zassenhaus H,\
[*Über einen Algorithmus zur Bestimmung der Raumgruppen.*]{} Comment. Math. Helv. [**21**]{} (1948) 117-141
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'The Peregrine soliton is often considered as a prototype of the rogue waves. After recent advances in the semi-classical limit of the 1-D focusing Nonlinear Schrödinger (NLS) equation \[Bertola, M., Tovbis, A., Commun. Pure Appl. Math. 66, 678–752 (2013)\] this conjecture can be seen from another perspective. In the present paper, connecting deterministic and statistical approaches, we numerically demonstrate the effect of the universal local appearance of Peregrine solitons on the evolution of statistical properties of random waves. Evidences of this effect are found in recent experimental studies in the contexts of fiber optics and hydrodynamics. The present approach can serve as a powerful tool for the description of the transient dynamics of random waves and provide new insights into the problem of the rogue waves formation.'
author:
- Alexey Tikan
bibliography:
- 'Peregrine.bib'
title: |
Effect of local Peregrine soliton emergence on statistics of random waves\
in the 1-D focusing Nonlinear Schrödinger equation
---
Introduction
============
Ocean waves of extremely high amplitude appear more often than it is predicted by the linear theory [@kharif2008rogue; @Onorato:2013Rogue]. Such waves are known as freak or rogue waves (RW). One of the first examples of directly recorded RWs is the New Year wave that crashed onto the Draupner platform in the North Sea in 1995 [@Walker:2005The]. The measured wave height is $25.6 \, \mathrm{m}$ (trough to crest), while the significant wave height (four standard deviations of the surface elevation) is approximately $12 \, \mathrm{m}$. Waves of such amplitude unconditionally represent a great danger to mariners. Therefore, understanding the nature of the RWs and predicting their emergence are problems of paramount importance in physics [@kharif2008rogue; @Birkholz:2015Predictability; @Cousins:2019Predicting].
First water tank experiment aiming to demonstrate the emergence of the RWs in well-controlled laboratory conditions is eported in [@Onorato:2004Observation]. The authors studied the nonlinear dynamics of unidirectional waves on the surface of the deep water. In order to mimic the real sea state, a spectrum having a particular asymmetric shape and delta-correlated phases of every Fourier component is used to generate the random initial conditions. This spectrum is found empirically during the measurements provided in the North sea in 1960th known as Joint North Sea Wave Project (JONSWAP) [@hasselmann1973measurements]. According to the central limit theorem, a superposition of a large number of independent Fourier modes leads to the Gaussian distribution for the surface elevation. Therefore, the modulus of the envelope is described by the Rayleigh distribution and the modulus square of the envelope by the exponential distributions [@ochi:2005ocean]. This wave is also known as partially-coherent. The authors demonstrated that the distribution of the partially-coherent waves deviates from the Gaussian during the propagation in the water tank. This deviation signifies that the probability of extreme events to emerge is increased. Moreover, the rate of the deviation strongly depends on the parameters of the initial conditions and the propagation distance.
This remarkable observation is in a good agreement with numerical simulations of different hydrodynamic models [@Koussaifi2017Spontaneous]. The leading order model that can be applied to unidirectional surface gravity waves is the 1-D focusing Nonlinear Schrödinger (NLS) equation [@Zakharov:1968stab; @Onorato:2001Freak; @Osborne:2002; @Chabchoub:2011Rogue; @Onorato:2013Rogue]. NLS is a universal equation that describes the evolution of nonlinear dispersive waves under the assumption of slowly varying envelope. Besides the deep water waves this model governs at the leading order dynamics of electromagnetic waves in a single-mode fiber [@Agrawal:2013] and many other physical systems [@Bao:2007Dynamics]. NLS became a subject of a broad interest after the proof of its integrability with the inverse scattering transform (IST) method [@Zakharov:1972Exact]. It is important to point out that the applicability of envelope models to the random water waves is a subject of ongoing debates, but there are convincing arguments provided in [@Shemer:2010Applicability].
From integrability of the 1-D focusing NLS equation follows the presence of solitonic solutions. In the context of RWs, an important role plays a family of solitons on the finite background. It is represented by solitons of certain amplitude interacting with a plane wave. Dynamics of such solutions depends on the ratio between the amplitude of the soliton and the level of the plane wave background. There are three well-known members of this family: Akhmediev breather [@akhmediev:1986modulation], Kuznetsov-Ma soliton [@kuznetsov:1977solitons; @Ma:1979] and Peregrine soliton (PS) [@Peregrine:1983]. Solitons of the finite background are widely considered as prototypes of the RWs [@Osborne:2002; @Akhmediev2009Waves; @Akhmediev:2009Rogue]. The PS (see Fig. \[fig:ps\]) is localized both in space and in time. This property coincides well with the famous characteristic of the RW: it appears out of nowhere and disappears without a trace. Particular importance of the PS in this context is highlighted in [@Shrira:2010What]. Its emergence is usually related to the mechanism of modulation instability of a perturbed plane wave (also known as the Benjamin-Feir instability) [@Dudley:2014Instabilities].
Presence of the PSs in the spatiotemporal evolution of the partially-coherent wave in the 1-D focusing NLS governed systems is an experimentally verified fact [@Tikan2018Single; @Chabchoub:2016Tracking; @Cazaubiel:2018Coexistence]. However, the modulation instability cannot be considered as a dominating mechanism in this case. Recent advances in the semi-classical (zero-dispersion) limit of the focusing NLS equation revealed another fundamental mechanism that universally leads to the emergence of the PS. Self-focusing dynamics of a smooth single hump, in the case when nonlinearity significantly dominates dispersion, inevitably leads to a gradient catastrophe. It is proved in [@Bertola:2013] and experimentally verified in [@Tikan:2017] that the structure which appears as a regularization of the gradient catastrophe asymptotically tends the PS. Since the partially-coherent wave can be seen as a set of independent humps at the early stage of the nonlinear propagation, the gradient catastrophe regularization mechanism is expected to play an important role in its evolution. In this article, we numerically demonstrate the influence of the universal local emergence of the PSs on the statistical characteristics of the partially-coherent wave.
Integrable turbulence in NLS equation
=====================================
Evolution of random waves in a system governed by an integrable model is considered in the framework of integrable turbulence. The concept of integrable turbulence is introduced by V. E. Zakharov in [@Zakharov:2009turbulence]. In the context of the 1-D focusing NLS equation there are two kinds of initial conditions that are widely studied: a quasi-monochromatic wave with a small random perturbation (condensate) [@Akhmediev2009Waves; @Agafontsev2015Integrable; @Toenger2015Emergent; @Narhi2016Real; @kraych:2019statisticalStatistical] and a partially-coherent wave [@Onorato2004Observation; @Walczak2015Optical; @Chabchoub:2016Tracking; @Randoux:2016Nonlinear; @Suret2016Single; @Koussaifi2017Spontaneous; @Tikan2018Single]. A transition between these two cases is studied as well using the numerical IST spectra computation [@Akhmediev2016Breather; @Soto-Crespo2016Integrable].
In the first case, the underlying mechanism is well understood: the monochromatic wave is unstable towards a small perturbation and, therefore, spatiotemporal dynamics is driven by modulation instability. Recent advances in the perturbation approach to this problem allowed to solve exactly the direct and inverse problems for the condensate with a small periodic noise [@Grinevich:2018finite1; @Grinevich:2018finite2]. However, it is shown that the evolution of the condensate does not lead to a more frequent emergence of extreme events than it is predicted by the central limit theorem [@Agafontsev2015Integrable].
Discussion about a mechanism that drives the partially-coherent wave dynamics can be found in [@Suret:2017book]. The authors point out that structures locally similar to the soliton of Peregrine are often found in the numerical simulations and experimental measurements of the partially-coherent wave propagation. Recent water tank experiments confirm the observation [@Cazaubiel:2018Coexistence; @Chabchoub:2016Tracking].
The definition of the partially-coherent wave used in this article is the following: $$\psi(\xi,\tau) = \sum\limits_{k} a_k(\xi) \exp^{\frac{2 \pi i}{T}k \tau} \, \text{with } k \in \mathbb{Z},
\label{eq:pcohwave}$$ here $a_k(0)=|a_{0k}|e^{i \phi_{0k}}$ is a k$^{th}$ Fourier component with a uniformly distributed random phase $ \phi_{0k} \in [-\pi,\pi]$. This way to introduce the partially-coherent wave guaranties the periodical boundary conditions with the period $T$.
We write the 1-D focusing Nonlinear Schrödinger equation in the following way: $$i \epsilon \frac{\partial \psi}{\partial \xi} +\frac{ \epsilon^{2}}{2} \frac{\partial^{2} \psi}{\partial \tau^{2}} + |\psi|^{2}\psi = 0 ,
\label{eq:NLSeps}$$ where $\epsilon = \sqrt{L_{NL}/L_D}$. In terms of variables adopted in optics it is written as follows: $\epsilon = \sqrt{|\beta_2|/ \gamma P_0 T_0^{2}}$, where $\beta_2$ is the group velocity dispersion coefficient, $\gamma$ - third order nonlinearity coefficient, $P_0 = \frac{1}{T}\int_{0}^{T} <|\psi(\tau, 0)|^2> d\tau$ is the ensemble averaged number of particles and $T_0$ is typical coherence time.
Fig. \[fig:1\]b shows a numerically generated spatiotemporal diagram of the partially-coherent wave propagated in the NLS system with $\epsilon$=0.2. Due to the focusing nature of the Eq. (\[eq:NLSeps\]), partially-coherent initial conditions can be considered at the early stages of propagation as a set of independent humps, which also follows from the diagram. We also see that if a hump exceeds a certain limit, its dynamics inevitably leads to the formation of a high amplitude coherent structure. It was shown previously that such structures can be *locally* fitted by the PS [@Tikan2018Single; @Walczak2015Optical]. Local PSs emerged out of initial humps are highlighted by white rectangles. Fig. \[fig:1\]d demonstrates cross-sections of the spatiotemporal diagram at $\xi$=0 (green) and 0.366 (orange). As we see, each local hump produces at the first step a single spike during the propagation. The maximum compression point of the spike depends on the initial parameters of each isolated hump. Around the point $\tau$=2 we observe the spike at its maximum compression. The zoomed window in the center shows the fit with the analytical formula of the PS (black dashed line). Remarkably, emergence of the PS out of a hump which exceeds certain critical parameter was predicted in [@Shrira:2010What] considering an initial problem with constant boundary conditions.
Statistical properties of this system such as spectrum or probability density function (PDF) evolve together with $\xi$. It is demonstrated in an optical experiment [@Walczak2015Optical] that PDF of $|\psi|^2$ in the case of partially-coherent wave after the propagation in a system governed by the 1-D focusing NLS equation changes from exponential to heavy-tailed (see Fig. \[fig:1\]a). It signifies that the probability of the hight amplitude events to appear increases during the nonlinear propagation. This deviation is often characterized by a normalized fourth order moment also known as the Kurtosis. In this paper we use the following definition of the Kurtosis: $K_4=<|\psi|^4>/<|\psi|^2>^2 $, where $<...>$ stands for the ensemble averaging.
The evolution of the Kurtosis can be divided into three parts (Fig. \[fig:1\]c). The first one (green area) corresponds to an early stage of the evolution. In this case, the intensity profile does not experience significant changes, while the phase correlation occurs. The early stage of the evolution of Kurtosis is fully described in the semi-classical limit [@Roberti:2019early]. Deviation of the theory in the vicinity of the upgoing slope was related to the occurrence of the gradient catastrophes in the dynamics of initial humps. The second part (orange area) has a well defined *local maximum* (also called overshoot) which is not present in defocusing case [@Onorato:2016origin; @Randoux:2016Nonlinear]. At this stage the dynamics of each local hump can still be studied separately from its neighbors. At the distance corresponding to the maximum of $K_4$ the probability to observe the RW is the highest. Moreover, according to [@Onorato:2016origin], the maximum of $K_4$ corresponds to the maximum of the spectral width. The third part (red area) corresponds to the stationary state of the partially-coherent wave dynamics. The description of the stationary state remains an open problem.
Semi-classical limit of NLS. Universal emergence of the Peregrine soliton
=========================================================================
The emergence of the PS out of smooth rapidly decaying initial conditions is proved in the semi-classical (or zero-dispersion) limit of the 1-D NLS. Zero-dispersion limit implies that the parameter $\epsilon$ in the 1-D NLS equation (\[eq:NLSeps\]) tends to zero so the nonlinearity significantly exceeds the dispersion.
Let’s apply so-called Madelung transformation [@Madelung:1927; @El:2016Dispersive]: $$\psi\left ( \xi , \tau\right ) = \sqrt{\rho_m \left ( \xi , \tau\right )} e^{i \phi \left ( \xi, \tau\right ) /\epsilon}, \; u\left ( \xi , \tau\right ) = \phi_{\tau}\left ( \xi, \tau\right ) ,
\label{eq:Change_vars}$$ where $ \sqrt{\rho}$ is the wave amplitude and $u$ - the instantaneous frequency. The 1-D NLS equation (\[eq:NLSeps\]) can be expressed as a system of equations by separation of real and imaginary parts: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:WNLS1}
\rho_{\xi} +(\rho u)_{\tau}=0 \\
\label{eq:WNLS2}
u_{\xi} + uu_{\tau} - \rho_{\tau} + \frac{\epsilon^{2}}{4} \left[ \frac{\rho_{\tau}^{2}}{2\rho^{2}} - \frac{\rho_{\tau \tau}}{\rho} \right]_{\tau} = 0.\end{aligned}$$ In this form, the meaning of the introduced variables can be easily understood. Indeed, the first equation is similar to a continuity equation, with $\rho$ - fluid density and $u$ - flow velocity field. Together with the second one these equations are analogue of Euler equations for dispersive hydrodynamics but with a negative pressure $p = -\rho^{2}/2$.
The last term in Eq. (\[eq:WNLS2\]) is proportional to $\epsilon^2$ and therefore it can be neglected at the early stage of the propagation. As it is shown in [@Dubrovin:2009; @Bertola:2013], the propagation of smooth rapidly decaying initial conditions is described by the equations (\[eq:WNLS1\],\[eq:WNLS2\]) until a certain distance where the gradients of $\rho$ or $u$ become (infinitely) large. This distance is called the point of the *gradient catastrophe*. For the reduced set of equations, the problem is ill-posed and the full system has to be considered. The way to describe solutions in the vicinity of the gradient catastrophe point is to use benefits of the semi-classiacal approximation in the IST method. This is performed by M. Bertola and A. Tovbis in [@Bertola:2013]. They found that the gradient catastrophe is regularized by *universal* appearance of a local coherent structure which asymptotically tends to the PS. Here the term universal is used to underline that Tovbis-Bertola scenario does not depend on the exact shape, chirp or solitonic content of the smooth initial conditions. Similar dynamics is observed in the 1-D NLS equation with linear damping and a Gaussian driving, as well as a discrete analogue of NLS [@Fotopoulos:201Extreme; @Hoffmann:2018Peregrine].
More explicitly the theory discussed above predicts at the leading order that the point of PS emergence is given by the following expression: $$\label{eq:PScompressionPoint}
\xi_{m} = \xi_{c} + C\epsilon^{4/5},$$ where $\xi_{m}$ is the maximum compression point, $\xi_{c}=1/2$ is the point of gradient catastrophe in the case of absence of a chirp, $C = 0.955262458...$ is a universal constant.
The structure that emerges is approximated as: $$\label{eq:peregrine}
|\psi(\tau, \xi_m)| = a_0 \left(1-\frac{4}{1+4 a_0^2 (\tau/\epsilon)^2} \right)[1+O(\epsilon^{1/5})],$$ which coincides with the formula of PS if $\epsilon \ll 1$.
This result is verified in fiber optics experiments [@Tikan:2017]. Fiber optics experiments demonstrated that this scenario can be observed far beyond the formal range of applicability of the semi-classical limit of the 1-D NLS. Regularization of the gradient catastrophe by emergence of a coherent structure that is *locally* fitted by the PS is observed up to $\epsilon\approx 0.45$.
We demonstrate the PS emergence by the following example. Let’s consider initial conditions in the form of exact N solitons solution: $\psi(0,\tau)=\mathrm{sech}(\tau)$ with $\epsilon = 1/N$ (Fig. \[fig:intReconstr\]b,c green line $N=10$). The spatiotemporal diagram of its evolution in the 1-D focusing NLS (Fig. \[fig:intReconstr\]a) shows that in the self-focusing dynamics leads to the maximum compression point at $\xi=0.673$. According the semi-classical theory the point of the maximum compression occurs at $\xi=0.6514$. The cross-sections (Fig. \[fig:intReconstr\]b) show that the coherent structure that emerge is locally similar to PS including the characteristic phase jump of $\pi$ (Fig. \[fig:intReconstr\]c). This is in a good agreement with the exact analytical expression (\[eq:peregrine\]) depicted by the black dashed line in Fig. \[fig:intReconstr\]b,c.
Role of local emergence of Peregrine soliton in dynamics of partially-waves
===========================================================================
The validity of the semi-classical theory in a wide range of values of $\epsilon$ signifies that the scenario of regularization of the gradient catastrophe by emergence of local PS due to its universality can have a trace in the dynamics of partially-coherent waves. As we demonstrated before, partially-coherent initial conditions could be seen as a set of separated humps at the early stage of the nonlinear propagation. The form of the humps can be complex and irregular, however, the result of Tovbis and Bertola does not depend on the particular shape of initial conditions requiring it only to be smooth. Therefore, we expect that evolution of every individual hump having a value of $\epsilon_{loc}$ below of a certain threshold will lead to the appearance of localized PS.
Partially-coherent wave has a typical coherence time $T_h\sim 1/\Delta\nu$, where $\Delta\nu$ is a spectral width. Moreover, the distribution of amplitudes of the local humps has a maximum which depends on the average number of particles $P_0$. Therefore, we can conclude that the distribution of values of $\epsilon_{loc}$ locally computed for each hump will also have a certain maximum. Presence of statistically most probable value of locally estimated $\epsilon_{loc}$ implies that there is a propagation distance at which the emergence of the PS is the most probable.
The probability distribution of PS to appear as a function of $\xi$ can be estimated numerically. We generate the partially-coherent initial conditions in the Fourier space according to the expression (\[eq:pcohwave\]). The average number of particles of the partially-coherent wave $P_0$ is set to 1 as well as the typical initial humps duration. In order to estimate the values of $\epsilon_{loc}$, we detect each local hump in the initial conditions. In order to take into account only the humps that will produce the PS and contribute significantly to the statistics we put a threshold $|\psi(\tau, 0)|^2_{th}=2.5 P_0$ found empirically. We exclude double or multi-humps structures requiring the minimal distance between the considered peaks to be more than 2. The value of $\epsilon_{loc}$ is estimated as follows: $$\epsilon_{loc} = \epsilon /(T_{loc}\sqrt{P_{loc}}),
\label{eq:eps_loc}$$ where $\epsilon = 0.2$, $T_{loc}$ is the duration of the hump at the half maximum of amplitude and $P_{loc}$ is the square of maximum value of the local hump amplitude. Having the distribution of $\epsilon_{loc}$, we can apply Eq. (\[eq:PScompressionPoint\]) and find a distribution of the PS emergence distances using the following normalization:
$$\xi_{ps} = \xi_m T_{loc}/\sqrt{P_{loc}}$$
Fig. \[fig:EpsStat01\] shows the comparison between the PS emergence probability density (red dots, right axis) and the Kurtosis (blue line, left axis) (the same as the one depicted in Fig \[fig:1\]c). We found a remarkable juxtaposition of the maxima of two curves. The asymmetry of the Kurtosis at its overshoot can be explained by the presence of the next steps of the Tovbis-Bertola scenario in the evolution of the partially-coherent wave. Indeed, the emergence of double-peak coherent structures that follow after the local PS are well-seen in the spatiotemporal diagram Fig. \[fig:1\]b.
The possibility to predict a position of the maximum of the Kurtosis can be applied to different areas including fiber optics. Following the work [@Tikan2018Single], we provide estimates of the maximum of the Kurtosis for experimental parameters when propagation of the dynamics is well described by the 1-D NLS equation. We consider two signals of initial spectral widths $0.1 \, \mathrm{THz}$ and $0.2 \, \mathrm{THz}$, average power $2.6 \, \mathrm{W}$. Optical fiber has following characteristics: $\beta_2 = -22 \, \mathrm{ ps^2/km}$, $\gamma=2.4 \, \mathrm{ (W km)^{-1}}$. Fig. \[fig:eps\_fiber\]a,b show dependence of the Kurtosis on the propagation distance in $\mathrm{ km}$ (left blue axis, blues curve) superimposed with the dependence of the local PS emergence probability density (right red axis, red dots). The value of nonlinearity in these two cases is less than in the one depicted in Fig. \[fig:EpsStat01\]. Therefore, the Kurtosis contains only a trace of the local PS. This also follows from the fact that the width of the overshoot coincides well with the width of the distribution of PS emergence distances.
However, considering parameters far from the semi-classical limit we expect that the role of non-constant phase in partially-coherent wave dynamics is increasing. This follows directly from the expressions (\[eq:Change\_vars\]). We investigate the influence of the phase by providing similar numerical simulations with exactly the same initial data but setting the phase in the direct space to zero. The evolution of $K_4$ in the zero phase case is shown in \[fig:eps\_fiber\]a,b by the black dashed lines. For the spectral width of $0.1 \, \mathrm{THz}$ we clearly see a smaller overshoot. Maximum of the overshoot is located at the same distance as in the case of the partially-coherent wave. For the higher spectral width ($0.2 \, \mathrm{THz}$) the maximum of the Kurtosis is significantly shifted forward. Its peak value is close to the one at the stationary state. Remarkably, the Kurtosis in the zero phase case asymptotically tends to the one of the partially-coherent wave at the stationary state.
Assuming the validity of our approach from the spectral width $0.2 \, \mathrm{THz}$ and below, we provide systematic estimates of the position of the maximum of the Kurtosis for the fixed value of average power $2.6\, \mathrm{W}$. Figure \[fig:eps\_fiber\]c shows the dependence of the peak value of the Kurtosis as a function of inverse spectral width. In the given range of parameters, the dependence is close to linear.
Conclusion and Discussion
=========================
Thereby, we can conclude that the universal mechanism of gradient catastrophe regularization through the local formation of the Peregrine soliton-like structures plays an important role in the integrable turbulence of the 1-D focusing NLS equation. Its universality leads to the presence of a statistically most probable point of emergence of the Peregrine solitons which is represented by an overshoot in the Kurtosis evolution.
This process can be considered as a possible explanation of the RW formation problem, of course only at the leading order. Indeed, the experimental works (see for example [@Shemer:2010Applicability]) suggest that the dynamics of surface gravity waves having high values of steepness can significantly deviate from the one predicted by the NSL equation. However, presence of the overshoot in the evolution of the Kurtosis is also found in non-integrable hydrodynamic models such as the Dysthe equation or even the full Euler equations as well as real experimental data [@Onorato:2005Modulational; @Shemer:2009experimental; @Koussaifi2017Spontaneous]. This fact suggests that the presented way of predicting the maximum of the Kurtosis could be extended to a more general case by taking into the account an influence of higher order terms. The applicability of this approach to non-integrable systems has to be thoughtfully analyzed which is far beyond the scope of this manuscript.
A part of ideas presented in this article were proposed in the PhD thesis written by the author [@Tikan:2018integrable].
This work has been partially supported by the Agence Nationale de la Recherche through the LABEX CEMPI project (ANR-11-LABX-0007), the Ministry of Higher Education and Research, Hauts de France council and European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) through the Nord-Pas de Calais Regional Research Council, and the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) through the Contrat de Projets Etat-Re ́gion (CPER Photonics for Society P4S). The author wants to express his gratitude to Prof. P. Suret and Prof. S. Randoux for guidance, support and possibility to provide independent research. The author is grateful to Prof. G. El for very fruitful discussions. Also, the author thanks G. Michel and A. Cazaubiel for reading the draft and making useful comments.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Understanding the electronic properties of quasicrystals, in particular the dependence of these properties on dimension, is among the interesting open problems in the field of quasicrystals. We investigate an off-diagonal tight-binding hamiltonian on the separable square and cubic Fibonacci quasicrystals. We use the well-studied singular-continuous energy spectrum of the 1-dimensional Fibonacci quasicrystal to obtain exact results regarding the transitions between different spectral behaviors of the square and cubic quasicrystals. We use analytical results for the addition of $1d$ spectra to obtain bounds on the range in which the higher-dimensional spectra contain an absolutely continuous component. We also perform a direct numerical study of the spectra, obtaining good results for the square Fibonacci quasicrystal, and rough estimates for the cubic Fibonacci quasicrystal.'
author:
- |
SHAHAR EVEN-DAR MANDEL and RON LIFSHITZ\
Raymond and Beverly Sackler School of Physics and Astronomy\
Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv 69978, Israel
date:
- today
- 'December 18, 2007'
title: Electronic Energy Spectra of Square and Cubic Fibonacci Quasicrystals
---
Background and Motivation {#sec:intro}
=========================
As we celebrate the Silver Jubilee of the 1982 discovery of quasicrystals [@shechtman], and highlight the achievements of the past two and a half decades of research on quasicrystals, we are reminded that there still remains a disturbing gap in our understanding of their electronic properties. Among the open questions is a lack of understanding of the dependence of electronic properties—such as the nature of electronic wave functions, their energy spectra, and the nature of electronic transport—on the dimension of the quasicrystal. In an attempt to bridge some of this gap, we [@ilan; @me] have been studying the spectrum and electronic wave functions of an off-diagonal tight-binding hamiltonian on the separable $n$-dimensional Fibonacci quasicrystals[^1] [@squarefib]. The advantage of using such separable models, despite the fact that they do not occur in nature, is the ability to obtain exact results in one, two, and three dimensions, and compare them directly to each other. Here we focus on the energy spectra of the 2-dimensional ($2d$) and 3-dimensional ($3d$) Fibonacci quasicrystals to obtain a quantitative understanding of the nature of the transitions between different spectral behaviors in these crystals, as their dimension increases from 1 up to 3. In particular, we consider the transitions between different regimes in the spectrum, taking into account the existence of a regime in which the spectrum contains both singular continuous and absolutely continuous components. These different behaviors of the higher-dimensional spectra are expected to reflect on the physical extent of the electronic wave functions, as well as on the dynamics of electronic wave packets, and are therefore of great importance in unraveling the electronic properties of quasicrystals in general.
Recall [@ilan] that the off-diagonal tight-binding model assumes equal on-site energies (taken to be zero), and hopping that is restricted along tile edges, with amplitude 1 for long ($L$) edges and $T$ for short ($S$) edges, where we take $T\geq 1$. The Schrödinger equation for the square Fibonacci quasicrystal in $2d$ (with obvious extensions to higher dimensions) is then given by $$\label{eq:twoDeq}
T_{n+1} \Psi(n+1,m) + T_n \Psi(n-1,m)
+ T_{m+1} \Psi(n,m+1) + T_m \Psi(n,m-1)
= E\Psi(n,m),$$ where $\Psi(n,m)$ is the value of a $2d$ eigenfunction on a vertex labeled by the two integers $n$ and $m$, and $E$ is the corresponding eigenvalue. The hopping amplitudes $T_j$ are equal to 1 or $T$ according to the Fibonacci sequence $\{T_j\}=\{1,T,1,1,T,1,T,1,1,T,1,1,T,1,T,1,1,T,1,T,\ldots\}$. By prohibiting diagonal hopping, the resulting high-dimensional eigenvalue problem is ensured to be separable. This allows one to use the known solutions for the $1d$ problem [@1dmodel1; @1dmodel2; @1dmodel3; @1dmodel4; @review1; @review2; @review3; @review4] in order to construct the solutions in two and higher dimensions (as was done for similar models in the past [@2dmodel1; @2dmodel2; @2dmodel3; @2dmodel4; @2dmodel5; @2dmodel6; @ashraff]). Two-dimensional eigenfunctions can therefore be expressed as Cartesian products of the $1d$ eigenfunctions [@me], and the corresponding $2d$ eigenvalues are given by pairwise sums of the $1d$ eigenvalues.
The $1d$ spectrum for the $N^{th}$ order Fibonacci approximant is composed of $F_N$ bands, where $F_N = F_{N-1} + F_{N-2}$ is the $N^{th}$ Fibonacci number, starting with $F_0=F_1=1$. The edges of each such band correspond to either periodic or antiperiodic boundary conditions. Hence, by direct diagonalization of the two corresponding hamiltonians for a single approximant we obtain the edges of the energy intervals in the spectrum. The $2d$ and $3d$ spectra are then calculated as the Minkowski sums of two or three $1d$ spectra, where the Minkowski sum of two sets $A$ and $B$ is the result of adding every element of $A$ to every element of $B$, [*i.e.*]{} the set $$\label{eq:defsum}
A+B=\left\{x+y\ \vert\ x\in A,\ y\in B\right\}.$$
Although the spectrum of the $1d$ Fibonacci model, for any choice of $T\neq1$, is a totally disconnected set with zero bandwidth and an infinite number of bands, the higher-dimensional spectra exhibit different behavior for different values of the relative hopping parameter $T$, including spectra that contain continuous intervals and have a finite measure [@ilan]. A similar situation arises in the case of the well-known [*ternary Cantor set*]{} [@cantor], which is constructed iteratively by starting with the closed interval $[0,1]$, and at each iteration removing the open middle thirds of all remaining closed intervals from the previous iteration. The first few approximants that are obtained in this way are $C_0=[0,1]$, $C_1=[0,1/3] \cup [2/3,1]$, and $C_2=[0,1/9] \cup [2/9,1/3] \cup
[2/3,7/9] \cup [8/9,1]$, so that after $N$ such iterations one is left with an approximant set $C_N$ consisting of $2^N$ closed intervals, each of which has a measure $1/3^N$, and therefore the total measure of the set is $\left(2/3\right)^N$. The ternary Cantor set itself $C_\infty$, defined as the limit $N\rightarrow\infty$ of this sequence of sets, contains uncountably-many points yet no interval, it is totally disconnected, and its total measure is zero. By simple inspection, one finds that for any finite order Cantor approximant $C_N$, the Minkowski sum $C_N+C_N$ is the entire interval $[0,2]$. One can show that this also holds in the limit $N\to\infty$, namely that $C_\infty+C_\infty=[0,2]$. Thus, even though $C_\infty$ contains no interval, its sum with itself covers the whole interval from 0 to 2.
For a given dimension $n$, we identify a sequence of values $1<
{T_{1}^{(nd)}}\leq {T_{2}^{(nd)}}\leq {T_{3}^{(nd)}}\leq {T_{4}^{(nd)}}$ corresponding to the following transitions in the spectrum:
1. The value of $T$ below which all bands in the $n$-dimensional spectrum are of positive, finite measure. For $T>{T_{1}^{({n}d)}}$ there is at least a finite number of zero measure bands in the spectrum.
2. The value of $T$ above which the number of bands in the $n$-dimensional spectrum is infinite. An infinite number of bands in a spectrum of finite bandwidth necessarily implies that infinitely many bands are of zero measure, thus ${T_{2}^{(nd)}}\geq {T_{1}^{(nd)}}$.
3. The value of $T$ above which all bands in the spectrum are of zero measure.[^2]
4. The value of $T$ above which the total bandwidth of the spectrum is zero.
We use two different approaches to study the behavior of the spectrum. In Sec. \[sec:cantor\] we use analytical results derived for the addition of generalized Cantor sets to obtain an upper bound on the transition between absolutely continuous and singular continuous spectra. In Sec. \[sec:direct\] we use direct numerical calculation of the $2d$ and $3d$ spectra of Fibonacci approximants of finite order to extrapolate for the behavior in the quasiperiodic limit. In an earlier paper[@me] we studied only two of the transitions, ${T_{2}^{(nd)}}$ and ${T_{4}^{(nd)}}$. To find ${T_{4}^{(nd)}}$ we used a naive method based on the results of Ashraff [*et al.*]{} [@ashraff] for the diagonal tight-binding hamiltonian. The current results include a correction to our previous calculation. In Sec. \[sec:dynamics\] we summarize the results, and discuss their expected relation to the nature of eigenfunctions and to quantum dynamics, indicating directions for future work.
Analytical bounds for the appearance of continuous intervals in the spectrum {#sec:cantor}
============================================================================
Addition of generalized Cantor sets - Known results {#sec:generalized}
---------------------------------------------------
A generalized Cantor set is obtained just like the ternary Cantor set except that the open intervals removed at each iteration are not necessarily the middle thirds of the remaining closed intervals. For each interval removed from the set, one defines a [*left (right) ratio of dissection*]{} as the ratio between the length of the left (right) remaining interval and the length of the original one. Sets for which the left and right ratios are the same are called *central Cantor sets*. In general, the ratios of dissection may vary between the left and right resulting intervals, between different iterations of the process, and between different intervals at the same step. The ternary Cantor set is a central Cantor set with a constant ratio of dissection of $1/3$.
We are interested in conditions for the appearance of intervals in the Minkowski sum of $n$ generalized Cantor sets. For central Cantor sets with a constant ratio of dissection $a$, one can show that the condition for the sum to be an interval is $$\label{eq:cabrelli2}
n\frac{a}{1-a}\geq 1\qquad {\rm or\ }\qquad a\geq\frac1{n+1}.$$ Thus, the ternary Cantor set exactly has the critical value of $a=1/3$ for which a sum of $n=2$ central Cantor sets is an interval. Cabrelli [*et al.*]{} [@Cabrelli] found, more generally, a sufficient condition for the existence of an interval in the sum of $n$ generalized Cantor sets, all of which can be constructed with a lower bound $a$ on their ratios of dissection, which is given by $$\label{eq:cabrelli}
(n-1)\frac{a^2}{(1-a)^3}+\frac{a}{1-a}\geq 1.$$
Applying Cantor set results to the Fibonacci spectra {#sec:applying}
----------------------------------------------------
Before using the results quoted above to analyze the Fibonacci spectra, we should note that there exist two important differences between the energy spectra $S_N$ of the $N^{th}$ order approximants of the $1d$ Fibonacci quasicrystal, and finite approximants $C_N$ of generalized Cantor sets. The spectrum $S_N$ consists of $F_N$ rather than $2^N$ energy intervals, and is not contained in the spectrum $S_{N-1}$ of the approximant of order $N-1$. One should therefore take care in defining the spectrum $S$ of the Fibonacci quasicrystal itself as the set of limit values for sequences of energies taken from consecutive spectra $S_N$ of finite order approximants $$\label{eq:defspectrum}
S=\left\{E=\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}E_n\ \vert\ E_n\in S_n\right\}.$$
The fact that the number of bands in $S_N$ is $F_N$ rather than $2^N$ implies that the spectra cannot be constructed by the iterative process described above for generalized Cantor sets, and hence that the ratios of dissection cannot be defined. However, the spectrum $S_N$ of a finite approximant can be padded with additional intervals which can be chosen in a manner that will not disturb the calculation, and will increase the number of intervals to $2^N$, as in the Cantor approximant. This allows to calculate backwards and define *effective ratios of dissection*. The additional intervals can be added on either, or both, ends of the spectrum. Thus, the effective ratios of dissection are not uniquely determined.
We have tried using Eq. (\[eq:cabrelli\]) to find a sufficient condition for the higher-dimensional spectra to contain an interval. This would provide a lower bound on ${T_{3}^{(nd)}}$—a value of $T$ below which the condition is satisfied and the $n$-dimensional spectrum necessarily contains an interval. Unfortunately, as one studies the effective ratios of dissection defined for the $1d$ spectrum it turns out that regardless of the way in which the approximant spectra are embedded in Cantor approximants, the ratios of dissection are not bounded away from zero, even for small values of $T$, as shown in Fig. \[fig:minmaxratio\](a). Hence, at this point we do not know how to use the condition of Cabrelli [*et al.*]{} to obtain a lower bound on ${T_{3}^{(nd)}}$.
Nevertheless, by studying the maximal effective ratio of dissection we can obtain an upper bound for the value of ${T_{3}^{(nd)}}$ above which the higher-dimensional spectra do not contain an interval. Fig. \[fig:minmaxratio\](b) shows the effective maximal ratio for approximants of order $N=5$ ($F_N=8$) to $N=14$ ($F_N=610$). It is evident that the maximal ratio of dissection rapidly converges as a function of the order of the approximant, with almost no difference between the the curves for $N=9$ and above. It is also of interest to note that the maximal ratio is independent of the way in which the approximant spectrum is embedded in a Cantor approximant. Values of $T$ for which the maximal ratio of dissection fails to satisfy Eq. (\[eq:cabrelli2\]) imply that there is no portion of the $1d$ spectrum which can lead to the existence of an interval in the higher-dimensional spectra. The maximal ratio of dissection becomes $1/3$ at $T\simeq 3.15$ and $1/4$ at $T\simeq 4.2$. Thus, we expect to see the vanishing of intervals in the spectrum at a value of $T$ below these upper bounds for $2d$ and $3d$ respectively.
Direct study of the $2d$ and $3d$ spectra {#sec:direct}
=========================================
We now turn to the direct study of the higher-dimensional spectra. This is done by explicitly calculating the spectra for approximants of finite order. Each pair or triplet of energy bands in the $1d$ spectrum is summed to yield a single band in the $2d$ or $3d$ spectrum, respectively. A set of $F_N$ bands in the $1d$ spectrum generates ${(F_N+1)F_N}/{2}$ bands in the corresponding $2d$ spectrum, and ${(F_N+2)(F_N+1)F_N}/{6}$ bands in the $3d$ spectrum, with possible overlaps that decrease as $T$ increases. Overlapping bands are merged into single energy intervals to obtain the actual structure of the higher-dimensional spectra. Note that we shall use the term ‘bands’ to refer to the continuous energy intervals in the spectra, even though strictly speaking they may be composed of different bands with overlapping energies.
Measuring the smallest band in the spectrum to find ${T_{1}^{(nd)}}$ {#sec:smallest}
--------------------------------------------------------------------
For $T>{T_{1}^{(nd)}}$ there is at least one zero-measure band in the spectrum. We therefore measure the smallest band $B_{min}$ and ask whether it vanishes in the limit of $N\to\infty$. For $T<{T_{1}^{(nd)}}$ the length of the smallest band is independent of the order $N$ of the approximant. For $T>{T_{1}^{(nd)}}$ it can be described by a power law $B_{min}\propto F_N^{-\alpha_n(T)}$ with some positive exponent, $\alpha_n(T)$. We locate ${T_{1}^{({n}d)}}$ by finding the value of $T$ for which $\alpha_n$ vanishes. Fig. \[fig:smallest\](b) clearly shows that $1.6<{T_{1}^{({2}d)}}<1.8$, and Fig. \[fig:smallest\](d) indicates that $2<{T_{1}^{({3}d)}}<2.6$. Within these bounds, the width of the smallest band oscillates between the two different limiting behaviors.
As $T$ increases and the overlap of bands vanishes, the smallest band in the $n$-dimensional spectrum is expected to be $n$ times the smallest band of the $1d$ spectrum. Hence for high values of $T$ the exponents $\alpha_n(T)$ should be independent of the dimension, because the multiplicative factor of $n$ only adds a constant term in the semi-logarithmic scale. Fig. \[fig:smallestexponent\] shows the extracted exponents $\alpha_n(T)$, indicating that they indeed coincide for all values of $T$ above ${T_{1}^{(nd)}}$.
Counting the number of bands to find ${T_{2}^{(nd)}}$ {#sec:number}
-----------------------------------------------------
Next we count the number of bands $\#B$ in the spectrum and ask whether it tends to infinity or remains finite as $N$ increases. Again, we express this number as a power law of the form $\#B\propto
F_N^{\beta_n(T)}$, expecting $\beta_n(T)$ to vanish for $T<{T_{2}^{(nd)}}$. For the $1d$ Fibonacci quasicrystal $\#B_1 = F_N \propto \tau^N$, where $\tau$ is the golden mean. In higher dimensions, as the overlap between bands decreases with increasing $T$, we expect the number of bands to tend to its maximal value, which is approximately ${(\#B_{1})^2}/{2}$ in $2d$, and approximately ${(\#B_{1})^3}/{6}$ in $3d$. Thus the exponents $\beta_n(T)$ should tend to $n\log\tau$ as $T\rightarrow\infty$. The dashed horizontal line in Fig. \[fig:numberexponent\] indicates the expected limit value for the $2d$ model which indeed tends to it. For the $3d$ model the limit is only obtained at significantly higher values of $T$, indicating that the overlap of bands plays a significant role in the structure of the spectrum even at relatively high values of $T$. The continuous variation of $\beta_2(T)$ allows us to use smooth extrapolation and find ${T_{2}^{({2}d)}}\simeq 1.66$, whereas in $3d$ we can only conclude that $2.0
< {T_{2}^{({3}d)}} < 2.6$. Combining the fact that ${T_{2}^{(nd)}}\geq {T_{1}^{(nd)}}$ with the results for the exponents $\beta_n(T)$ as shown in Fig. \[fig:numberexponent\], we find that at least in $2d$ and $3d$, ${T_{2}^{(nd)}} = {T_{1}^{(nd)}}$, and hence that there is no intermediate regime in which the spectrum contains only a finite number of zero-measure bands.
Measuring the largest band in the spectrum to find ${T_{3}^{(nd)}}$ {#sec:largest}
-------------------------------------------------------------------
For $T>{T_{3}^{(nd)}}$ all bands in the spectrum have zero measure. We therefore look at the width of the largest band in the spectrum and ask whether it vanishes as $N\to\infty$. However, since the maximal energy in the spectrum is approximately $n(1+T)$, for small values of $T$ the overlap of bands leads to an increase in the width of largest band as a function of $T$. To avoid this we normalize the results, dividing by the maximal energy in the spectrum. Thus, for $T>{T_{3}^{(nd)}}$, we express the normalized largest band as a power law $B_{max}\propto
F_n^{-\gamma_n(T)}$. Figs. \[fig:largest\](b) and \[fig:largestexponent\] clearly indicate that ${T_{3}^{({2}d)}}\simeq 2$, but in $3d$ oscillatory behavior dominates a large range of values for $T$, and we cannot determine the transition without extending the analysis to higher order approximants. However, from Fig. \[fig:largest\](d) we can infer that the transition occurs at some value of $T$ below 5, for which we obtained analytically a stricter upper bound of ${T_{3}^{({3}d)}}\leq
4.2$ as shown in Fig. \[fig:minmaxratio\](b).
As for $B_{min}$, at large values of $T$, $B_{max}$ is also expected to be $n$ times the largest band of the $1d$ spectrum, and hence the exponents should be independent of dimension. The fact that this does not occur indicates, once again, that the overlap of bands is still significant for values of $T$ as large as 6.
Calculating the total measure of the spectrum to find ${T_{4}^{(nd)}}$ {#sec:total}
----------------------------------------------------------------------
To find ${T_{4}^{(nd)}}$ we measure the total bandwidths of the spectra as $N$ increases, normalizing by $1+T$, and looking for a power law decay of the normalized bandwidth $W\propto F_N^{-\delta_n(T)}$. Fig. \[fig:total\](c) shows a decrease in the normalized total measure of the spectrum as a function of $T$ in $2d$, but Fig. \[fig:total\](d) shows the total measure in $3d$ to be almost independent of $N$ for any given value of $T$. Thus, although the $3d$ spectrum consists only of zero measure bands for values of $T$ above 5, its total measure remains finite over the entire range of $T$ values studied. The exponents $\delta_n(T)$ are shown in Fig. \[fig:totalexponent\]. The transition to zero total bandwidth in $2d$ occurs at ${T_{4}^{({2}d)}}\simeq 2.6$. In $3d$ we can only say that ${T_{4}^{({3}d)}}>6$.
Summary and future work {#sec:dynamics}
=======================
The results of Sections \[sec:cantor\] and \[sec:direct\] are summarized as follows $$\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
& ${T_{1}^{(nd)}}={T_{2}^{(nd)}}$ & ${T_{3}^{(nd)}}$ & Upper bound for ${T_{3}^{(nd)}}$& ${T_{4}^{(nd)}}$ \\
\hline
$2d$ & $\sim 1.66$ & $\sim 2$ & 3.15 & $\sim 2.6$ \\\hline
$3d$ & $2.0 - 2.6$ & $\leq5$ & 4.2 & $>6$ \\\hline
\end{tabular}$$ The transitions between different regimes in the spectrum are expected to reflect on the physical properties of the Fibonacci quasicrystals, on the nature of eigenfunctions and on the dynamics of electronic wave packets. For values of $T$ above the transition ${T_{3}^{(nd)}}$ the higher-dimensional spectra are similar to the $1d$ spectrum in being totally disconnected, singular continuous sets, and hence the eigenfunctions are expected to be critical, and wave packets are expected to display sub-ballistic dynamics. Note that the last transition ${T_{4}^{(nd)}}$ is of no consequence for this matter because the spectrum is purely singular continuous both above and below this value. For values of $T$ below the lowest transition point ${T_{1}^{(nd)}}={T_{2}^{(nd)}}$, where the spectra are absolutely continuous we expect to find extended eigenfunctions, and wave packets are expected to display ballistic dynamics. For the intermediate range between these transitions the spectra contain both singular continuous and absolutely continuous parts, and therefore we expect to find mixed ballistic and sub-ballistic dynamics, and some of the wave functions to be extended.
We intend to complement these studies by simulating the dynamics of electronic wave functions to find whether transition between ballistic and sub-ballistic dynamics occur at the points found here. We also intend to use the degeneracy of wave functions in the $2d$ Fibonacci quasicrystal (as hypothesized in Ref. [@ilan]) to construct maximally extended wave functions, again, we expect to find some qualitative change in the nature of these wave functions near the transition points indicated above.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
This research is supported by the Israel Science Foundation through Grant No. 684/06.
[99]{}
D. Shechtman, I. Blech, D. Gratias, and J.W. Cahn, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**53**]{}, 1951 (1984).
R. Ilan, E. Liberty, S. Even-Dar Mandel, and R. Lifshitz, Ferroelectrics [**305**]{}, 15 (2004).
S. Even-Dar Mandel and R. Lifshitz, Phil. Mag. [**86**]{}, 759 (2006).
R. Lifshitz. J. of Alloys and Compounds [**342**]{}, 186 (2002).
R. Lifshitz. Z. Kristallogr. [**222**]{}, 313 (2007).
R. Lifshitz. Foundations of Physics [**33**]{}, 1703 (2003).
M. Kohmoto, L.P. Kadanoff, and C. Tang, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**50**]{}, 1870 (1983).
S. Ostlund, R. Pandit, D. Rand, H.S. Schellnhuber, and E.D. Siggia, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**50**]{}, 1873 (1983).
M. Kohmoto and J.R. Banavar, Phys. Rev. B [**34**]{}, 563 (1986).
M. Kohmoto, B. Sutherland, and C. Tang, Phys. Rev. B [**35**]{}, 1020 (1987).
T. Janssen, in [*The Mathematics of Long-Range Aperiodic Order*]{}, ed. R.V. Moody, (Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1997) p. 269.
T. Fujiwara, in [*Physical Properties of Quasicrystals*]{}, ed. Z.M. Stadnik, (Springer, Berlin, 1999) ch. 6.
J. Hafner and M. Kraj[c]{}í, [*ibid.*]{} ch. 7.
D. Damanik, in [*Directions in Mathematical Quasicrystals*]{}, ed. M. Baake and R.V. Moody, (AMS, Providence, 2000) p. 277.
K. Ueda and H. Tsunetsugu, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**58**]{}, 1272 (1987).
W.A. Schwalm and M.K. Schwalm, Phys. Rev. B [**37**]{}, 9524 (1988).
J.X. Zhong and R. Mosseri, J. Phys: Condens. Matter [**7**]{}, 8383 (1995).
S. Roche and D. Mayou, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**79**]{}, 2518 (1997).
Yu.Kh. Vekilov, I.A. Gordeev, and E.I. Isaev, JETP [**89**]{}, 995 (1999).
Yu.Kh. Vekilov, E.I. Isaev, I.A. Gordeev, Mat. Sci. and Eng. [**294-296**]{}, 553 (2000).
J.A. Ashraff, J.-M. Luck, and R.B. Stinchcombe, Phys. Rev. B [**41**]{}, 4314 (1990).
G. Cantor, “De la puissance des ensembles parfait de points” (On the Power of Perfect Sets of Points), Acta Mathematica [**4**]{}, 381 (1884). English translation reprinted in [*Classics on Fractals*]{}, ed. Gerald A. Edgar, (Addison-Wesley, 1993).
C.A. Cabrelli, K.E. Hare and U.M. Molter J. Aust. Math. Soc. [**73**]{}, 405 (2002).
[^1]: The reader is referred to Refs. [@definition1] and [@definition2] for precise definitions of the terms ‘crystal’ and ‘quasicrystal’.
[^2]: Note that the absence of intervals in the spectrum above ${T_{3}^{(nd)}}$ does not necessarily correspond to zero total bandwidth. It is in fact possible to use the Cantor set generation process to obtain a totally disconnected set with a finite measure. For example, if at the $N^{th}$ iteration of the generation process the middle $1/3^N$ part is removed from each of the remaining intervals, one ends with a totally disconnected set whose measure is $\lim
\prod_{k=1}^{\infty}\left(1-{1}/{3^k}\right)\simeq 0.5601.$
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
We study the question of when a $\{0,1\}$-valued threshold process associated to a mean zero Gaussian or a symmetric stable vector corresponds to a [*divide and color (DC) process*]{}. This means that the process corresponding to fixing a threshold level $h$ and letting a 1 correspond to the variable being larger than $h$ arises from a random partition of the index set followed by coloring [*all*]{} elements in each partition element 1 or 0 with probabilities $p$ and $1-p$, independently for different partition elements.
While it turns out that all discrete Gaussian free fields yield a DC process when the threshold is zero, for general $n$-dimensional mean zero, variance one Gaussian vectors with nonnegative covariances, this is true in general when $n=3$ but is false for $n=4$.
The behavior is quite different depending on whether the threshold level $h$ is zero or not and we show that there is no general monotonicity in $h$ in either direction. We also show that all constant variance discrete Gaussian free fields with a finite number of variables yield DC processes for large thresholds.
In the stable case, for the simplest nontrivial symmetric stable vector with three variables, we obtain a phase transition in the stability exponent $\alpha$ at the surprising value of $1/2$; if the index of stability is larger than $1/2$, then the process yields a DC process for large $h$ while if the index of stability is smaller than $1/2$, then this is not the case.
*Keywords and phrases.* Divide and color representations, threshold Gaussian vectors, threshold stable vectors. MSC 2010 *subject classifications.* Primary 60G15, 60G52
author:
- 'and Jeffrey E. Steif'
- 'Malin Palö Forsström [^1]'
- 'Jeffrey E. Steif [^2]'
title: Divide and color representations for threshold Gaussian and stable vectors
---
Introduction, notation, summary of results and background {#s:intro}
=========================================================
Introduction
------------
A very simple mechanism for constructing random variables with a (positive) dependency structure is the so-called *divide and color model* introduced in its general form in [@st2017] but having already arisen in many different contexts.
A $\{0,1\}$-valued process $ X \coloneqq (X_i)_{i \in S} $ is a *divide and color model* or *color process* if $ X $ can be generated as follows. First choose a random partition $\pi$ of $S$ according to some arbitrary distribution, and then independently of this and independently for different partition elements in the random partition, assign, with probability $ p $, [*all*]{} the variables in a partition element the value $ 1 $ and with probability $ 1-p $ assign [*all*]{} the variables the value $ 0 $. This final $\{0,1\}$-valued process is then called the *color process* associated to $\pi$ and $p$. We also say that $(\pi,p)$ is a *color representation* of $X$.
As detailed in [@st2017], many processes in probability theory are color processes; examples are the Ising model with zero external field, the fuzzy Potts model with zero external field, the stationary distributions for the voter Model and random walk in random scenery.
While certainly the distribution of the color process determines $p$, it in fact does not determine the distribution of $\pi$. This was seen in small cases in [@st2017], and this lack of uniqueness was completely determined in [@fs2019b].
Since the dependency mechanism in a color process is so simple, it seems natural to ask which $\{0,1\}$-valued processes fall into this context. We mention that it is trivial to see that any color process has nonnegative pairwise correlations and so this is a trivial necessary condition.
In this paper, our main goal is to study the question of which *threshold Gaussian* and *threshold stable* processes fall into this context. More precisely, in the Gaussian situation, we ask the following question. Given a set of random variables $(X_i)_{i\in I}$ which is jointly Gaussian with mean zero, and given $h \in \mathbb{R} $, is the $\{0,1\}$-valued process $(X^h_i)_{i\in I}$ defined by $$X^h_i\coloneqq I(X_i > h)$$ a color process? In the stable situation, we simply replace the Gaussian assumption by $(X_i)_{i\in I}$ having a symmetric stable distribution. (We will review the necessary background concerning stable distributions in Subsection \[ss:stablebackground\].) For the very special case that $I$ is infinite, $h=0$ and the process is exchangeable, this question was answered positively, both in the Gaussian and stable cases, in [@st2017]. The set of threshold stable vectors is a much richer class than the set of threshold Gaussian vectors. As such, it is reasonable to study both classes.
Since all the marginals in a color process are necessarily equal, if $h\neq 0$, then a necessary condition in the Gaussian case for $(X^h_i)_{i\in I}$ to be a color process is that all the $X_i$’s have the same variance. Therefore, when considering $h\neq 0$, we will assume that all the $(X_i)$’s have variance one. However, it will be convenient not to make this latter assumption when considering $h=0$. For the stable case, we will simply assume that all the marginals are the same.
It has been seen in [@st2017] that $p=1/2$ and $p\neq 1/2$ (corresponding to $h=0$ and $h\neq 0$ in the Gaussian setting) behave very differently generally speaking. This was also seen in [@BMMU] and we will continue to see this here.
We finally note that the questions looked at here significantly differ from those studied in [@st2017]. In the latter paper, one looked at what types of behavior (ergodic, stochastic domination, etc.) color processes possess while in the present paper, we analyze which random vectors (primarily among threshold Gaussian and threshold stable vectors) are in fact color processes.
Notation and some standard assumptions
--------------------------------------
Given a set $S$, we let $\mathcal{B}_S$ denote the collection of partitions of the set $S$. We denote $\{1,2,3, \ldots, n\}$ by $[n]$ and if $S =[n] $, we write $\mathcal{B}_n$ for $\mathcal{B}_S$. $ |\mathcal{B}_n| $ is called the $n $th Bell number. We denote by $\mathcal{P}_n$ the set of partitions of the [integer]{} $n$.
A random partition of $[n]$ yields a probability vector $q=\{q_\sigma\}_{\sigma\in \mathcal{B}_n}\in \mathbb{R}^{\mathcal{B}_n}$. Similarly, a random $\{0,1\}$-valued vector $(X_1,\ldots,X_n)$ yields a probability vector $\nu=\{\nu_\rho\}_{\rho\in \{ 0,1 \}^n}\in \mathbb{R}^{\{ 0,1 \}^n}$. The definition of a color process yields immediately, for each $n$ and $p\in [0,1]$, an affine map $\Phi_{n,p}$ from random partitions of $[n]$, i.e., from probability vectors $q=\{q_\sigma\}_{\sigma\in \mathcal{B}_n}$ to probability vectors $\nu=\{\nu_\rho\}_{\rho\in \{ 0,1 \}^n}$. This map naturally extends to a linear mapping $A_{n,p}$ from $\mathbb{R}^{\mathcal{B}_n}$ to $\mathbb{R}^{\{ 0,1 \}^n}$. The image of $A_{n,p}$ was determined in [@fs2019b]. Loosely speaking, for $p\neq 1/2$, the image is the set of signed measures with marginal $p$, and, for $p= 1/2$, the image is the set of signed measures which have a $\{ 0,1 \}$-symmetry. In many cases, we will have a signed measure mapping to our given process and the work involves showing that this signed measure is in fact a probability measure, telling us that the process is a DC process. A signed measure mapping to a given process in this way is called a *formal solution*, or a *signed color representation*.
While perhaps not standard terminology, we call a Gaussian vector [*standard*]{} if each marginal has mean zero and variance one.
#### Standing assumption.
Whenever we consider a Gaussian or symmetric stable vector, we will assume it is nondegenerate in the sense that for all $i\neq j$, $P(X_i\neq X_j)=1$.
Some further notation which we will use is the following.
$\nu_{x_1,\ldots,x_n}$ [or]{.nodecor} $\nu(x_1,\ldots,x_n)$
: \
will denote the probability that $\{X_1=x_1,\ldots,X_n=x_n\}$ for a $\{0,1\}$-valued process $(X_1,\ldots,X_n)$.
$ \nu_{0^S}(h)$ [or]{.nodecor} $ \nu_h(0^S) $
: \
as an illustration, will denote, given a Gaussian or stable vector $(X_1,\ldots,X_n)$, the probability that the $h$-threshold process restricted to $S$ is identically zero; i.e., the probability that $ P(X_i\le h; \, i\in S)$.
$q_{13,2}$
: \
as an illustration, will denote, given a random partition with $n=3$, the probability that $1$ and $3$ are in the same partition and $2$ is in its own partition.
If we have a partition of a set of more than three elements, $q_{13,2}$ will then mean the above but with regard to the induced (marginal) random partition of $\{1,2,3\}$.
$N(0,A)$
: \
will denote a Gaussian vector with mean zero and covariance matrix $A$.
Description of results
----------------------
In Section \[s: stieltjes\], we present positive results concerning the question of the existence of a color representation for the threshold zero case for discrete Gaussian free fields and more generally for Gaussian vectors whose covariance matrices are so-called [*inverse Stieltjes*]{}, meaning that the off-diagonal elements of the inverse covariance matrix are nonpositive. This essentially follows from the known fact that the distribution of the signs of a discrete Gaussian free field, conditioned on their absolute values, is that of an Ising Model with nonnegative interaction constants depending on the conditioned absolute values. The latter fact has been observed in [@lw2015]. However, it turns out that a threshold zero Gaussian process can be a color process even if its covariance matrix is not inverse Stieltjes. We also relate the class of *inverse Stieltjes* vectors with the set of tree-indexed Gaussian Markov chains.
In Section \[s: embedding\], we provide an alternative proof that threshold zero tree-indexed Gaussian Markov chains are color processes using the Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process. This proof has the advantage that the method leads to our first result for stable vectors, namely that a threshold zero tree-indexed symmetric stable Markov chain is also a color process; in this case, we use subordinators.
In Section \[s: geometric\], we view our Gaussian vectors from a more geometric perspective and obtain a number of negative (and some positive) results for thresholds $h\neq 0$. In this section, we will obtain our first example where we have a nontrivial phase transition in $h$. This will be elaborated on in more detail in Theorem \[theorem: 4pointsoncircle\] but we state perhaps what is the main import of that result.
\[theorem:pt\] There exists a four-dimensional standard Gaussian vector $X$ so that $X^h$ is a color process for small positive $h$ but is not a color process for large $h$.
Given the above it is natural to ponder over the possible monotonicity properties in $h$. Proposition \[proposition: nonzero h on a circle\] implies that there is no three-dimensional Gaussian vector with such a phase transition among those that are not fully supported, while simulations indicate that there is also no fully supported three-dimensional Gaussian vector with such a phase transition. On the other hand, Corollary \[corollary:4examples\](iii) tells us that there are three-dimensional Gaussian vectors which are not color processes for small $h$ but are color processes for large $h$. This together with the previous result rules out any type of monotonicity, in either direction. Perhaps however monotonicity holds (in one direction) for fully supported vectors. See the open questions section.
Returning to the threshold zero case, we recall that Proposition 2.12 in [@st2017] implies that for any three-dimensional Gaussian vector with nonnegative correlations, the corresponding zero threshold process is a color process. Our next result says that this is not necessarily the case for four-dimensional Gaussian vectors.
\[theorem:4d0threshold\] There exists a four-dimensional standard Gaussian vector $X$ with nonnegative correlations so that $X^0$ is not a color process. $X$ can be taken to either be fully supported or not.
In Subsection \[section: integrals\], we extend the study of the example given in the proof of the previous theorem to the stable case.
In Section \[section:nonzerogaussian\], we consider the large $h$ Gaussian case. We show that any Gaussian vector which is not fully supported does not have a color representation for large $h$; see Corollary \[corollary: n=2 and h large\]. On the other hand, we show that [*all*]{} discrete Gaussian free fields (with constant variance) have color representations for large $h$.
\[theorem: strict dgff and large h\] If $ X \coloneqq (X_1,X_2, \ldots, X_n) $ is a discrete Gaussian free field which is standard Gaussian, then $ X^h $ is a color process for all sufficiently large $ h $.
In fact, we do not know if there is any DGFF $ X $ with constant variance for which $ X^h $ is not a color process for some $ h $.
In Section \[section:smalllarge\], we obtain detailed results concerning the existence of a color representation when the threshold $h\to 0$ and when $h\to \infty$ in the general Gaussian case when $n=3$. In the fully supported case, we have the following result which gives an exact characterization of which Gaussian vectors have a color representation for large $h$. Note that if two of the covariances are zero, then we trivially have a color representation for all $h$.
\[theorem: Gaussian critical 3d\] Let $ X $ be a fully supported three-dimensional standard Gaussian vector with covariance matrix $ A = (a_{ij}) $ satisfying $ Cov(X_i,X_j) = a_{ij} \in [0,1) $ for $ 1 \leq i < j \leq 3 $. If $ a_{ij} > 0 $ for all $ i<j $, then $ X^h $ has a color representation for sufficiently large $h $ if and only if one of the following (nonoverlapping) conditions holds.
(i) $ \mathbf{1}^T A^{-1} > \mathbf{0} $
(ii) $ \min_i \mathbf{1}^T A^{-1}(i) = 0 $
(iii) $ \min_i \mathbf{1}^T A^{-1}(i) < 0 $ and $ \mathbf{1}^T A^{-1} \mathbf{1} < 2 $.
Furthermore, if exactly one of the covariances is equal to zero, then $ X^h $ does not have a color representation for large $ h $.
The assumption in (i) of Theorem \[theorem: Gaussian critical 3d\], i.e. that $ \mathbf{1}^T A^{-1} > \mathbf{0} $, is sometimes called the *Savage condition* (with respect to the vector $\mathbf{1} = (1,1,\ldots,1)$). When $ A = (a_{ij}) $ is the covariance matrix of a (nontrivial) two-dimensional standard Gaussian vector, then $\mathbf{1}^T A^{-1}(1) = \mathbf{1}^T A^{-1}(2) = (1+a_{12})^{-1}>0 $, and hence the Savage condition always holds in this case. If $ A = (a_{ij}) $ is the covariance matrix of a three-dimensional standard Gaussian vector, then one can show that $$\label{eq: Savage condition term}
\mathbf{1}^T A^{-1}(1) = \frac{(1+a_{23}-a_{12}-a_{13})(1-a_{23})}{\det A}$$ and it follows that the Savage condition holds if and only if $$\label{eq: Savage condition term again}
1+ 2\min_{i<j} a_{ij} > \sum_{i<j} a_{ij}.$$ When $ \mathbf{1}^T A^{-1} \ge \mathbf{0} $, we will refer to this as the *weak Savage condition*. This for example holds for all discrete Gaussian free fields.
The rest of the results we describe in this section concern the stable (non-Gaussian) case. In Section \[section:nonzerostable\], we first look at the case $n=2$. While it is trivial that having a color representation is equivalent to having a nonnegative correlation when $n=2$, in the stable case it is not obvious, even when $n=2$, which spectral measures yield a threshold vector with a nonnegative correlation. This contrasts with the Gaussian case where nonnegative correlation in the threshold process is simply equivalent to the Gaussian vector having a nonnegative correlation.
We first mention, in this regard, that Theorem 4.6.1 (and its proof) and Theorem 4.4.1 in [@st1994] (see also (4.4.2) on p. 188 there) yield the following fact where $ S_\alpha(1,0,0) $ denotes the standard one-dimensional symmetric $\alpha$-stable distribution with scale one; see the next subsection for precise definitions. For $ \alpha \in (0,2) $, if $ X $ is a symmetric 2-dimensional $ \alpha $-stable random vector with marginals $ S_\alpha(1,0,0) $ spectral measure $ \Lambda $, then (1) if $ \Lambda $ has support only in the first and third quadrants, then $ X_1^{h} $ and $ X_2^{h} $ are nonnegatively correlated for all $ h \in \mathbb{R} $ (and hence the threshold process is a color process) and (2) if $ \Lambda $ has some support strictly inside the first quadrant, then $ X_1^{h} $ and $ X_2^{h} $ have strictly positive correlation for all sufficiently large $ h $ (and hence the threshold process is a color process for large $h$).
The following natural example shows that one does not need to have the spectral measure supported only in the first and third quadrants in order for the threshold process always to be a color process.
\[2dpos.corr\] Let $ S_1,S_2 \sim S_\alpha(1,0,0) $ be independent and let $a \in (0,1) $. Set $$\begin{cases}
X_1 = a S_1 + (1-a^\alpha)^{1/\alpha} S_2 \cr
X_2 = -a S_1 + (1-a^\alpha)^{1/\alpha} S_2.
\end{cases}$$ (This ensures that $ X_1,X_2 \sim S_\alpha(1,0,0) $.) Then the following are equivalent.
(i) $ a \leq 2^{-1/\alpha} $
(ii) $ X^0 $ is a color process.
(iii) $ X^h $ is a color process for all $ h $.
We now study the question of the existence of a color representation in the symmetric stable case when $h\to \infty$. Our first result shows that there is a fairly large class for which the answer is affirmative and here the method of proof comes from that used in Theorem \[theorem: strict dgff and large h\].
\[theorem:stablegoodsupport\] Let $X$ be a symmetric stable distribution with marginals $ S_\alpha(1,0,0) $ whose spectral measure has some support properly inside each orthant. Furthermore, assume that $$\label{eq: stablegood}
2 \int_{\mathbb{S}^{n-1}} (\mathbf{x}^{(2)} \lor 0)^\alpha \, d\Lambda(\mathbf{x}) < 1$$ where $\mathbf{x}^{(2)}$ denotes the second largest coordinate of the vector $x$. Then $ X^h $ is a color process for all sufficiently large $ h $.
The integral condition in will hold for example if the spectral measure is supported sufficiently close to the coordinate axes.
Next, we surprisingly obtain, in the simplest nontrivial stable vector with $n=3$, a certain phase transition in the stability exponent where the critical point is $\alpha=1/2$. We state it here although relevant definitions will be given later on.
\[theorem:ptalpha12\] Let $ \alpha \in (0,2) $ and let $ S_0 $, $ S_1 $, $ S_2 $, $ S_3 $ be i.i.d. each with distribution $ S_\alpha(1,0,0) $. Furthermore, let $ a \in (0,1) $ and for $ i = 1, 2, 3 $, define $$X_i = aS_{0} + (1-a^\alpha)^{1/\alpha} S_i$$ and $X_\alpha \coloneqq (X_1,X_2,X_3) $. ($ X_\alpha $ is then a symmetric $\alpha$-stable vector which is invariant under permutations; it is one of the simplest such vectors other than an i.i.d. process.)
(i) If $ \alpha > 1/2$, then $ X^h $ is a color process for all sufficiently large $ h $.
(ii) If $ \alpha < 1/2 $, then $ X^h $ is not a color process for any sufficiently large $ h $.
The critical value of $1/2$ above was independent of the parameter $a$, as long as $a\in (0,1) $. If we however move to a family which has two parameters, but is still $ \{ 0,1\}$-symmetric and permutation transitive, we can obtain a phase transition at any point in $ (0,2) $.
\[theorem: alternative symmetric example\] Let $ a,b \in (0,1) $ satisfy $ 2a^2 + 2b^2 <1 $. Let $c_1=c_1(a,b)\in (0,2)$ be the unique solution to $ 2a^{c_1} + 2b^{c_1} =1 $ and $c_2=c_2(a,b):= \log{2}/|\log a - \log b|\in (0,\infty]$.
For $ \alpha \in (c_1,2) $, let $ S_1 $, $ S_2 $, …, $ S_7 $ be i.i.d. with $ S_1 \sim S_\alpha(1,0,0) $ and define $$\begin{cases}
X_1 \coloneqq aS_1 + bS_2 +bS_4 + aS_5 + (1-2a^\alpha-2b^\alpha)^{1/\alpha}S_7 \cr
X_2 \coloneqq aS_2+bS_3 + bS_5 + aS_6 + (1-2a^\alpha-2b^\alpha)^{1/\alpha}S_7 \cr
X_3 \coloneqq bS_1 + aS_3 + aS_4 + bS_6 + (1-2a^\alpha-2b^\alpha)^{1/\alpha}S_7 .\cr
\end{cases}$$ Then $X_\alpha \coloneqq (X_1,X_2,X_3) $ is a symmetric $\alpha$-stable vector which is invariant under all permutations, and the following holds.
(i) If $c_2\le c_1$, then, for all $\alpha\in (c_1,2)$, $ X_\alpha^h $ is a color process for all sufficiently large $ h $.
(ii) If $c_2\ge 2$, then, for all $\alpha\in (c_1,2)$, $ X_\alpha^h $ is not a color process for any sufficiently large $ h $.
(iii) If $c_2\in (c_1,2)$, then, for all $\alpha\in (c_1,c_2)$, $ X_\alpha^h $ is not a color process for any sufficiently large $ h $ while for all $\alpha\in (c_2,2)$, $ X_\alpha^h $ is a color process for all sufficiently large $ h $.
In particular, for any $\alpha_c\in (0,2)$ and $\epsilon < \alpha_c$, we can choose $a$ and $b$ so that $c_1=\epsilon$ and $c_2=\alpha_c$, in which case $X_\alpha$ is defined for all $\alpha\in (\epsilon,2)$ and where the question of whether the large $h$ threshold is a color process has a phase transition at $\alpha_c$.
The case $ a > b = 0 $, which is not included in Theorem \[theorem: alternative symmetric example\], corresponds to the fully symmetric case studied in Theorem \[theorem:ptalpha12\].
Background on symmetric stable vectors {#ss:stablebackground}
--------------------------------------
We refer the reader to [@st1994] for the theory of stable distributions and will just present here the background needed for our results.
A random vector $X \coloneqq (X_i)_{1\le i\le d}$ in $\mathbb{R}^d$ has a *stable* distribution if for all $n$, there exist $a_n>0$ and $b_n$ so that if $(X^1,\ldots, X^n)$ are $n$ i.i.d. copies of $X$, then $$\sum_{1\le i\le n} X^i \overset{\mathcal D}{=} a_n X+b_n.$$
It is known that for any stable vector, there exists $\alpha\in (0,2]$ so that $a_n=n^{1/\alpha}$. The Gaussian case corresponds to $\alpha=2$. Ignoring constant random variables, a stable random variable (i.e., with $d=1$ above) has four parameters, (1) $\alpha\in (0,2]$ which is called the *stability exponent*, (2) $\beta\in [-1,1]$ which is called the *asymmetry parameter*, (3) $\sigma$ which is a *scale parameter* and (4) $\mu$ which is a *shift parameter*. When $\alpha=2$, there is no $\beta$ parameter, $\mu$ corresponds to the mean and $\sigma$ corresponds to the standard deviation divided by $\sqrt{2}$, an irrelevant scaling. The distribution of this random variable is denoted by $S_\alpha(\sigma,\beta,\mu)$. More precisely, $S_\alpha(\sigma,\beta,\mu)$ is defined by its characteristic function $f(\theta)$, which, for $\alpha \neq 1$ is $$\exp\left(-\sigma^\alpha|\theta|^\alpha(1-i\beta(\operatorname{sgn}\theta)\tan({\pi\alpha}/{2}))+i\mu\theta\right).$$ See [@st1994] for the formula when $\alpha =1$. One should be careful and keep in mind that different authors use different parameterizations for the family of stable distributions. Throughout this paper, we will only consider symmetric stable random variables corresponding to $\beta=\mu=0$ and sometimes often assume $\sigma=1$. The above then simplifies to a random variable having distribution $S_\alpha(\sigma,0,0)$ which means its characteristic function is $f(\theta)=e^{-\sigma^\alpha |\theta|^\alpha}$. In the symmetric case, this formula is also valid for $\alpha=1$.
Finally, a random vector in $\mathbb{R}^d$ has a symmetric stable distribution with stability exponent $\alpha$ if and only if its characteristic function $f(\theta)$ has the form $$f(\theta)=\exp(-\int_{\mathbb{S}^{d-1}} |\theta\cdot \mathbf{x}|^\alpha \, d\Lambda(\mathbf{x}))$$ for some finite measure $\Lambda$ on $\mathbb{S}^{d-1}$ which is invariant under $\mathbf{x}\mapsto -\mathbf{x}$. $\Lambda$ is called the [*spectral measure*]{} corresponding to the $\alpha$-stable vector. For $\alpha\in (0,2)$ fixed, different $\Lambda$’s yield different distributions. This is not true for $\alpha=2$.
In a number of cases, we will have a symmetric $\alpha$-stable vector $X \coloneqq (X_1,\ldots,X_d)$ which is obtained by having $$X = A (Y_1,\dots,Y_m)$$ where $A$ is a $d\times m$ matrix and $Y=(Y_1,\dots,Y_m)$ are i.i.d. random variables with distribution $S_\alpha(1,0,0)$. In such a case, there is a simple formula for the spectral measure $ \Lambda $ for $X$. Consider the columns of $A$ as elements of $\mathbb{R}^d $, denoted by $\mathbf{x}_1,\ldots,\mathbf{x}_m$. Then $\Lambda$ is obtained by placing, for each $i\in [m]$, a mass of weight $ {\| \mathbf{x}_i\|_2^\alpha}/{2}$ at $\pm \mathbf{x}_i/\| \mathbf{x}_i\|_2$. See p. 69 in [@st1994].
Stieltjes matrices and discrete Gaussian free fields {#s: stieltjes}
====================================================
Inverse Stieltjes covariance matrices give rise to color processes for h=0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Stieltjes matrix is a symmetric positive definite matrix with non-positive off-diagonal elements.
We will see later that the following result implies that for all discrete Gaussian free fields $X$ (to be defined later), $X^0$ is a color process.
\[theorem: Ising representation\] If $ X \sim N(0,A) $ and $ A^{-1} $ is a Stieltjes matrix, then $ X^{0}$ is a color process.
The proof is based upon noting that the observation from [@lw2015] that the signs of a discrete Gaussian free field is an average of Ising Models is still true if one just assumes that one has a Stieltjes matrix.
Note first that as $ (b_{ij}) \coloneqq A^{-1} $ is a Stieltjes matrix, we have that $ b_{ij} \leq 0 $ whenever $ i \not = j $. This implies in particular that if $ f_X $ is the probability density function of $ X $, then $$\begin{aligned}
f_X(\mathbf{x}) &\propto \exp\left(\frac{-\mathbf{x}^T A^{-1} \mathbf{x}}{2}\right)
= \exp\left( \sum_{\{ i,j \}} -b_{ij} \mathbf{x}_i\mathbf{x}_j - \frac{1}{2}\sum_i b_{ii} \mathbf{x}_i^2\right) .\end{aligned}$$
Now for each $ i$, define $ \sigma_i \coloneqq \operatorname{sgn}X_i $ so that $ X_i = |X_i| \sigma_i $. Then the conditional probability density function of $ ( \sigma_i) $ given $ |X_1| = y_1 $, $ |X_2 | =y_2$, …, $ |X_n| =y_n$ satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
f(\mathbf{\sigma}) &\propto
\exp\left( \sum_{ \{ i,j \}} -b_{ij} y_i y_j \sigma_i \sigma_j \right) .\end{aligned}$$ This is a ferromagnetic Ising model with parameters $ \beta_{ij} = -b_{ij} y_i y_j \ge 0 $ and no external field. It is well known that the (Fortuin Kastelyn) random cluster model yields a color representation for the Ising model after we identify $-1$ with $0$. Since an average of color processes is a color process, we are done.
The proof of Theorem \[theorem: Ising representation\] does not apply to other threshold levels. With nonzero thresholds, this argument would lead to Ising model with a varying external field. The marginals of this (conditioned) process are not in general equal, which precludes it from being a color process, and even if the marginals were equal, there is no known color representation in this case in general.
We end this subsection by pointing out that there are fully supported Gaussian vectors whose threshold zero processes are color processes but whose inverse covariance matrix is not a Stieltjes matrix.
To see this, let $ a \in (0,1 ) $ and $ \varepsilon \in (0,1)$. Then the matrix
$$A=
\begin{pmatrix}
1&a&a \\
a&1&a^2-\varepsilon\\
a& a^2-\varepsilon&1
\end{pmatrix}$$ has eigenvalues $1-a^2+\varepsilon $ and $ \frac{2+a^2-\varepsilon \pm \sqrt{8a^2+(a^2-\varepsilon)^2}}{2}$. Hence $ A $ is positive definite if $ \varepsilon < 1-a^2 $. Moreover, we have $$A^{-1} = \frac{1}{1-a^2-\varepsilon}
\begin{pmatrix}
1+a^2-\varepsilon & -a & -a \\
-a & \frac{1-a^2}{1-a^2+\varepsilon} & \frac{\varepsilon}{1-a^2+\varepsilon} \\
-a & \frac{\varepsilon}{1-a^2+\varepsilon} & \frac{1-a^2}{1-a^2+\varepsilon}
\end{pmatrix}$$ Hence, $ A $ is not an inverse Stieltjes matrix for any $ \varepsilon > 0$, since for any $\varepsilon > 0 $ we have that $ A^{-1}(2,3) > 0 $. Consequently, if $ 0<\varepsilon<1-a^2 $, then $ A $ is symmetric, positive and positive definite but not an inverse Stieltjes matrix. Finally, the fact that the threshold zero process is a color process follows from Proposition 2.12 in [@st2017] which states that for $n=3$, any $ \{ 0,1 \} $-symmetric process with nonnegative pairwise correlations is a color process.
A very important class of Gaussian vectors which have $ A^{-1} $ being a Stieltjes matrix are discrete Gaussian free fields (DGFF) with a finite number of variables. Another example are so-called tree-indexed Gaussian Markov chains. A Gaussian Markov chain with parameter $a\in [0,1]$ has state space $S={\mathbb{R}}$ and is described by $s\mapsto as + (1-a^2)^{ {1}/{2}} W$ where $W$ is a standard normal random variable; this is reversible with respect the distribution of $W$. From this, one can construct tree-indexed Gaussian Markov chains (see e.g. [@bp1994]). We end this subsection by discussing a simple Gaussian vector and show that different points of view can lead to very different color representations. To this end, consider the fully symmetric multivariate normal $ X \coloneqq (X_1,X_2,\ldots, X_n) $ with covariance matrix $A=(a_{ij})$ where $ a_{ij} = a\in (0,1) $ for $ i \not = j $ and $ a_{ii} = 1$ for all $ i $. It is easy to check that $$A^{-1}(i,j) = \begin{cases}
\frac{1+(n-2)a}{(1+(n-1)a)(1-a)} &\textnormal{ if } i = j \cr
\frac{-a}{(1+(n-1)a)(1-a)}& \textnormal{ otherwise.} \end{cases}$$ Since this is a Stieltjes matrix, $ X^0 $ is a color process by Theorem \[theorem: Ising representation\] and moreover, by the proof, the resulting color representation has full support. (The fact that this particular example is a color process is also covered by Section 3.5 in [@st2017] using a different method.)
Now suppose we would add a variable $ X_0 $ with $ a_{00} = 1 $ and $ a_{i0} = \sqrt{a} $ for all $i\in\{1,2,\ldots,n\} $. One can check that this defines a Gaussian vector $ (X_0,X_1,X_2, \ldots, X_n ) $ and it is easy to check that this is a tree-indexed Gaussian Markov chain where the tree is a vertex with $n$ edges coming out. If we let $ A_0 $ be the covariance matrix of $Y\coloneqq (X_0,X_1,X_2, \ldots, X_n ) $, then its inverse is given by $$A_0^{-1}(i,j) = \begin{cases}
\frac{1+(n-1)a}{1-a} &\textnormal{ if } i = j =0 \cr
\frac{1}{1-a} &\textnormal{ if } i = j >0 \cr
\frac{-\sqrt{a}}{1-a} &\textnormal{ if } i >j = 0 \cr
\frac{-\sqrt{a}}{1-a}&\textnormal{ if } j>i = 0 \cr
0& \textnormal{ otherwise}.
\end{cases}$$ Being a Stieltjes matrix, $ Y^0 $ has a color representation by Theorem \[theorem: Ising representation\] and the proof yields that if we restrict the resulting color representation of $ Y^{0} $ to $ \{ 1,2,\ldots, n \} $, the representation is supported on partitions with at most one non-singleton cluster. In particular, this implies that when $ n = 4 $, these color representations will assign different probabilities to the partition $ (12,34) $, and hence the representations are distinct.
An alternative embedding proof for tree-indexed Gaussian Markov chains which extends to the stable case {#s: embedding}
=======================================================================================================
The purpose of this section is twofold: first to give an alternative proof of the fact established earlier that tree-indexed Gaussian Markov chains are color processes and then to use a variant of this alternative method to obtain a result in the context of stable random variables.
The Gaussian case
-----------------
We give this proof only for a path where the correlations between successive variables are the same value $a$. The extension to the tree case and varying correlations is analogous.
To show that $ X \coloneqq (X_1,X_2, \ldots, X_n) $ has a color representation for any $ n \geq 1 $, we want to construct, on some probability space, a random partition $\pi$ of $[n]$ and random variables $ Y=(Y_1,Y_2, \ldots, Y_n) $ so that
(i) $ X $ and $Y$ have the same distribution (which implies that their corresponding sign processes have the same distribution) and
(ii) $(Y^{0},\pi)$ is a color process (for $p=1/2$) with its color representation.
To do this, let $ (Z_t) $ be the so-called Ornstein-Uhlenbeck (OU) process defined by $$Z_t = e^{ -t } W_{e^{2t}}$$ where $ (W_t)_{t \geq 0} $ is a standard Brownian motion. It is well known and immediate to check that $ Z_t \sim N(0,1) $ for any $ t \in \mathbb{R} $ and that $ \operatorname{Cov}(Z_s,Z_t) = e^{-|s-t|} $ for any $ s,t \in \mathbb{R}$.
Now, given $n$, consider the random vector $Y$ given by $$Z_{\log(1/a)},Z_{2\log(1/a)},\ldots,Z_{n\log(1/a)}$$ and consider the random partition $\pi$ of $\{1,2,\ldots,n\}$ given by $i\sim j$ if $Z_t$ does not hit zero between times $i\log(1/a)$ and $j\log(1/a)$.
It is immediate from the Markovian structure of both vectors and the covariances in the OU process that (i) holds. Next, (ii) is clear using the reflection principle (which uses the strong Markov property) and the fact that the hitting time of 0 is a stopping time.
This argument (also) does not work for any threshold other than zero. For it to work, one would need that for $h>0$ and any time $t\ge 0$, the probability that an OU process started at $h$ is larger than $h$ at time $t$ is equal to the unconditioned probability. This however does not hold.
In [@tl2016], the author studies a similar construction as the construction above for discrete Gaussian free fields. More precisely, the author shows that one can obtain a color representation for a DGFF $ X $ as follows. Given $ X $, for each pair of adjacent vertices he adds a Brownian bridge with length determined by their coupling constant. Two vertices are then put in the same partition element if the corresponding Brownian bridge does not hit zero. Since DGFF’s have no stable analogue, this does not generalize to any class of stable distributions.
The stable case
---------------
We now obtain our first result for stable vectors. Given $\alpha\in (0,2)$ and $a\in (0,1)$, let $U$ have distribution $ S_\alpha(1,0,0) $ and consider the Markov chain on ${\mathbb{R}}$ given by $s\mapsto as + (1-a^\alpha)^{1/\alpha} U$. It is straightforward to check that $U$ is a stationary distribution for this Markov chain. Hence, given a tree $T$ and a designated root, we obtain a tree-indexed $\alpha$-stable Markov chain on $T$. Interestingly, unlike the Gaussian case, this process depends on the chosen root as this Markov Chain is not reversible. In particular, if $(X_0,X_1)$ are two consecutive times for this Markov chain started in stationarity, then $(X_0,X_1)$ and $(X_1,X_0)$ have different distributions; one can see this by looking at the two spectral measures.
\[proposition: stable tree\] Fix $\alpha\in (0,2)$, $a\in (0,1)$, a tree $T$ with designated root $\rho$ and consider the corresponding tree-indexed $\alpha$-stable Markov chain $X$ on $T$. Then $ X^{0} $ is a color process.
We give the proof only for a path and with $\rho$ being the start of the path. The extension to the tree case is analogous. As in the previous proof, we want to construct, on some probability space, a random partition $\pi$ of $[n]$ and random variables $ Y=(Y_1,Y_2, \ldots, Y_n) $ so that
(i) $ (X_1,\ldots,X_n) $ and $Y$ have the same distribution, and
(ii) $(Y^{0},\pi)$ is a color process (for $p=1/2$) with its color representation.
We first recall (see Proposition 1.3.1 in [@st1994], p.20) that if $ (B_t)_{t \geq 0} $ is a standard Brownian motion and $ S \sim S_{\alpha/2}(2\cos({\pi\alpha}/{4})^{{2}/{\alpha}},1,0)$ is independent, then $S^{ {1}/{2}}B_{1} \sim S_\alpha(1,0,0). $ $S$ is an example of a so-called subordinator.
Now let $Y_1,S_2,\ldots,S_n,(B_t)^2_{t \geq 0}, \ldots,(B_t)^n_{t \geq 0}$ be independent with $Y_1\sim S_\alpha(1,0,0)$, each $S_i\overset{\mathcal{D}}{=} S$, where $S$ is as above and each $(B_t)^i_{t \geq 0}$ being a standard Brownian motion.
Define $Y_i$ for $i\in \{2,\ldots,n\}$ inductively by $$Y_{i+1}= aY_i + (1-a^\alpha)^{1 / \alpha} S_{i+1}^{ {1}/{2}} B_1^{(i+1)}.$$ It is clear from the above discussion that (i) holds.
Now we extend this process to all times $ t \in [1,n] $ as follows. Let, for $t\in (i,i+1)$, $$Y_t = aY_i + (1-a^\alpha)^{1 / \alpha} S_{i+1}^{ {1}/{2}} B_{t-i}^{(i+1)}.$$ Note that $ (Y_t) $ is left-continuous and has jumps exactly at the integers. Note also that this process never jumps over the $ x $-axis.
Next, considering the random partition $\pi$ of $\{1,2,\ldots,n\}$ given by $i\sim j$ if $Y_t$ does not hit zero between times $i$ and $j$. Again using the reflection principle, properties of Brownian motion and the fact that $(Y_t)$ never jumps over the $ x $-axis it is clear that (ii) holds.
We apply this to a particular symmetric, fully symmetric stable $ n $-dimensional vector. To this end, let $S_0$, $S_1$, …, $S_n$ be i.i.d. each having distribution $ S_\alpha(1,0,0) $ and for $ i=1,2,\ldots, n $ let $$X_1\coloneqq a S_0 + (1-a^\alpha)^{1/\alpha} S_i.$$ We claim that $(X^0_1,X^0_2,\ldots,X^0_n)$ is a color process. To see this, consider Proposition \[proposition: stable tree\] with a homogeneous $n$-ary tree and $\alpha$ and $a$ being as above. By that proposition, the threshold zero process for the corresponding tree-indexed Markov chain is a color process.
A geometric approach to Gaussian vectors {#s: geometric}
========================================
The geometric picture of a Gaussian vector
-------------------------------------------
In this section we will switch to a more geometric perspective and view a mean zero $n$-dimensional Gaussian vector as the values of a certain random function at a set of $n$ points in $\mathbb{R}^k$ for some $k$. This alternative description is completely well known. More precisely, let $ k \geq 1$, $ \mathbf{x}_1, \ldots, \mathbf{x}_n \in \mathbb{R}^k $, and $ W \sim N(0,I_k) $ be a standard normal distribution in $\mathbb{R}^k $. If we now let $$X\coloneqq (X_i)_{1 \leq i \leq n} \coloneqq ( \mathbf{x}_i \cdot W)_{1 \leq i \leq n},$$ then $X$ is a Gaussian vector with mean zero and covariances $ \operatorname{Cov}(X_i,X_j) = \mathbf{x}_i \cdot \mathbf{x}_j $. Note that $X_i$ having variance one corresponds to $\mathbf{x}_i$ being on the unit sphere $ \mathbb{S}^{k-1} $ in $\mathbb{R}^k $. The above representation can always be achieved with $k=n$. Such a representation can be achieved, up to rotations, in $\mathbb{R}^k $ if and only if $X$ lives on a $k$-dimensional subspace of $\mathbb{R}^n $. We say that $X$ has dimension $k$ if $k$ is the smallest integer where one has this representation up to rotations. When we have $ \mathbf{x}_1, \ldots, \mathbf{x}_n \in \mathbb{R}^k $ as above, without loss of generality, we will always assume that $ \mathbf{x}_1, \ldots, \mathbf{x}_n $ spans $\mathbb{R}^k $ so that the dimension of $X$ is $k$.
Now given a standard Gaussian vector $ X \coloneqq (X_i)_{1 \leq i \leq n} $ (recall this means the marginals have mean zero and variance one) and $h\in \mathbb{R}$, let $(X^{h}_i)_{1\le i\le n}$ be, as before, the threshold process defined by ${X^{h}_i}\coloneqq I(X_i > h)$. It will be useful to have a simple way to generate $(X^{h}_i)_{1\le i\le n}$ which can be done as follows. Assume that $X$ is $k$-dimensional with variances all being one. We take $n$ points $\mathbf{x}_1,\mathbf{x}_2,\ldots, \mathbf{x}_n$ on $ \mathbb{S}^{k-1} $ corresponding to $ (X_i)_{1 \leq i \leq n} $ as described above. Let $Z\sim N(0,I_k)$. It is well known that when $Z$ is written in polar coordinates $(r,\theta)$ with $r\ge 0$ and $\theta\in \mathbb{S}^{k-1}$, then $r$ and $\theta$ are independent with $\theta$ uniform on $ \mathbb{S}^{k-1} $ and $r$ having the distribution of the square root of a $\chi$-squared distribution with $k$ degrees of freedom. We then have that $X^{h}_i= 1$ if and only if $\mathbf{x}_i \cdot Z > h$. Note that $\{ \mathbf{x}: \mathbf{x}\cdot Z = h\}$ is a random hyperplane $H_h$ in $\mathbb{R}^k$ perpendicular to $\theta(Z)$ and so $X^{h}$ is equal to one for points on $ \mathbb{S}^{k-1} $ which lie on one side of $H_h$ and zero for points lying on the other side. Note that when $h=0$, the hyperplane goes through the origin and it is the points on the same side as $\theta(Z)$ that get value one; in particular, when $h=0$, the value of $X^{h}_i$ only depends on $\theta(Z)$ and not on $r(Z)$. However, when $h >0$, the hyperplane $H_h$ can go through any point of the one-sided infinite line from the origin going through $\theta(Z)$. In particular, $H_h$ might not intersect $ \mathbb{S}^{k-1} $ at all; this would correspond exactly to $r(Z) <h$.
Gaussian vectors canonically indexed by the circle
--------------------------------------------------
\[proposition: k = 2, h = 0\] \[prop: first\] Consider $n$ points $\mathbf{x}_1,\ldots,\mathbf{x}_n$ on $ \mathbb{S}^1 $ satisfying $\mathbf{x}_i\cdot \mathbf{x}_j\ge 0$ for all $i,j$; this is equivalent to the correlations $a_{ij}$ of the corresponding Gaussian process $X$ being nonnegative. Then $ X^{0} $ is a color process.
Using the nonnegative correlations, it is easy to check that the $n$ points $\{\mathbf{x}_1, \mathbf{x}_2, \ldots, \mathbf{x}_n\} \subseteq \mathbb{S}^1$ must lie on an arc of length at most $\pi/2$. Since the distribution of a Gaussian process is invariant under rotations, we may assume that the $n$ points lie on the arc $0\le \theta \le \pi/2$. Hence we can assume that $\mathbf{x}_j=e^{i\theta_j}$ with $0\le \theta_1 < \theta_2 < \ldots < \theta_n\le \pi/2$.
We will couple $ X^{0} $ with a color process together with its color representation in such a way that $ X^{0} $ and the color process match exactly. We first show how one uniform point $U$ on $\mathbb{S}^1$ generates a color process together with its color representation. Let $$I_1=[0,\theta_1],I_2=[\theta_1,\theta_2], \ldots,
I_k=[\theta_{k-1},\theta_k],\ldots, I_{n+1}=[\theta_{n},{\pi}/{2}]$$ noting that the first and last arcs might be trivial. Letting $I_k^\theta$ be $I_k$ rotated counterclockwise by $\theta$, we note that $$\left\{I^\theta_k: k\in \{1,\ldots,n+1\},\theta
\in \{0,{\pi}/{2},\pi,{3\pi}/{2}\}\right\}$$ partitions $\mathbb{S}^1$. Now for $k=1,\ldots,n+1$, if $U$ falls in $I^0_k \cup I^{\frac{\pi}{2}}_k \cup I^\pi_k \cup I^{\frac{3\pi}{2}}_k$, we partition $\{\mathbf{x}_1, \mathbf{x}_2, \ldots, \mathbf{x}_n\}$ into the two sets $J_1\coloneqq \{\mathbf{x}_1, \ldots, \mathbf{x}_{k-1}\}$ and $J_2\coloneqq \{\mathbf{x}_k, \ldots, \mathbf{x}_n\}$ with the obvious caveat when $k \in \{ 1, n+1 \}$. Next we color $J_1$ and $J_2$ as follows. If $U$ is in $[0,\pi/2]$, we color each cluster 1, if $U$ is in $[\pi/2,\pi]$, we color $J_1$ 0 and $J_2$ 1, if $U$ is in $[\pi,3\pi/2]$, we color each cluster 0 and if $U$ is in $[3\pi/2,2\pi]$, we color $J_1$ 1 and $J_2$ 0. This clearly yields a color process (with $p=1/2$) together with its color representation. Finally observe that this color process is exactly $X^{0}$ if we use $ U $ for $\theta(Z)$.
It is easy to see that the threshold zero-process here is such that it is constant with probability at least $1/2$. Hence the proof of Theorem 1.2 in [@fs2019b] also yields it is a color process. Moreover, the color representation given here can be checked to correspond to that which would result in applying the above result. The above description will however be useful when dealing with the case $h\neq 0$ as in Proposition \[proposition: nonzero h on a circle\].
For any color process $ (Y_i) $ with $ p = 1/2 $, for any $ i $ and $ j $ it is clear that $$\label{eq: colorcorrelation}
\operatorname{Cov}(Y_i,Y_j) = \frac{q_{ij}}{4}$$ and that $$P(Y_i = Y_j = 1) = \frac{1}{4} + \frac{q_{ij}}{4}.$$ In the case of Proposition \[prop: first\], it is clear that $$\label{eq: simplifying equation}
1-q_{ij} = \frac{|\theta_j - \theta_i|}{\pi/2}$$ and hence that $$\label{eq: p00}
P(X_i^{0} = X_j^{0} = 1) = \frac{1}{2} - \frac{|\theta_j - \theta_i|}{2\pi}.$$ Since $ |\theta_j - \theta_i| = \arccos a_{ij} $ it follows that $$\label{eq: p00again}
P(X_i^{0} = X_j^{0} = 1) = \frac{1}{2} - \frac{\arccos a_{ij}}{2\pi}.$$ This is of course one of many ways to derive this last expression which is known as Sheppard’s formula (see [@s1899]).
This discussion also leads as well to the formula $$\label{eq: q.corr}
q_{ij} = 1 - \frac{2\arccos a_{ij}}{\pi}.$$
The proof of the following elementary lemma, based on inclusion-exclusion, is left to the reader.
\[lemma: Fourier\] If $X \coloneqq(X_1,X_2,X_3)$ is $ \{ 0,1 \} $-symmetric, then $$\label{eq: p000}
\nu_{000} = \frac{ \nu_{00.} + \nu_{0.0} + \nu_{.00}}{2} - \frac{1}{4}.$$
In particular, using , if $X$ corresponds to threshold zero for a mean zero Gaussian vector, the above is equal to $$\label{eq: p000 Gaussian}
\frac{1}{2} - \frac{ \theta_{12}+ \theta_{13} + \theta_{23} }{4\pi}.$$
\[proposition: nonzero h on a circle\] Consider $n$ points $\mathbf{x}_1,\ldots,\mathbf{x}_n$ on $ \mathbb{S}^1 $ satisfying $\mathbf{x}_i\cdot \mathbf{x}_j\ge 0$ for all $i,j$. Then $ X^{h} $ does not have a color representation for any $ h \not = 0 $, $ n\geq 3 $.
It suffices to prove this for $h>0$ and $n=3$. Since $h >0$, it is clear from the construction of $X^{A,0}$ described above that $(0,1,0)$ has positive probability but that $(1,0,1)$ has probability zero. However, it is immediate that no color process can have this property.
(0,0) circle (1.5cm); (0,-2) – (0,2); (-2,0) – (2,0); (1.44889,0.388229) circle (2pt); (1.06066,1.06066) circle (2pt); (0.292635,1.47118) circle (2pt); (-1.5,1.5) – (1.5,-1.5);
(0,0) circle (1.5cm); (0,-2) – (0,2); (-2,0) – (2,0); (1.44889,0.388229) circle (2pt); (1.06066,1.06066) circle (2pt); (0.292635,1.47118) circle (2pt); (0,2) – (2,0);
A general obstruction for having a color representation for h>0
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The following is precisely a higher dimensional analogue of Proposition \[proposition: nonzero h on a circle\]. The latter is the special case $n=3$ together with the fact that any three points on the circle are in general position.
\[theorem: geometric restrictions\] The standard Gaussian process $X$ associated to $n$ points $ \mathbf{x}_1, \ldots, \mathbf{x}_n \in \mathbb{S}^{n-2}$ in general position (equivalently not contained in an $(n-2)$-dimensional hyperplane) is such that $X^h$ is not a color process for any $h>0$.
More generally, if $X \coloneqq (X_1,X_2, \ldots, X_n) $ is a random vector such that
- $ (X_1,X_2, \ldots, X_{n-1}) $ is fully supported on $ \mathbb{R}^{n-1} $
- there is $ (a_1,a_2,\ldots, a_n) \in \mathbb{R}^n \backslash \{ 0 \} $ such that a.s.$$\label{eq: non-equal sumsbefore}
\sum_{i=1}^n a_i X_i = 0$$ and $$\label{eq: non-equal sums}
\sum_{i=1}^n a_i \not = 0,$$
then $X^{h} $ is not a color process for any $ h > 0 $.
Any $n$-dimensional standard Gaussian vector which is not fully dimensional can be represented by points on $\mathbb{S}^{n-2}$. When the $n$ points are [*not*]{} in general position, which can only happen if $n\ge 4$, in which case the above result is not applicable, we will see in Corollary \[corollary: n=2 and h large\] that nonetheless $X^h$ is not a color process for large $h$. Perhaps the simplest example of a four-dimensional Gaussian vector which is not fully dimensional but does not correspond to points on $\mathbb{S}^{2}$ in general position appears in Figure \[figure: ball and plane\]. In the next subsection, we will see in Theorem \[theorem: 4pointsoncircle\] that this case will lead us to an important example for which we will have a phase transition.
We will first observe that the second statement implies the first. One can order the $n$ points $\mathbf{x}_1,\ldots,\mathbf{x}_n \in \mathbb{S}^{n-2}$ in general position such that the first $n-1$ points are linearly independent. This implies that the corresponding Gaussian vector $X=(X_1,\ldots,X_n)$ satisfies the first condition. Next, since $\mathbf{x}_1,\ldots,\mathbf{x}_n$ are linearly dependent (as they sit inside $\mathbb{R}^{n-1}$) there exists $ (a_1,a_2,\ldots, a_n) \in \mathbb{R}^n \backslash \{ 0 \} $ such that $$\sum_{i=1}^n a_i \mathbf{x}_i=0$$ which implies . Finally must hold since $\mathbf{x}_1,\ldots,\mathbf{x}_n$ are in general position.
For the second statement, note first that we can assume that $ |a_i| > 0 $ for $ i = 1,2, \ldots, n $ since we can remove the $X_i$’s for which $a_i=0$. If $ a_j > 0 $ for all $ j $ (with a similar argument if $ a_j < 0 $ for all $ j $), then for all $h>0$, $ \nu_{1^n}(h) = 0 $ in which case there clearly cannot be any color representation. We hence assume that there are both positive and negative values among the $a_j$’s. Furthermore since $ \sum_{i = 1 }^n a_i X_i = 0 $ and $ (X_1,X_2, \ldots, X_{n-1} )$ is fully supported, for any $ i $, if we define $ I_i = \{ 1,2, \ldots, n \}\backslash \{ i \} $, then the vector $ (X_j)_{j \in I_i} $ is fully supported. This implies in particular that we, possibly after reordering the random variables and changing all the signs, can assume that $$\sum_{i \colon a_i > 0} |a_i| < \sum_{j \colon a_j<0} |a_j|$$ and that $ a_n > 0 $.
Fix now $h>0$. Now define the binary string $ \rho $ by $ \rho(i) = I(a_i <0) $ and let $ \mathcal{E} $ be the event that $$\forall j<n \colon X_j > h \text{ if } a_j < 0 \textnormal{ and } X_j \le h \text{ if } a_j > 0 .$$ Since $ (X_1,X_2,\ldots, X_{n-1}) $ is fully supported, the probability of the event $ \mathcal{E} $ is strictly positive. Since $$\sum_{i \colon a_i > 0} |a_i| X_i = \sum_{j \colon a_j<0} |a_j| X_j,$$ this implies that on $\mathcal{E} $, $$\begin{aligned}
X_n &= \frac{-\sum_{j<n} a_jX_j}{a_n}
= \frac{\sum_{j<n \colon a_j < 0} |a_j|X_j}{a_n} - \frac{\sum_{j<n \colon a_j > 0} |a_j|X_j}{a_n}
\\&
\geq h \cdot \left( \frac{\sum_{j<n \colon a_j < 0} |a_j|}{a_n} - \frac{\sum_{j<n \colon a_j > 0} |a_j|}{a_n} \right) > h\end{aligned}$$ which in particular implies that $ \nu_\rho = 0 $.
On the other hand, since $ (X_1,X_2,\ldots, X_{n-1}) $ is fully supported, the event $$\forall j < n \colon X_j \in [\alpha h, h] \textnormal{ if } a_j < 0 \textnormal{ and } X_j \in (h, \beta h] \textnormal{ if } a_j>0$$ has strictly positive probability for any $ \alpha \in (0,1) $ and $ \beta \in (1,\infty) $. On this event we have that $$\begin{aligned}
X_n &= \frac{\sum_{j <n \colon a_j<0} |a_j| X_j - \sum_{i <n\colon a_i > 0} |a_i| X_i }{a_n}
\\&\geq h \cdot \frac{\alpha \sum_{j <n \colon a_j<0} |a_j| - \beta \sum_{i <n\colon a_i > 0} |a_i| }{a_n}.\end{aligned}$$ Since $$\sum_{j <n \colon a_j<0} |a_j| - \sum_{i <n\colon a_i > 0} |a_i| > a_n$$ it follows that $ X_n > h $ if $ \alpha $ and $ \beta $ are both sufficiently close to one. In particular, this implies that $ \nu_{-\rho} > 0 $. Since $ \nu_\rho = 0 $ but $ \nu_{-\rho} > 0 $, it follows that $ X^h $ cannot have a color representation.
![The picture above shows the three points $ \mathbf{x}_1 $, $ \mathbf{x}_2 $ and $ \mathbf{x}_3 $ corresponding to a mean zero variance one Gaussian vector with $ a_{12} = a_{23} = 0.2 $ and $ a_{13} = 0.2^2 $. The bold black lines are the positions where we could add a fourth point $ \mathbf{x}_4 $ without the existence of a color representation for some $ h > 0 $ being ruled out by Theorem \[theorem: geometric restrictions\].[]{data-label="figure: ball and plane"}](ball_and_plane){width="80.00000%"}
A four-dimensional Gaussian exhibiting a non-trivial phase transition
---------------------------------------------------------------------
In this subsection we will study an example, corresponding to four points on $ \mathbb{S}^2 $, for which the existence of a color representation for positive $ h $ is not ruled out by Theorem \[theorem: geometric restrictions\]. To this end, let $ \theta \in (0,\pi/2] $ and define $ \mathbf{x}_1, \mathbf{x}_2, \mathbf{x}_3, \mathbf{x}_4 \in \mathbb{S}^2 $ by $$\begin{cases}
\mathbf{x}_1 = (\sin \theta, 0, \cos \theta) \cr
\mathbf{x}_2 = (0, \sin \theta, \cos \theta) \cr
\mathbf{x}_3 = (-\sin \theta, 0, \cos \theta) \cr
\mathbf{x}_4 = (0, -\sin \theta, \cos \theta) \cr
\end{cases}$$ and for $i=1,2,3,4$, let $ X_i = \mathbf{x}_i\cdot W$, where $ W \sim N(0,I_3) $. Then $ X \sim N(0,A) $ for $$\label{eq: A def}
A = \begin{pmatrix}
1 & \cos^2 \theta & \cos^2 \theta - \sin^2 \theta & \cos^2 \theta \\
\cos^2 \theta & 1 & \cos^2 \theta & \cos^2 \theta - \sin^2 \theta \\
\cos^2 \theta - \sin^2 \theta & \cos^2 \theta & 1 & \cos^2 \theta \\
\cos^2 \theta & \cos^2 \theta - \sin^2 \theta & \cos^2 \theta & 1
\end{pmatrix}.$$ Geometrically, this corresponds to having four points in a square on a 2-sphere at the same latitude, and it follows easily that $$\label{equation: square}
X_1 + X_3 = X_2 + X_4.$$ Note that $ A $ has nonnegative entries if and only if $ \theta \leq \pi/4 $.
The following theorem implies Theorem \[theorem:pt\].
\[theorem: 4pointsoncircle\] Let $ X^\theta $ be a Gaussian vector with covariance matrix given by . Then
(i) $ X^{\theta,0} $ is a color process for all $ \theta \in (0,\pi/4] $,
(ii) there is $ \theta_0 > 0 $ such that for all $ \theta<\theta_0 $, there exists $ h_\theta>0 $ such that $ X^{\theta,h} $ is a color process for all $ h \in (0, h_{\theta}) $.
(iii) for all $ \theta \in (0,\pi/4 ) $, there is $ h_\theta > 0 $ such that $ X^{\theta,h} $ has no color representation for any $ h > h_\theta $.
\[lemma: 4pointsoncirclelemma\] Let $ X^\theta $ be a Gaussian vector with covariance matrix given by . Then for all $h$, $ X^{\theta,h} $ has a color representation if and only if there is a color representation of $ (X^{\theta,h}_1,X^{\theta,h}_2,X^{\theta,h}_3) $ which satisfies $$\label{eq: necessary and sufficient inequalities}
\begin{cases}
q_{123} \geq q_{13,2} \geq 0\cr
2q_{12,3} - 2q_{13,2}\geq q_{1,2,3} \geq 0 .
\end{cases}$$
Fix $ h \ge 0 $ and assume first that there is a color representation $ (q_\sigma) $ (the dependence on $h$ will be suppressed) of $ (\nu^h_\rho)$. Since the distribution of $ X^\theta $ is invariant under the action of the dihedral group, we can assume that $ (q_\sigma) $ also is. Note that it follows from that $ \nu_{0101} = 0 $ , and hence $ \nu_{010\cdot} = \nu_{0100}$. In particular, this implies that $$\label{eq: reduced solution zeros}
q_{1,2,3,4} = q_{13,2,4} = q_{1,24,3} = q_{13,24} = 0,$$ and using this, we obtain (using the assumed symmetry) $$\label{eq: reduced solution}
\begin{cases}
q_{1234} = q_{123} - q_{123,4} = q_{123}-q_{13,4}= q_{123}-q_{13,2} \cr
q_{123,4} = q_{13,4} = q_{13,2} \cr
q_{12,3,4} = q_{2,3,4} - q_{14,2,3} = q_{1,2,3}-q_{12,3,4} = q_{1,2,3}/2\cr
q_{12,34} = q_{12,3} - q_{124,3} - q_{12,3,4} = q_{12,3} - q_{13,2} - q_{1,2,3}/2.
\end{cases}$$ Since this is a color representation by assumption, $ q_\sigma \geq 0 $ for all $ \sigma $, which is equivalent to . This proves the necessity in the first part of the lemma.
To see that we also have sufficiency, let $ q=( q_{123}, q_{12,3},q_{13,2}, q_{1,23}, q_{1,2,3}) $ be a color representation of $ (X_1^{\theta,h},X_2^{\theta,h},X_3^{\theta,h}) $ which satisfies the inequalities in . Define $ q_{\sigma} $ for $ \sigma \in \mathcal{B}_4 $ by and and extend to all partitions by making it invariant under the dihedral group. Since holds, $ q_{\sigma} \geq 0 $ for all $ \sigma \in \mathcal{P}_4 $. Also, one checks that they sum to one and the projection onto $\{1,2,3\}$ is $q$ above. Using the fact that $ \nu_{010\cdot} = \nu_{0100} $, one can check that the probability of any configuration is determined by the three–dimensional marginals. From here, one verifies that this yields a color representation of $ X^{\theta,h} $, as desired.
To see that (i) holds, let $ h = 0 $. We will apply Lemma \[lemma: 4pointsoncirclelemma\]. Then one easily verifies that the process $ (X^{\theta,0}_1, X^{\theta,0}_2, X^{\theta,0}_3 ) $ has a *signed* color representation given by $$\begin{cases}
q_{123} &= 1 - 4 (\nu_{001} + \nu_{010} + \nu_{100}) + t \cr
q_{12,3} &= 4\nu_{001} - t \cr
q_{1,23} &= 4\nu_{100} - t \cr
q_{13,2} &= 4\nu_{010} - t \cr
q_{1,2,3} &= 2t
\end{cases}$$ for some free variable $ t \in \mathbb{R}$. This will give a color representation for all $ t $ which is such that $ q_\sigma \geq 0 $ for all $ \sigma \in \mathcal{B}_3 $. Using and , one easily verifies that in a Gaussian setting, the set of equations above can equivalently be written as $$\begin{cases}
q_{123} &= 1 - \frac{\theta_{12} + \theta_{13} + \theta_{23}}{\pi} + t\cr
q_{12,3} &= \frac{(\theta_{12} + \theta_{13} + \theta_{23})-2\theta_{12}}{\pi} - t\cr
q_{1,23} &= \frac{(\theta_{12} + \theta_{13} + \theta_{23})-2\theta_{23}}{\pi} - t\cr
q_{13,2} &= \frac{(\theta_{12} + \theta_{13} + \theta_{23})-2\theta_{13}}{\pi} - t\cr
q_{1,2,3} &= 2t.
\end{cases}$$ Rearranging, we see that these are all nonnegative if and only if $$\label{eq: inequality in square example}
0 \lor \left( \frac{\sum_{i\neq j} \theta_{ij}}{\pi} -1 \right)
\leq t
\leq \frac{\sum_{i\neq j} \theta_{ij}-2(\theta_{12} \lor \theta_{13} \lor \theta_{23})}{\pi}.$$ In our specific example, we have that $$\begin{cases}
\theta_{12} = \theta_{23} = \arccos \cos^2 \theta \cr
\theta_{13} = 2\theta \geq \theta_{12}
\end{cases}$$ and hence simplifies to $$0 \lor \left(\frac{2 \arccos \cos^2 \theta + 2\theta}{\pi} -1\right) \leq t \leq \frac{2\arccos \cos^2 \theta - 2 \theta}{\pi}.$$ Similarly, we can rewrite as
$$\begin{cases}
t \geq \frac{\sum_{i\neq j} \theta_{ij} - \theta_{13} - \pi/2}{\pi} = \frac{2 \arccos \cos^2 \theta - \pi/2}{\pi} \cr
t \leq \frac{2(\theta_{13} - \theta_{12})}{\pi} = \frac{2(2\theta - \arccos \cos^2\theta )}{\pi} .
\end{cases}$$ If we put these sets of inequalities together, and use that $ \theta \in (0,\pi/4] $, we obtain the following necessary and sufficient condition for the existence of such a $ t $: $$0 \lor \frac{2 \arccos \cos^2 \theta - \pi/2}{\pi} \leq \frac{2\arccos \cos^2 \theta - 2 \theta}{\pi} \land \frac{2(2\theta - \arccos \cos^2\theta )}{\pi} .$$ Here it is easy to verify that $$0 \lor \frac{2 \arccos \cos^2 \theta - \pi/2}{\pi} \leq \frac{2\arccos \cos^2 \theta - 2 \theta}{\pi}$$ and that $$0 \leq \frac{2(2\theta - \arccos \cos^2\theta )}{\pi}$$ and hence to see that we can always pick $ t $ so that the above inequalities hold it suffices to show that $$\frac{2 \arccos \cos^2 \theta - \pi/2}{\pi} \leq \frac{2(2\theta - \arccos \cos^2\theta )}{\pi}$$ for all $ \theta \in (0,\pi/4] $. To this end, note first that we can rewrite the inequality above as $$\arccos \cos^2 \theta - \theta \leq \pi/8 .$$ This can be verified to hold for all $ \theta \in (0, \pi/4] $ by verifying that the left hand side is increasing in $ \theta $ for $ \theta \in (0,\pi/4] $ and noting that $$\arccos \cos^2 (\pi/4) - \pi/4 = \arccos({1}/{2}) - \pi/4 = \pi/3 - \pi/4 = \pi/12 \leq \pi/8.$$ The desired conclusion now follows.
To see that (ii) holds, note first that by Theorem \[theorem: small h\] and a computation, the value of the free parameter $ t $ corresponding to the limit of $h \to 0 $ is given by $$t = 1 -\frac{\arccos \left( \frac{ 2\sin^4\theta}{(1+\cos^2 \theta)^2 }-1\right)}{\pi} .$$ Using the proof of (i), it follows that it suffices to show that $$\frac{2 \arccos \cos^2 \theta - \pi/2}{\pi} < 1 -\frac{\arccos \left( \frac{ 2\sin^4\theta}{(1+\cos^2 \theta)^2 }-1\right)}{\pi} < \frac{2(2\theta - \arccos \cos^2\theta )}{\pi}$$ for all sufficiently small $ \theta $. To this end, note first that at $ \theta = 0 $ the first expression is equal to $ -1/2 $ while the second and third expression are both equal to zero, and hence the first inequality is strict for all sufficiently small $ \theta $. To compare the last two expressions, one verifies that the derivatives of these two expressions at $ \theta = 0 $ are given by $ 0 $ and $ 4-2\sqrt{2}$ respectvely, and hence (ii) is established.
Finally, (iii) follows from Corollary \[corollary: n=2 and h large\].
A four-dimensional Gaussian with nonnegative correlations whose zero threshold has no color representation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this subsection, we study a particular example which will in particular yield a proof of Theorem \[theorem:4d0threshold\]; see (ii) and (iii) below.
\[theorem: symmetric plus mean\] Let $ (X_1, X_2, \ldots, X_{n-1}) $ be a fully symmetric multivariate mean zero variance one Gaussian random vector with pairwise correlation $ a \in [0,1) $, and let $$X_{n} = (X_1+X_2+\ldots + X_{n-1})/\sqrt{a(n-1)^2+(1-a)(n-1)}.$$ ensuring that $X_{n}$ has mean zero and variance one. In addition, nonnegative pairwise correlations is immediate to check. If $ X^a\coloneqq (X_1, X_2, \ldots, X_{n}) $, then the following hold.
(i) When $ n = 3 $, $ X^{a,0} $ is a color process for any $ a \in [0,1) $.
(ii) When $ n \geq 4 $ and $ a $ is sufficiently close to zero (or zero), $ X^{a,0} $ is not a color process.
(iii) For $n\ge 4$, there exists a fully supported multivariate mean zero variance one Gaussian random variable $X$ with nonnegative correlations for which $X^0$ is not a color process.
(iv) When $ n \geq 4 $ and $ a $ is sufficiently close to one, $ X^{a,0} $ is a color process.
(v) For any $ n \geq 3 $, $ a \in [0,1) $ and $ h > 0 $, $ X^{a,h} $ is not a color process.
(i). The claim for $ n = 3 $ follows immediately from Proposition \[proposition: k = 2, h = 0\] or Proposition 2.12 in [@st2017].
(ii). We first consider $ n \geq 4 $ and $a=0$ and obtain the result in this case. If $X^0$ is a color process, then it must be the case that the color representation gives weight $1/(n-1)$ to each of the $n-1$ partitions which consist of all singletons except $n$ is in a block of size 2. This is because (1) since $X_1,X_2,\dots,X_{n-1}$ are independent, none of $1,2,\ldots,n-1$ can ever be in the same cluster, (2) if $n$ is in its own cluster with positive probability, then $\nu_{0^{n-1}1} >0$ which contradicts the fact that $X_1,X_2,\ldots,X_{n-1}$ all negative and $X_n$ positive is impossible and (3) symmetry. On the other hand, by , each of the above partition elements must have value $1 - \frac{2\arccos \frac{1}{\sqrt{n-1}}}{\pi}$. The conclusion is that if it is a color process, then $$\frac{1}{n-1}=1 - \frac{2\arccos \frac{1}{\sqrt{n-1}}}{\pi}.$$ This is true for $n=3$ (as it must be) but we show this is false for all $n\ge 4$. Rearranging, this is equivalent to $$\label{eq: necc.cond}
\frac{\pi}{2} \cdot \frac{n-2}{n-1} = \arcsin\sqrt{ \frac{n-2 }{n-1} } .$$ Now consider the two functions $ f(x) = \pi x^2/2 $ and $ g(x) = \arcsin x $ for $ x \in [0,1] $. Then we clearly have $ f(0) = g(0) $ and $ f(1)=g(1) $. Moreover, one can easily check that both functions are continuously differentiable, that their first derivatives agree only at $ x = \sqrt{\frac{1}{2} \pm \frac{\sqrt{\pi^2-4}}{2\pi}} $ (i.e. at $ x \approx 0.338247$ and $ x \approx 0.941057 $) and that $ f'(0) = 0 < 1 = g'(0) $ and $ f'(1) = \pi < \infty = g'(1) $. This easily implies that $\{x: f(x)> g(x)\} $ is of the form $(b,1)$. Hence we need only check that fails for $n=4$ with the left side being larger. However, this is immediate to check. Finally, to obtain the result for small $a$ depending on $n$, one just uses the fact that the set of color processes is closed.
(iii). Fix $n\ge 4$, take $a=0$ and replace $X_n$ by $X'_n\coloneqq \epsilon Z + (1-\epsilon^2)^{ {1}/{2}}X_n$ where $Z$ is another standard Gaussian independent of everything else. Then for every $\epsilon>0$, the resulting vector $X$ is fully supported with nonnegative correlations. However, for small $\epsilon$, $X^0$ cannot be a color process since the color processes are closed and the limit as $\epsilon\rightarrow 0$ is not a color process by (ii).
For (iv), note that by the proof of Theorem 1.2 in [@fs2019b], a sufficient condition for a $ \{ 0,1 \} $-symmetric process to be a color process is that $ \nu_{0^n} \geq 1/4 $. In our case, we clearly have that for any $ n $, $ \nu_{0^n} \to {1}/{2} $ as $ a \to 1 $, and hence the desired conclusion follows.
Finally for (v), with $ n \geq 3 $, $ a \in [0,1) $ and $ h > 0 $, this follows immediately from Theorem \[theorem: geometric restrictions\].
An extension to the stable case {#section: integrals}
--------------------------------
In this subsection, we explain to which extent the results in the previous subsection can be carried out for the stable case. We assume now that $ X_1$, $X_2$, …, $X_{n-1} $ are i.i.d. each with distribution $S_\alpha(1,0,0)$ for some $\alpha\in (0,2)$ and we let $$X_{n} = (X_1+X_2+\ldots + X_{n-1})/(n-1)^{1/\alpha}$$ and $ X\coloneqq (X_1, X_2, \ldots, X_{n}) $.
Proposition 2.12 in [@st2017] implies, as before, that when $ n = 3 $, $ X^{0} $ is a color process (the $ \{ 0,1 \} $-symmetry is obvious and the nonnegative correlations being an easy consequence of Harris’ inequality). Concerning whether $ X^{h} $ can be a color process for some $ n \ge 3 $ and $ h > 0 $, Theorem \[theorem: geometric restrictions\] implies that it cannot be [*except*]{} perhaps when $\alpha=1$. For $ n \geq 4 $ it seems, by using similar arguments and Mathematica, that $ X^0 $ is a color process for at most one value of $ \alpha $.
Results for large thresholds and the discrete Gaussian free field {#section:nonzerogaussian}
=================================================================
In the first subsection of this section, we show that non-fully supported Gaussian vectors do not have color representations for large $h$. On the other hand, in the second subsection, we give the proof of Theorem \[theorem: strict dgff and large h\] that discrete Gaussian free fields (DGFF) have color representations for large $h$.
An obstruction for large h
--------------------------
We first deal with the case $ n = 2 $, where we have the following easy result.
\[theorem: h to infinity\] Let $ X \coloneqq (X_1,X_2) $ be a standard Gaussian vector with\
$ \operatorname{Cov}(X_1,X_2) \in [0,1) $. Then $ X^{h} $ has a (unique) color representation $(q_\sigma)_{\sigma \in \mathcal{B}_2}$ for all $ h \in \mathbb{R} $ and $ \lim_{h \to \infty} q_{12}(h) =0 $.
This result essentially follows from Theorem 2.1 in [@dm2001] (see also Lemma \[lemma: Gaussian cube tails II\] here) but we include a proof sketch here.
Note first that since $ n = 2 $, the nonnegative correlation immediately implies that $ X^h $ has a color representation for all $ h \in \mathbb{R} $, and hence we need only show that $ \lim_{h \to \infty} q_{12}(h) =0 $. Since it can be easily checked that $$q_{12}(h)= \frac{\nu_{11}(h)-\nu_1(h)^2}{\nu_0(h)\nu_1(h)}$$ we need to show that $$\label{eq: q12 limit}
\lim_{h \to \infty} {\nu_{11}(h)}/{\nu_1(h)} = 0;$$ this however is straighforward.
The previous result immediately implies the following.
\[corollary: h large limit\] If $ X \coloneqq (X_1, X_2, \ldots, X_n) $ is a standard Gaussian vector with $ \operatorname{Cov}(X_i,X_j) \in [0,1) $ for all $ i <j $ and $ X^{h} $ has a color representation $ (q_\sigma)_{\sigma \in \mathcal{B}_n} $ for arbitrarily large $ h $, then $$\lim_{h \to \infty} q_{1,2,3,\ldots, n} (h) =1.$$
Interestingly, this gives the following negative result when $ X $ is not fully dimensional.
\[corollary: n=2 and h large\] Let $ (X_1, X_2, \ldots, X_n) $ be a standard Gaussian vector with\
$ \operatorname{Cov}(X_i,X_j) \in [0,1) $ for all $ i <j $. If $ X $ is not fully supported, then for all sufficiently large $ h $, $ X^h $ is not a color process.
Since $ X $ is not fully dimensional, there must exist a linear relationship between the variables. As a result, there must exist $\rho\in \{0,1\}^n$ so that for all $h>0$, $\nu_\rho(h)=0$. Hence, if there is a color representation $ (q_\sigma(h)) $ for some $ h $, it must satisfy $q_{1,2,\ldots,n }(h)=0$. The desired conclusion now follows from Corollary \[corollary: h large limit\].
Discrete Gaussian free fields and large thresholds {#subsection:DGFFlargeh}
--------------------------------------------------
In this section, our main goal will be to prove Theorem \[theorem: strict dgff and large h\]. Note that all our random vectors in this section will be fully supported which we know is anyway necessary in view of Corollary \[corollary: n=2 and h large\].
We first note the following corollaries of Theorem \[theorem: strict dgff and large h\].
Let $ a \in (0,1) $ and let $ X \coloneqq (X_1,X_2, \ldots, X_n) $ be a standard Gaussian vector with $ \operatorname{Cov}(X_i,X_j) = a^{} $ for all $ i<j $. Then $ X^h $ is a color process for all sufficiently large $ h$.
Let $ A $ be the covariance matrix of $ X $. Then one verifies that for $ i,j \in [n] $ we have $$A^{-1}(i,j) =
\begin{cases}
\frac{1+(n-2)a}{(1-a)(1+(n-1)a)} &\text{if } i = j \cr
\frac{-a}{(1-a)(1+(n-1)a)} &\text{if } i \not = j .
\end{cases}$$ Consequently, $ A $ is an inverse Stieltjes matrix. Moreover, for all $ j \in [n] $ we have that $$\mathbf{1}^T A^{-1}(j) = \frac{1}{1+(n-1)a}.$$ and hence $ \mathbf{1}^T A^{-1} > \mathbf{0} $. Applying Theorem \[theorem: strict dgff and large h\], the desired conclusion follows.
Let $ a \in (0,1) $ and let $ X \coloneqq (X_1,X_2, \ldots, X_n) $ be a standard Gaussian vector with $ \operatorname{Cov}(X_i,X_j) = a^{|i-j|} $ for all $ i,j \in [n] $, yielding a Markov chain. Then $ X^h $ is a color process for all sufficiently large $ h$.
Let $ A $ be the covariance matrix of $ X $. Then one verifies that for $ i,j \in [n] $ we have $$A^{-1}(i,j) =
\begin{cases}
\frac{1}{1-a^2} &\text{if } i = j \in \{ 1,n \} \cr
\frac{1+a^2}{1-a^2} &\text{if } i = j \not \in \{ 1,n \} \cr
\frac{-a}{1-a^2} &\text{if } |i-j|=1 \cr
0&\text{otherwise.}
\end{cases}$$ Consequently, $ A $ is an inverse Stieltjes matrix. Moreover, for all $ j \in [n] $ we have that $$\mathbf{1}^T A^{-1}(j) = \begin{cases} \frac{1}{1+a} &\text{if } j \in \{ 1,n \} \cr
\frac{1-a}{1+a} &\text{if } j \not \in \{ 1,n \}
\end{cases}$$ and hence $ \mathbf{1}^T A^{-1} > \mathbf{0} $. Applying Theorem \[theorem: strict dgff and large h\], the desired conclusion follows.
We now state and prove a few lemmas that will be needed in the proof of Theorem \[theorem: strict dgff and large h\]. The first of these will give sufficient conditions for $ X^h $ to be a color process for large $ h $ in terms of the decay of the tails of $ \nu(1^S) $ for sets $ S $.
\[lemma: solution sim lemma\] Let $ (\nu_p)_{p \in (0,1)} $ be a family of probability measures on $ \{ 0,1\}^n $. Assume that $ \nu_p $ has marginals $ p\delta_1 + (1-p) \delta_0 $ and that for all $ S \subseteq [n] $ with $ |S| \ge 2 $ and all $ k \in S $, as $ p \to 0 $, we have that $$\label{eq: the main assumption}
p \nu_p(1^{S \backslash \{ k \}}) \ll \nu_p(1^S) \asymp \nu_p(1^S 0 ^{S^c})$$ and $$\label{eq: the main assumption ii}
\lim_{p \to 0} \sum_{S \subseteq [n] \colon |S| \geq 2} \frac{ \nu_p(1^S0^{S^c}) }{p}< 1 .$$ Then $ X_p \sim \nu_p $ is a color process for all sufficiently small $ p > 0 $.
\[lemma: subset of DGFF is DGFF\] Let $ X \coloneqq (X_1,X_2, \ldots, X_n) $ be a standard Gaussian vector with strictly positive, positive definite covariance matrix $ A $. Assume further that $ A $ is an inverse Stieltjes matrix and that $ \mathbf{1}^T A^{-1} \geq \mathbf{0 }$. Then for each $ S \subseteq [n] $, the covariance matrix $ A_S $ of $ X_S \coloneqq (X_i)_{i \in S} $ is a strictly positive, positive definite inverse Stieltjes matrix with $ \mathbf{1}^T A_S^{-1} \geq \mathbf{0} $.
The main part of the proof of this lemma consists of showing that if the weak Savage condition holds for a matrix $ A $ which is an inverse Stieltjes matrix, then the weak Savage condition will also hold for any principal submatrix. Without the additional assumption that $ A $ is an inverse Stieltjes matrix, this will not be true. To see this, take e.g. $$A =
\begin{pmatrix}
1& 0.81 & 0.51& 0.4 \\
0.81 & 1& 0.3& 0.5 \\
0.51 &0.3& 1& 0.5 \\
0.4& 0.5& 0.5& 1\\
\end{pmatrix}.$$ One can verify that $ A $ is a positive definite matrix for which the Savage condition holds, but that the Savage condition does not hold for the principal submatrix corresponding to the first three rows and columns.
Lemma \[lemma: subset of DGFF is DGFF\] essentially proves that if $ X $ is a DGFF, then for any $ S \subseteq [n] $, $ X_S \coloneqq (X_i)_{i \in S} $ is also a DGFF.
By induction, it suffices to show that the conclusion of the lemma holds for $ S $ of the form $ [n] \backslash \{ k \} $ for some $ k \in [n] $. To this end, fix $ k \in [n] $. Clearly, $ A_{[n]\backslash \{ k \}} $ is a positive and positive definite matrix. By a lemma on page 328 in [@m1972], $ A_{[n]\backslash \{ k \}} $ is also an inverse Stieltjes matrix. Next, let $ (b_{ij}) \coloneqq A^{-1} $. Since $ A $ is positive definite, so is $ A^{-1} $, and hence $ b_{kk} = e_k^T A^{-1} e_k > 0 $. Next, since $ b_{kk} >0 $, for $ i,j\in [n] \backslash \{ k \} $, it is well known that $$A_{[n] \backslash \{ k \}}^{-1} (i,j) = b_{ij} - \frac{b_{ik}b_{jk}}{b_{kk}}$$ and hence for $j\neq k$ $$\label{eq: Savage equalities}
\begin{split}
\mathbf{1}^T A^{-1}_{[n] \backslash \{ k \}}(j)&= \sum_{i \in [n] \backslash \{ k \}} \left( b_{ij} - \frac{b_{ik}b_{jk}}{b_{kk}} \right)
= \sum_{i \in [n] } \left( b_{ij} - \frac{b_{ik}b_{jk}}{b_{kk}} \right)
\\&=
\frac{ \left( \sum_{i \in [n] } b_{ij}\right) b_{kk}- \left( \sum_{i \in [n] } b_{ik}\right) b_{jk} }{b_{kk}}
\\&=
\frac{\mathbf{1}^T A^{-1}(j) b_{kk}- \mathbf{1}^TA^{-1}(k)b_{jk} }{b_{kk}}
\\&=
\mathbf{1}^T A^{-1}(j) -
\frac{\mathbf{1}^TA^{-1}(k)b_{jk} }{b_{kk}}.
\end{split}$$ Since $ b_{jk} \leq 0 $, $ b_{kk}>0 $ and $ \mathbf{1}^T A^{-1}(k) \geq 0$ , we obtain the inequality $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{1}^T A^{-1}_{[n] \backslash \{ k \}}(j) \geq
\mathbf{1}^T A^{-1}(j) .\end{aligned}$$ Since this holds for all $ j \neq k $, the desired conclusion follows.
The following lemma, which collects special cases of Theorems 2.1 and 2.2 in [@dm2001] and Theorem 3.1 in [@h2005], will be needed here and in addition in the proof of some lemmas used in the proof of Theorem \[theorem: Gaussian critical 3d\]
\[lemma: Gaussian cube tails II\] Let $ X $ be a fully supported $n $-dimensional standard Gaussian vector with positive definite covariance matrix $ A = (a_{ij})$. If the vector $ \alpha \coloneqq \mathbf{1}^T A^{-1} $ has no zero component, then as $ h \to \infty $ one has that $$\nu_{(I(\alpha(i)>0))_i}(h) \sim \frac{1}{(2\pi)^{n/2} \sqrt{\det A} \cdot (\prod_{i=1}^n |\alpha(i)|) \cdot h^n} \cdot \exp\left( -\frac{h^2}{2} \cdot \mathbf{1}^T A^{-1} \mathbf{1}\right).$$ Furthermore if $ \mathbf{1}^T A^{-1} (1) = 0$ , then $$\lim_{h \to \infty} \frac{\nu_{1^{n}}(h)}{\nu_{\cdot 1^{n-1}}(h)} = \frac{1}{2}.$$
We note that if $ n = 3 $, then assuming $\alpha(1) \le \alpha(2) \le \alpha(3)$, then it is immediate to check that $\alpha(2)$ and $\alpha(3)$ are strictly positive, while $\alpha(1)$ can be negative, zero or positive.
\[lemma: conditions hold for DGFF\] Let $ X \coloneqq (X_1,X_2, \ldots, X_n) $ be a standard Gaussian vector with positive, positive definite covariance matrix $ A $ which is an inverse Stieltjes matrix and satisfies $ \mathbf{1}^T A^{-1} \geq \mathbf{0} $. Then for any $ S \subseteq [n] $ with $ |S|\ge 2$ and $ k \in S $, as $ h \to \infty $, we have $$\label{eq: three cases for DGFF}
p \nu_h(1^{S \backslash \{ k \}}) \ll \nu_h(1^S) \asymp \nu_h(1^S 0^{[n] \backslash S}) .$$
Let $ S \subseteq [n] $ and define $ X_S \coloneqq (X_i)_{i \in S } $. Let $ A_S $ be the covariance matrix of $ X_S $. By Lemma \[lemma: subset of DGFF is DGFF\], the matrix $ A_S $ is a strictly positive, positive definite inverse Stieltjes matrix which satisfies $ \mathbf{1}^T A^{-1}_S \geq \mathbf{0} $. To simplify notation, let $ (a_{ij}^{(S)}) \coloneqq A_S$ and $ (b_{ij}^{(S)}) \coloneqq A_S^{-1} $ . The rest of the proof of this lemma will be divided into several steps
#### Step 1.
Fix $ S \subseteq [n] $ with $ |S| \ge 2 $ and $ k \in S $. In this step, we will prove the inequality $$\label{eq: goal in first step}
b_{kk}^{(S)} > \Biggl( \sum_{i \in S } b_{ki}^{(S)} \Biggr)^2$$ or equivalently $$\label{eq: goal in first stepequiv}
\sum_{i \in S } b_{ki}^{(S)} > \Biggl( \sum_{i \in S } b_{ki}^{(S)} \Biggr)^2 +
\sum_{i \in S \backslash \{ k \}} b_{ki}^{(S)} .$$ To this end, note first that since $ (b_{ij}^{(S)}) $ is the inverse of $ (a_{ij}^{(S)} ) $, we have that $$1 = \sum_{i \in S} a_{ik}^{(S)} b_{ki}^{(S)} .$$ Since $ X $ is a standard Gaussian vector, we have that $ a_{kk}^{(S)} = 1 $ and that $ a_{ki}^{(S)} <1 $ if $ i \in S \backslash \{ k \}$. Moreover, since $ A_S $ is a positive definite inverse Stieltjes matrix by Lemma \[lemma: subset of DGFF is DGFF\], we have that $ b_{kk}^{(S)} >0 $ and that $ b_{ji}^{(S)} \leq 0 $ for $ i \not = j$. In addition, since $ a_{ij}^{(S)} > 0 $ for all $ i,j \in S $, we also obtain that $$\label{eq: neg.sum}
\sum_{i \in S \backslash \{ k \} } b_{ki}^{(S)} <0 .$$ Combining these observations, we have $$1 = \sum_{i \in S} a_{ik}^{(S)} b_{ki}^{(S)} = b_{kk}^{(S)} + \sum_{i \in S \backslash \{ k \} } a_{ik}^{(S)} b_{ki}^{(S)} > b_{kk}^{(S)} + \sum_{i \in S \backslash \{ k \}} b_{ki}^{(S)} \cdot 1 = \sum_{i \in
S} b_{ki}^{(S)} .$$ Since $ \sum_{i \in S} b_{ki}^{(S)} = \mathbf{1}^T A_S^{-1} (k)\geq 0 $, it follows that $$1 > \sum_{i \in S} b_{ki}^{(S)} \geq 0 .$$ This implies in particular that $$\sum_{i \in S} b^{(S)} _{ki} \geq \Biggl( \sum_{i \in S} b_{ki}^{(S)} \Biggr)^2$$ with equality if and only if $ \mathbf{1}^T A_S^{-1} (k) = 0 $. In view of , follows.
#### Step 2.
In this step, we will prove that for all $ S \subseteq [n] $ with $ |S| \ge 2 $ and $ k \in S $, we have $$\label{eq: pos def fors inequality}
\mathbf{1}^T A^{-1}_{S \backslash \{ k \}} \mathbf{1} \leq \mathbf{1}^T A^{-1}_{S } \mathbf{1} < 1+ \mathbf{1}^T A^{-1}_{S \backslash \{ k \}} \mathbf{1}$$ with the first inequality being strict if and only if $ \mathbf{1}^T A^{-1}_{S}(k) > 0 $. To this end, note first that since $ A $ is positive definite, so is $ A_S $ and $ A_{S \backslash \{ k \}} $. So, as before, $ b_{kk}^{(S)} = e_k^T A_S^{-1} e_k > 0 $ and if $ i,j \in S \backslash \{ k \} $ then $$A_{S \backslash \{ k \}}^{-1}(i,j) = b_{ij}^{(S)} - \frac{b_{ik}^{(S)}b_{jk}^{(S)}}{b_{kk}^{(S)}}.$$ Using this, we obtain $$\mathbf{1}^T A^{-1}_{S \backslash \{ k \}} \mathbf{1} = \sum_{i,j \in S \backslash \{ k \}} \Biggl( b_{ij}^{(S)} - \frac{b_{ik}^{(S)}b_{jk}^{(S)}}{b_{kk}^{(S)}} \Biggr)$$ and $$\label{eq: total sum}
\begin{split}
\mathbf{1}^T A_S^{-1} \mathbf{1} &= \sum_{i,j \in S} b_{ij}^{(S)}
\\&= \mathbf{1}^T A^{-1}_{S \backslash \{ k \}} \mathbf{1} + \Biggl( \sum_{i,j \in S \backslash \{ k \}} \frac{b_{ik}^{(S)}b_{jk}^{(S)}}{b_{kk}^{(S)}} \Biggr) + 2 \Biggl( \sum_{i \in S \backslash \{ k \} }b_{ik}^{(S)}\Biggr) +b_{kk}^{(S)}
\\&= \mathbf{1}^T A^{-1}_{S \backslash \{ k \}} \mathbf{1} +\frac{ \left( \sum_{i \in S} b_{ik}^{(S)} \right)^2 }{b_{kk}^{(S)}}.
\end{split}$$ Recalling that $ b_{kk}^{(S)}>0 $ and using the conclusion of Step 1, the desired conclusion follows.
#### Step 3.
For $ S \subseteq [n] $ with $ |S| \ge 2 $, define $ J_S \coloneqq \{ j \in S \colon \mathbf{1}^T A_S^{-1}(j) = 0 \} $. Note that since $ A_S $ is positive definite, we have that $ \mathbf{1}^T A^{-1}_S \mathbf{1} > 0 $ and hence $ J_S \not = S $. In this step, we claim that the following hold for any sets $ S' \subseteq S \subseteq [n] $.
(i) If $ i \in J_S $, then $ J_{ S \backslash \{ i \}} = J_S \backslash \{ i \} $
(ii) $ |S\backslash J_{S}| \ge 2$
(iii) $ J_{S'} \subseteq J_S $
(iv) $ \mathbf{1}^T A^{-1}_{(S \backslash J_{S})\backslash S'} > \mathbf{0}$
(v) The set $ \{ T \subseteq [n] \backslash S \colon T \subseteq J_{S \cup T} \} $ is a power set of some set
To see this, note first that by , for any set $ S \subseteq [n] $ and any distinct $ i,j \in S $ we have that $$\label{eq: Savage equality II}
\mathbf{1}^T A^{-1}_{S \backslash \{ i \}}(j)=
\mathbf{1}^T A_{S}^{-1}(j) -
\mathbf{1}^TA_{S}^{-1}(i) \cdot \frac{b^{(S)}_{ji} }{b^{(S)}_{ii}}.$$ From this (i) immediately follows.
For (ii), one first checks that if $S$ has 2 elements, then $J_S=\emptyset$. For larger $S$, we argue by induction. Take $i\in J_S$. By induction, $ (S\backslash \{ i \}) \backslash (J_{ S \backslash \{ i \}})\ge 2$ which by (i) implies $ (S\backslash \{ i \}) \backslash (J_S \backslash \{ i \})\ge 2$, which yields the result for $S$..
Next, by Lemma \[lemma: subset of DGFF is DGFF\], $ A_{S} $ is an inverse Stieltjes matrix which satisfies $ \mathbf{1}^T A^{-1}_S \geq \mathbf{0} $. In particular, this implies that $ b^{(S)}_{ji} \leq 0 $ and $ \mathbf{1}^T A_S^{-1}(i) \geq 0 $, and hence it follows from that $$\label{eq: Savage grows}
\mathbf{1}^T A^{-1}_{S \backslash \{ i \}}(j) \geq \mathbf{1}^T A_{S}^{-1}(j) \geq 0 ;$$ (iii) follows.
Next, (iv) follows easily from (iii).
We will now show that (v) holds. To simplify notation, let $ \mathcal{Z}_S \coloneqq \{ T \subseteq [n] \backslash S \colon T \subseteq J_{S \cup T} \} $. It suffices to show that if $ T_1, T_2 \in \mathcal{Z}_S$ and $ i \in T_1 $, then
(a) $ T_1 \backslash \{ i \} \in \mathcal{Z}_S $
(b) $ T_2 \cup \{ i \} \in\mathcal{Z}_S $.
To this end, fix $ S \subseteq [n] $, $ T_1, T_2 \in \mathcal{Z}_S$ and $ i \in T_1 $. Since $ T_1 \in \mathcal{Z}_S $, we have that $ T_1 \subseteq [n] \backslash S $ and $ T_1 \subseteq J_{S \cup T_1} $, or equivalently, that $ \mathbf{1}^T A_{S \cup T_1}^{-1}(j) = 0 $ for all $ j \in T_1 $. Since this in particular implies that $ \mathbf{1}^T A_{S \cup T_1}^{-1}(i) = 0 $, using it follows that $ \mathbf{1}^T A_{S \cup T_1\backslash \{ i \}}^{-1}(j) = 0 $ for all $ j \in T_1\backslash \{ i \} $. Since $ T_1 \backslash \{ i \} \subseteq T_1 \subseteq [n]\backslash S $, it follows that $ T_1 \backslash \{ i \} \in \mathcal{Z}_S $, and hence (a) holds. Next, since $ \{ i \} \in T_1 \subseteq [n] \backslash S $ and $ T_2 \subseteq [n] \backslash S $, we clearly have that $ T_2 \cup \{ i \} \subseteq [n] \backslash S $, and hence to prove that (b) holds we need to show exactly that $ \mathbf{1}^T A_{S \cup T_2 \cup \{ i \}}^{-1}(j) = 0$ for all $ j \in T_2 \cup \{ i \}$. For this, fix $ j \in T_2 \cup \{ i \} $ and note that by (a), $ \{ j \} \in \mathcal{Z}_S $, and hence $ \mathbf{1}^T A^{-1}_{S \cup \{ j \}}(j) = 0 $. However, since $ \{ j \} \subseteq T_2 \cup \{ i \} $, by repeated application of , it follows that $$0 = \mathbf{1}^T A^{-1}_{S \cup \{ j \}}(j) \geq
\mathbf{1}^T A_{S\cup T_2 \cup \{ i \}}^{-1}(j) \geq 0$$ and hence $ \mathbf{1}^T A_{S\cup T_2 \cup \{ i \}}^{-1}(j) = 0 $, implying in particular that $ T_2 \cup \{ i \} \in \mathcal{Z}_S $. Ths concludes the proof of (b).
#### Step 4.
In this step, we will now show that for any $ S \subseteq [n] $ with $ |S| \ge 2 $ and $ k \in S $, as $ h \to \infty $, we have that $$p \nu_h(1^{S\backslash \{ k \}}) \ll \nu_h(1^{S}) .$$ To this end, fix $ S \subseteq [n] $ and let $ J_S $ be as in Step 3. By Step 2, for any $ k \in S \backslash J_S $, we have that $$\label{eq: step 4 goal}
\mathbf{1}^T A^{-1}_{S \backslash J_S } \mathbf{1} < 1+ \mathbf{1}^T A^{-1}_{S \backslash (J_S \cup \{ k \})} \mathbf{1}.$$ Since this trivially holds for $ k \in J_S $, it follows that these inequalities in fact hold for all $ k \in S$. Now fix $ k \in S $. By Step 3 (iv) we have that $ \mathbf{1}^T A_{S \backslash J_S}^{-1} > \mathbf{0} $ and $ \mathbf{1}^T A_{S \backslash (J_S\cup \{ k \})}^{-1} > \mathbf{0} $, and hence by applying the first part of Lemma \[lemma: Gaussian cube tails II\] and using , it follows that as $ h \to \infty$, we have $$p \nu_h(1^{S\backslash (J_S \cup \{ k \})}) \ll \nu_h(1^{S\backslash J_S }).
$$ Applying the second part of Lemma \[lemma: Gaussian cube tails II\] several times together with Step 3 (iii), we see that $$\label{eq: needed asymp}
\nu_h(1^{S\backslash J_S }) \sim 2^{|J_S|}\nu_h(1^{S})$$ Using this, it follows that as $ h \to \infty$, $$p \nu_h(1^{S\backslash \{ k \}}) \le p \nu_h(1^{S\backslash (J_S \cup \{ k \})}) \ll \nu_h(1^{S\backslash J_S })
\asymp \nu_h(1^{S})$$ and hence the desired conclusion holds.
#### Step 5.
In this step, we show that for each $ S \subseteq [n] $ with $ |S| \ge 2 $, as $ h \to \infty $, we have that $$\label{eq: step 5 goal}
\nu_h(1^{S}) \asymp \nu_h(1^S0^{ [n] \backslash S}) .$$ To this end, fix $ S \subseteq [n] $. By an inclusion-exclusion argument, we see that $$\nu_h(1^S 0^{ [n] \backslash S}) = \sum_{T \subseteq [n] \backslash S} \nu_h(1^{S \cup T}) (-1)^{|T|}.$$ For each $ T \subseteq [n] \backslash S $, let $ J_{S \cup T} $ be as in Step 3. By applied to $ S \cup T $, it follows that $$\nu_h(1^{S \cup T}) \sim 2^{-|J_{S \cup T}|} \nu_h(1^{(S \cup T)\backslash J_{S \cup T}}).$$ Now note that by and Step 3 (iii), we have that $$\mathbf{1}^T A^{-1}_{(S \cup T)\backslash J_{S \cup T}} \mathbf{1} = \mathbf{1}^T A^{-1}_{S \cup T} \mathbf{1}.$$ and induction now implies that $$\mathbf{1}^T A^{-1}_{(S \cup T)\backslash J_{S \cup T}} \mathbf{1} = \mathbf{1}^T A^{-1}_{S \cup T} \mathbf{1} \geq \mathbf{1}^T A^{-1}_{S} \mathbf{1} = \mathbf{1}^T A^{-1}_{S \backslash J_{S }} \mathbf{1}$$ with equality if and only if $ T \subseteq J_{S \cup T} $. Since by Step 3 (iv) we have that $ \mathbf{1}^T A^{-1}_{(S \cup T)\backslash J_{S \cup T}} > \mathbf{0} $, if we combine these observations and apply Lemma \[lemma: Gaussian cube tails II\], it follows that $$\nu_h(1^S 0^{S^c}) \sim \sum_{T \subseteq S^c \colon T \subseteq J_{S \cup T}} \nu_h(1^{S \cup T}) (-1)^{|T|}
\sim \nu_h(1^{S }) \sum_{T \subseteq S^c \colon T \subseteq J_{S \cup T}} 2^{-|T|} (-1)^{|T|}.$$ By Step 3 (v), the set $ \{ T \subseteq [n] \backslash S \colon T \subseteq J_{S \cup T} \} $ is a power set of some set $ S_0 $. Using this, it follows that $$\sum_{T \subseteq S^c \colon T \subseteq J_{S \cup T}} 2^{-|T|} (-1)^{|T|} = \sum_{T \subseteq S_0} 2^{-|T|} (-1)^{|T|} = (1-2^{-1})^{|S_0|} = 2^{-|S_0|}$$ and hence holds.
Since Step 4 and Step 5 together give the conclusions of the lemma, this concludes the proof.
If we assumed Savage instead of weak Savage, the proof could be somewhat shortened.
We are now ready to give the proof of Theorem \[theorem: strict dgff and large h\].
The covariance matrix for a discrete Gaussian free field is a block matrix with each block satisfying the assumptions of Lemma \[lemma: conditions hold for DGFF\]. Hence, restricting to a box, we have that for all $ S $ within this box with $ |S| \ge 2 $ and for $ k \in S $, we have that $$p \nu_h(1^{S \backslash \{ k \}}) \ll \nu_h(1^S) \asymp \nu_h(1^S 0^{S^c}).$$ The second condition in Lemma \[lemma: solution sim lemma\] trivially holds and hence applying this lemma, we obtain conclude that for large $h$, the threshold Gaussian corresponding to this fixed box is a color process. Since the full process is independent over the different boxes, we easily obtain the desired result for the full process.
General results for small and large thresholds for n=3 in the Gaussian case {#section:smalllarge}
===========================================================================
When $ Y $ is a $ \{ 0,1\} $-valued 3-dimensional random vector, and $ \nu $ is the corresponding probability measure, we know from Theorem 2.1(C) in [@st2017] (see also Theorem 1.4 in [@fs2019b]) that $ Y $ has a unique signed color representation $ (q_\sigma)_{\sigma \in \mathcal{B}_3} $. It is easy to verify that this representation is given by $$\label{eq: gen sol when n is 3 and h is nonzero,h}
\begin{cases}
q_{1,2,3} &= \frac{\nu_{100}-\nu_{011}}{(1-p)p(1-2p)}\cr
q_{12,3} &= \frac{(1-p)\nu_{110}-p \nu_{001}}{(1-p)p(1-2p)}\cr
q_{13,2} &= \frac{(1-p)\nu_{101}-p\nu_{010}}{(1-p)p(1-2p)}\cr
q_{1,23} &= \frac{(1-p)\nu_{011}-p\nu_{100}}{(1-p)p(1-2p)}\cr
q_{123} &= 1-\frac{\nu_1 \nu_{000} - \nu_0\nu_{111}}{(1-p)p(1-2p)}.
\end{cases}$$ This implies in particular that $ Y $ has a color representation if and only if $ (q_\sigma)_{\sigma \in \mathcal{B}_3} $ is non-negative.
h small
-------
Our next result describes the behavior of $ (q_\sigma)_{\sigma \in \mathcal{B}_3} $ when $ Y = X^h $ for a Gaussian vector $ X $, and $ h > 0 $ is small.
\[theorem: small h\] Let $ X $ be a three-dimensional standard Gaussian vector with covariance matrix $ A = (a_{ij}) $ and $ \theta_{ij} \coloneqq \arccos a_{ij} $. Further, let $ (\nu_\rho(h))_{\rho \in \{ 0,1 \}^3} $ be the probability measure corresponding to $ X^h $ and let $ (q_\sigma)_{\sigma \in \mathcal{B}_n } $ be given by . Then $$\label{eq: theorem goal}
\begin{cases}
\lim_{h \to 0} q_{1,2,3}(h) =2 -\frac{2\arccos \left( \frac{ \det A }{\prod_{i<j}(1+a_{ij})}-1\right)}{\pi} \cr
\lim_{h \to 0} q_{12,3}(h) = \frac{\theta_{13} + \theta_{23} - \theta_{12}}{\pi} -1 +\frac{\arccos \left( \frac{ \det A }{\prod_{i<j}(1+a_{ij})}-1\right)}{\pi} \cr
\lim_{h \to 0} q_{13,2}(h) = \frac{\theta_{12} + \theta_{23} - \theta_{13}}{\pi} -1 +\frac{\arccos \left( \frac{ \det A }{\prod_{i<j}(1+a_{ij})}-1\right)}{\pi} \cr
\lim_{h \to 0} q_{1,23}(h) = \frac{\theta_{12} + \theta_{13} - \theta_{23}}{\pi} -1 +\frac{\arccos \left( \frac{ \det A }{\prod_{i<j}(1+a_{ij})}-1\right)}{\pi} \cr
\lim_{h \to 0} q_{123}(h) = 2 - \frac{\theta_{12} + \theta_{13} +\theta_{23}}{\pi}-\frac{\arccos \left( \frac{ \det A }{\prod_{i<j}(1+a_{ij})}-1\right)}{\pi}.
\end{cases}$$
This proof will be divided into two steps.
#### Step 1.
In this step, we will prove that $$\label{eq: first goal}
\begin{cases}
\lim_{h \to 0} q_{1,2,3}(h) =4-\frac{4 \nu_{000}'(0) }{\nu_0'(0)} \cr
\lim_{h \to 0} q_{12,3}(h) = 4\nu_{001}(0) -2+\frac{2 \nu_{000}'(0) }{\nu_0'(0)}\cr
\lim_{h \to 0} q_{13,2}(h) = 4\nu_{010}(0) - 2+\frac{2 \nu_{000}'(0) }{\nu_0'(0)}\cr
\lim_{h \to 0} q_{1,23}(h) = 4\nu_{100}(0) - 2+\frac{2 \nu_{000}'(0) }{\nu_0'(0)}\cr
\lim_{h \to 0} q_{123}(h) = 4\nu_{000}(0)+1-\frac{2 \nu_{000}'(0) }{\nu_0'(0)} .
\end{cases}$$ To this end, note first that by , $$q_{1,2,3}(h)= \frac{\nu_{100}(h)-\nu_{011}(h)}{\nu_0(h)\nu_1(h)(\nu_0(h)-\nu_1(h))}.$$ Since $ \nu_\rho $ is differentiable at zero, it follows that $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{h \to 0} q_{1,2,3}(h) &= \lim_{h \to 0} \frac{\nu_{100}(h)-\nu_{011}(h)}{\nu_0(h)\nu_1(h)(\nu_0(h)-\nu_1(h))}
\\&= 4 \lim_{h \to 0} \frac{\nu_{100}(h)-\nu_{100}(-h)}{2h} \cdot \frac{2h}{\nu_0(h) - \nu_0(-h)}
= \frac{4 \nu_{100}'(0) }{\nu_0'(0)} .\end{aligned}$$ Similarly, again using , one has that $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{h \to 0} q_{12,3}(h) &= \lim_{h \to 0} \frac{\nu_0(h)\nu_{110}(h)-\nu_1(h)\nu_{001}(h)}{\nu_0(h)\nu_1(h)(\nu_0(h)-\nu_1(h))}
\\&= 4 \lim_{h \to 0} \left( \frac{\nu_0(h)\nu_{110}(h)-\nu_0(-h)\nu_{110}(-h)}{2h} \right) \cdot \frac{2h}{\nu_0(h) - \nu_0(-h)}
\\&= 4 \cdot \frac{\nu_0'(0)\nu_{110}(0)+\nu_0(0)\nu'_{110}(0)}{\nu_0'(0)}
=4\nu_{110}(0) + \frac{2\nu'_{110}(0)}{\nu_0'(0)}
\\&=4\nu_{001}(0) - \frac{2\nu'_{001}(0)}{\nu_0'(0)} .\end{aligned}$$ If we can show that $$\label{eq: p00 symmetry}
\nu_{\cdot 00}'(0)= \nu_{ 0\cdot0}'(0)=\nu_{ 00\cdot}'(0) = \nu_0'(0)$$ then will follow using symmetry and the fact that $ \sum q_{\sigma} = 1 $. To see that holds, let $ f $ be the probability density function of $ (X_1,X_2) $ and note that $ \nu_0'(x) $ is the marginal density of both $ X_1 $ and $ X_2 $. Then for any $ h_1,h_2 \in \mathbb{R} $ we have that $$\begin{aligned}
&\frac{d}{dh_2} P(X_1 \leq h_1, X_2 \leq h_2)
=
\frac{d}{dh_2} \int_{-\infty}^{h_1} \int_{-\infty}^{h_2} f(x_1, x_2) \,dx_2\, dx_{1}
\\ &\qquad =
\int_{-\infty}^{h_1} f(x_1,h_2) \,dx_1
=
P(X_1 \leq h_1 \mid X_2 = h_2) \cdot \nu_0'(h_2).
\end{aligned}$$ Differentiating with respect to $ h_1 $ in the same way and then setting $ h_1 = h_2 = 0 $, it follows that $$\nu'_{00\cdot}(0) = \nu_0'(0) \left( P(X_1\leq 0 \mid X_2 = 0) + P(X_2\leq 0 \mid X_1 = 0) \right).$$ By symmetry, the two summands are each equal to $ 1/2 $, and hence $ \nu_{00\cdot}'(0) = \nu_0'(0) $ as desired. The other equalities follow by an analogous argument.
#### Step 2.
To obtain from , note first that by an analogous argument as above, one obtains in general that $$\frac{\nu'_{000}(0) }{ \nu_0'(0)}= P(X_2,X_3\leq 0 \mid X_1 = 0) +P(X_1,X_3\leq 0 \mid X_2 = 0) +P(X_1,X_2\leq 0 \mid X_3 = 0) .$$ Using basic facts about Gaussian vectors, one has that $ (X_2,X_3) \mid X_1 = 0 $ is a Gaussian vector with correlation $$\alpha = \frac{a_{23}-a_{12}a_{13}}{\sqrt{(1-a_{12}^2)(1-a_{13}^2)}}.$$ Using , it follows that $$P(X_2\leq 0, X_3 \leq 0 \mid X_1 = 0) = \frac{1}{2}-\frac{\arccos \left( \frac{a_{23}-a_{12}a_{13}}{\sqrt{(1-a_{12}^2)(1-a_{13}^2)}}\right)}{2\pi}$$ and hence, by symmetry, we obtain $$\frac{\nu'_{000}(0)}{\nu_0'(0)} = \frac{3}{2} -
\frac{ \arccos \left( \frac{a_{23}-a_{12}a_{13}}{\sqrt{(1-a_{12}^2)(1-a_{13}^2)}} \right) +\arccos \left( \frac{a_{13}-a_{12}a_{23}}{\sqrt{(1-a_{12}^2)(1-a_{23}^2)}} \right) +\arccos \left( \frac{a_{12}-a_{13}a_{23}}{\sqrt{(1-a_{13}^2)(1-a_{23}^2)}}\right)}{2\pi}.$$ Now recall that for any $ \alpha, \beta \in [-1,1] $ we have that $$\arccos \alpha + \arccos \beta =
\begin{cases}
\arccos (\alpha \beta - \sqrt{(1-\alpha^2)(1-\beta^2)}) &\text{if } \alpha + \beta \geq 0 \cr
2\pi - \arccos (\alpha \beta - \sqrt{(1-\alpha^2)(1-\beta^2)}) &\text{if } \alpha + \beta \leq 0 .
\end{cases}$$ and hence if $ \alpha, \beta \in [-1,1] $ satisfies $ \alpha + \beta \geq 0 $ and $ \alpha \beta - \sqrt{1-\alpha^2} \sqrt{1-\beta^2} + \gamma \leq 0 $, then $$\begin{aligned}
&\arccos \alpha + \arccos \beta + \arccos \gamma
\\&\qquad = 2\pi - \arccos \left(\alpha \beta \gamma - \alpha \sqrt{(1-\beta^2)(1-\gamma^2)} - \beta \sqrt{(1-\alpha^2)(1-\gamma^2)} - \gamma \sqrt{(1-\alpha^2)(1-\beta^2)}\right) .\end{aligned}$$ Now let $$\begin{cases}
\alpha = \frac{a_{23}-a_{12}a_{13}}{\sqrt{(1-a_{12}^2)(1-a_{13}^2)}} \cr
\beta = \frac{a_{13}-a_{12}a_{23}}{\sqrt{(1-a_{12}^2)(1-a_{23}^2)}} \cr
\gamma = \frac{a_{12}-a_{13}a_{23}}{\sqrt{(1-a_{13}^2)(1-a_{23}^2)}}.
\end{cases}$$ Using that as $ A $ is positive definite, then $ a_{12} \leq a_{13}a_{23} + \sqrt{(1-a_{13}^2)(1-a_{23}^2)}$, it follows that we indeed have that $ \alpha + \beta \geq 0 $. Moreover, with some work, one verifies that $$\alpha \beta - \sqrt{1-\alpha^2} \sqrt{1-\beta^2} + \gamma
=
\frac{-\det A}{(1+a_{12})\sqrt{1-a_{13}^2}\sqrt{1-a_{23}^2}} \leq 0$$ and that $$\begin{aligned}
&\alpha \beta \gamma - \alpha \sqrt{(1-\beta^2)(1-\gamma^2)} - \beta \sqrt{(1-\alpha^2)(1-\gamma^2)} - \gamma \sqrt{(1-\alpha^2)(1-\beta^2)}
\\&\qquad = \frac{\det A}{\prod_{i<j} (1+a_{ij})} - 1.\end{aligned}$$ This implies in particular that $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\nu'_{000}(0)}{\nu_0'(0)}
& = \frac{3}{2} - \frac{\arccos \alpha + \arccos \beta + \arccos \gamma }{2\pi}
\\& = \frac{3}{2} - \frac{2\pi - \arccos \left( \frac{\det A}{\prod_{i<j} (1+a_{ij})} - 1 \right) }{2\pi}
\\& = \frac{1}{2} + \frac{ \arccos \left( \frac{\det A}{\prod_{i<j} (1+a_{ij})} - 1 \right) }{2\pi}.\end{aligned}$$
Combining this with and , the desired conclusion follows.
For the first part of the proof, one can also apply Theorem 1.7 in [@fs2019b], but since this does not significantly shorten the proof, we find the current proof more clear.
We now apply Theorem \[theorem: small h\] to a few examples.
\[corollary: small h fully symmetric\] Let $a \in (0,1) $ and let $ X \coloneqq (X_1,X_2,X_3) $ be a standard Gaussian vector with $ \operatorname{Cov}(X_1,X_2) = \operatorname{Cov}(X_1,X_3) = \operatorname{Cov}(X_2,X_3) = a $. Then $ X^{h} $ is a color process for all sufficiently small $ h $.
Note first that by using Theorem \[theorem: small h\], after a computation, we obtain $$\begin{cases}
\lim_{h \to 0} q_{1,2,3}(h) =2 -\frac{2\arccos \left( \frac{ a(a^2-6a-3) }{(1+a)^3}\right)}{\pi} \cr
\lim_{h \to 0} q_{12,3}(h) = \frac{\arccos a}{\pi} -1 +\frac{\arccos \left( \frac{ a(a^2-6a-3) }{(1+a)^3}\right)}{\pi} \cr
\lim_{h \to 0} q_{123}(h) = 2 - \frac{3\arccos a}{\pi}-\frac{\arccos \left( \frac{ a(a^2-6a-3) }{(1+a)^3}\right)}{\pi}.
\end{cases}$$ It suffices to show that the above limits are positive. Since $\arccos x \in (0,\pi ) $ for all $ x \in (-1,1) $ and $ \arccos x $ is strictly decreasing in $ x $, it follows that the first of these is strictly positive whenever $$\frac{ a(a^2-6a-3) }{(1+a)^3} > -1.$$ By rearranging, one easily sees this to be true whenever $a \in(0,1) $. Next, since $ \pi-\arccos x= \arccos(-x) $ for all $ x \in (0,1) $ it follows that the second limit is strictly positive whenever $$a + \frac{ a(a^2-6a-3) }{(1+a)^3}=\frac{-a(1-a)(2+5a+a^2)}{(1+a)^3}<0.$$ which clearly holds for all $ a\in (0,1) $. To see that $ X^h $ has a color representation for all sufficiently small $ h>0 $, it thus only remains to show that $ \lim_{h \to 0 }q_{123}(h) > 0 $. To this end, first note that this is equivalent to that $$3\arccos a + \arccos \left( \frac{ a(a^2-6a-3)}{(1+a)^3}\right) <2\pi.$$ It is easy to verify that we get equality when $ a= 0 $, and hence it would be enough to show that the left hand side is strictly decreasing in $ a $. If we differentiate the left hand side one we obtain, after a detailed computation, that $$\frac{3}{(1+a)\sqrt{1 + 2a}} - \frac{3}{\sqrt{1-a^2}}$$ which is clearly negative for all $ a \in (0,1) $. From this the desired conclusion follows.
\[corollary: MC and small h\] Let $a \in (0,1) $ and let $ X \coloneqq (X_1,X_2,X_3) $ be a standard Gaussian vector with $ \operatorname{Cov}(X_1,X_2) = \operatorname{Cov}(X_2,X_3) =a $ and $\operatorname{Cov}(X_1,X_3) = a^2 $. Then $ X^{h} $ is a color process for all sufficiently small $ h $.
With $ X = (X_1,X_2,X_3) $ defined as a above, $ X $ is a Markov chain.
Note first that by using Theorem \[theorem: small h\], after a computation, we obtain $$\begin{cases}
\lim_{h \to 0} q_{1,2,3}(h) =2 -\frac{2\arccos \left( \frac{ -2a}{1+a^2}\right)}{\pi} \cr
\lim_{h \to 0} q_{12,3}(h) = \frac{\arccos a^2}{\pi} -1 +\frac{\arccos \left( \frac{ -2a}{1+a^2}\right)}{\pi} \cr
\lim_{h \to 0} q_{13,2}(h) = \frac{2\arccos a - \arccos a^2}{\pi} -1 +\frac{\arccos \left( \frac{ -2a}{1+a^2}\right)}{\pi} \cr
\lim_{h \to 0} q_{1,23}(h) = \frac{\arccos a^2}{\pi} -1 +\frac{\arccos \left( \frac{ -2a}{1+a^2}\right)}{\pi} \cr
\lim_{h \to 0} q_{123}(h) = 2 - \frac{2 \arccos a + \arccos a^2}{\pi}-\frac{\arccos \left( \frac{ -2a}{1+a^2}\right)}{\pi} .
\end{cases}$$ It suffices to show that the above limits are positive. By using the fact that $ \pi - \arccos x = \arccos(-x) $ for all $ x \in (-1,1) $ and the fact that arccosine is a strictly decreasing function, one easily verifies that the first, second and fourth of these are strictly positive for all $ a \in (0,1) $. To see that the third limit is strictly positive for $ a \in (0,1) $, we differentiate this limit with respect to $ a $ to obtain $$(a\sqrt{1+a^2} + \sqrt{1-a^2} - (1+a^2)) \cdot \frac{2}{(1+a^2)\sqrt{1-a^2}}.$$ This expression can be equal to zero if and only if $$a\sqrt{1+a^2} + \sqrt{1-a^2}= 1+a^2.$$ Squaring both sides and simplifying, we see that this is equivalent to that $$\sqrt{1-a^4} = a$$ which in turn is equivalent to that $$1-a^2-a^4 = 0.$$ This equation clearly has exactly one solution in $ (0,1) $. Hence in particular, there can be only one maxima or minima in $ (0,1) $. Since $ \lim_{h \to 0} q_{13,2}(h)(a) $ is continuous in $ a $ for all $ a \in [0,1] $, $ \lim_{h \to 0} q_{13,2}(h)(0) =\lim_{h \to 0} q_{13,2}(h)(1) = 0 $ and one easily verifies that $ \lim_{h \to 0} q_{13,2}(h)(0.5) >0 $ it follows that $ \lim_{h \to 0} q_{13,2}(h)(a) > 0 $ for all $ a \in (0,1) $.
Finally, one easily verifies that the derivative of $ \lim_{h \to 0}q_{123}(h)(a) $ with respect to $ a $ is given by $$(a\sqrt{1+a^2} + (1+a^2)-\sqrt{1-a^2}) \cdot \frac{2}{(1+a^2)\sqrt{1-a^2}}$$ which has no zeros in $(0,1) $. Since $ \lim_{h \to 0} q_{123}(h) (0) = 0 $, $ \lim_{h \to 0} q_{123}(h)(1)=1 $ and $ \lim_{h \to 0}q_{123}(h)(a) $ is continuous in $ a $, it must be strictly increasing in $ a $ in $ (0,1) $, and hence it follows that $ \lim_{h \to 0 } q_{123}(h)(a)> 0 $ for all $ a \in (0,1) $.
h large
-------
Before proving Theorem \[theorem: Gaussian critical 3d\], we start off by giving some interesting applications of it.
\[corollary:4examples\] For each case below, there is at least one Gaussian vector $ X $ with non-negative correlations which satisfies it.
(i) $ X^h $ has a color representation for all sufficiently large $ h $ and for all sufficiently small $ h>0 $.
(ii) $ X^h $ has no color representation for any sufficiently large $ h $ nor for any sufficiently small $ h>0 $.
(iii) $ X^h $ has a color representation for all sufficiently large $ h $ but not for any sufficiently small $ h>0 $.
(iv) $ X^h $ has a color representation for all sufficiently small $ h $ but not for any sufficiently large $ h $.
In particular, the property of $ X^h $ being a color process for a fixed $ X $ is not monotone in $ h $ (in either direction) for $ h>0 $.
(i) Of course one can take an i.i.d. process here. A more interesting example is as follows. Let $ X $ be a three-dimensional standard Gaussian vector with $\operatorname{Cov}(X_1,X_2) =\operatorname{Cov}(X_1,X_3) =\operatorname{Cov}(X_2,X_3) = a \in (0,1) $. By combining Corollary \[corollary: small h fully symmetric\] and Theorem \[theorem: Gaussian critical 3d\](i), it follows that $ X^h $ has a color representation for both sufficiently small and sufficiently large $ h >0 $.
(ii) Let $ X $ be a three-dimensional Gaussian vector with $ \operatorname{Cov}(X_1,X_2) = 0.05 $, $\operatorname{Cov}(X_1,X_3) = \operatorname{Cov}(X_2,X_3) = 0.6825 $. One can verify that this corresponds to a positive definite covariance matrix. Using Theorem \[theorem: small h\], one verifies that $ \lim_{h \to 0 } q_{12,3}(h) \approx -0.05 $ and hence $ X^h $ does not have a color representation for any sufficiently small $ h $. Using Theorem \[theorem: Gaussian critical 3d\], it follows that $ X^h $ does not either have a color representation for large $ h $.
(iii) Let $ X $ be a three-dimensional standard Gaussian vector with $\operatorname{Cov}(X_1,X_2) = 0.1 $, $ \operatorname{Cov}(X_1,X_3) = \operatorname{Cov}(X_2,X_3) = 0.5 $. One can verify that this corresponds to a positive definite covariance matrix. Now by Theorem \[theorem: small h\], the limit $ \lim_{h \to 0 } q_{12,3}(h) \approx -0.016 $ and hence $ X^h $ does not have a color representation for any sufficiently small $ h > 0 $. Next, since the Savage condition holds, we have that $ X^h $ has a color representation for all sufficiently large $ h $ by Theorem \[theorem: Gaussian critical 3d\].
(iv) This follows immediately from Theorem \[theorem: 4pointsoncircle\].
\[example: the ab example\] It is illuminating to look at the subset of the set of three-dimensional standard Gaussians for which at least two of the covariances are equal. So, we let $ X_{a,b} = (X_1,X_2,X_3) $ be a standard Gaussian vector with covariance matrix $$A = \begin{pmatrix}
1 & a & a \\
a & 1 & b \\
a & b & 1
\end{pmatrix}$$ for some $ a,b \in (0,1) $. One can verify that $ A $ is positive definite exactly when $ 2a^2<1+b $. Applying Theorem \[theorem: Gaussian critical 3d\], one can check that $ X_{a,b} ^h $ is a color process for all sufficiently large $ h $ if and only if either $ 2a-1 \leq b $ or $ (2a-1)^2<b $ (note both of these inequalities imply that $ 2a^2<1+b $). Cases (i) and (ii) correspond to the first inequality holding and Case (iii) corresponds to the first inequality failing and the second inequality holding. For a fixed $h$, the set of parameters which yield a color process for threshold $h$ is a closed set. However the set of parameters which yield a color process for sufficiently large $h$ is not a closed set; for example, $a=.1$ and $b=\epsilon$ belongs to this set for every $\epsilon>0$ but not for $\epsilon=0$.
In Figure \[fig: ab example\], we first draw the regions corresponding to the various cases in Theorem \[theorem: Gaussian critical 3d\] and the region corresponding to having a positive definite covariance matrix. In the second picture, we superimpose the region corresponding to all choices of $ a $ and $ b $ for which $ X^h_{a,b}$ has a color representation for all $ h $ which are sufficiently close to zero. Interestingly, this figure suggests that if $ X_{a,b}^h $ is a color process for $ h $ close to zero, then $ X^h_{a,b} $ is also a color process for $ h $ sufficiently large. Moreover, the region corresponding to the set of $ a $ and $ b $ for which $ X_{a,b}^h $ has a color representation for $ h $ close to zero intersects both the regions corresponding to Cases (i) and (iii).
![The figure to the left shows, for Example \[example: the ab example\], the different cases in Theorem \[theorem: Gaussian critical 3d\]. $ A $ is positive definite in the blue region and to its left, Case (iii) is the green region, Case (i) is the red region and to its left and the set of DGFFs is the orange region. Case (ii) corresponds to the straight line $ b= 2a-1 $. The boundary of the orange region, which is the line $ b= a^2 $, corresponds to the family of standard Gaussian Markov chains. The boundary between the green and blue regions is the right half of the parabola $ b=(2a-1)^2 $. Finally the two black points correspond to the two examples given in the proof of (ii) and (iii) of Corollary \[corollary:4examples\]. The picture to the right is the same except with the region where there is a color representation for $ h $ sufficiently close to zero being superimposed.[]{data-label="fig: ab example"}](abregion_without_small_h.pdf){width="\textwidth"}
![The figure to the left shows, for Example \[example: the ab example\], the different cases in Theorem \[theorem: Gaussian critical 3d\]. $ A $ is positive definite in the blue region and to its left, Case (iii) is the green region, Case (i) is the red region and to its left and the set of DGFFs is the orange region. Case (ii) corresponds to the straight line $ b= 2a-1 $. The boundary of the orange region, which is the line $ b= a^2 $, corresponds to the family of standard Gaussian Markov chains. The boundary between the green and blue regions is the right half of the parabola $ b=(2a-1)^2 $. Finally the two black points correspond to the two examples given in the proof of (ii) and (iii) of Corollary \[corollary:4examples\]. The picture to the right is the same except with the region where there is a color representation for $ h $ sufficiently close to zero being superimposed.[]{data-label="fig: ab example"}](abregion_with_small_h.pdf){width="\textwidth"}
We now proceed with the proof of Theorem \[theorem: Gaussian critical 3d\].
\[lemma: pos cov implication\] Let $ X \coloneqq (X_1,X_2) $ be a fully supported standard Gaussian vector with covariance matrix $ A = (a_{ij})$. Then $\nu_{11} (h) \ll \nu_1(h) $ and if $ a_{12} > 0 $, then $ \nu_1(h)^2 \ll \nu_{11} (h).$
We have that $
\mathbf{1}^T A^{-1} = \left( (1+a_{12})^{-1}, (1+a_{12})^{-1}\right) > \mathbf{0}
$ and hence Lemma \[lemma: Gaussian cube tails II\] implies that $$\nu_{11}(h) \asymp h^{-2} \cdot \exp\left( -\frac{h^2}{2} \cdot \frac{2}{1+a_{12}} \right).$$ Since $
p_1(h) \asymp h^{-1} \cdot \exp\left( - {h^2}/{2} \right),
$ $
p_1(h)^2 \asymp h^{-2} \cdot \exp\left( -{h^2}\right)
$ and $ a_{12} <1 $ by the fully supported assumption, the result easily follows.
\[lemma: pii comparison\] Let $ X $ be a fully supported $3 $-dimensional standard Gaussian vector with covariance matrix $ A = (a_{ij})$. If $ a_{ij} \in [0,1) $ for all $ i<j $, then $$\begin{split}
&\nu_1(h) \max (\{ \nu_{11\cdot}(h), \nu_{1\cdot 1}(h), \nu_{\cdot 11}(h) \})
\\&\qquad \ll \min(\{ \nu_{11\cdot}(h), \nu_{1\cdot 1}(h), \nu_{\cdot 11}(h) \}).
\end{split}$$
For $ i<j $, let $ A_{ij} $ be the covariance matrix of $ (X_i,X_j) $. Then $
\mathbf{1}^T A_{ij}^{-1} = \left( (1+a_{ij})^{-1}, (1+a_{ij})^{-1}\right) > \mathbf{0}
$ and hence Lemma \[lemma: Gaussian cube tails II\] implies that $$\label{eq: star1}
\nu_{1^{\{i,j \}}}(h) \asymp h^{-2} \cdot \exp\left( -\frac{h^2}{2} \cdot \frac{2}{1+a_{ij}} \right)$$ and so $$\label{eq: star2}
\nu_1(h) \nu_{1^{\{i,j \}}}(h) \asymp h^{-3} \cdot \exp\left( -\frac{h^2}{2} \cdot
\left( 1+ \frac{2}{1+a_{ij}}\right) \right).$$ In particular, this implies that the desired conclusion follows if we can show that $$\max_{i<j} \frac{2}{1+a_{ij}} < 1 + \min_{i<j} \frac{2}{1+a_{ij}}.$$ However, since $ a_{ij} \in [0,1) $ for all $ i<j $ we have that $$\max_{i<j} \frac{2}{1+a_{ij}} \leq 2 < 1 + \min_{i<j} \frac{2}{1+a_{ij}}.$$
\[lemma: Savage implication\] Let $ X $ be a fully supported $3 $-dimensional standard Gaussian vector with covariance matrix $ A = (a_{ij})$. If $ \mathbf{1}^T A^{-1}> \mathbf{0} $ and at most one of the covariances $ a_{ij} $ is equal to zero, then $$\label{eq: order inequalities if Savage holds}
\begin{split}
&\nu_1(h) \max (\{ \nu_{11\cdot}(h), \nu_{1\cdot 1}(h), \nu_{\cdot 11}(h) \}) \ll \nu_{111}(h)
\\&\qquad \ll \min(\{ \nu_{11\cdot}(h), \nu_{1\cdot 1}(h), \nu_{\cdot 11}(h) \}).
\end{split}$$
We first show that the second of the two inequalities holds. First, since $ \mathbf{1}^T A^{-1} > \mathbf{0} $ by assumption, we have that $$\label{eq: star3}
\nu_{111}(h) \asymp h^{-3} \cdot \exp\left( -\frac{h^2}{2} \cdot \mathbf{1}^T A^{-1} \mathbf{1}\right).$$ Since $$\nu_{111}(h) \leq \min(\{ \nu_{11\cdot}(h), \nu_{1\cdot 1}(h), \nu_{\cdot 11}(h) \}),$$ implies $$\mathbf{1} A^{-1} \mathbf{1} \geq \frac{2}{1+a_{ij}}$$ for all $ i<j $. However since $ h^{-3} \ll h^{-2} $, it follows that we then must have that $$\nu_{111}(h) \ll \min(\{ \nu_{11\cdot}(h), \nu_{1\cdot 1}(h), \nu_{\cdot 11}(h) \}).$$ This shows that the second inequality in holds.
Next, to show that the first of the two inequalities in holds, we will show that $$\label{eq: goal equation Savage}
\mathbf{1}^T A^{-1} \mathbf{1} < 1 + \frac{2}{1+a_{ij}}$$ for all $ i<j $, since if this holds, then and immediately imply the desired conclusion. To this end, using , one first verifies that$ \mathbf{1}^T A^{-1} > \mathbf{0} $ is equivalent to $$\label{eq: the linear Savage conditions}
1+2\min_{i<j} a_{ij}> \sum_{i<j} a_{ij}.$$ Similarly, can be shown to be equivalent to $$\label{eq: ellipse inequality}
(1+\max_{i<j}\{a_{ij}\}) \prod_{i<j} (1-a_{ij}) < 1 - \sum_{i<j} a_{ij}^2 + 2 \prod_{i<j} a_{ij}.$$
If $ a_{ij} = 0 $ for exactly one of the covariances, then one easily verifies that holds when holds. Now instead assume that $ a_{ij}> 0 $ for all $ i>j $. If we think of $ a_{12}>0 $ as being fixed, then holds for all $ a_{13} $ and $ a_{23} $ in the interior of the ellipse $ E $ given by $$(1-a_{12}^2) (1-x)(1-y)= 1 - a_{12}^2-x^2-y^2 + 2a_{12}xy,\quad x,y \in \mathbb{R}.$$ One verifies that the boundary of $ E $ passes through the origin and the points $ (0,1-a_{12}^2) $, $ (1-a_{12}^2,0) $, $ (a_{12},1) $ and $ (1,a_{12}) $. Since we are assuming the Savage condition , any possible $a_{13}) $ and $a_{23}) $ under consideration necessarily lies in the region $ R $ given by $$1 + 2\min( \{a_{12},x,y \}) > a_{12}+ x+ y,\quad x,y>0.$$ Hence we need only show that $ R\subseteq E $. (See Figure \[figure: regioninsideellipse\].)
To see this containment, note that $ R $ is a polygon with vertices given by $ (0,0) $, $ (0,1-a_{12}) $, $ (1-a_{12},0) $, $ (1,a_{12}) $ and $ (a_{12},1) $. We already know that the first, fourth and fifth of these vertices lie on the boundary of $E$ while one easily checks that the other two lie inside $E$. Since $ E $ is convex, and $ R $ is a polygon, it follows that $ R\subseteq E $.
We are now ready to give the proof of Theorem \[theorem: Gaussian critical 3d\]. We remark that in the proof, Case 1 and Case 2 can alternatively be proven, using the lemmas in this section, by appealing to Lemma \[lemma: solution sim lemma\].
For each $ h > 0 $, let $ (q_\sigma(h))_{ \sigma \in \mathcal{B}_3} $ be given by . Using inclusion-exclusion, we see that for any $ h > 0 $ we have that $$\label{eq: q1,2,3 in limit thm}
\begin{split}
q_{1,2,3}(h) &= \frac{ \nu_1(h) - (\nu_{\cdot 11}(h)+\nu_{1\cdot 1}(h)+\nu_{11\cdot}(h )) +2 \nu_{111}(h) }{\nu_0(h)\nu_1(h)(\nu_0(h)-\nu_1(h))},
\end{split}$$ $$\label{eq: q12,3 in limit thm}
\begin{split}
q_{12,3}(h) &= \frac{ (1-2\nu_1(h))\nu_{11\cdot}(h) + \nu_1(h) ( \nu_{\cdot 11}(h)+\nu_{1\cdot 1}(h)+\nu_{11\cdot}(h )) - \nu_1(h)^2- \nu_{111}(h) }{\nu_0(h)\nu_1(h)(\nu_0(h)-\nu_1(h))}
\end{split}$$ and $$\label{eq: q123 in limit thm}
\begin{split}
q_{123}(h) &= \frac{ 2\nu_1(h)^3 +\nu_{111}(h) - \nu_1(h)(\nu_{\cdot 11}(h) + \nu_{1\cdot 1}(h) + \nu_{11\cdot}(h)) }{\nu_0(h)\nu_1(h)(\nu_0(h)-\nu_1(h)) } .
\end{split}$$ This implies that there is a color representation for large $ h $ if and only if for all large $ h $ we have that $$\label{eq: CR inequalities for large h III}
\nu_{\cdot 11}(h)+\nu_{1\cdot 1}(h)+\nu_{11\cdot}(h ) \leq \nu_1(h) +2 \nu_{111}(h),$$ $$\label{eq: CR inequalities for large h II}
\begin{split}
\nu_{111}(h) + \nu_1(h)^2
& \leq \nu_1(h)(\nu_{\cdot 11}(h) + \nu_{1\cdot 1}(h) + \nu_{11\cdot}(h))
\\&\qquad + (1-2\nu_1(h)) \min( \{ \nu_{11\cdot}(h) , \nu_{1\cdot 1}(h) , \nu_{\cdot 11}(h) \})
\end{split}$$ and $$\label{eq: CR inequalities for large h I}
\nu_1(h)(\nu_{\cdot 11}(h) + \nu_{1\cdot 1}(h) + \nu_{11\cdot}(h)) \leq \nu_{111}(h) + 2\nu_1(h)^3 .$$
We will check when , and hold for large $ h $ by comparing the decay rate of the various tails.
Before we do this, note that by , one has that $ \mathbf{1}^T A^{-1}(1) \leq 0 $ exactly when $ 1+a_{23} \leq a_{12}+a_{13} $. If this holds, then clearly $ a_{23} = \min_{i<j} ( a_{ij}) $ and hence $ \nu_{\cdot 11}(h) = \min( \{ \nu_{11\cdot}(h) , \nu_{1\cdot 1}(h) , \nu_{\cdot 11}(h) \}) $.
Without loss of generality, we assume that $ 0 \leq a_{23} \leq a_{13} \leq a_{12} $ and that $ a_{12} > 0 $, since the case $ a_{12} = a_{13} = a_{23} = 0 $ is trivial. Note that this assumption implies by that $$\mathbf{1} A^{-1}(1) \leq \mathbf{1} A^{-1}(2) \leq \mathbf{1} A^{-1}(3)$$ with the largest two terms being positive.
We now claim that holds for all sufficiently large $ h $, without making any additional assumptions on $ A $. To see this, note that Lemma \[lemma: pos cov implication\] implies that $$\nu_{\cdot 11}(h)+\nu_{1\cdot 1}(h)+\nu_{11\cdot}(h ) \leq
3\nu_{11\cdot}(h) \ll \nu_1(h) \leq
\nu_1(h) +2 \nu_{111}(h)$$ and hence holds for all large $ h $.
We now divide into three cases.
#### Case 1.
Assume that $ \mathbf{1}^T A^{-1}(1) > \mathbf{0} $ and $ a_{23}>0 $. We will show that both and hold in this case without any further assumptions. To this end, note first that since $ a_{23} >0$, Lemma \[lemma: pos cov implication\] implies that $ \nu_1(h)^2 \ll \nu_{\cdot 11}(h) $. Moreover, since $ \mathbf{1}^T A^{-1}(1) = \min_{i \in [3]}\mathbf{1}^T A^{-1}(i)>0 $ implies that $ \mathbf{1}^T A^{-1} > \mathbf{0} $, Lemma \[lemma: Savage implication\] gives $$\begin{split}
&\nu_1(h) \max (\{ \nu_{11\cdot}(h), \nu_{1\cdot 1}(h), \nu_{\cdot 11}(h) \}) \ll \nu_{111}(h)
\\&\qquad \ll \min(\{ \nu_{11\cdot}(h), \nu_{1\cdot 1}(h), \nu_{\cdot 11}(h) \}).
\end{split}$$ Combining these observations, we obtain $$\begin{split}
&\nu_{111}(h) + \nu_1(h)^2 \ll \nu_{\cdot 11}(h) \sim (1-2\nu_1(h)) \nu_{\cdot 11}(h)
\\&\qquad \leq
\nu_1(h)(\nu_{\cdot 11}(h) + \nu_{1\cdot 1}(h) + \nu_{11\cdot}(h))
\\&\qquad\qquad + (1-2\nu_1(h)) \min( \{ \nu_{11\cdot}(h) , \nu_{1\cdot 1}(h) , \nu_{\cdot 11}(h) \})
\end{split}$$ and hence holds. Similarly, we obtain $$\nu_1(h)(\nu_{\cdot 11}(h) + \nu_{1\cdot 1}(h) + \nu_{11\cdot}(h)) \ll \nu_{111}(h) \leq \nu_{111}(h) + 2\nu_1(h)^3 .$$ establishing . This concludes the proof of (i).
#### Case 2.
Assume that $ \mathbf{1}^T A^{-1}(1) = 0 $ and $ a_{23} > 0 $. We will show that and both hold in this case. To this end, note first that since $ \mathbf{1}^T A^{-1}(1) = 0 $, Lemma \[lemma: Gaussian cube tails II\] implies that $ \nu_{111}(h) \sim \nu_{\cdot 11}(h)/2 $ and, since $ a_{23} >0$, Lemma \[lemma: pos cov implication\] implies that $ \nu_{\cdot 11}(h) \gg \nu_1(h)^2 $. This implies in particular that $$\begin{split}
& \nu_{111}(h) + \nu_1(h)^2 \sim \nu_{\cdot 11}(h)/2 + \nu_1(h)^2 \sim \nu_{\cdot 11}(h)/2
\\&\qquad \sim \frac{1}{2} (1-2\nu_1(h)) \nu_{\cdot 11}(h)
\\&\qquad = \frac{1}{2}(1-2\nu_1(h)) \min( \{ \nu_{11\cdot}(h) , \nu_{1\cdot 1}(h) , \nu_{\cdot 11}(h) \})
\end{split}$$ and hence holds for all sufficiently large $ h $. Next, using Lemma \[lemma: pii comparison\], we obtain $$\nu_1(h)(\nu_{\cdot 11}(h) + \nu_{1\cdot 1}(h) + \nu_{11\cdot}(h))
\ll \nu_{\cdot 11}(h)/2 \sim \nu_{111}(h)$$ and hence holds for all sufficiently large $ h $ in this case. This finishes the proof of (ii).
#### Case 3.
Assume that $ \mathbf{1}^T A^{-1}(1) < 0 $. By Lemma \[lemma: Gaussian cube tails II\], we have that $ \nu_{111}(h) \sim \nu_{\cdot 11}(h) $. Using this, one easily checks that holds by the same argument as in Case 2, and hence it remains only to check when holds. To this end, note first that if we use the assumption that $ a_{23} \leq a_{13} \leq a_{12} $, then is equivalent to $$\label{eq: goal in step 3}
\begin{split}
& \nu_1(h)^2 + \nu_1(h) (\nu_{\cdot 11}(h) - \nu_{1\cdot 1}(h) - \nu_{11\cdot}(h)) \leq \nu_{011}(h).
\end{split}$$ Since $ a_{ij} < 1 $ for all $ i<j $, Lemma \[lemma: pos cov implication\] implies that $$\nu_1(h)^2 +\nu_1(h) (\nu_{\cdot 11}(h) - \nu_{1\cdot 1}(h) - \nu_{11\cdot}(h)) \sim \nu_1(h)^2.$$
Therefore, by Lemma \[lemma: Gaussian cube tails II\], we see that if $ \mathbf{1}^T A^{-1} \mathbf{1} <2 $ holds, then $\nu_{011}(h) \gg \nu_1(h)^2$ yielding . On the other hand, if $ \mathbf{1}^T A^{-1} \mathbf{1} \geq 2 $ holds, then $ \nu_{011}(h) \ll \nu_1(h)^2 $ in which case fails.
#### Case 4
Assume now that $ a_{23} = 0 $, i.e. that $ X_2 $ and $ X_3 $ are independent. Note that if $ a_{13}=a_{23} = 0 $, then there is a color representation by Proposition \[theorem: h to infinity\], and hence we can assume that $ a_{13} > 0 $. Now note that since $ X_2 $ and $ X_3 $ are independent by assumption, if $ X^h $ has a color representation $ (q_\sigma(h)) $ for some $ h $, it must satisfy $ q_{1,23}(h) = q_{123}(h) = 0 $. Using the general formula for these expressions, we obtain that $$\begin{split}
\nu_{111}(h) + \nu_1(h)^2
&= \nu_1(h)(\nu_{\cdot 11}(h) + \nu_{1\cdot 1}(h) + \nu_{11\cdot}(h))
\\&\qquad + (1-2\nu_1(h)) \nu_{\cdot 11}(h)
\end{split}$$ and $$\nu_1(h)(\nu_{\cdot 11}(h) + \nu_{1\cdot 1}(h) + \nu_{11\cdot}(h)) = \nu_{111}(h) + 2\nu_1(h)^3 .$$ Using that $ \nu_{\cdot 11}(h) = \nu_1(h)^2 $ by assumption, we see that these equations are both equivalent to that $$\label{eq: equality equation equivalent to both}
\nu_{111}(h) + \nu_1(h)^3
= \nu_1(h)( \nu_{1\cdot 1}(h) + \nu_{11\cdot}(h)).$$
We will show that does not hold for any large $ h $. To this end, note first that if $ \mathbf{1}^T A^{-1} > \mathbf{0 } $ and $ a_{12},a_{13}> 0 $, then by Lemma \[lemma: Savage implication\] we have that $$\nu_{111}(h) + \nu_1(h)^3
\sim \nu_{111}(h) \gg \nu_1(h)( \nu_{1\cdot 1}(h) + \nu_{11\cdot}(h))$$ and hence cannot hold, implying that there can be no color representation for any large $ h $ in this case.
Next, if $ \mathbf{1}^T A^{-1} (1)=0 $, then using Lemma \[lemma: Gaussian cube tails II\] we get that $$\begin{aligned}
&\nu_{111}(h) + \nu_1(h)^3 \sim \nu_{\cdot 11}(h)/2 + \nu_1(h)^3 = \nu_1(h)^2/2 + \nu_1(h)^3
\sim \nu_1(h)^2/2.\end{aligned}$$ Using Lemma \[lemma: pos cov implication\] and the assumption that $ a_{12},a_{13} < 1 $, it follows that $$\begin{aligned}
&\nu_{1}(h)^2 \gg \nu_1(h)( \nu_{1\cdot 1}(h) + \nu_{11\cdot}(h)) \end{aligned}$$ and hence cannot hold, implying that there can be no color representation for any large $ h $ in this case.
Finally, if $ \mathbf{1}^TA^{-1} (1) < 0 $ then we can use Case 3. Observing that if $ a_{23} = 0 $, then $ \det A > 0 $ implies that $ a_{12}^2 + a_{13}^2 <1 $, we have that $$\begin{aligned}
&\mathbf{1}^T A^{-1} \mathbf{1} < 2
\Leftrightarrow 1 + \frac{2(1-a_{12})(1-a_{13})}{1-a_{12}^2-a_{13}^2} < 2
\\&\qquad\Leftrightarrow (1-a_{12}-a_{13})^2 < 0\end{aligned}$$ implying in particular that there can be no color representation.
Large threshold results for stable vectors with emphasis on the n=3 case {#section:nonzerostable}
========================================================================
Two-dimensional stable vectors and nonnegative correlations
-----------------------------------------------------------
In this subsection, we give a proof of Proposition \[2dpos.corr\].
We may stick to $h\ge 0$ throughout. It is elementary to check that $ X^h_1 $ and $ X^h_2 $ have nonnegative correlation if and only if $$\label{eq: example inequality}
P((1-a^\alpha)^{1/\alpha} S_2 \geq a |S_1| + h) \geq P(S_1 \geq h)^2.$$ When $ h = 0 $ and $ a = 2^{-1/\alpha} $, we have that $$P((1-a^\alpha)^{1/\alpha} S_2 \geq a |S_1| + h) = P(S_2 \geq |S_1| ) = 1/4$$ and $$P(S_1 \geq h)^2 = 1/4.$$ Hence we get equality in in this case. Now note that the left hand side of is strictly decreasing in $ a $. This implies that when $ h = 0 $, we get nonnegative correlations if and only if $ a \leq 2^{-1/\alpha} $, establishing the equivalence of (i) and (ii).
We now show that (ii) implies (iii). To see this, note first that since the left hand side of is strictly decreasing in $ a $, it suffices to show that holds for all $ h \geq 0 $ when $ a = 2^{-1/\alpha} $. To this end, note first that in this case, we have that $$\begin{aligned}
P((1-a^\alpha)^{1/\alpha} S_2 \geq a |S_1| + h) &= P( S_2 \geq |S_1| + h2^{1/\alpha}) .\end{aligned}$$ Now observe that $$\begin{aligned}
&2P( S_2 \geq S_1+ h2^{1/\alpha},\, S_2 \geq h2^{1/\alpha})
\\&\qquad= 2P( S_2 \geq S_1+ h2^{1/\alpha},\, S_2 \geq h2^{1/\alpha},\, S_1 < 0)
\\&\qquad\qquad + 2P( S_2 \geq S_1+ h2^{1/\alpha},\, S_2 \geq h2^{1/\alpha},\, S_1 \geq 0 )
\\&\qquad= 2P( S_2 \geq h2^{1/\alpha},\, S_1 < 0)
\\&\qquad\qquad + 2P( S_2 \geq |S_1|+ h2^{1/\alpha}, \, S_1 \geq 0 )
\\&\qquad= 2P( S_2 \geq h2^{1/\alpha})P(S_1 < 0)
\\&\qquad\qquad +2 P( S_2 \geq |S_1|+ h2^{1/\alpha})P(S_1 \geq 0 )
\\&\qquad= P( S_2 \geq h2^{1/\alpha}) + P( S_2 \geq |S_1|+ h2^{1/\alpha}) \end{aligned}$$ and that $$\begin{aligned}
P( S_1\geq h )
&=
P( S_2 + S_1\geq h2^{1/\alpha})
\\&=
P( S_2 + S_1\geq h2^{1/\alpha},\, S_1 \geq h2^{1/\alpha})
\\&\qquad +
P( S_2 + S_1\geq h2^{1/\alpha},\, S_2 \geq h2^{1/\alpha})
\\&\qquad -
P( S_2 + S_1\geq h2^{1/\alpha},\, S_1 \geq h2^{1/\alpha},\, S_2 \geq h2^{1/\alpha})
\\&=
2P( S_2 + S_1\geq h2^{1/\alpha},\, S_2 \geq h2^{1/\alpha}) -
P(S_1 \geq h2^{1/\alpha})^2.\end{aligned}$$ Putting these observations together, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
& P( S_2 \geq |S_1| + h2^{1/\alpha})
\\&\qquad=
2P( S_2 \geq S_1+ h2^{1/\alpha},\, S_2 \geq h2^{1/\alpha}) - P( S_2 \geq h2^{1/\alpha})
\\&\qquad=
P( S_1\geq h ) + P(S_1 \geq h2^{1/\alpha})^2- P( S_2 \geq h2^{1/\alpha}).\end{aligned}$$ In particular, we get nonnegative correlations if and only if $$P( S_1\geq h ) + P(S_1 \geq h2^{1/\alpha})^2- P( S_2 \geq h2^{1/\alpha}) \geq P(S_1 \geq h)^2.$$ Rearranging, we see that this is equivalent to $$P( S_1\geq h ) -P(S_1 \geq h)^2 \geq P( S_2 \geq h2^{1/\alpha}) - P(S_1 \geq h2^{1/\alpha})^2$$ which will hold for all $ h \geq 0 $ since $ P( S_1\geq h ) - P(S_1 \geq h)^2 $ is decreasing in $ h $ for all $ h \geq 0 $. This establishes (iii).
h large and a phase transition in the stability exponent
--------------------------------------------------------
In this subsection we will look at what happens when $ X $ is a symmetric multivariate stable random variable with index $ \alpha < 2 $ and marginals $ S_\alpha(1,0,0) $, and the threshold $ h> 0 $ is large. The fact that stable distributions have fat tails for $ \alpha < 2 $ will result in behavior that is radically different from the Gaussian case. We will obtain various results, perhaps the most interesting being a phase transition in $\alpha$ at $\alpha=1/2$; this is Theorem \[theorem:ptalpha12\].
We show that the assumptions of Lemma \[lemma: solution sim lemma\] hold. First Theorem 1.1 in [@fs2019a], with $ k = 1 $, implies that holds. Next, a computation using the same theorem shows that the last condition in Lemma \[lemma: solution sim lemma\] holds if holds.
We will now apply Theorem 1.1 in [@fs2019a] to a stable version of a Markov chain.
\[corollary: stable MC\] Let $ \alpha \in (0,2) $ and let $ S_1 $, $ S_2 $ and $ S_3 $ be i.i.d. with $ S_1 \sim S_\alpha(1,0,0) $. Furthermore, let $ a \in (0,1) $ and define $ X_1 \coloneqq S_1 $ and $ X_2 $ and $ X_3 $ by $$X_{i } \coloneqq aX_{i-1} + (1-a^\alpha)^{1/\alpha} S_i , \quad i=2,3.$$ Then $ X^h $ is a color process for all sufficiently large $ h $.
The random vector $ X $ defined by this corollary is a stable Markov chain. We have already seen a Gaussian analogoue of this result.
Clearly $ (X_1,X_2,X_3) $ is a three-dimensional symmetric $ \alpha $-stable random vector whose marginals are $ S_\alpha(1,0,0) $. If we let $ A $ be given by $$\begin{pmatrix}
1 & 0 & 0 \\
a & (1-a^\alpha)^{1/\alpha} & 0 \\
a^2 & a(1-a^\alpha)^{1/\alpha}& (1 - a^{\alpha})^{1/\alpha} \\
\end{pmatrix}$$ then $$\begin{pmatrix} X_1 \\ X_2 \\ X_3\end{pmatrix}
=
A
\cdot
\begin{pmatrix} S_1 \\ S_2 \\ S_3\end{pmatrix}.$$ It follows that for each $ \mathbf{x} \in \operatorname{supp}(\Lambda) $, exactly one of $ \pm (2\Lambda(\mathbf{x}))^{1/\alpha} \mathbf{x} $ is a column in $ A $. Moreover, each column of $ A $ corresponds to a pair of points in the support of $ \Lambda $ in this way. To simplify notation, for $ \mathbf{x} \in \operatorname{supp}(\Lambda ) $ we write $ \hat{\mathbf{x}} \coloneqq (2\Lambda(\mathbf{x}))^{1/\alpha} \mathbf{x} $. Using Theorem 1.1 in [@fs2019a] with $n=3$ and $k=1$, one easily verifies that this implies that $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{h \to \infty} \frac{\nu_{111}(h)}{\nu_1(h)}
&=\sum_{\mathbf{x}_1 \in \operatorname{supp}( \Lambda)}
\int_0^\infty
I \left( s_1 \hat {\mathbf{x}}_1 > \mathbf{1} \right)
\cdot \alpha s_1^{-(1+\alpha)}\, ds_1
\\&
=
\int_{a^{-2}}^\infty \alpha s_1^{-(1+\alpha)}\, ds_1 = a^{2\alpha}\end{aligned}$$ and similarly that
\_[h ]{} = a\^(1- a\^)\
\_[h ]{} = 1-a\^\
\_[h ]{} = a\^(1-a\^)\
\_[h ]{} = (1-a\^)\^2 \[eq: p010/p1 limit\]\
\_[h ]{} = 1-a\^\
\_[h ]{} = 0.
Combining this with we obtain $$\begin{cases}
\lim_{h \to \infty}q_{1,2,3}(h) &= (1-a^\alpha )^2\cr
\lim_{h \to \infty}q_{12,3}(h) &= a^\alpha (1-a^\alpha) \cr
\lim_{h \to \infty}q_{13,2}(h) &= 0\cr
\lim_{h \to \infty}q_{1,23}(h) &= a^\alpha (1-a^\alpha) \cr
\lim_{h \to \infty}q_{123}(h) &= a^{2\alpha}.
\end{cases}$$ From this it follows that $ X^h $ has a color representation for all sufficiently large $ h $ if $ q_{13,2}(h) $ is non-negative for large $ h $. By , $ q_{13,2}(h) $ is given by $$q_{13,2}(h) = \frac{\nu_0(h)\nu_{101}(h) - \nu_1(h)\nu_{010}(h)}{\nu_1(h) \nu_0(h) (\nu_0(h)-\nu_1(h))}.$$ Here the denominator is strictly positive for all $ h > 0 $, and we know from that $ \nu_{010}(h) = (1-a^\alpha)^2\nu_1(h) + o(\nu_1(h)) $. Hence it is sufficient to show that $$\lim_{h \to \infty} \frac{\nu_{101}(h)}{\nu_1(h)^2} > (1-a^\alpha)^2.$$ To see this, we again apply Theorem 1.1 in [@fs2019a] to obtain $$\begin{aligned}
&\lim_{h \to \infty} \frac{\nu_{101}(h)}{\nu_1(h)^2}
\\&\qquad =
\frac{1 }{2}
\sum_{\mathbf{x}_1, \mathbf{x}_2 \in \operatorname{supp}( \Lambda)}
\int_0^\infty
\int_{0}^\infty
I
\bigl(
s_1\hat{\mathbf{x}}_1(1) + s_2\hat{\mathbf{x}}_2 (1)>1,
\\[-2ex]&\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad
s_1\hat{\mathbf{x}}_1(2) + s_2\hat{\mathbf{x}}_2 (2)\leq1,
\\[0ex]&\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad
s_1\hat{\mathbf{x}}_1(3) + s_2\hat{\mathbf{x}}_2 (3)>1
\bigr)
\, \alpha^2 s_1^{-(1+\alpha)}s_2^{-(1+\alpha)} \, ds_2 \, ds_1
\\&\qquad =
\int_0^\infty
\int_{0}^\infty
I
\left(a^{-1} > s_1 > 1 ,\, s_2 > \frac{1 - a^2s_1}{(1-a^\alpha)^{1/\alpha}}
\right)
\, \alpha^2 s_1^{-(1+\alpha)}s_2^{-(1+\alpha)} \, ds_2 \, ds_1
\\&\qquad =
(1-a^\alpha)\int_1^{a^{-1}}
\left(1 - a^2s_1 \right)^{-\alpha}
\alpha s_1^{-(1+\alpha)} \, ds_1
\\&\qquad >
(1-a^\alpha) \int_{1}^{a^{-1} } \alpha s_1^{-(1+\alpha)} \, ds_1
=
(1-a^\alpha)^2\end{aligned}$$ which is the desired conclusion.
We can now prove Theorem \[theorem:ptalpha12\] which is a stable version of the example in the proof of (i) of Corollary \[corollary:4examples\].
We start a little more generally. Let $ \alpha \in (0,2) $ and let $ S_0 $, $ S_1 $, …, $ S_n $ be i.i.d. with $ S_0 \sim S_\alpha(1,0,0) $. Furthermore, let $ a \in (0,1) $ and for $ i = 1, 2,\ldots, n $, define $$X_i = aS_{0} + (1-a^\alpha)^{1/\alpha} S_i.$$ Note first that for any $n \geq 1 $, $ (X_1,X_2 , \ldots, X_n) $ is clearly an $n$-dimensional symmetric $ \alpha $-stable random vector whose marginals have distribution $ S_\alpha(1,0,0) $. Moreover, for any $ n \geq 2 $, if we let $ A $ be the $ n \times (n+1)$ matrix defined by $$A(i,j) =
\begin{cases}
a &\text{if } j = 1 \cr
(1-a^\alpha)^{1/\alpha} &\text{if } j = i+1\cr
0 &\text{otherwise}
\end{cases}$$ then $$\begin{pmatrix} X_1 , \ldots, X_n \end{pmatrix}^T
=
A
\cdot
\begin{pmatrix} S_0 , S_1, \ldots, S_n\end{pmatrix}^T.$$ It follows that for each $ \mathbf{x} \in \operatorname{supp}(\Lambda) $, exactly one of $ \pm (2\Lambda(\mathbf{x}))^{1/\alpha} \mathbf{x} $ is a column in $ A $. Moreover, each column of $ A $ corresponds to a pair of points in the support of $ \Lambda $ in this way. To simplify notation, for $ \mathbf{x} \in \operatorname{supp}(\Lambda ) $ we write $ \hat{\mathbf{x}} \coloneqq (2\Lambda(\mathbf{x}))^{1/\alpha} \mathbf{x} $. Using Theorem 1.1 in [@fs2019a], one easily verifies that it follows that $$\label{eq: p111/p1 limit for large h}
\begin{split}
\lim_{h \to \infty} \frac{\nu_{1^n}(h)}{\nu_1(h)}
&=
\sum_{\mathbf{x}_1 \in \operatorname{supp}( \Lambda)}
\int_0^\infty
I \left( s_1 \hat {\mathbf{x}}_1 > \mathbf{1} \right)
\cdot \alpha s_1^{-(1+\alpha)}\, ds_1
\\&=
\int_0^\infty
I \left( as_1 >1 \right)
\cdot \alpha s_1^{-(1+\alpha)}\, ds_1
= a^\alpha.
\end{split}$$ Returning to the case $n=3$, let, for $h>0$, $ (q_{123}(h), q_{12,3}(h), q_{13,2}(h), q_{1,23}(h), q_{1,2,3}(h) ) $ be given by . Then, symmetry and inclusion-exclusion, we have that $$q_{1,2,3}(h) = \frac{\nu_{100}(h)-\nu_{011}(h)}{\nu_0(h)\nu_1(h)(\nu_0(h)-\nu_1(h))} = \frac{\nu_{1 }(h)-3\nu_{11 \cdot}(h) +2\nu_{11 1}(h) }{\nu_0(h)\nu_1(h)(\nu_0(h)-\nu_1(h))}$$ and hence $ \lim_{h \to \infty} q_{1,2,3}(h) = 1-a^\alpha. $ Similarly, one sees that $ \lim_{h \to \infty} q_{12,3}(h) = \lim_{h \to \infty} q_{13,2}(h) = \lim_{h \to \infty} q_{1,23}(h) = 0 $ and hence $ \lim_{h \to \infty} q_{123}(h) = a^\alpha $. Since the solution is permutation invariant, it follows that we have a color representation for all sufficiently large $ h $ if and only if $ q_{12,3}(h) \geq 0 $ for all sufficiently large $ h $. To see when this happens, note first that by symmetry, $ \nu_{101} + \nu_{010} = \nu_{011} + \nu_{010} = \nu_{01 \cdot} $ and hence, using , it follows that $$\begin{aligned}
q_{12,3}(h) &= \frac{\nu_0(h)\nu_{110}(h)-\nu_1(h)\nu_{001}(h)}{\nu_0(h)\nu_1(h)(\nu_0(h)-\nu_1(h))}
=
\frac{ \nu_{110}(h)-\nu_1(h)\nu_{01 \cdot }(h)}{\nu_0(h)\nu_1(h)(\nu_0(h)-\nu_1(h))} .\end{aligned}$$ The denominator is strictly positive for all large $ h $ and by we have that $$\begin{aligned}
\nu_{01\cdot}(h) &= \nu_1(h) - \nu_{11\cdot }(h) = \nu_1(h)(1-a^\alpha)+ o(\nu_1(h)) .\end{aligned}$$ The question is now how $ \lim_{h \to \infty} \nu_{110}(h)/\nu_1(h)^2 $ compares with $ 1 - a^\alpha $. Using Proposition 4.9 in [@fs2019a], it follows that $$\lim_{h \to \infty} \frac{\nu_{101}(h)}{\nu_1(h)^2}
= \begin{cases}
(1-a^\alpha)^2+ a^\alpha (1-a^\alpha) \, \frac{\alpha \Gamma(2\alpha) \Gamma(1-\alpha)}{\Gamma(1+\alpha)} &\textnormal{if } \alpha \in (0,1) \cr
\infty &\textnormal{else.}
\end{cases}$$ From this it immediately follows that $X^h $ has a color representation for all sufficiently large $ h $ if $ \alpha \in [1,2) $. When $ \alpha \in (0,1) $, then $ X^h $ has a color representation for all sufficiently large $ h $ if $$\frac{\alpha \Gamma(2\alpha) \Gamma(1-\alpha)}{\Gamma(1+\alpha)} > 1$$ and has no color representation for any large $ h $ if $$\frac{\alpha \Gamma(2\alpha) \Gamma(1-\alpha)}{\Gamma(1+\alpha)} <1.$$ This expression is strictly positive for all $ \alpha \in (0,1) $ and equal to 1 if $ \alpha =
1/2 $. Furthermore, it is equal to $$\frac{\alpha \Gamma(2\alpha) \Gamma(1-\alpha)}{\Gamma(1+\alpha)}
=
\frac{ \Gamma(2\alpha) \Gamma(1-\alpha)}{\Gamma(\alpha)}
=
2^{2\alpha-1} \Gamma \left( \alpha + \frac{1}{2} \right) \Gamma \left( 1 - \alpha \right) \cdot \frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi}}$$ where the last equality follows by using the Legendre Duplication Formula (see [@AS], 6.1.18, p. 256). We claim that this expression is strictly increasing in $ \alpha $. If we can show this, the conclusion of the theorem will follow since we get equality at $ \alpha = 1/2 .$ To see this, recall first that $ \Gamma'(\alpha) = \Gamma(\alpha) \psi (\alpha) $, where $ \psi$ is the so-called digamma function. It follows that the derivative of the expression above is equal to $$2^{2\alpha-1} \Gamma \left( \alpha + \frac{1}{2} \right) \Gamma \left( 1 - \alpha \right) \cdot \frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi}}\cdot \left( 2\log 2 + \psi \left( \alpha + \frac{1}{2} \right)- \psi(1-\alpha) \right).$$ Since the first term is equal to our original integral, it is clearly strictly larger than zero. Moreover, an integral representation of $ \psi $ given in [@AS] (see 6.3.21, p. 259) implies that $ \psi(x) $ is strictly increasing in $ x $ for $ x > 0 $. It follows that the second term is strictly larger than $$2\log 2 + \psi \left({ {1}/{2}} \right) - \psi \left(1 \right).$$ Using the values of the digamma function at $1/2$ and 1 (see [@AS], 6.3.2 and 6.3.3, p. 258), this last expression is 0. This finishes the proof.
We next give the proof of Theorem \[theorem: alternative symmetric example\].
Clearly $ (X_1,X_2,X_3) $ is a three-dimensional symmetric $ \alpha $-stable random vector whose marginals are $ S_\alpha(1,0,0) $.
If we define $ c = c(\alpha,a,b) \coloneqq (1-2a^\alpha-2b^\alpha)^{1/\alpha} $ and let $ A $ be given by $$\begin{pmatrix}
a & b & 0 & b & a & 0& c\\
0 & a & b & 0 & b& a & c\\
b & 0 & a & a & 0 & b & c\\
\end{pmatrix}$$ then $$\begin{pmatrix} X_1 \\ X_2 \\ X_3\end{pmatrix}
=
A
\cdot
(S_1,\,S_2,\,S_3,\,S_4,\,S_5,\,S_6,\,S_7)^T$$ It follows that for each $ \mathbf{x} \in \operatorname{supp}(\Lambda) $, exactly one of $ \pm (2\Lambda(\mathbf{x}))^{1/\alpha} \mathbf{x} $ is a column in $ A $. Moreover, each column of $ A $ corresponds to a pair of points in the support of $ \Lambda $ in this way. To simplify notation, for $ \mathbf{x} \in \operatorname{supp}(\Lambda ) $ we write $ \hat{\mathbf{x}} \coloneqq (2\Lambda(\mathbf{x}))^{1/\alpha} \mathbf{x} $. Using Theorem 1.1 in [@fs2019a], we get that $$\begin{split}
\lim_{h \to \infty} \frac{\nu_{111}(h)}{\nu_1(h)}
&=
\sum_{\mathbf{x}_1 \in \operatorname{supp}( \Lambda)}
\int_0^\infty
I \left( s_1 \hat {\mathbf{x}}_1 > \mathbf{1} \right)
\cdot \alpha s_1^{-(1+\alpha)}\, ds_1
\\&= \int_0^\infty I(c s_1 > {1})\cdot \alpha s_1^{-(1+\alpha)}\, ds_1
= c^\alpha = 1-2a^\alpha - 2b^\alpha.
\end{split}$$ Similarly, we obtain $$\begin{split}
\lim_{h \to \infty} \frac{\nu_{110}(h)}{\nu_1(h)}
&= 2 \int_0^\infty I(s_1 \cdot \min(\{ a,b \}) > 1)\cdot \alpha s_1^{-(1+\alpha)}\, ds_1
\\&= 2 \min(\{ a,b \})^\alpha.
\end{split}$$ Using , it follows that $$\label{eq: cr limits}
\begin{cases}
\lim_{h \to \infty} q_{123} (h) = 1-2a^\alpha - 2b^\alpha \cr
\lim_{h \to \infty} q_{12,3} (h) = 2\min(\{ a,b \})^\alpha \cr
\lim_{h \to \infty} q_{13,2} (h) =2\min(\{ a,b \})^\alpha\cr
\lim_{h \to \infty} q_{1,23} (h) = 2\min(\{ a,b \})^\alpha
\end{cases}$$ and as $ q_{1,2,3}(h) = 1-q_{123}(h)-q_{12,3}(h) - q_{13,2}(h) - q_{1,23}(h) $ for $ h \in \mathbb{R} $, we also obtain $$\lim_{h \to \infty} q_{1,2,3}(h) = 1 - (1-2a^\alpha-2b^\alpha) - 6\min(\{a,b\})^\alpha = 2 \left( \max(\{ a,b \})^\alpha - 2\min(\{ a,b \})^\alpha \right).$$ Since $ a,b \in (0,1) $ and $ 2a^\alpha + 2b^\alpha < 1 $ (as $\alpha > c_1$), it follows that all of the limits in lie in $ (0,1) $ for any $ \alpha \in (0,1) $.
Let $g(\alpha)=\max(\{ a,b \})^\alpha - 2\min(\{ a,b \})^\alpha$ for $\alpha\in (0,\infty)$. If $a=b$, then $c_2=\infty$ and $g(\alpha)=\max(\{ a,b \})^\alpha - 2\min(\{ a,b \})^\alpha$ is negative for all $\alpha$ and the claim holds. If $a\neq b$, then it is easy to check that $c_2$ is the unique zero of $g(\alpha)$ on $(0,\infty)$ and that $g$ is negative (positive) to the left (right) of $c_2$. This immediately leads to all of the claims.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
We thank Enkelejd Hashorva for providing some references. We are also thank two referees for useful comments on an earlier version of this paper. The first author acknowledges support from the European Research Council, grant no. 682537. The second author acknowledges the support of the Swedish Research Council, grant no. 2016-03835 and the Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation, grant no. 2012.0067.
[9]{}
Milton Abramowitz and Irene A. Stegun, *Handbook of mathematical functions with formulas, graphs, and mathematical tables*, (1970), National Bureau of Standards Applied Mathematics Series, 55.
Itai Benjamini and Yuval Peres, *Markov chains indexed by trees*, Ann. Probab. 22, no. 1, pp. 219–243 (1994).
Jakob E. Björnberg, Cécile Mailler, Peter Mörters and Daniel Ueltschi, *Characterising random partitions by random colouring*, preprint.
Ming Dai and Arunava Mukherjea, *Identification of the parameters of a multivariate normal vector by the distribution of the maximum*, Journal of Theoretical Probability, Vol. 14, No. 1 pp. 267–298 (2001).
Malin Palö Forsström and Jeffrey E. Steif, *A formula for hidden regular variation behavior for symmetric stable distributions*, preprint, available at <https://arxiv.org/abs/1910.09813v1> (2019).
Malin Palö Forsström and Jeffrey E. Steif, *An analysis of the induced linear operators associated to divide and color models*, preprint, available at <https://arxiv.org/abs/1911.00513> (2019).
Malin Palö Forsström and Jeffrey E. Steif, *A few surprising integrals*, Statistics & Probability Letters, Volume 157 (2020).
Enkelejd Hashorva, *Asymptotics and bounds for multivariate Gaussian tails*, Journal of Theoretical Probability, Vol. 18, No. 1 pp. 79–97 (2005).
Titus Lupu, *From loop clusters and random interlacement to the free field*, Annals of Probability, Volume 44, Number 3, pp. 2117–2146 (2016).
Titus Lupu and Wendelin Werner, *A note on Ising random currents, Ising-FK, loop-soups and the Gaussian free field*, Electronic Communications in Probability, Vol. 21, paper no. 13, (2016).
Thomas L. Markham, *Nonnegative matrices whose inverses are $M$-matrices*, Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society, Vol. 36, No. 2, pp. 326-330 (1972).
Gennady Samorodnitsky and Murad S. Taqqu, *Stable non-Gaussian random processes, Stochastic models with infinite variance*, (1994), Chapman & Hall.
William Sheppard, *On the application of the theory of error to cases of normal distribution and normal correlation*, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series A, Vol. 192, pp. 101–167, 531, (1899).
Jeffrey E. Steif and Johan Tykesson, *Generalized divide and color models*, ALEA. Latin American Journal of Probability and Mathematical Statistics, [16]{}, (2019), 899-955.
[^1]: Chalmers University of Technology and Gothenburg University, Gothenburg, Sweden and KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden. Email:
[^2]: Chalmers University of Technology and Gothenburg University, Gothenburg, Sweden. Email:
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We analyze how measured quantum dynamical systems store and process information, introducing sofic quantum dynamical systems. Using recently introduced information-theoretic measures for quantum processes, we quantify their information storage and processing in terms of *entropy rate* and *excess entropy*, giving closed-form expressions where possible. To illustrate the impact of measurement on information storage in quantum processes, we analyze two spin-$1$ sofic quantum systems that differ only in how they are measured.'
author:
- Karoline Wiesner
- 'James P. Crutchfield'
bibliography:
- 'ref.bib'
title: Computation in Sofic Quantum Dynamical Systems
---
Introduction
============
Extending concepts from symbolic dynamics to the quantum setting, we forge a link between quantum dynamical systems and quantum computation, in general, and with quantum automata, in particular.
Symbolic dynamics originated as a method to study general dynamical systems when, nearly 100 years ago, Hadamard used infinite sequences of symbols to analyze the structure of geodesics on manifolds of negative curvature; see Ref. [@kitchens] and references therein. In the 1930’s and 40’s Hedlund and Morse coined the term *symbolic dynamics* [@Hedl38a; @Hedl40a] to describe the study of dynamics over the space of symbol sequences in their own right. In the 1940’s Shannon used sequence spaces to describe information channels [@Shan62]. Subsequently, the techniques and ideas have found significant applications beyond dynamical systems, in data storage and transmission, as well as in linear algebra [@lind].
On the flip side of the same coin, computation theory codes symbol sequences using finite-state automata. The class of sequences that can be coded this way define the *regular languages* [@hopcroft]. It turns out that many dynamical systems can also be coded with finite-state automata using the tools of symbolic dynamics [@lind]. In fact, *Sofic systems* are the particular class of dynamical systems that are the analogs of regular languages in automata theory.
The study of quantum behavior in classically chaotic systems is yet another active thread in dynamical systems [@gutzwiller; @reic04a] which has most recently come to address the role of measurement. Measurement interaction leads to genuinely chaotic behavior in quantum systems, even far from the semi-classical limit [@habi06]. Classical dynamical systems can be embedded in quantum dynamical systems as the special class of commutative dynamical systems, which allow for unambiguous assignment of joint probabilities to two observations [@alicki].
An attempt to construct symbolic dynamics for quantum dynamical systems was made by Alicki and Fannes [@alicki], who defined shifts on spin chains as the analog of shifts in sequence space. Definitions of entropy followed from this. However, no connection to quantum finite-state automata was established there.
In the following we develop an approach that differs from this and other previous attempts since it explicitly accounts for observed sequences, in contrast to sequences of (unobservable) quantum objects, such as spin chains. The recently introduced computational model class of *quantum finite-state generators* provides the required link between quantum dynamical systems and the theory of automata and formal languages [@wies06b]. It gives access to an analysis of quantum dynamical systems in terms of symbolic dynamics. Here, we strengthen that link by studying explicit examples of quantum dynamical systems. We construct their quantum finite-state generators and establish their *sofic* nature. In addition we review tools that give an information-theoretic analysis for quantifying the information storage and processing of these systems. It turns out that both the sofic nature and information processing capacity depend on the way a quantum system is measured.
Quantum finite-state generators
===============================
To start, we recall the *quantum finite-state generators* (QFGs) defined in Ref. [@wies06b]. They consist of a finite set of *internal states* $Q = \{q_i: i = 1, \ldots, |Q| \}$. The *state vector* is an element of a $|Q|$-dimensional Hilbert space: $\bra{\psi} \in \mathcal{H}$. At each time step a quantum generator outputs a symbol $s \in \Abet$ and updates its state vector.
The temporal dynamics is governed by a set of $|Q|$-dimensional *transition matrices* $\{T(s) = U \cdot P(s), s \in \Abet \}$, whose components are elements of the complex unit disk and where each is a product of a unitary matrix $U$ and a projection operator $P(s)$. $U$ is a $|Q|$-dimensional unitary *evolution operator* that governs the evolution of the state vector $\bra{\psi}$. $\mathbf{P} =\{ P(s): s \in \Abet \}$ is a set of *projection operators*—$|Q|$-dimensional Hermitian matrices—that determines how the state vector is measured. The operators span the Hilbert space: $\sum_\symb P(s) = \mathbbm{1}$.
Each output symbol $s$ is identified with the measurement outcome and labels one of the system’s eigenvalues. The projection operators determine how output symbols are generated from the internal, hidden unitary dynamics. They are the only way to observe a quantum process’s current internal state.
A quantum generator operates as follows. $U_{ij}$ gives the transition amplitude from internal state $q_i$ to internal state $q_j$. Starting in state vector $\bra{\psi_0}$ the generator updates its state by applying the unitary matrix $U$. Then the state vector is projected using $P(s)$ and renormalized. Finally, symbol $s \in \Abet$ is emitted. In other words, starting with state vector ${\bra{ {\psi_0} }}$, a single time-step yields $\bra{ \psi(s) } = \bra{\psi_0} U \cdot P(s)$, with the observer receiving measurement outcome $s$.
Process languages
-----------------
The only physically consistent way to describe a quantum system under iterated observation is in terms of the observed sequence $\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{S} \, \equiv \,\ldots S_{-2} S_{-1} S_0 S_1 \ldots$ of discrete random variables $S_t$. We consider the family of *word distributions*, $\{ {\rm Pr}(s_{t+1} , \ldots , s_{t+L}): s_t \in \Abet \}$, where ${\rm Pr}(s_t)$ denotes the probability that at time $t$ the random variable $S_t$ takes on the particular value $s_t \in \Abet$ and ${\rm Pr} (s_{t+1} , \ldots , s_{t+L})$ denotes the joint probability over sequences of $L$ consecutive measurement outcomes. We assume that the distribution is stationary: $${\rm Pr}(S_{t+1},\ldots, S_{t+L})={\rm Pr}(S_1, \ldots , S_L ) ~.$$ We denote a block of $L$ consecutive variables by $S^L \equiv S_1 \ldots S_L$ and the lowercase $s^L = s_1 s_2 \cdots s_{L}$ denotes a particular measurement sequence of length $L$. We use the term [*quantum process*]{} to refer to the joint distribution ${\rm Pr} (\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{S})$ over the infinite chain of random variables. A quantum process, defined in this way, is the quantum analog of what Shannon referred to as an *information source* [@cover].
Such a quantum process can be described as a *stochastic language* ${\mathcal{L}}$, which is a *formal language* with a probability assigned to each word. A stochastic language’s word distribution is normalized at each word length: $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{\mathclap{\{\symb^L \in {\mathcal{L}}\}}} {\mathrm{Pr}}(\symb^L) = 1 ~, L = 1, 2, 3, \ldots\end{aligned}$$ with $0 \leq {\mathrm{Pr}}(\symb^L) \leq 1$ and the consistency condition ${\mathrm{Pr}}(\symb^L) \leq {\mathrm{Pr}}(\symb^L\symb)$.
A *process language* is a stochastic language that is *subword closed*: all subwords of a word are in the language.
We can now determine word probabilities produced by a QFG. Starting the generator in $\bra{\psi_0}$, the probability of output symbol $s$ is given by the state vector without renormalization: $$\label{eqn:qpry}
{\mathrm{Pr}}(s) = \braket{ \psi(s) | \psi(s)} ~.$$ While the probability of outcome $s^L$ from a measurement sequence is $$\label{eqn:qprsL}
{\mathrm{Pr}}(s^L) = \braket{ \psi(s^L) | \psi(s^L)} ~.$$
In [@wies06b] the authors established a hierarchy of process languages and the corresponding quantum and classical computation-theoretic models that can recognize and generate them.
Alternative quantum finite-state machines
-----------------------------------------
Said most prosaically, we view quantum generators as representations of the word distributions of quantum process languages. Despite similarities, this is a rather different emphasis than that used before. The first mention of *quantum automata* as an empirical description of physical properties was made by Albert in 1983 [@albe83]. Albert’s results were subsequently criticized by Peres for using an inadequate notion of measurement [@pere84]. In a computation-theoretic context, quantum finite automata were introduced by several authors and in varying ways, but all as devices for recognizing word membership in a language. For the most widely discussed quantum automata, see Refs. [@moor00; @kond97; @ahar98]. Ref. [@amba02] summarizes the different classes of languages which they can recognize. Quantum transducers were introduced by Freivalds and Winter [@frei01]. Their definition, however, lacks a physical notion of measurement. We, then, introduced quantum finite-state machines, as a type of transducer, as the general object that can be reduced to the special cases of quantum recognizers and quantum generators of process languages [@wies06b].
Information processing in a spin-$1$ dynamical system
=====================================================
We will now investigate concrete examples of quantum processes. Consider a spin-$1$ particle subject to a magnetic field which rotates the spin. The state evolution can be described by the following unitary matrix: $$U = \left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} & \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} & 0
\\ 0 & 0 & -1
\\ -\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} & \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} & 0
\end{array}
\right) ~.\\
\label{eqn:qgldm}$$ Since all entries are real, $U$ defines a rotation in $\mathbb{R}^3$ around the y-axis by angle $\frac{\pi}{4}$ followed by a rotation around the x-axis by an angle $\frac{\pi}{2}$.
Using a suitable representation of the spin operators $J_i$ [@peres p. 199]: $$\begin{aligned}
J_x & = \left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & i \\
0 & -i & 0
\end{array}
\right) ,~
J_y = \left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
0 & 0 & i \\
0 & 0 & 0 \\
-i & 0 & 0
\end{array}
\right) ,~ \nonumber \\
J_z & = \left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
0 & i & 0 \\
-i & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0
\end{array}
\right) ,\end{aligned}$$ the relation $P_i = 1 - J_i^2$ defines a one-to-one correspondence between the projector $P_i$ and the square of the spin component along the $i$-axis. The resulting measurement answers the yes-no question, Is the square of the spin component along the $i$-axis zero?
Consider the observable $J_y^2$. Then the following projection operators together with $U$ in Eq. (\[eqn:qgldm\]) define the quantum finite-state generator: $$\begin{aligned}
P(0) & = \ket{010}\bra{010} \nonumber \\
~\mathrm{and}~
~P(1) & = \ket{100}\bra{100} + \ket{001}\bra{001}
~.\end{aligned}$$
A graphical representation of the automaton is shown in Fig. \[fig:gm-qdg\].
The process language generated by this QFG is the so-called *Golden-Mean Process* language [@kitchens]. The word distribution is shown in Fig. \[fig:gm-lang\]. It is characterized by the set of *irreducible forbidden words* $\mathcal{F} = \{00\}$: no consecutive zeros occur. In other words, for the spin-$1$ particle the spin component along the $y$-axis never vanishes twice in a row. This restriction—the dominant structure in the process—is a *short-range correlation* since the measurement outcome at time $t$ only depends on the immediately preceding one at time $t-1$. If the outcome is $0$, the next outcome will be $1$ with certainty. If the outcome is $1$, the next measurement is maximally uncertain: outcomes $0$ and $1$ occur with equal probability.
Consider the same Hamiltonian, but now use instead the observable $J_x^2$. The corresponding projection operators define the QFG: $$\begin{aligned}
\notag
P(0) &= \ket{100}\bra{100}\\
~\mathrm{and}~
~P(1) &= \ket{010}\bra{010} + \ket{001}\bra{001}
~.\end{aligned}$$ The QFG defined by $U$ and these projection operators is shown in Fig. \[fig:ep-qdg\]. The process language generated by this QFG is the so-called *Even Process* language [@hirs70; @kitchens]. The word distribution is shown in Fig. \[fig:ep-lang\]. It is defined by the infinite set of irreducible forbidden words $\mathcal{F} = \{01^{2k-1}0\}, k=1,2,3,...$. That is, if the spin component equals 0 along the $x$-axis it will be zero an even number of consecutive measurements before being observed to be nonzero. This is a type of *infinite correlation*: For a possibly infinite number of time steps the system tracks the evenness or oddness of number of consecutive measurements of “spin component equals 0 along the $x$-axis”.
Note that changing the measurement, specifically choosing $J_z^2$ as the observable, yields a QFG that generates *Golden Mean* process language again.
The two processes produced by these quantum dynamical systems are well known in the context of symbolic dynamics [@lind]—a connection we will return to shortly. Let us first, though, turn to another important property of finite-state machines and explore its role in computational capacity and dynamics.
Determinism
===========
The label *determinism* is used in a variety of senses, some of which are seemingly contradictory. Here, we adopt the notion, familiar from automata theory [@hopcroft], which differs from that in physics, say, of non-stochasticity. One calls a finite-state machine (classical or quantum) *deterministic* whenever the transition from one state to the next is uniquely determined by the output symbol, or input symbol for recognizers. It is important to realize that a *deterministic* finite-state machine can still behave stochastically—stochasticity here referring to the positive probability of generating symbols. Once the symbol is determined, though, the transition taken by the machine to the next state is unique. Thus, what is called a *stochastic process* in dynamical systems theory can be described by a deterministic finite-state generator without contradiction.
We can easily check the two quantum finite-state machines in Figs. \[fig:gm-qdg\] and \[fig:ep-qdg\] for determinism by inspecting each state and its outgoing transitions. One quickly sees that both generators are deterministic. In contrast, the third QFG mentioned above, defined by $U$ in Eq. (\[eqn:qgldm\]) and $J_z^2$, is nondeterministic.
Determinism is a desirable property for various reasons. One is the simplicity of the mapping between observed symbols and internal states. Once the observer synchronizes to the internal state dynamics, the output symbols map one-to-one *onto* the internal states. In general, though, the observed symbol sequences do not track the internal state dynamics (orbit) directly. (This brings one to the topic of hidden Markov chains [@bishop].)
For optimal prediction, however, access to the internal state dynamics is key. Thus, when one has a deterministic model, the observed sequences reveal the internal dynamics. Once they are known and one is synchronized, the process becomes optimally predictable. A final, related reason why determinism is desirable is that closed-form expressions can be given for various information processing measures, as we will discuss in Sec. \[sec:info\].
Sofic systems {#sec:sofic}
=============
In symbolic dynamics, sofic systems are used as tractable representations with which to analyze continuous-state dynamical systems [@lind; @kitchens]. Let the alphabet $\Abet$ together with an $n \times n$ adjacency matrix (with entries $0$ or $1$) define a directed graph $G=(V,E)$ with $V$ the set of vertices and $E$ the set of edges. Let $X$ be the set of all infinite admissible sequences of edges, where *admissible* means that the sequence corresponds to a path through the graph. Let $T$ be the shift operator on this sequence; it plays the role of the time-evolution operator of the dynamical system. A *sofic system* is then defined as the pair $(X, T)$ [@weis73]. The Golden Mean and the Even process are standard examples of *sofic systems*. The Even system, in particular, was introduced by Hirsch et al in the 1970s [@hirs70].
Whenever the rule set for admissible sequences is finite one speaks of a *subshift of finite type*. The Golden Mean process is a subshift of finite type. Words in the language are defined by the finite (single) rule of not containing the subword $00$. The Even Process, on the other hand, is not of finite type, since the number of rules is infinite: The forbidden words $\{01^{2k+1}0\}$ cannot be reduced to a finite set. As we noted, the rule set, which determines allowable words, implies the process has a kind of infinite memory. One refers, in this case, to a *strictly sofic* system.
The spin-$1$ example above appears to be the first time a strictly sofic system has been identified in quantum dynamics. This ties quantum dynamics to languages and quantum automata theory in a way similar to that found in classical dynamical systems theory. In the latter setting, words in the sequences generated by sofic systems correspond to *regular languages*—languages recognized by some finite-state machine. We now have a similar construction for quantum dynamics. For any (finite-dimensional) quantum dynamical system under observation we can construct a QFG, using a unitary operator and a set of projection operators. The language it generates can then be analyzed in terms of the rule set of admissible sequences. One interesting open problem becomes the question whether the words produced by sofic quantum dynamical systems correspond to the regular languages. An indication that this is not so is given by the fact that finite-state quantum recognizers can accept nonregular process languages [@wies06b].
Information-theoretic analysis {#sec:info}
==============================
The process languages generated by the spin-$1$ particle under a particular observation scheme can be analyzed using well known information-theoretic quantities such as *Shannon block entropy* and *entropy rate* [@cover] and others introduced in Ref. [@crut03]. Here, we will limit ourselves to the *excess entropy*. The applicability of this analysis to quantum dynamical systems has been shown in Ref. [@crut06], where closed-form expressions are given for some of these quantities when the generator is known.
We can use the observed behavior, as reflected in the word distribution, to come to a number of conclusions about how a quantum process generates randomness and stores and transforms historical information. The [*Shannon entropy*]{} of length-$L$ sequences is defined $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:HL}
H(L) &\equiv - \sum_{ s^L \in {\cal A}^L } {\mathrm{Pr}}(s^L) \l2 {\mathrm{Pr}}(s^L) ~.\end{aligned}$$ It measures the average surprise in observing the “event” $s^L$. Ref. [@crut03] showed that a stochastic process’s informational properties can be derived systematically by taking derivatives and then integrals of $H(L)$, as a function of $L$. For example, the [*source entropy rate*]{} $\hmu$ is the rate of increase with respect to $L$ of the Shannon entropy in the large-$L$ limit: $$\hmu \equiv \lim_{L \rightarrow \infty} \left[ H(L) - H(L-1) \right] \; ,
\label{ent.def}$$ where the units are *bits/measurement* [@cover].
Ref. [@crut06] showed that the entropy rate of a quantum process can be calculated directly from its QFG, when the latter is deterministic. A closed-form expression for the entropy rate in this case is given by: $$\begin{aligned}
\hmu = - |Q|^{-1} \sum_{i=0}^{|Q|-1}\sum_{j=0}^{|Q|-1}
|U_{ij}|^2 \log_2 |U_{ij}|^2 ~,\end{aligned}$$ The entropy rate $\hmu$ quantifies the irreducible randomness in processes: the randomness that remains after the correlations and structures in longer and longer sequences are taken into account.
The latter, in turn, is measured by a complementary quantity. The amount $I({\stackrel{\leftarrow}{S}};{\stackrel{\rightarrow}{S}})$ of mutual information [@cover] shared between a process’s past ${\stackrel{\leftarrow}{S}}$ and its future ${\stackrel{\rightarrow}{S}}$ is given by the *excess entropy* $\EE$ [@crut03]. It is the subextensive part of $H(L)$: $$\EE = \lim_{L \rightarrow \infty} [ H(L) - \hmu L ]\;.
\label{EEfromEntropyGrowth}$$ Note that the units here are *bits*.
Ref. [@crut03] gives a closed-form expression for $\EE$ for *order-$R$* Markov processes—those in which the measurement symbol probabilities depend only on the previous $R-1$ symbols. In this case, Eq. (\[EEfromEntropyGrowth\]) reduces to: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:eeR}
E = H(R) - R\cdot \hmu~,\end{aligned}$$ where $H(R)$ is a sum over $|\Abet|^R$ terms. Given that the quantum generator is deterministic we can simply employ the above formula for $\hmu$ and compute the block entropy at length $R$ to obtain the excess entropy for the order-$R$ quantum process.
Ref. [@crut06] computes these entropy measures for various example systems, including the spin-$1$ particle. The results are summarized in Table \[tab:info\]. The value for the excess entropy of the Golden Mean process obtained by using Eq. (\[eq:eeR\]) agrees with the value obtained from simulation data, shown in Table \[tab:info\]. The entropy $\hmu = 2/3$ bits per measurement for both processes, and thus they have the same amount of irreducible randomness. The excess entropy, though, differs markedly. The Golden Mean process ($J_y^2$ measured) stores, on average, $\EE \approx 0.25$ bits at any given time step. The Even Process ($J_x^2$ measured) stores, on average, $\EE \approx 0.90$ bits, which reflects its longer memory of previous measurements.
------------------------------- --------- ---------
Quantum
Dynamical System
Observable $J_y^2$ $J_x^2$
$\hmu$ \[*bits/measurement*\] 0.666 0.666
$\EE$ \[*bits*\] 0.252 0.902
------------------------------- --------- ---------
: Information storage and generation for example quantum processes: entropy rate $\hmu$ and excess entropy $\EE$. []{data-label="tab:info"}
Conclusion
==========
We have shown that quantum dynamical systems store information in their dynamics. The information is accessed via measurement. Closer inspection would suggest even that information is *created* through measurement. In any case, the key conclusion is that, since both processes are represented by a $3$-state QFG constructed from the same internal quantum dynamics, it is the means of observation alone that affects the amount of memory. This was illustrated with the particular examples of the spin-$1$ particle in a magnetic field. Depending on the choice of observable the spin-$1$ particle generates different process languages. We showed that these could be analyzed in terms of the block entropy—a measure of uncertainty, the entropy rate—a measure of irreducible randomness, and the excess entropy—a measure of structure. Knowing the (deterministic) QFG representation, these quantities can be calculated in closed form.
We established a connection between quantum automata theory and quantum dynamics, similar to the way *symbolic dynamics* connects classical dynamics and automata. By considering the output sequence of a repeatedly measured quantum system as a shift system we found quantum processes that are sofic systems. Taking one quantum system and observing it in one way yields a subshift of finite type. Observing it in a different way yields a (strictly sofic) subshift of infinite type. Consequently, not only the amount of memory but also the soficity of a quantum process depend on the means of observation.
This can be compared to the fact that, classically the Golden Mean and the Even sofic systems can be transformed into each other by a two-block map. The adjacency matrix of the graphs is the same. A similar situation arises here. The unitary matrix, which is the corresponding adjacency matrix of the quantum graph, is the same for both processes. The processes can be transformed into each other by expressing one set of projection operators in the eigenbasis of the other. This transformation always exists since the operators simply represent different orthonormal basis sets spanning the Hilbert space.\
The preceding attempted to forge a link between quantum dynamical systems and quantum computation by extending concepts from symbolic dynamics to the quantum setting. We believe the results suggest further study of the properties of quantum finite-state generators and the processes they generate is necessary and will shed light on a number of questions in quantum information processing. One open technical question is whether sofic quantum systems are the closure of quantum subshifts of finite-type, as they are for classical systems [@weis73]. There are indications that this is not so. For example, as we noted, quantum finite-state recognizers can recognize nonregular process languages [@wies06b].
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Synchronization in networks of interconnected oscillators is a fascinating phenomenon that appear naturally in many independent fields of science and engineering. A substantial amount of work has been devoted to understanding all possible synchronization configurations on a given network. In this setting, a key problem is to determine the total number of such configurations. Through an algebraic formulation, for tree and cycle graphs, we provide an upper bound on this number using the birationally invariant intersection index of a system of rational functions on a toric variety.'
author:
- 'Tianran Chen [^1]'
- 'Robert Davis [^2]'
- 'Dhagash Mehta [^3]'
bibliography:
- 'nobodies.bib'
- 'kuramoto.bib'
- 'conv.bib'
- 'bkk.bib'
- 'chen.bib'
title: Counting equilibria of the Kuramoto model using birationally invariant intersection index
---
Introduction {#sec:introduction}
============
The root counting problem for systems of nonlinear equations is a fundamental problem in mathematics that has a wide range of applications. Given an algebraic variety $X$ and complex vector spaces $L_1,\dots,L_n$ of rational functions on $X$, it has been established by K. Kaveh and A.G. Khovanskii [@kaveh_newton_2009] that for generic choices $f_1 \in L_1,\dots,f_n \in L_n$, the number of common complex roots of $f_1,\dots,f_n$ in $X$ is a fixed number, known as the *birationally invariant intersection index* of $L_1,\dots,L_n$ in $X$, denoted $[L_1,\dots,L_n]$. Moreover, $[L_1,\dots,L_n]$ is given by the mixed volume of Newton-Okounkov bodies associated with $L_1,\dots,L_n$ and hence a far generalization of the well known BKK bound [@bernshtein_number_1975; @khovanskii_newton_1978; @kushnirenko_newton_1976]. Computation of $[L_1,\dots,L_n]$ remains difficult. This paper focuses on the indirect computation of this index for an algebraic formulation of the “Kuramoto equations” rooted in the study of spontaneous synchronization in networks of connected oscillators which is a ubiquitous phenomenon that has been discovered and studied in a wide range of disciplines including physics, biology, chemistry, and engineering [@dorfler_synchronization_2014]. Mathematically, a network of $N=n+1$ oscillators can be described by a weighted graph $G = (V,E,A)$ in which vertices $V = \{0,\dots,n\}$ represent the oscillators, edges $E$ represent their connections, and weights $A = \{a_{ij}\}$ represent the *coupling strength* along edges. In isolation, the oscillators have their own natural frequency $\omega_0,\dots,\omega_n$. However, in a network of oscillators the tug of war between the oscillators’ tendency to oscillate in their own natural frequencies and the influence of their neighbors gives rise to rich and complicated phenomenon. This is captured by the Kuramoto model [@Kuramoto1975] $$\frac{d \theta_i}{dt} =
\omega_i -
\sum_{j \in \mathcal{N}_G(i)} a_{ij} \sin(\theta_{i}-\theta_{j})
\quad \text{ for } i = 0,\dots,n
\label{equ:kuramoto-ode}$$ where each $\theta_i \in [0,2\pi)$ is the phase angle that describes the status of the $i$-th oscillator, and $\mathcal{N}_G(i)$ is the set of neighbors of the $i$-th vertex. A configuration $\boldsymbol{\theta} = (\theta_0,\dots,\theta_n)$ is said to be in *frequency synchronization* if $\frac{d\theta_i}{dt} = 0$ for all $i$ at $\boldsymbol{\theta}$. To remove the inherent degree of freedom given by uniform rotations, it is customary to fix $\theta_0 = 0$. Then such synchronization configurations are characterized by the system of $n$ nonlinear equations $$\omega_i - \sum_{j \in \mathcal{N}_G(i)} a_{ij} \sin(\theta_{i}-\theta_{j}) = 0
\quad \text{ for } i = 1,\dots,n
\label{equ:sync-sin}$$ in the variables $\theta_1,\dots,\theta_n$ with constant $\theta_0 = 0$. Then, the root counting problem is:
\[prb:original\] Given $\omega_1,\dots,\omega_n \in {\mathbb{R}}$ and a weighted graph of $n+1$ nodes, what is the maximum number of real solutions the induced system could have?
An upper bound to this answer, that is independent from network topology, is shown to be $\binom{2n}{n}$ [@Baillieul1982]. However, recent studies [@Chen2016; @Mehta2015] suggests much tighter upper bounds that are sensitive to network topology may exist. In this paper, we show that this is true.
To leverage tools from algebraic geometry, we shall reformulate the synchronization system as a system of rational equations. Using the identity $\sin(\theta_{i} - \theta_{j}) = \frac{1}{2{\mathbf{i}}}
(e^{ {\mathbf{i}}(\theta_{i} - \theta_{j})} - e^{-{\mathbf{i}}(\theta_{i} - \theta_{j})})$ where ${\mathbf{i}}= \sqrt{-1}$, can be transformed into $$\omega_{i} -
\sum_{j \in \mathcal{N}_G(i)}
\frac{a_{i,j}}{2{\mathbf{i}}} (
e^{ {\mathbf{i}}\theta_{i}} e^{-{\mathbf{i}}\theta_{j}} -
e^{-{\mathbf{i}}\theta_{i}} e^{ {\mathbf{i}}\theta_{j}}
) = 0
\quad \text{ for } i = 1,\dots,n.$$ With the substitution $x_{i} := e^{{\mathbf{i}}\theta_{i}}$ for $i = 1,\dots,n$, we obtain the Laurent polynomial system $$\label{equ:sync-laurent}
F_{G,i}(x_1,\dots,x_n) = \omega_{i} - \sum_{j \in \mathcal{N}_G(i)} a_{ij}'
\left(
\frac{x_i}{x_j} - \frac{x_j}{x_i}
\right) = 0
\quad \text{ for } i = 1,\dots,n$$ where $a_{ij}' = \frac{a_{ij}}{2{\mathbf{i}}}$ and $x_0 = 1$ is a constant. This system, $F_G = (F_{G,1},\dots,F_{G,n})$, is a system of $n$ rational equations in the $n$ complex variables $\mathbf{x} = (x_1,\dots,x_n)$. Since $x_i$’s appear in the denominator positions, $F_G$ is only defined on ${({\mathbb{C}}^*)}^n = {({\mathbb{C}}\setminus \{0\})}^n$. Clearly, each equivalence class of real solutions of (modulo translations by multiples of $2\pi$) corresponds to a solution of in ${({\mathbb{C}}^*)}^n$. Therefore, we can consider a more general root counting problem:
\[prb:Cstar\] Given nonzero constants $\omega_1,\dots,\omega_n$ and a weighted graph of $n+1$ nodes with weights $\{ a_{ij}' \}$, what is the maximum number of isolated ${\mathbb{C}}^*$-solutions the system could have?
Clearly, every answer for Problem \[prb:Cstar\] would provide an upper bound for the answers for Problem \[prb:original\]. However, the algebraic formulation for Problem \[prb:Cstar\] allows the use of powerful tools from complex algebraic geometry, in particular, the theory of birationally invariant intersection index which states that the maximum number of isolated solutions coincide with the “generic” number of isolated solutions of an appropriate family of systems: For each vertex $i=1,\dots,n$, define the complex vector space of rational functions $$L_{G,i} = \operatorname{span} \left(
\{1\} \; \cup \;
{\{ x_i x_j^{-1} - x_i^{-1} x_j \}}_{j\in\mathcal{N}_G(i)}
\right).
\label{equ:L-space}$$ With this construction, the $i$-th equation in is an element in $L_{G,i}$. Therefore, the number of ${\mathbb{C}}^*$-solutions of for generic choices of weights and constant terms will be equal to the number of common roots of $n$ generic elements from $L_{G,1},\dots,L_{G,n}$ respectively within the toric variety ${({\mathbb{C}}^*)}^n$. This is precisely the birationally invariant intersection index [@kaveh_newton_2009], denoted $[L_{G,1},\dots,L_{G,n}]$.
\[prb:index\] Given a graph $G$ with $n+1$ vertices $0,1,\dots,n$, let $L_{G,i} = \operatorname{span} \left(
\{1\} \; \cup \;
{\{ x_i x_j^{-1} - x_i^{-1} x_j \}}_{j\in\mathcal{N}(i)}
\right)$. What is $[\; L_{G,1}\,,\, \dots \, ,\, L_{G,n} \;]$ ?
Though the intersection index $[L_{G,1},\dots,L_{G,n}]$ can be expressed as the generalized mixed volume of the Newton-Okounkov bodies associated with $L_{G,1},\dots,L_{G,n}$, its direct computation, in general, remains a difficult problem. Using a construction known as the “adjacency polytope bound” developed in [@chen_unmixing_2017; @chen_network_2015], the primary contribution of this paper is the computation of explicit formulas for the birationally invariant intersection index $[L_{G,1},\dots,L_{G,n}]$ for certain graphs. In particular, we show that for trees and cycles of $N$ vertices, the intersection index $[L_{G,1},\dots,L_{G,n}]$ is $2^{N-1}$ and $N \binom{N-1}{\lfloor (N-1)/2 \rfloor}$ respectively. Both are significantly less than the only known upper bound $\binom{2N-2}{N-1}$ for the general case (hetergeneous oscillators with nonuniform coupling) of the Kuramoto equations even for small values of $n$. Asymptotically, in both cases, the ratio between the new bounds and $\binom{2N-2}{N-1}$ goes to zero as $N \to \infty$. Moreover, the intersection index derived from tree graphs also coincide with the well known lower bound of the number of *real* solutions to the original (non-algebraic) system showing that the intersection index derived from a complex solution bound can actually be attained by real solutions. These results are dramatic improvements over the existing bound on the number of synchronization configuration for a Kuramoto model. They also confirm the crucial role network topology plays in the exhaustive study of synchronization in Kuramoto model. From a computational view point, these generically exact explicit upper bounds on the number of solutions are also of great importance in numerical methods for finding all synchronization configurations for the Kuramoto model: It provides an explicit stopping criteria for iterative solvers such as Newton-based solvers as well as the homotopy-based Monodromy method [@Duff2016]. The secondary contribution is the general approach of computing the birationally invariant intersection index by finding the appropriate relaxation: Using the much simpler construction of the adjacency polytope bound, the problem is transformed into a problem of computing normalized volumes for certain polytopes. The rest of the paper is structured as follows. In §\[sec:background\], we briefly review the Kuramoto model and existing results on the number of possible equilibria. §\[sec:prelim\] reviews notations and well known theorems to be used. In §\[sec:tree\] and §\[sec:cycle\], we compute $[L_{G,1},\dots,L_{G,n}]$ for trees and cycles respectively.
Kuramoto model and synchronization equations {#sec:background}
============================================
[r]{}[0.30]{}
(0,0) circle(5.0); (5,0) – (0,5); (0,5) – (-3,-4); (5,0) – (3,-4); (3,-4) – (-3,-4); ( 5, 0) arc\[radius=5, start angle=0 , end angle=20\]; ( 0, 5) arc\[radius=5, start angle=90 , end angle=110\]; (-3,-4) arc\[radius=5, start angle=233, end angle=213\]; ( 3,-4) arc\[radius=5, start angle=307, end angle=327\]; ( 5, 0) circle(0.4); ( 0, 5) circle(0.4); ( 3,-4) circle(0.4); (-3,-4) circle(0.4);
The study of synchronization in networks of coupled oscillators is a particularly pervasive subject in a wide range of independent fields of study in biology, physics, chemistry, engineering, and social science. We refer to [@blekhman_synchronization_1988; @Acebron2005] for a detailed historical account for this topic. The simplest mechanical analog of the coupled oscillator model is a spring network, shown in Figure \[fig:spring-network\], that consists of a set of weightless particles constrained to move on the unit circle without friction or collision [@dorfler_synchronization_2014]. Here, the coupling strength[^4] $a_{ij} > 0$ characterizes the stiffness of the spring connecting particles $i$ and $j$, and $\frac{d\theta_i}{dt}$ represents the angular velocity (or equivalently, frequency) of the $i$-th particle. Of great interest is the configuration in which the angular velocity of *all* particles can become perfectly aligned, known as *frequency synchronization*. That is, $\frac{d\theta_i}{dt} = c$ for $i=0,\dots,n$ and a constant $c$. Adopting a rotational frame of reference, we can always assume $c = 0$. That is, frequency synchronization configurations are equivalent to equilibria of the Kuramoto model . Under this assumption, the $n+1$ equilibrium equations must sum to zero. This allows the elimination of one of the equations, producing the system of $n$ equations in $n$ unknowns. Despite its mechanical origin, the frequency synchronization system naturally appears in a long list of seemingly unrelated fields, including electrical power networks [@Baillieul1982; @dorfler_2013], flocking behavior in biology and control theory [@Justh2004; @Vicsek1995], and decentralized clock synchronization [@Simeone2008]. We refer to [@dorfler_synchronization_2014] for a detailed list.
In [@Baillieul1982], an upper bound on the number of equilibria of the Kuramoto model (solutions to ) induced by a graph of $N$ vertices with any coupling strengths is shown to be $\binom{2N-2}{N-1}$. For certain cases such as the Kuramoto model on the one, two and three-dimensional lattice graphs with different boundary conditions, as well as for complete and planar graphs, all or at least a class of equilibria were analytically [@Casetti:June2003:0022-4715:1091; @delabays2016multistability; @delabays2017multistability; @kastner2011stationary; @mehta2011stationary; @Nerattini:2012pi; @ochab2010synchronization; @xin2016analytical] and numerically [@Hughes:2012hg; @hughes2014inversion; @manik2016cycle; @Mehta:2013iea; @xi2017synchronization] found in previous studies. For tree graphs of $N$ nodes, it is well known that there could be as many as $2^{N-1}$ real equilibria. Various algebraic formulations have been used to leverage results from algebraic geometry and numerically find some or all equilibria for certain small graphs [@Chen2016; @mehta2011finding; @Mehta2015; @Mehta:2009zv]. Recently, in the special case of “rank-one coupling”, i.e., the matrix $[a_{ij}]$ has rank 1, a much smaller bound $2^N-2$ was established [@Coss2017]. Based on the theory of the BKK bound, a search for topology-dependent bounds on the number of solutions to and was initiated in [@Chen2016; @Mehta2015]. In the present contribution, we provide explicit formulas for a much stronger solution bound: the birationally invariant intersection index.
Preliminaries and notations {#sec:prelim}
===========================
For a compact set $Q \subset {\mathbb{R}}^n$, $\operatorname{vol}_n(Q)$ denotes its standard Euclidean volume, and the quantity $n! \operatorname{vol}_n(Q)$ is its *normalized volume*, denoted $\operatorname{NVol}_n(Q)$. Say $Q$ is *convex* if it contains the line segment connecting any two points $Q$. For a set $X \subset {\mathbb{R}}^n$, its *convex hull* is the smallest convex set containing it, denoted $\operatorname{conv}(X)$, and its *affine span* is the smallest affine subspace of ${\mathbb{R}}^n$ containing it, denoted $\operatorname{aff}(X)$. A (*convex*) *polytope* is the convex hull of a finite set of points. Of particular importance in the current context are convex polytopes whose vertices lie in ${\mathbb{Z}}^n$. Such polytopes are called *lattice polytopes*. A full dimensional convex lattice polytope $P \subset {\mathbb{R}}^n$ is said to be *reflexive* if its dual $$P^* = \{ \mathbf{x} \in {\mathbb{R}}^n \mid \langle \mathbf{x}, \mathbf{p} \rangle \ge -1,\; \forall \mathbf{p} \in P \}$$ is also a lattice polytope. Given two convex polytopes $P \subset {\mathbb{R}}^n$ and $Q \subset {\mathbb{R}}^m$ both containing the origin, their *free sum*, denoted $P \oplus Q$, is $\operatorname{conv}( P' \cup Q' ) \subset {\mathbb{R}}^{n+m}$ where $$P' = \{ (\mathbf{p}, \mathbf{0}) \in {\mathbb{R}}^{n+m} \mid \mathbf{p} \in P \}$$ and $$Q' = \{ (\mathbf{0}, \mathbf{q}) \in {\mathbb{R}}^{n+m} \mid \mathbf{q} \in Q \}.$$ An important fact is that under mild conditions, the normalized volume of a free sum of lattice polytopes factors.
\[lem:free sum-vol\] Given two convex lattice polytopes $P$ and $Q$ both containing the origin as an interior point, if one of them is reflexive, then $\operatorname{NVol}(P \oplus Q) = \operatorname{NVol}(P) \cdot \operatorname{NVol}(Q)$.
The set ${({\mathbb{C}}^*)}^n$, known as an *algebraic torus*, has the structure of an abelian group under component-wise multiplication, and it will be the space in which we study the root count of synchronization equations. A *Laurent monomial* in $\mathbf{x}=(x_1,\dots,x_n)$ induced by vector $\mathbf{a} = (a_1,\dots,a_n) \in {\mathbb{Z}}^n$ is the formal expression $\mathbf{x}^{\mathbf{a}} = x_1^{a_1} \cdots x_n^{a_n}$. It is easy to verify that as a map from ${({\mathbb{C}}^*)}^n$ to ${\mathbb{C}}^*$, $\mathbf{x}^{\mathbf{a}}$ is actually a character, i.e., a group homomorphism. In general, a system of Laurent monomials induced by $\mathbf{a}_1,\dots,\mathbf{a}_m \in {\mathbb{Z}}^n$ give rise to the group homomorphism $\mathbf{x} \mapsto (\mathbf{x}^{\mathbf{a}_1},\dots,\mathbf{x}^{\mathbf{a}_m})$ between ${({\mathbb{C}}^*)}^n$ and ${({\mathbb{C}}^*)}^m$. Of particular importance, is the case where $m=n$.
\[lem:toric-automorphism\] Given vectors $\mathbf{a}_1,\dots,\mathbf{a}_n \in {\mathbb{Z}}^n$, the map $\mathbf{x} \mapsto (\mathbf{x}^{\mathbf{a}_1},\dots,\mathbf{x}^{\mathbf{a}_m})$ is an automorphism of ${({\mathbb{C}}^*)}^n$ if and only if $|\det [\mathbf{a}_1,\dots,\mathbf{a}_n]| = 1$ and in that case, the map is a bi-holomorphism.
For the integer matrix $A = [\mathbf{a}_1,\dots,\mathbf{a}_n]$ and $\mathbf{x} = (x_1,\dots,x_n)$ above, we use the compact notation ${\mathbf{x}}^A = (\mathbf{x}^{\mathbf{a}_1},\dots,\mathbf{x}^{\mathbf{a}_1})$ to represent the automorphism induced by $A$. Such a square integer matrix $A$ with $|\det(A)| = 1$ is said to be *unimodular*. More generally, an integer matrix (not necessarily square) is *totally unimodular* if all its nonsingular submatrices are unimodular. This concept also extend to lattice polytopes: A lattice simplex is *unimodular* if its normalized volume is 1, and a simplicial subdivision of a lattice polytope is *unimodular* if it consists of only unimodular simplices.
A *Laurent polynomial* is a finite linear combination of distinct Laurent monomials, i.e., an expression of the form $f = \sum_{\mathbf{a} \in S} c_{\mathbf{a}} \mathbf{x}^{\mathbf{a}}$ for some finite $S \subset {\mathbb{Z}}^n$. The set $\operatorname{conv}(S) \subset {\mathbb{R}}^n$ is called the *Newton polytope* of $f$. Given a nonzero $\mathbf{v} \in {\mathbb{R}}^n$, $\operatorname{init}_{\mathbf{v}} f$ is defined to be $\sum_{\mathbf{a} \in {(S)}_{\mathbf{v}}} c_{\mathbf{a}} \mathbf{x}^{\mathbf{a}}$ where ${(S)}_{\mathbf{v}}$ is the subset of $S$ on which the linear functional $\langle \cdot, \mathbf{v} \rangle$ attains its minimum. Extending this notation to a system of Laurent polynomials $F = (f_1,\dots,f_n)$, we write $\operatorname{init}_{\mathbf{v}} F = (\operatorname{init}_{\mathbf{v}} f_1,\dots,\operatorname{init}_{\mathbf{v}} f_n$). Newton polytopes play critical roles in calculating the generic number of isolated solutions in ${({\mathbb{C}}^*)}^n$ (or simply ${\mathbb{C}}^*$-solutions) a system of $n$ Laurent polynomial equations could have. Indeed, this generic ${\mathbb{C}}^*$-solution count is given by the mixed volume of the Newton polytopes. This is the content of Bernshtein’s Theorem [@bernshtein_number_1975; @khovanskii_newton_1978; @kushnirenko_newton_1976], and this count has since been known as the **BKK bound** [@canny_optimal_1991]. Though we will not directly compute BKK bounds, the condition for BKK bound to be exact will be used in establishing our main results.
\[thm:bernshtein-b\] Consider a system of $n$ Laurent polynomials $F = (f_1,\dots,f_n)$ in $n$ variables. If $\operatorname{init}_{\mathbf{v}} F$ has no solution in ${({\mathbb{C}}^*)}^n$ for any nonzero vector $\mathbf{v} \in {\mathbb{R}}^n$, then all solutions of $F(\mathbf{x}) = \mathbf{0}$ are isolated and the total number is exactly the BKK bound of the system.
An important fact is that for generic choice of the coefficients, the BKK bound is exact.
\[lem:init-sys\] Let $F = (f_1,\dots,f_n)$ be a system of $n$ Laurent polynomials in $n$ variables. For generic choices of coefficients, and any nonzero $\mathbf{v} \in {\mathbb{R}}^n$ $\operatorname{init}_{\mathbf{v}} F$ has no solution in ${({\mathbb{C}}^*)}^n$.
\[rmk:generic\] “Generic choice” is a subtle concept in algebraic geometry. In the current context, it is sufficient to take the following “probability one” interpretation: If the coefficients are chosen at random (with independent distribution) among all possible complex coefficients, then with probability one, Lemma \[lem:init-sys\] is true. However, using the set of coefficients to parametrize a nonlinear system is not completely precise: For any nonsingular square matrix $A$, the system $F$ and $A \cdot F$ are naturally equivalent. Consequently, the more precise parametrization using a certain Grassmannian has to be considered in order to make sense of the concept of generic choice.
A relaxation of the BKK bound was developed in the context of algebraic synchronization equations [@chen_unmixing_2017] as well as the closely related “power-flow equations.” [@chen_network_2015].
\[def:adj-polytope\] Given a graph $G$, we define its **adjacency polytope** to be $$\nabla_G =
\operatorname{conv}(\nabla_{G,1} \cup \cdots \cup \nabla_{G,n}) =
\operatorname{conv}( \{ \pm (\mathbf{e}_i-\mathbf{e}_j) \mid (i,j) \in E(G) \}).$$ The normalized volume $\operatorname{NVol}(\nabla_G)$ is called the **adjacency polytope bound** of $G$.
The polytope $\nabla_G$ can be considered as a geometric encoding of the topology of the graph $G$. Adjacency polytopes have been previously studied in order to identify properties of a related semigroup algebra, such as in [@centrallysymmetric]. However, previous work has not addressed the normalized volume of these polytopes. A simple observation [@chen_unmixing_2017; @chen_network_2015] is that the adjacency polytope bound (or simply, **AP bound**) is indeed an upper bound for answers of Problem \[prb:Cstar\] and \[prb:index\]:
\[pro:ap-bound\] Given a graph $G$ containing vertices $\{0,1,\dots,n\}$, the number of isolated ${\mathbb{C}}^*$-solutions for the algebraic system is bounded by the AP bound $\operatorname{NVol}(\nabla_G)$.
By comparing the constructions of the solution bounds outlined above, it is easy to verify the following chain of inequalities $$\parbox{12ex}{\centering ${\mathbb{R}}$-solution\\ count of~\eqref{equ:sync-sin}}
\;\le \;
\parbox{12ex}{\centering ${\mathbb{C}}^*$-solution\\ count of~\eqref{equ:sync-laurent}}
\; \le \;
[L_{G,1},\dots,L_{G,n}]
\; \le \;
\parbox{7ex}{\centering BKK\\ bound} \; \le \;
\parbox{7ex}{\centering AP\\ bound} \label{equ:comparison}$$
Tree graphs
===========
\[sec:tree\] This section provides the answers for Problem \[prb:Cstar\] and \[prb:index\] for a tree graph $T_N$ containing $N=n+1$ vertices. The strategy is to bound $[L_{T_N,1},\dots,L_{T_N,n}]$ from above using the AP bound, and then bound it from below by examining the actual number of solutions. With this, we shall show $[L_{T_N,1},\dots,L_{T_N,n}]$ is $2^n = 2^{N-1}$. This agrees with a well known fact in the study of the Kuramoto model: for tree graphs, the original (non-algebraic) Kuramoto model could have as many as $2^{N-1}$ real equilibria. This shows that even though it is derived from a complex algebraic formulation, the bound $[L_{T_N,1},\dots,L_{T_N,n}]$ on the number of complex solutions can be attained by just real solutions. That is, the algebraization of and the extension to the field of complex numbers does not significantly alter the geometry of the underlying problem. For a vertex $i$ in $T_N$, let $\pi(i)$ be the unique parent vertex of $i$, let $\sigma(i)$ be the set of all descendant nodes of $i$, and let $d(i)$ be the depth of the vertex $i$.
\[lem:tree-transform\] The map $\phi = (\phi_1,\dots,\phi_n) : {({\mathbb{C}}^*)}^n \to {({\mathbb{C}}^*)}^n$ given by $$\phi_i(y_1,\dots,y_n) = y_i \, \prod_{k=1}^{d(i)-1} y_{\pi^k(i)}
\quad\text{for } i=1,\dots,n$$ is a bijection, and the Jacobian matrix $D\phi$ is nonsingular everywhere.
A tree, by definition, has no cycles, so it is always possible to re-index the vertices such that vertex 0 is the root and $\pi(i) < i$ for any $i$. With this convention, we can write $\phi$ as $\phi(\mathbf{y}) = y^A$ where $y=(y_1,\dots,y_n)$, and $A$ is an $n \times n$ upper triangular integer matrix with all diagonal entries being 1. Then $A$ is a unimodular matrix and hence $A^{-1}$ is also a unimodular integer matrix. It is easy to verify that $\psi(\mathbf{x}) = \mathbf{x}^{A^{-1}}$ is an inverse of $\phi$, and therefore they are both bijections. Moreover, since $\det A = 1$, by Lemma \[lem:toric-automorphism\], $D\phi(\mathbf{y})$ is nonsingular for all $\mathbf{y} \in {({\mathbb{C}}^*)}^n$.
Being a bijection, the transformation $\phi$ given in Lemma \[lem:tree-transform\] preserves the solution count of any system of equations. Moreover, since $D\phi$ remains nonsingular on ${({\mathbb{C}}^*)}^n$, $\phi$ also preserves the more subtle local structures at each solution including multiplicities and local dimensions.
For a tree graph $T_N$ consisting of $N$ nodes, the Adjacency Polytope bound of the induced algebraic system is $2^{N-1}$.
This result agrees with the general analysis from recent studies [@dekker_synchronization_2013; @dorfler_synchronization_2014]. A similar result for the root counting problem for power-flow equations has been developed in [@Guo1990].
Let $F_{T_N}(\mathbf{x}) = F_{T_N}(x_1,\dots,x_n)$ be the algebraic system induced by the tree graph $T_N$. Then each non-constant monomial in $F_{T_N}(\mathbf{x})$ must be of the form $x_i x_{\pi(i)}^{-1}$ or $x_i^{-1} x_{\pi(i)}$ for some $i \in \{1,\dots,n\}$. With the substitution given by $x_i = \phi_i(y_1,\dots,y_n)$ for $i=1,\dots,n$, as defined in the previous lemma, it is easy to verify that $$x_i x_{\pi(i)}^{-1} =
\left(
y_i \, \prod_{k=1}^{d(i)-1} y_{\pi^k(i)}
\right)
\left(
y_{\pi(i)}^{-1} \, \prod_{k=1}^{d(\pi(i))-1} y_{\pi^k(\pi(i))}^{-1}
\right)
= y_i.$$ Therefore the set of monomials which appear in $F_{T_N}(\phi(\mathbf{y}))$ is exactly the set $\{1\} \cup \{ y_1,\dots,y_n \} \cup \{ y_1^{-1},\dots,y_n^{-1} \}$. Under the same transformation, the Adjacency Polytope becomes the cross-polytope $$\operatorname{conv}\left( \bigcup_{i=1}^n \operatorname{conv}( \{\pm \mathbf{e}_i\} ) \right),$$ which is a free sum of the $n$ line segments $\operatorname{conv}( \{\pm \mathbf{e}_i\} )$ for $i=1,\dots,n$. By Lemma \[lem:free sum-vol\], the normalized volume of this polytope is the product of the normalized volume of each of the summands. Since each line segment is of length 2, the AP bound is therefore $2^n = 2^{N-1}$.
We now show the AP bound is actually attainable. That is, there exist choices of complex values for $\{a_{ij}'\}$ and $\omega_1,\dots,\omega_n$ in for which the system has exactly $2^n$ isolated ${\mathbb{C}}^*$-solutions.
\[lem:tree-reduction\] For the tree graph $T_N$ containing $N = n+1$ vertices, the induced algebraic system is equivalent to the system $$\omega^*_i
-
a_{i,\pi(i)}' \,
\left( \frac{x_i}{x_{\pi(i)}} - \frac{x_{\pi(i)}}{x_i} \right)
= 0
\quad \text{ for } i = 1,\dots,n
\label{equ:tree-reduced}$$ for some complex constants $\omega^*_1,\dots,\omega^*_n$.
Here, the equivalence means the two systems have the same solution set in ${\mathbb{C}}^*$.
For $N=2$, the system contains only one equation $$\omega_i - a_{1,0}' (x_1 x_0^{-1} - x_1^{-1} x_0) = 0$$ where $x_0 = 1$. The statement is obviously true in this case.
Now consider a tree $T_N$ consisting of $N = n+1$ nodes and assume the statement is true for any tree of smaller sizes. Fixing any leaf vertex in the tree, without loss, we can re-index the vertices so that this leaf vertex has index $n$ and its unique parent vertex is $n-1$. In this arrangement, the $n$-th (last) equation in is $$\omega_n - a_{n,n-1}' (x_n x_{n-1}^{-1} - x_{n-1} x_n^{-1}) = 0,
\label{equ:leaf-x}$$ while the $(n-1)$-th equation is $$\omega_{n-1} -
a_{n-1,n}' (x_{n-1} x_n^{-1} - x_n x_{n-1}^{-1}) -
\sum_{j \in \mathcal{N}(n-1) \setminus \{n\}}
a_{n-1,j}' (x_{n-1} x_j^{-1} - x_j x_{n-1}^{-1})
= 0.
\label{equ:leaf-parent}$$ Then adding $a_{n-1,n}'/a_{n,n-1}'$ times to produces $$\left(\omega_{n-1} + \frac{a_{n-1,n}'}{a_{n,n-1}'} \omega_n \right)
-
\sum_{j \in \mathcal{N}(n-1) \setminus \{n\}}
a_{n-1,j}' \left(\frac{x_{n-1}}{x_j} - \frac{x_j}{x_{n-1}} \right)
= 0.$$ With this transformation, the first $n-1$ equations do not involve $x_n$ and form a smaller algebraic system induced by a tree graph consisting of $n$ vertices $0,1,\dots,n-1$. By the induction hypothesis, this smaller system can be transformed into the desired form given in without altering the solution set. By induction, the statement is true for all tree graphs.
Given a tree graph $T_N$ containing $N$ vertices, there exist choices of complex valued weights ${\{a_{ij}'\}}_{(i,j) \in E(T_N)}$ and complex constants $\omega_1,\dots,\omega_n$, such that the induced system $F_{T_N}(\mathbf{x}) = \mathbf{0}$ has exactly $2^{N-1}$ nonsingular isolated ${\mathbb{C}}^*$-solutions.
By Lemma \[lem:tree-reduction\], the induced algebraic system $F_T(\mathbf{x})$ is equivalent to . Under the transformation $\mathbf{x} = \phi(\mathbf{y})$ given in Lemma \[lem:tree-transform\], $F_{T_N}(\phi(\mathbf{y}))$ is $$\omega^*_i -
a_{i,\pi(i)}' \,
( y_i - y_i^{-1} )
= 0
\quad \text{ for } i = 1,\dots,n
\label{equ:tree-reduced-y}$$ which has the same number of isolated nonsingular solutions in ${({\mathbb{C}}^*)}^n$ as the original system. Concerning ${\mathbb{C}}^*$-solutions, the $i$-th equation in the above system is equivalent to the quadratic equation $$\omega^*_i
-
a_{i,\pi(i)}' \, y_i^2
+
a_{i,\pi(i)}'
= 0$$ which has exactly two ${\mathbb{C}}^*$-solutions for generic choice of coefficients (even if we require $a_{ij}' = a_{ji}'$). Since there are $n$ independent quadratic equations in $y_1,\dots,y_n$ respectively, the generic root count for is exactly $2^n = 2^{N-1}$. Consequently the ${\mathbb{C}}^*$-solution count of the original system $F_{T_N}$ can also reach $2^{N-1}$.
\[cor:index-tree\] Given a tree graph $T_N$ containing $N = n+1$ vertices, let $L_{T_N,1},\dots,L_{T_N,n}$ be the subspace of rational functions defined in . Then $$[\, L_{T_N,1}, \dots, L_{T_N,n}\, ] = 2^n = 2^{N-1}$$
By , $[L_{T_N,1},\dots,L_{T_N,n}]$ is trapped in between the ${\mathbb{C}}^*$-solution count of and its AP bound. We have shown both to be $2^{N-1}$. Therefore we can conclude $[ L_{T_N,1}, \dots, L_{T_N,n}] = 2^{N-1}$.
By carefully keeping track of the transformation of coefficients, it is possible to argue that the “generic solution count” for and the original system are actually the same, thereby establishing Corollary \[cor:index-tree\] directly. However, as noted in Remark \[rmk:generic\], the concept of “generic coefficients” is more subtle than it may appear. Therefore, here we prefer the straightforward calculation of the AP bound over such genericity argument.
Cycle Graphs {#sec:cycle}
============
In the study of the Kuramoto model, cycle graphs may be considered as basic building blocks as recent works suggests that it is plausible that detailed analysis of the local geometry near equilibria can be done on a cycle-by-cycle basis [@Bronski2015]. In the context of power-flow study, the analysis of the Kuramoto model on cycle graphs is also of great practical importance [@xi2017synchronization].
For a cycle graph $C_N$ of $N = n + 1$ vertices (labeled by $\{0,\dots,n\}$), we shall show the intersection index $[L_{C_N,1},\dots,L_{C_N,n}]$ is $(n+1)\binom{n}{\lfloor n/2 \rfloor}$. Following the same strategy used in the previous section, we first compute the AP bound for the cycle graph $C_N$. Then we show there is no gap between $[L_{C_N,1},\dots,L_{C_N,n}]$ and the AP bound.
The set of edges is $E(C_N) = \{(0,1),(1,2),\dots,(n-1, n),(n,0)\}$. The induced adjacency polytope (Definition \[def:adj-polytope\]) is $$\nabla_{C_N} = \operatorname{conv}\{\pm(\mathbf{e}_i - \mathbf{e}_j) \mid (i,j) \in E(C_N)\},$$ where $\mathbf{e}_0 = (0,\dots,0)$ as before. The AP bound for $F_{C_N}$ is defined to be the normalized volume of $\nabla_{C_N}$; thus, the first goal of this section will be to identify this normalized volume. It will be simplest to first notice that $\nabla_{C_N}$ is unimodularly equivalent to the polytope $$P_N = \operatorname{conv}\{
\pm \mathbf{e}_1 \, , \,\dots \, , \, \pm \mathbf{e}_n\,,\;
\pm (\mathbf{e}_1 + \cdots + \mathbf{e}_n)
\}.$$ Such an equivalence can be seen by applying the normalized volume-preserving transformation given by $$\begin{bmatrix}
1 & 0 & 0 & \cdots & 0 \\
1 & 1 & 0 & \cdots & 0 \\
1 & 1 & 1 & \cdots & 0 \\
\vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\
1 & 1 & 1 & \cdots & 1 \\
\end{bmatrix}$$ to each vertex of $\nabla_{C_N}$. One reason that this is desirable is that it becomes clear $P_N$ is totally unimodular, that is, the matrix formed by placing the vertices of $P_N$ as the columns is a totally unimodular matrix. Since $\mathbf{0}$ is the average of all vertices of $P_N$, it is an interior point of $P_N$. Thus, a unimodular triangulation of the boundary of $P_N$ will induce a unimodular triangulation of $P_N$ itself, where the simplices are of the form $\operatorname{conv}\{\mathbf{0} \cup \Delta \}$ where $\Delta$ is a simplex in the triangulation of the boundary. This will be our strategy, since the number of simplices in a unimodular triangulation of a polytope is identical to the normalized volume of the polytope.
When $N$ is odd, then $P_N$ is called a *del Pezzo* polytope. In this case, it is known [@Nill] that $P_N$ is simplicial, that is, every facet is a simplex. Together with $P_N$ being totally unimodular, its normalized volume is therefore equal to the number of its facets, which was shown to be $N\binom{N-1}{(N-1)/2}$. So, we only need to consider when $N$ is even and would like to obtain an analogous formula.
For even $N$, let $\Lambda_n \subseteq {\{-1,1\}}^n$ be the set of sequences $\boldsymbol{\lambda} = (\lambda_1, \dots, \lambda_n)$ such that $\sum_{i=1}^n \lambda_i = 1$. The facets of $P_N$ are then $$\mathcal{F}(P_N) =
\left\{
\pm \operatorname{conv}\left\{
\lambda_1 \mathbf{e}_1, \dots, \lambda_n \mathbf{e}_n,
\sum_{i=1}^n \mathbf{e}_i
\right\}
\mid (\lambda_1,\dots,\lambda_n) \in \Lambda_n
\right\}$$
First, observe that the vertices of a facet must consist of a subset of $$\label{eq: sign pattern}
\{
\lambda_1 \mathbf{e}_1,
\dots,
\lambda_n \mathbf{e}_n,
\lambda_{n+1} ( \mathbf{e}_1 + \cdots + \mathbf{e}_n )
\}$$ for some choice of $\lambda_1,\dots,\lambda_{n+1} \in \{-1,1\}$. Otherwise, two vertices $\pm \mathbf{v}$ of $P_N$ would be part of a facet, which is impossible since the line segment $\operatorname{conv}\{ -\mathbf{v},\mathbf{v}\}$ passes through the interior of $P_N$.
Next, note that if $F$ is a facet, then so is $-F$ since $P_N = -P_N$. One specific choice of facet is $$F_0 =
\operatorname{conv}\left \{
\mathbf{e}_1, \dots, \mathbf{e}_{(n-1)/2},-\mathbf{e}_{(n+1)/2},
\dots,
-\mathbf{e}_n, -\sum_{i=1}^n \mathbf{e}_i
\right \}.$$ To see why this is true, observe that each of the vertices in $F_0$ lies on the hyperplane $$\{(x_1\dots,x_n) \in {\mathbb{R}}^n \mid \ell(x_1,\dots,x_n) = 1\}$$ where $$\ell(x_1,\dots,x_n) = \sum_{i = 1}^{(n-1)/2} x_i - \sum_{i = (n+1)/2}^n x_i,$$ and all other vertices $\mathbf{v}$ of $P_N$ satisfy $\ell(\mathbf{v}) = -1$. Moreover, the first $n$ vertices defining $F_0$ are clearly affinely independent, so $\dim F_0 = n-1$. Therefore, $F_0$ is indeed a facet of $P_N$.
Any other choice of $(\lambda_1,\dots,\lambda_n) \in \Lambda_n$ for the elements in $\mathcal{F}(P_N)$ will result in a facet as well, since the resulting convex hull is unimodularly equivalent to $F_0$. Hence, the same arguments can be applied to these sets. It remains to show that no other set of vertices will form a facet.
Take any element of such that there are $k \geq 2$ more negative coefficients on the summands $\mathbf{e}_1,\dots,\mathbf{e}_n$ than positive coefficients, and set $\lambda_{n+1} = -1$. Without loss of generality, we can assume $\lambda_1 = \dots = \lambda_{(n-2k+1)/2} = 1$ and the remaining $\lambda_i = -1$. Call their convex hull $F'$. Form $\ell(x)$ as before and note that the first $n$ vertices of $F'$ satisfy $\ell(x_1,\dots,x_n) = 1$. Additionally, the vertices $\mathbf{v}$ of $P_N$ not in $F'$ satisfy $\ell(x_1,\dots,x_n) < 1$. However, $\ell(-\mathbf{e}_1 - \cdots - \mathbf{e}_n) = k$, so $\operatorname{aff}(F')$ actually passes through the interior of $P_N$ and cannot define a facet.
Note as well that if we take any $n$-element subset of without $\pm(\mathbf{e}_1+\cdots+\mathbf{e}_n)$, then we come across a similar problem as in the previous paragraph. If we take an $n$-element subset that excludes $\pm \mathbf{e}_j$ for some $j$, then the resulting hyperplane is exactly the same as if we included $\pm \mathbf{e}_j$. Therefore, there are no facets of any other form.
By permuting the coordinates of each facet of $P_N$, the elements of $\mathcal{F}(P_N)$ are all unimodularly equivalent to each other. Additionally, it is clear that $$|\mathcal{F}(P_N)| = 2\binom{N-1}{N/2 - 1}$$ since each $\lambda \in \Lambda_n$ corresponds to a unique facet of $P_N$ containing $\mathbf{e}_1 + \cdots + \mathbf{e}_n$. There are $\binom{n}{(n-1)/2}$ elements in $\Lambda_n$, and this must be doubled to account for the facets containing $-(\mathbf{e}_1 + \cdots + \mathbf{e}_n)$.
In order to determine the number of simplices in a unimodular triangulation of $P_N$, we now only need to compute the number of simplices in a unimodular triangulation of a facet. For convenience, we will select the facet $F_0$ from the previous proof. Applying the unimodular matrix transformation $x \mapsto Ax$, where $A = (a_{i,j})$ is the $n \times n$ matrix $$a_{i,j} = \begin{cases}
1 & \text { if } i = j \text{ or both } i = n,\, j < (n-1)/2 \\
-1 & \text{ if both } i = n,\, (n-1)/2 < j < n\\
0 & \text{ else }
\end{cases}$$ we obtain a polytope whose vertices are identical to those of $F_0$ in the first $n-1$ coordinates and are exactly $1$ in the final coordinate. This allows us to consider $\overline{F}_0$, the projection of $f(F_0)$ to the first $n-1$ coordinates. As a result, we have $$\overline{F}_0 =
\operatorname{conv}\left \{
\mathbf{0},
\mathbf{e}_1,
\dots,
\mathbf{e}_{(n-1)/2},
-\mathbf{e}_{(n+1)/2},
\dots,
-\mathbf{e}_{n-1},
-\sum_{i=1}^{n-1} \mathbf{e}_i
\right \}
\subseteq {\mathbb{R}}^{n-1}.$$
Notice that we can write $\overline{F}_0 = \operatorname{conv}\{G_1 \cup G_2\}$, where $$G_1 = \operatorname{conv}\left \{
\mathbf{e}_1,\dots, \mathbf{e}_{(n-1)/2}, -\sum_{i=1}^{n-1} \mathbf{e}_i
\right \}$$ and $$G_2 = \operatorname{conv}\{(0,- \mathbf{e}_{(n+1)/2},\dots,- \mathbf{e}_{n-1}\}.$$ Moreover, the intersection of their affine spans is a single point $$\{ \mathbf{v}_0 \} =
\operatorname{aff}(G_1) \cap \operatorname{aff}(G_2) =
\left \{
\left(
0,\dots,0,-\frac{1}{(n+1)/2},\dots,-\frac{1}{(n+1)/2}
\right)
\right \}.$$ The lattices generated by $\operatorname{aff}(G_i) \cap {\mathbb{Z}}^{n-1}$ and $\mathbf{v}_0$, after translating by $-\mathbf{v}_0$, are $$L_1 = {\mathbb{Z}}(\mathbf{e}_1 - v_0,\dots,\mathbf{e}_{(n-1)/2} - \mathbf{v}_0, -(\sum_{i=1}^{n-1} \mathbf{e}_i) - \mathbf{v}_0),$$ and $$L_2 = {\mathbb{Z}}(-\mathbf{v}_0, -\mathbf{e}_{(n+1)/2} - \mathbf{v}_0,\dots,-\mathbf{e}_{n-1} - \mathbf{v}_0) = {\mathbb{Z}}(\mathbf{v}_0,-\mathbf{e}_{(n+1)/2},\dots,-\mathbf{e}_{n-1}),$$ where ${\mathbb{Z}}A$ indicates the set of ${\mathbb{Z}}$-linear combinations of elements of $A$. The lattices $L_1$ and $L_2$ are *complementary*, meaning they intersect only at $\mathbf{0}$, and each point of $L = {\mathbb{Z}}(\mathbf{e}_1,\dots,\mathbf{e}_{n-1},\mathbf{v}_0)$ is a sum of a unique element from $L_1$ and a unique element from $L_2$.
Together, these facts mean $\overline{F}_0$ is the *affine free sum* of $G_1$ and $G_2$, as introduced in [@BeckJayawantMcAllister]. Since $G_2$ is a standard simplex, its normalized volume is $1$; moreover, it is known that the $k$-dimensional standard simplex $\Delta_k$ is Gorenstein of index $k+1$, that is, there exists a unique vector $v \in {\mathbb{Z}}^k$ (namely, $v = (-1,\dots,-1)$) such that the polar dual of $\Delta_k' = (k+1)\Delta_k + v$, defined as $$\{x \in {\mathbb{R}}^k \mid x^Ty \leq 1 \text{ for all } y \in \Delta_k' \},$$ is also a lattice polytope. By [@BeckJayawantMcAllister Corollary 5.9] and [@BeckRobinsCCD2ed Corollary 3.21], we have $$\operatorname{NVol}(\overline{F}_0) = \operatorname{NVol}(G_1)\operatorname{NVol}(G_2) = \operatorname{NVol}(G_2).$$ Therefore it remains to find the normalized volume of $G_2$, which is unimodularly equivalent to the simplex $$\operatorname{conv}\{\mathbf{e}_1,\dots, \mathbf{e}_{(n-1)/2}, -(\mathbf{e}_1 + \cdots + \mathbf{e}_{(n-1)/2)}\}.$$ It is straightforward to compute that this simplex has a normalized volume of $\frac{n-1}{2} + 1 = \frac{n+1}{2}$. Connecting this argument back to our original goal, we have proven the following.
The normalized volume of each facet of $P(C_N)$ is $\frac{N}{2}$.
This gives us the final piece we need.
For a cycle graph of $N$ vertices, the adjacency polytope bound of is $$N \binom{N-1}{\lfloor (N-1)/2 \rfloor}.$$
We already saw that the conclusion holds for when $N$ is odd. When $N$ is even, we now simply count $$\operatorname{NVol}(\overline{F}_0)|\mathcal{F}(P_N)| = \left(\frac{N}{2}\right)2\binom{N-1}{N/2 - 1} = N\binom{N-1}{\lfloor (N-1)/2 \rfloor},$$ as desired.
By the inequalities , the AP bound above is also an upper bound for the birationally invariant intersection index. We now show there is no gap between the two. Let $F_{C_N} = (F_{C_N,1},\dots,F_{C_N,n})$ with each $F_{C_N,i}$ being a generic element from $L_{C_N,i}$, and let $\nabla_{C_N,1},\dots,\nabla_{C_N,n}$ be their Newton polytopes respectively. The BKK bound of the system $F_{C_N}$ coincides with its AP bound by [@chen_unmixing_2017 Proposition 1]. We shall significantly strengthen this statement by showing that even though the spaces $L_{C_N,1}, \dots, L_{C_N,n}$ are not generated by monomials, the intersection index $[L_{C_N,1}, \dots, L_{C_N,n}]$ still agrees with the BKK bound for $F_{C_N}$. This is done by examining the initial systems of $F_{C_N}$. In particular, we show that even though there are algebraic relations among the coefficients for terms in $F_{C_N}$, such relations will not appear in any nontrivial initial systems.
Given a cycle graph $C_N$ containing $N = n+1$ vertices, let $L_{C_N,1},\dots,L_{C_N,n}$ be the subspace of rational functions defined in . Then $$[\, L_{C_N,1}, \dots, L_{C_N,n}\, ] = N \binom{N-1}{\lfloor (N-1)/2 \rfloor}$$
Let $\mathbf{v}$ be a vector in ${\mathbb{R}}^n$ such that ${(\nabla_{C_N,i})}_{\mathbf{v}}$ is not singleton for any $i=1,\dots,n$. Since the polytopes $\nabla_{C_N,i}$ all contain the origin, we must have $$\operatorname{ht}_{\mathbf{v}}(\nabla_{C_N,i}) :=
\min \{
\langle \mathbf{x}, \mathbf{v} \rangle
\mid \mathbf{x} \in \nabla_{C_N,i}
\} \le 0 \quad \text{for all } i.$$ If $\operatorname{ht}_{\mathbf{v}}(\nabla_{C_N,i}) = 0$ for all $i$ then $\langle \pm (\mathbf{e}_i - \mathbf{e}_j), \mathbf{v} \rangle = 0$ for any pair of $(i,j) \in E(C_N)$. It is then easy to verify that $\mathbf{v} = \mathbf{0}$.
Now, supposing $\mathbf{v} \ne \mathbf{0}$, there must be a vertex $i \in \{1,\dots,n\}$ for which $\operatorname{ht}_{\mathbf{v}}(\nabla_{C_N,i}) < 0$. Recall that $\nabla_{C_N,i}$ has at most four vertices: $\{ \pm (\mathbf{e}_i - \mathbf{e}_j), \pm (\mathbf{e}_k - \mathbf{e}_j) \}$ where $\{j,k\} = \mathcal{N}_{C_N}(i)$. But $\langle \bullet, \mathbf{v} \rangle$ must attain negative values for at least two points in this set. That means there are exactly two points $\mathbf{b}_j \in \{ \mathbf{e}_i-\mathbf{e}_j, \mathbf{e}_j-\mathbf{e}_i \}$ and $\mathbf{b}_k \in \{ \mathbf{e}_i-\mathbf{e}_k, \mathbf{e}_k-\mathbf{e}_i \}$ such that $\langle \mathbf{b}_j, \mathbf{v} \rangle < 0$ and $\langle \mathbf{b}_k, \mathbf{v} \rangle < 0$. However, since $\mathbf{b}_j \in \nabla_{C_N,j}$ and $\mathbf{b}_k \in \nabla_{C_N,k}$, $\operatorname{ht}_{\mathbf{v}}(\nabla_{C_N,j})$ and $\operatorname{ht}_{\mathbf{v}}(\nabla_{C_N,k})$ are both negative. In other words, if $\operatorname{ht}_{\mathbf{v}}(\nabla_{C_N,i}) < 0$ for some vertex $i$, then $\operatorname{ht}_{\mathbf{v}}(\nabla_{C_N,j}) < 0$ for any $j \in \mathcal{N}_{C_N}(i)$. Since $C_N$ is connected, as this implication propagates through the graph, we can conclude that $\operatorname{ht}_{\mathbf{v}}(\nabla_{C_N,j}) < 0$ for all $i \in \{1,\dots,n\}$. Consequently, for each $(i,j) \in E(C_N)$, the two points $\mathbf{e}_i - \mathbf{e_j}$ or $\mathbf{e}_j - \mathbf{e}_i$ cannot both be in ${(\nabla_{C_N,i})}_{\mathbf{v}}$ or ${(\nabla_{C_N,j})}_{\mathbf{v}}$. Recall that $\mathbf{e}_i - \mathbf{e}_j$ and $\mathbf{e}_j - \mathbf{e}_i$ are the exponent vectors of $\frac{x_i}{x_j}$ and $\frac{x_j}{x_i}$ respectively. Therefore either $\frac{x_i}{x_j}$ or $\frac{x_j}{x_i}$ appear in $\operatorname{init}_{\mathbf{v}} F_{C_N}$, but not both. Consequently, monomials appearing in $\operatorname{init}_{\mathbf{v}} F_{C_N}$ all have independent coefficients. Then by Lemma \[lem:init-sys\], for generic choice of coefficients, the initial system $\operatorname{init}_{\mathbf{v}} (F_{C_N}) = \mathbf{0}$ has no solution in $({\mathbb{C}}^*)^n$. This is true for any nonzero vector $\mathbf{v}$, so by Theorem \[thm:bernshtein-b\], the number of solutions $F_{C_N} = \mathbf{0}$ has in ${({\mathbb{C}}^*)}^n$ is exactly the BKK bound. Since $F_{C_N}$ is a generic choice, we can conclude that $[L_{C_N,1}, \dots, L_{C_N,n}]$ agrees with the BKK bound and hence the AP bound shown above.
[^1]: Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, Auburn University at Montgomery, Montgomery AL USA
[^2]: Department of Mathematics, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI USA.
[^3]: Systems Department, United Technologies Research Center, East Hartford, CT, USA.
[^4]: In the original model proposed by Kuramoto, the coupling strengths are symmetric, i.e., $a_{ij} = a_{ji}$. However, in more general applications (such as power-flow equations), perfect symmetry may not hold.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
author:
- |
Stephanie M. Lukin, Luke Eisenberg, Thomas Corcoran, & Marilyn A. Walker\
Natural Language and Dialogue Systems\
Computer Science Department, SOE-3\
University of California, Santa Cruz\
[slukin,leisenbe,tcorcora,[email protected]]{}
bibliography:
- 'nl.bib'
title: Identifying Subjective and Figurative Language in Online Dialogue
---
More and more of the information on the web is dialogic, from Facebook newsfeeds, to forum conversations, to comment threads on news articles. In contrast to traditional, monologic resources such as news, highly social dialogue is very frequent in social media, as illustrated in the snippets in Fig. \[sample-quote-response\] from the publicly available Internet Argument Corpus ([**IAC**]{}) [@Walkeretal12c]. Utterances are frequently sarcastic, e.g., [ *Really? Well, when I have a kid, I’ll be sure to just leave it in the woods, since it can apparently care for itself*]{} (R2 in Fig. \[sample-quote-response\] as well as Q1 and R1), and are often nasty, (R2 in Fig. \[sample-quote-response\]). Note also the frequent use of dialogue specific discourse cues, e.g. the use of [*No*]{} in R1, [*Really? Well*]{} in R2, and [*okay, well*]{} in Q3 in Fig. \[sample-quote-response\] [@FoxTreeSchrock99; @BryantFoxtree02; @FoxTree10].
Quote [**Q**]{}, Response [**R**]{} [**Sarc**]{} [**Nasty**]{}
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- ---------------
[**Q1**]{}: I jsut voted. sorry if some people actually have, you know, LIVES and don’t sit around all day on debate forums to cater to some atheists posts that he thiks they should drop everything for. emoticon-rolleyes emoticon-rolleyes emoticon-rolleyes As to the rest of your post, well, from your attitude I can tell you are not Christian in the least. Therefore I am content in knowing where people that spew garbage like this will end up in the End.
[**R1**]{}: No, let me guess . . . er . . . McDonalds. No, Disneyland. Am I getting closer? 1 -3.6
[**Q2**]{}: The key issue is that once children are born they are not physically dependent on a particular individual.
[**R2**]{} Really? Well, when I have a kid, I’ll be sure to just leave it in the woods, since it can apparently care for itself. 1 -1
We aim to automatically identify sarcastic and nasty utterances in unannotated online dialogue, extending a bootstrapping method previously applied to the classification of monologic subjective sentences by Riloff & Wiebe, henceforth R&W [@RiloffWiebe03; @ThelenRiloff02]. We look at both sarcastic and nasty dialogic turns as a way to explore generalization of the method. R&W’s method creates a High-Precision, Cue-Based Classifier to be a first approximation on unannotated text. They improve their classifier by learning and bootstrapping patterns (Fig. \[rw\]).
![\[rw\] [Bootstrapping Method]{}](booting-method){width="3.0in"}
We found that this bootstrapping method ‘as is’ is not appropriate for our data because our Cue-Based Classifier yields a much lower precision than the bootstrapping requires. We have adapted the method to fit the sarcastic and nasty dialogic domain. Our method is as follows:
1. Explore methods for identifying sarcastic and nasty cue words and phrases in dialogues;
2. Use the learned cues to train a sarcastic (nasty) Cue-Based Classifier
3. Learn general syntactic extraction patterns from the sarcastic (nasty) utterances and define fine-tuned sarcastic patterns to create a Pattern-Based Classifier;
4. Combine both Cue-Based and fine-tuned Pattern-Based Classifiers to maximize precision at the expense of recall and test on unannotated utterances.
[*Cue Words.*]{} Sarcasm is known to be highly variable in form, and to depend, in some cases, on context for its interpretation [@SW81; @Gibbs00; @BryantFoxtree02]. We elicit annotations from Mechanical Turk to identify sarcastic (nasty) cues in utterances from a development set. Turkers were presented with dialogic turns (a quote and its response) previously labeled sarcastic or nasty in the IAC by 7 different annotators, and were asked to identify sarcastic (nasty) or potentially sarcastic (nasty) phrases in the turn response. The Turkers then selected words or phrases from the response they believed could lead someone to believing the utterance was sarcastic or nasty. [@Snowetal08] measure the quality of Mechanical Turk annotations on common NLP tasks by comparing them to a gold standard. Pearson’s correlation coefficient shows that very few Mechanical Turk annotators were required to beat the gold standard data, often less than 5. Because our sarcasm (nasty) task does not have gold standard data, we asked 100 annotators to participate in the pilot. For all unigrams, bigrams, and trigrams, interannotator agreement plateaued around 20 annotators and is about 90%agreement with 10 annotators, showing that the Mechanical Turk task is well formed and there is high agreement. We begin to form a sarcastic and nasty vocabulary from these cues.
[*Cue based classifier.*]{} We use a development set to measure “goodness” of a cue that could serve as a high precision cue by using the percent sarcastic (nasty) and frequency statistics in the development set. These features rely on how frequent ([freq]{}) (subject to a $\theta_1$), and how reliable ([%sarc]{} and [%nasty]{}) (subject to a $\theta_2$) a cue has to be to be useful. We select candidate cues by exhausting $\theta_1$ $=$ \[2, 4, 6, 8, 10\] and $\theta_2$ $=$ \[.55, .60, .65, .70, .75, .80, .85, .90, .95, 1.00\] for $\theta_1 \le $ [freq]{} and $\theta_2 \le $ [sarc]{}. At least two cues must be present and above the thresholds in an utterance to be classified by the Cue-Based Classifier. Less than two cues are needed to be classified as the counter-class. We select the best combination of parameters from our training set by selecting the parameters yielding the highest weighted f-measure that favors precision over recall. We then ran the Cue-Based Classifier with the best parameters on a test set. However as previously mentioned, R&W’s method expects the Cue-Based Classifier to yield high precision, whereas our results ([cue]{} rows in Table \[hp\_pc\_results\]) are just barely above baseline.
SARC PARAMS P R F
--------------- ------------------------------ ------ ----- ------ --
Cue $\theta_1=$2, $\theta_2=$.55 51% 48% 0.5
Baseline Pats $\theta_1=$2, $\theta_2=$.65 58% 78% 0.61
New Pats $\theta_1=$2, $\theta_2=$.65 76% 79% 0.77
NASTY PARAMS P R F
Cue $\theta_1=$2, $\theta_2=$.6 66% 40% 0.58
Baseline Pats $\theta_1=$2, $\theta_2=$.7 86% 55% 0.77
New Pats $\theta_1=$2, $\theta_2=$.7 100% 5% 0.2
: [PARAMS]{}: the best parameters for each feature set P: precision, R: recall, F: weighted f-measure
\[hp\_pc\_results\]
[*Pattern Based Classifier.*]{} The next step in R&W’s method is to create a Pattern-Based Classifier that takes as input the predicted labels from the Cue-Based Classifier. R&W’s Pattern-Based Classifier is trained on general, syntactic templates known to exist for subjectivity. These patterns are not limited to exact surface matches as the Cue-Based Classifiers require. We reimplement these patterns, and further developed new patterns specifically fine-tuned towards sarcasm in dialogue. For example, our new pattern [ OH RB]{} (oh adverb) matches utterances like “oh right" and “oh sorry" and the pattern [NP WHphrase]{} matches “someone who" and “someone what". Patterns are extracted from another development set and we again compute [freq]{} and [%sarc]{} and [%nasty]{} for each pattern subject to $\theta_1 \le$ [freq]{} and $\theta_2 \le$ [ %sarc]{} or [% nasty]{}. Classifications are made if at least two patterns are present and both are above the specified $\theta_1$ and $\theta_2$, again exhausting all combinations of $\theta_1$ and $\theta_2$. Also following R&W, we do not learn “not sarcastic" or “nice" patterns. The counter-classes are predicted when the utterance contains less than two patterns. We test two Pattern-Based Classifiers: one with the original patterns proposed in R&W ([baseline pats]{}) and one with the original patterns in addition to our new, fine-tuned patterns ([new pats]{}). Table \[hp\_pc\_results\] shows the results of the parameters with the highest weighted f-measure.
The Pattern-Based Classifier performs better on Nasty than Sarcasm. We conclude that R&W’s patterns alone generalize well on our Sarcasm and Nasty datasets. By adding the fine-tuned patterns in the [new pats]{} Classifier, we see a drastic increase in Sarcasm precision. There seems to be little change in recall for Sarcasm. Furthermore, we see a huge increase in precision for Nasty, but a steep decline in recall with the new patterns. We believe this is because these new patterns are tailored towards sarcastic utterances, not nasty. We did not create our own fine-tuned nasty patterns because we do well with R&W’s general patterns.
sarcasm P R F
---------------------- ----- ----- ------
cue-based 51% 48% 0.5
cue [or]{} patterns 56% 62% 0.57
cue [and]{} patterns 71% 32% 0.57
nasty P R F
cue-based 66% 40% 0.58
cue [or]{} patterns 75% 44% 0.69
cue [and]{} patterns 88% 31% 0.44
: \[combined\]; Compares the Cue-Based Classifier to the Combined Classifier; P: precision, R: recall, F: f-measure
[*Combined Classifier.*]{} To attempt to create a High-Precision Classifier, we combine the Cue-Based Classifier and the Pattern-Based Classifier. We classify a post as sarcastic if it meets either the criteria of the Cue-Based Classifier (e.g. with $\theta_1=2, \theta_2=.55$ for Sarcasm) or the Pattern-Based Classifier (e.g. with $\theta_1=2, \theta_2=.65$ for Sarcasm). We use the same test set with which we test the Cue-Based Classifier and compare the results (Table \[combined\]). We furthermore distinguish between a Combined Classifier that makes a classification if both schemata are true ([and]{}), or if only one is true ([or]{}).
[or]{} does better than only the Cue-Based Classifier for all precision, recall, and f-measure. [and]{} does better for precision by far than the Cue-Based Classifier, but with a lower recall. Despite the very low recall for [and]{}, the f-measure of [and]{} and [or]{} is identical. [and]{} is a more selective classifier, only saying “yes" if both schemata are true. This will naturally yield lower recall, but grant higher confidence in those classified.
We believe our Combined [and]{} Classifier now has a high enough precision to be compared with R&W’s first approximation High-Precision, Cue-Based Classifier. After running the Combined Classifier on unannotated data, we select 100 predicted sarcastic and 100 predicted not sarcastic utterances and ask human annotators to label them. We expect a high overlap between annotators and the Combined Classifier, which would indicate that human annotators agree with the labels we are automatically predicting. These results are currently in progress.
Despite the fact that we could not create a first approximation High-Precision, Cue-Based classifier like R&W, we have succeeded in creating a High-Precision Combined Classifier using both cues and fine-tuned patterns (71% precision for sarcasm and 88% precision for nastiness). Future work will involve developing fine-tuned patterns for nastiness and exploring different patterns for sarcasm.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
We show that every Abelian group satisfying a mild cardinal inequality admits a pseudocompact group topology from which all countable subgroups inherit the maximal totally bounded topology (we say that such a topology satisfies property ${{\mathbf \sharp}}$).
Every pseudocompact Abelian group $G$ with cardinality $|G|\leq 2^{2^{\mathfrak{c}}}$ satisfies this inequality and therefore admits a pseudocompact group topology with property ${{\mathbf \sharp}}$. Under the Singular Cardinal Hypothesis (SCH) this criterion can be combined with an analysis of the algebraic structure of pseudocompact groups to prove that every pseudocompact Abelian group admits a pseudocompact group topology with property ${{\mathbf \sharp}}$.
We also observe that pseudocompact Abelian groups with property ${{\mathbf \sharp}}$ contain no infinite compact subsets and are examples of Pontryagin reflexive precompact groups that are not compact.
address:
- |
Departmento de Matemáticas\
Universitat Jaume I\
Campus Riu Sec, 12071\
Castellón Spain
-
author:
- Jorge Galindo and Sergio Macario
date:
-
-
title: Pseudocompact group topologies with no infinite compact subsets
---
Introduction
============
A topological space $X$ is pseudocompact if every real-valued continuous function on $X$ is bounded. Pseudocompactness is greatly enhanced by the addition of algebraic structure. This fact was discovered in 1966 by Comfort and Ross [@comfross66] who proved that pseudocompact topological groups are totally bounded or, what is the same, that they always appear as *subgroups* of compact groups. They went even further and precisely identified pseudocompact groups among subgroups of topological groups: a subgroup of a compact group is pseudocompact if, and only if, it is ${G_{\delta}}$-dense in its closure (i.e., meets every nonempty ${G_{\delta}}$-subset of its closure).
A powerful tool to study totally bounded topologies on Abelian groups is Pontryagin duality. This is because a totally bounded group topology is always induced by a group of characters [@comfross64] and Pontryagin duality is based on relating a topological group with its group of continuous characters. We recall here that a character of a group $G$ is nothing but a homomorphism of $G$ into the multiplicative group ${{\mathbb T\,}}$ of complex numbers of modulus one.
If $G$ is an Abelian topological group, the topology of uniform convergence on compact subsets of $G$ makes the group of continuous characters of $G$, denoted $G^\wedge$, into a topological group. Evaluations then define a homomorphism $\alpha_G\colon G\to G^{\wedge\wedge}
$ between $G$ and the group of all continuous characters on the dual group, the so-called *bidual* group $G^{\wedge \wedge}$. When $\alpha_G$ is a topological isomorphism we say that $G$ is Pontryagin reflexive. It will be necessary for the development of this paper to keep in mind that character groups of discrete groups are compact groups. Even if it is not relevant for our purposes we cannot resist here to add that character groups of compact groups are again discrete, and that the Pontryagin van-Kampen theorem proves that all locally compact Abelian groups (discrete and compact ones are thus comprised) are reflexive.
In the present paper Pontryagin duality will appear both as a tool for constructing pseudocompact group topologies and as an objective itself. To be precise, this paper is motivated by the following two questions
\[Qref\] Is every Pontryagin reflexive totally bounded Abelian group a compact group?
\[Qcomp\] Does every pseudocompact Abelian group admit a pseudocompact group topology with no infinite compact subsets?
In this paper we obtain a negative answer to Question \[Qref\] and a positive answer, valid under the Singular Cardinal Hypothesis (SCH), to Question \[Qcomp\]. The focus of the paper will be on Question \[Qcomp\] with the analysis of Question \[Qref\] and its relation with Question \[Qcomp\] deferred to Section 6.
It should be noted, in a direction opposite to Question \[Qcomp\], that every pseudocompact group admits pseudocompact group topology with nontrivial convergent sequences, see [@galigarctomi09].
Our approach to Question \[Qcomp\] consists in combining techniques that can be traced back at least to [@tkac88] with the ideas of [@galigarc07]. Our construction actually produces pseudocompact Abelian groups with all countable subgroups $h$-embedded. This is stronger (see Section 2) that finding pseudocompact group topologies with no infinite compact subsets. With the aid of results from [@hernmaca03] this construction will yield a wide range of negative answers to Question \[Qref\]. As pointed to us by M. G. Tkachenko, Question \[Qref\] has been answered independently in [@ardaetal].
On notation and terminology {#on-notation-and-terminology .unnumbered}
---------------------------
All groups considered in this paper will be Abelian. So, the specification *Abelian group* to be found at some points will respond only to a matter of emphasis. To further avoid the cumbersome use of the word “Abelian”, free Abelian groups will simply be termed as *free groups*.
The symbol ${{\mathbb P}}$ will denote the set of all prime numbers. *Faute de mieux*, we will use the unusual symbol $\mathbb{P}^{\uparrow}$ to denote the set of all prime powers, i.e., an integer $k\in \mathbb{P}^{\uparrow}$ if, and only if, $k=p^n$ for some $p\in {{\mathbb P}}$ and some positive integer $n$.
For a set $X$ and a cardinal number $\alpha$, $[X]^{\alpha}$ stands for the collection of all subsets of $X$ with cardinality $\alpha$.
Following Tkachenko [@tkac88], we say that a subgroup $H$ of a topological group $G$ is $h$-embedded if every homomorphism of $H$ to the unit circle ${{\mathbb T\,}}$ can be extended to a *continuous* homomorphism of $G$ to ${{\mathbb T\,}}$. If $G$ is totally bounded and $H$ is $h$-embedded in $G$, then the topology of $H$ must equal the maximal totally bounded topology of $H$ (or, using van Douwen’s terminology, $H=H^\sharp$).
The cardinal function $m(\alpha)$ will be often used. The cardinal $m(\alpha)$ is defined for every infinite cardinal $\alpha$ as the least cardinal number of a ${G_{\delta}}$-dense subset of a compact group $K_\alpha$ of weight $\alpha$. It is proved in [@comfrobe85] that this definition does not depend on the choice $K_\alpha$ and therefore makes sense. The same reference contains proofs of the following basic essential features of $m(\alpha)$: $$\log(\alpha)\leq m(\alpha)\leq (\log(\alpha))^\omega \quad \mbox{
and }\quad \cf(m(\alpha))>\omega, \quad \mbox{ for every
}\alpha\geq \omega.$$ These inequalities have a much simpler form if *Singular Cardinal Hypothesis* (SCH) is assumed. SCH is a condition consistent with ZFC that follows from (but is much weaker than) the *Generalized Continuum Hypothesis* (GCH). Under SCH every infinite cardinal $\alpha$ satisfies $$m(\alpha)=(\log(\alpha))^\omega.$$ It is well known that every compact group has cardinality $2^\kappa$ for some cardinal $\kappa$. The question on which cardinals can appear as the cardinal of a pseudocompact group is not so readily answered. We will say that a cardinal $\kappa$ is *admissible* provided there is a pseudocompact group of cardinal $\kappa$. The first obstructions to admissibility were found by van Douwen [@douw80], the main one being that the cardinality $|G|$ of a pseudocompact group cannot be a strong limit cardinal of countable cofinality; see [@dikrshak98 Chapter 3] for more information on admissible cardinals.
Most of our results concern constructing pseudocompact group topologies on a given Abelian group $G$. As indicated in the introduction, every pseudocompact group topology is totally bounded and a totally bounded group topology $\mathcal{T}$ on an Abelian group $G$ is always induced by a unique group of characters $H\subset Hom(G,{{\mathbb T\,}})$, [@comfross64; @comfross66]. To stress this latter fact we will usually refer to $\mathcal{T}$ as $\mathcal{T}_{_{H}}$. Recall that the topology $\mathcal{T}_{_{H}}$ is Hausdorff if, and only if, the subgroup $H$ separates points of $G$.
We have also introduced above the symbol $G^\wedge$ to denote the group of all continuous characters of a topological Abelian group equipped with the compact-open topology. We will use in this context the subscript $_d$ to indicate that $G$ carries the discrete topology. Thus $(G_d)^\wedge$ equals the set $Hom(G,{{\mathbb T\,}})$ of all homomorphisms into ${{\mathbb T\,}}$. Being a closed subgroup of ${{\mathbb T\,}}^G$, $(G_d)^\wedge$ is always a compact group.
Several purely algebraic notions from the theory of infinite Abelian groups will be necessary, as for instance the notion of basic subgroup and the related one of pure subgroup. We refer to [@fuchs] for the meaning and significance of these properties. As usual, the symbol $t(G)$ stands for the torsion subgroup of the group $G$ and $r_0(G)$ denotes the torsion-free rank of $G$.
The dual property to pseudocompactness
======================================
The following theorem is at the heart of the relationship between questions \[Qcomp\] and \[Qref\].
\[hernmaca\] Let $(G,{\mathcal{T}_{\mbox{\tiny $H$}}})$, $H\subset \ho(G,{{\mathbb T\,}})$, be a Hausdorff Abelian totally bounded group. $(G,{\mathcal{T}_{\mbox{\tiny $H$}}})$ is pseudocompact if, and only if, every countable subgroup of $(H,\mathcal{T}_{_{G}})$ is $h$-embedded in $(G_d)^\wedge$.
We say that a topological group $G$ has property ${{\mathbf \sharp}}$ if every countable subgroup of $G$ is $h$-embedded in $G$.
Thus property ${{\mathbf \sharp}}$ is, in the terminology of [@hernmaca03], the dual property of pseudocompactness.
The relation between property ${{\mathbf \sharp}}$ and Question \[Qcomp\] is clear from the following Lemma. Although a combination of Propositions 3.4 and 4.4 of [@hernmaca03] would provide an indirect proof, we offer a direct proof for the reader’s convenience.
\[nocompact\] Let $(G,{\mathcal{T}_{\mbox{\tiny $H$}}})$ denote a totally bounded group with property ${{\mathbf \sharp}}$. Then $(G,{\mathcal{T}_{\mbox{\tiny $H$}}})$ has no infinite compact subsets.
We first see that all countable subgroups of $G$ are ${\mathcal{T}_{\mbox{\tiny $H$}}}$-closed. Suppose otherwise that $x\in \cl_{(G,{\mathcal{T}_{\mbox{\tiny $H$}}})}N\setminus N$ with $N$ a countable subgroup of $G$. The subgroup $\widetilde{N}={\langle\,}N\cup
\{x\}{\,\rangle}$ is also countable and, by hypothesis, inherits its maximal totally bounded group topology from $(G,{\mathcal{T}_{\mbox{\tiny $H$}}})$. Since subgroups are necessarily closed in that topology, it follows that $N$ is closed in $\widetilde{N}$, which goes against $x\in \widetilde{N}\setminus N$.
Now suppose $K$ is an infinite compact subset of $G$ and let $S\subset K$ be a countable subset of $K$. Define $\widetilde{G}={\langle\,}S{\,\rangle}$ and denote by $\widetilde{G}$ and $\overline{(\widetilde{G},{\mathcal{T}_{\mbox{\tiny $H$}}})}$ the completions of $\widetilde{G}^\sharp$ and $(\widetilde{G},{\mathcal{T}_{\mbox{\tiny $H$}}})$ respectively. Since ${\langle\,}S{\,\rangle}$ is $h$-embedded the identity function $j\colon \widetilde{G}^\sharp \to (\widetilde{G},{\mathcal{T}_{\mbox{\tiny $H$}}})$, extends to a topological isomorphism $\bar{\j}\colon
b\widetilde{G}\to \overline{(\widetilde{G},{\mathcal{T}_{\mbox{\tiny $H$}}})}$. Then $\bar{\j}(\cl_{b\widetilde{G}}S)=\cl_{\overline{(\widetilde{G},{\mathcal{T}_{\mbox{\tiny $H$}}})}}j(S)\subset
K$, therefore $\cl_{\overline{(\widetilde{G},{\mathcal{T}_{\mbox{\tiny $H$}}})}}j(S)=\cl_{(\widetilde{G},{\mathcal{T}_{\mbox{\tiny $H$}}})}
S$ and, it follows from the preceding paragraph that $\cl_{b\widetilde{G}}S=\bar{\j}(\cl_{b\widetilde{G}}S)\subset {\langle\,}S{\,\rangle}$.
But a well known theorem of van Douwen [@douw90] (see also [@galihern98] and [@arhatkac Theorem 9.9.51] for different proofs and [@galihern99fu] for extensions of that result) states that $|\cl_{b(\widetilde{G})} S|=2^{\mathfrak{c}}$ and therefore it is impossible that $\bar{\j}(\cl_{b\widetilde{G}}S)S\subset {\langle\,}S {\,\rangle}$.
We establish next some easily deduced permanence properties.
\[prop:h-prod\] The class of groups having property ${{\mathbf \sharp}}$ is closed for finite products.
Let $G_1$ and $G_2$ be two topological Abelian groups with property ${{\mathbf \sharp}}$ and let $N$ be a countable subgroup of $G_1\times G_2$. Let $h$ be a homomorphism from $N$ to $\mathbb{T}$. By considering an arbitrary extension of $h$ to $G_1\times G_2$ we may assume that $h$ is actually defined on $G_1\times G_2$. Since both $\pi_1(N)$ and $\pi_2(N)$ are countable there will be continuous homomorphisms $h_i\colon G_i \to {{\mathbb T\,}}$, $i=1,2$, with $h_1(x)=h(x,0)$ and $h_2(y)=h(0,y)$ for all $x\in \pi_1(N)$ and $y \in \pi_2(N)$. The homomorphism $\bar{h}\colon G_1\times G_2\to {{\mathbb T\,}}$ given by $\bar{h}(x,y)=h_1(x)\cdot h_2(y)$ is then a continuous extension of $h$.
\[lem:quotients\] Let $\pi:K\to L$ be a continuous surjection between two compact Abelian groups $K$ and $L$ and suppose that $N$ is a subgroup of $L$ that, as subspace of $L$, carries the maximal totally bounded topology. If $M$ is a subgroup of $K$ such that $\pi_{\upharpoonleft_M}$ is a group isomorphism between $M$ and $N$, then $M$ also inherits from $K$ the maximal totally bounded topology.
Denote by $\mathcal{T}_{_{K}}$ and $\mathcal{T}_{_{L}}$ the topologies that $M$ inherit from $K$ and $L$ respectively (the latter obtained through $\pi_{\upharpoonleft_M}$). Since $\pi$ is continuous, the topology $\mathcal{T}_{_{K}}$ is finer than $\mathcal{T}_{_{L}}$, but $\mathcal{T}_{_{K}}$ is the maximal totally bounded topology, therefore $\mathcal{T}_{_{K}}=\mathcal{T}_{_{L}}$.
Property ${{\mathbf \sharp}}$ on torsion-free and bounded groups
================================================================
We will make a heavy use of powers of groups in the sequel. If $\sigma$ is a cardinal number, $K^\sigma$ stands for such powers. We use calligraphical letters, to denote sets of coordinates, that is, subsets of $\sigma$. If $\mathcal{D}\subset \sigma$, we will denote by $\pi_{\mathcal{D}}^{K}$ the projection from $K^\sigma$ to $K^{\mathcal{D}}$, if no confusion is possible we will simply use $\pi_{\mathcal{D}}$.
\[room\] Let $G$ be a metrizable group and let $\sigma \geq {\mathfrak{c}}$ and $\alpha$ be cardinal numbers with $m(\sigma)\leq \alpha$, and $\alpha^\omega\leq \sigma$.
Then there exists an independent ${G_{\delta}}$-dense subset $D\subseteq
G^\sigma$ with cardinality $m(\sigma)$, $D=\{d_\eta \colon \eta
<m(\sigma)\}$, and two families of sets of coordinates $\{
\mathcal{S}_\theta \colon \theta \in [\alpha]^\omega\}, \{
\mathcal{N}_\eta\colon \eta< \alpha\}\subset \sigma$ such that:
1. $|\mathcal{S}_\theta|=\sigma$.
2. $\mathcal{S}_\theta\cap\mathcal{S}_{\theta^\prime}=\emptyset$, if $\theta\neq \theta^\prime$.
3. ${\displaystyle \left|\mathcal{S_\theta}\setminus
\bigcup_{\eta \in \theta}\mathcal{N}_\eta\right|=\sigma}$ for every $\theta\in [\alpha]^{ \omega}$.
4. Every subset $\{g_\eta \colon \eta <\alpha\}$ of $G^\sigma$ with $\pi_{_{\mathcal{N}_\eta}}(g_\eta)=\pi_{_{\mathcal{N}_\eta}}(d_\eta)$, for all $\eta <\alpha$ is ${G_{\delta}}$-dense.
Let $\mathcal{A}_\beta=\{a_{\gamma}\colon \gamma<\sigma\}$ be a set with $|\mathcal{A}_\beta|=\sigma$ and consider the disjoint union $\mathcal{A}=\bigcup_{\beta<{\mathfrak{c}}} \mathcal{A}_\beta$. We identify $G^\sigma$ with $G^\mathcal{A}$ and $\alpha$ with $[{\mathfrak{c}}]^\omega
\times \alpha$. Since $\alpha^\omega \leq \sigma$, we can as well decompose each $\mathcal{A}_\beta$ as a disjoint union ${\displaystyle \mathcal{A}_\beta= \bigcup_{\widetilde{\theta}\in
[[{\mathfrak{c}}]^\omega\times \alpha]^\omega}
\mathcal{A}_{\beta,\widetilde{\theta}}}$ of sets of cardinality $|\mathcal{A}_{\beta,\widetilde{\theta}}|=\sigma$.
For each $N\in [{\mathfrak{c}}]^\omega$, let next $F_N=\{f_{(N,\eta)}\colon
\eta<\alpha\}$ be an independent ${G_{\delta}}$-dense subset of the product ${\displaystyle G^{\cup_{\gamma\in N} \mathcal{A}_\gamma}}$ (note that $m(\sigma)\leq \alpha$ and that $G$ is metrizable). Assume that each $f_{(N,\eta)}$ actually belongs to $G^\mathcal{A}$ by putting $\pi_{\mathcal{A}_\gamma}(f_{(N,\eta)})=0$ if $\gamma\notin N$.
We now order $\alpha=[{\mathfrak{c}}]^\omega \times \alpha$ lexicographically and define the sets $N_{\widetilde{\eta}}$, $\widetilde{\eta} \in
[{\mathfrak{c}}]^\omega \times \alpha$ and $\mathcal{S}_{\widetilde{\theta}}$, $\widetilde{\theta} \in [[{\mathfrak{c}}]^\omega \times \alpha]^\omega$. For $\widetilde{\eta}=(N,\eta)\in [{\mathfrak{c}}]^\omega \times \alpha$ define $\mathcal{N}_{(N,\eta)}=\bigcup_{\gamma\in N}
\mathcal{A}_{\gamma,\widetilde{\eta}}$ and given $\widetilde{\theta}=\{(N_k,\eta_k)\colon k<\omega,\;\:
(N_k,\eta_k)\in [{\mathfrak{c}}]^\omega \times\alpha\}$, we define $\mathcal{S}_{\widetilde{\theta}}=\mathcal{A}_{\beta_0,\widetilde{\theta}}$ where $\beta_0$ is such that $\beta \in N_k$ for some $k$, implies $\beta<\beta_0$ (recall that ${\mathfrak{c}}$ has uncountable cofinality). By construction of the sets $\mathcal{A}_{\beta,\widetilde{\theta}}$, we have $\mathcal{S}_{\widetilde{\theta}}\cap\mathcal{S}_{\widetilde{\theta}^\prime}=\emptyset$, when $\widetilde{\theta}\neq \widetilde{\theta}^\prime$. Condition (3) obviously holds, since $S_{\widetilde{\theta}}$ and $\bigcup_{\widetilde{\eta}\in\widetilde{\theta}}\mathcal{N}_{\widetilde{\eta}}$ are even disjoint.
Define finally $D=\{ f_{\widetilde{\eta}}\colon \widetilde{\eta}\in
[{\mathfrak{c}}]^\omega \times \alpha\}=\cup_{N\in[{\mathfrak{c}}]^\omega}F_N$.
Suppose $\widetilde{D}=\{g_{\widetilde{\eta}}\colon
\widetilde{\eta}\in [{\mathfrak{c}}]^\omega \times \alpha\}$ is such that $\pi_{_{\mathcal{N}_{\widetilde{\eta}}}} (g_{\widetilde{\eta}})=
\pi_{_{\mathcal{N}_{\widetilde{\eta}} } } (f_{\widetilde{\eta}})$, for all $\widetilde{\eta} \in [{\mathfrak{c}}]^\omega \times \alpha$.
To check that $\widetilde{D}$ is indeed ${G_{\delta}}$-dense we choose a ${G_{\delta}}$-subset $U$ of $G^\mathcal{A}$ . There will be then $N=\{\alpha_n \colon n<\omega\}\in [{\mathfrak{c}}]^\omega$ and a ${G_{\delta}}$-set $V \subset G^{\cup\mathcal{A}_{\alpha_n}}$ such that $\{ \bar{x}\in G^{\mathcal{A}}\colon
\pi_{\cup_n\mathcal{A}_{\alpha_n}} (\bar{x})\in V \mbox{ for each
}n<\omega\}\subset U$. Since $F_N$ is ${G_{\delta}}$-dense in $G^{{\displaystyle \cup_{\gamma\in N}}
\mathcal{A}_\gamma}=G^{{\displaystyle \cup_n
\mathcal{A}_{\alpha_n}}}$, there will be an element $f_{(N,\eta)}\in F_N$ with $\pi_{\cup_n \mathcal{A}_{\alpha_n}}(f_{(N,\eta)})\in V$ for every $\alpha_n \in N$.
As $ g_{(N,\eta)}$ and $f_{(N,\eta)}$ have the same $\cup_{\gamma
\in N}\mathcal{A}_\gamma$-coordinates, we conclude that $g_{(N,\eta)}\in U\cap \widetilde{D}$.
If $\chi$ is a homomorphism between two groups $G_1$ and $G_2$ and $\sigma$ is a cardinal number, we denote by $\chi^{\sigma}$ the product homomorphism $\chi^\sigma \colon G_1^{\sigma}\to G_2^{\sigma}$ defined by $\chi^{\sigma}((g_\eta)_{\eta<\sigma})=(\chi(g_\eta))_{\eta<\sigma}$. It is easily verified that, for any $\mathcal{D}\subseteq\sigma$, the projections $\pi_{\mathcal{D}}^{G_i}:G_i^{\sigma}\to
G_i^{\mathcal{D}}$, $i=1,2$ satisfy $$\pi_{\mathcal{D}}^{G_2}\circ\chi^{\sigma}=\chi^{\mathcal{D}}\circ \pi_{\mathcal{D}}^{G_1}$$
\[cor:room\] Let $\chi \colon G_1\to G_2$ be a surjective homomorphism between two metrizable groups $G_1$ and $G_2$. If $\sigma$ and $\alpha$ are cardinal numbers with $m(\sigma)\leq \alpha$ and $\alpha^\omega\leq \sigma$, then it is possible to find an independent ${G_{\delta}}$-dense subset $D$ of $G_1^\sigma$ satisfying the properties of Proposition \[room\] such that in addition $\chi^\sigma(D)$ is an independent subset of $G_2^\sigma$.
It suffices to repeat the proof of Lemma \[room\] taking care to choose the sets $F_N$ in such a way that $\chi^{\cup_{\gamma \in
N}\mathcal{A}_\gamma}(F_N)$ is also independent.
\[prop:freetorsion\] Let $\chi \colon G\to {{\mathbb T\,}}$ be a surjective character of a compact metrizable group $G$. If $\sigma $ and $\alpha$ are cardinal numbers with $m(\sigma)\leq \alpha$, and $\alpha^\omega\leq \sigma$, then the topological group $G^\sigma$ contains an independent ${G_{\delta}}$-dense subset $F$ of cardinality $\alpha$ such that $F$ and $\chi^\sigma (F)$ generate isomorphic groups with property ${{\mathbf \sharp}}$.
We begin with a ${G_{\delta}}$-dense subset of $G^\sigma$, $D=\left\{
d_\eta \colon \eta<\alpha\right\}$, with the properties of Lemma \[room\] and Corollary \[cor:room\]. We have thus two families of sets $\{\mathcal{S}_\theta,\: \colon\: \theta\in[\alpha]^{\omega}\}$, $\{\mathcal{N}_\eta,\: \colon\: \eta<\alpha\}\subset\sigma$ with the properties (1) through (4) of that Lemma.
Next, for every $\theta\in [\alpha]^{\omega} $, we choose and fix a set of coordinates $\mathcal{D}_\theta \subseteq \sigma$ of cardinality $|\mathcal{D}_\theta|=\sigma$ in such a way that $$\mathcal{D}_\theta\subseteq \mathcal{S}_\theta
\setminus {\displaystyle\bigcup_{\eta \in \theta}
\mathcal{N}_\eta}$$ (recall that by Lemma \[room\], $\left|\mathcal{S_\theta}\setminus \bigcup_{\eta \in
\theta}\mathcal{N}_\eta\right|=\sigma$)
Given each $\theta\in[\alpha]^{\omega}$, we consider the free subgroup $\left\langle \chi^\sigma(d_{\eta})
\colon \eta \in \theta \right\rangle$ and equip it with its maximal totally bounded topology. Denoting the resulting topological group as $\left\langle \chi^\sigma( d_{\eta}) \colon \eta \in \theta
\right\rangle^\sharp$, and taking into account that it has weight ${\mathfrak{c}}$, we can find an embedding $$\label{(1)}
j_{\theta} \colon \left\langle
\chi^\sigma(d_{\eta}) \colon \eta \in \theta \right\rangle^{\sharp}
\hookrightarrow {{\mathbb T\,}}^{\mathcal{D}_\theta}.$$
For each $\theta \in [\alpha]^\omega$ and each $\eta\in \theta$, let $g_{\eta,\theta}$ denote an element of $G^\mathcal{D_\theta}$ with $\chi^{\mathcal{D}_\theta}(g_{\eta,\theta})=j_\theta(\chi^\sigma(d_\eta))$. Observe that the set $\{ g_{\eta,\theta}\colon \eta \in \theta\}$ is independent.
We finally define the elements $f_\eta$, $\eta<\alpha$, by the rules: $$\begin{aligned}
&\pi_{\mathcal{D}_\theta}^G(f_\eta)=
g_{\eta,\theta} \mbox{, if } \theta \in [\alpha]^\omega \mbox{ is
such that } \eta \in \theta, \qquad \mbox{ and }\\ &
\pi_{\gamma}^G(f_\eta)=\pi_\gamma^G(d_\eta) \mbox{ if } \gamma
\notin \mathcal{D}_\theta \mbox{ for any } \theta \in
[\alpha]^{\omega} \mbox{ with } \eta \in \theta. \end{aligned}$$
Let us see that $F=\{f_\eta\colon\eta<\alpha\}$ satisfies the desired properties:
1. *$F$ and $\chi^\sigma(F)$ are independent.* Suppose that $\sum_{k=1}^m n_k f_{\eta_k}=0$ with $n_k\in {{\mathbb Z}}$. Choose then $\theta \in [\alpha]^\omega$ with $\eta_1,\ldots , \eta_{m}, \in
\theta$. Since $\pi_{\mathcal{D}_\theta}^G(f_{\eta_k})=g_{{\eta_k},\theta}$ and the set $\{g_{\eta,\theta} \colon \eta \in \theta\}$ is independent, the independence of $F$ follows. Since $\pi_{\mathcal{D}_\theta}(\chi^\sigma(f_{\eta}))=\chi^{\mathcal{D}_\theta}(g_{\eta,\theta})$, $\chi^\sigma(F)$ is also independent. It is easy to see, now, that $\langle F\rangle$ and $\langle\chi^\sigma(F)\rangle$ are isomorphic.
2. *The subgroup $\langle \chi^\sigma(F)\rangle$ has property ${{\mathbf \sharp}}$.* Let $N$ be a countable subgroup of ${\langle\,}\chi^\sigma(F){\,\rangle}$. Let $\theta\in [\alpha]^\omega$ be such that $N\subseteq {\langle\,}\chi^\sigma(f_\eta) \colon \eta \in \theta{\,\rangle}$ and define $N_\theta:={\langle\,}f_\eta \colon \eta \in \theta {\,\rangle}$.
Observe finally that $\pi_{\mathcal{D}_\theta}^{{{\mathbb T\,}}}(N)=
\chi^{\mathcal{D}_\theta}(\pi_{\mathcal{D}_\theta}^G(N_\theta))$. This last subgroup is just $j_\theta\left(\left\langle \chi^\sigma(
d_{\eta}) \colon \eta \in \theta \right\rangle\right)$ and the latter carries by construction its maximal totally bounded topology, since the restriction of $\pi_{\mathcal{D}_\theta}^{{{\mathbb T\,}}}\colon
{{\mathbb T\,}}^{\sigma}\to{{\mathbb T\,}}^{\mathcal{D}_\theta}$ to $N$ is a group isomorphism onto $\pi_{\mathcal{D}_\theta}^{{{\mathbb T\,}}}(N)
=\chi^{\mathcal{D}_\theta}(\pi_{\mathcal{D}_\theta}^G(N_\theta))$, Lemma \[lem:quotients\] applies.
3. *$\langle F\rangle $ has property ${{\mathbf \sharp}}$.* Take $\pi=\chi^{\sigma}$, $K=G^\sigma$ and $ L={{\mathbb T\,}}^\sigma$. Bearing in mind that the restriction to ${\langle\,}F{\,\rangle}$ is an isomorphism because $F$ and $\chi^{\sigma}(F)$ are independent sets, Lemma \[lem:quotients\] applies again.
4. *$F$ is a $G_\delta$-dense subset of $G^\sigma$.* Observe that, for every $\eta<\alpha$, $f_\eta$ coincides with $d_\eta$ on the set of coordinates $\mathcal{N}_\eta $, for $\mathcal{D}_\theta\subseteq \mathcal{S}_\theta
\setminus {\displaystyle\bigcup_{\eta \in \theta} \mathcal{N}_\eta}$. Since $D$ has the properties of Lemma \[room\], we conclude that $F$ is ${G_{\delta}}$-dense.
\[prop:boundedtorsion\] Let $\sigma $ and $\alpha$ be cardinal numbers with $m(\sigma)\leq
\alpha$, and $\alpha^\omega\leq \sigma$. The topological group ${{\mathbb Z}}(p)^{\sigma}$ contains an independent ${G_{\delta}}$-dense subset $H$ with property ${{\mathbf \sharp}}$.
Proceed exactly as in Proposition \[prop:freetorsion\] and construct an embedding into ${{\mathbb Z}}(p)^\sigma$. To obtain the ${{\mathbf \sharp}}$-property we identify countable subgroups with Bohr groups of the form $\left(\oplus_{\omega} {{\mathbb Z}}(p)\right)^\sharp$.
The algebraic structure of pseudocompact Abelian groups
=======================================================
We obtain here some results on the algebraic structure of pseudocompact that will be useful in the next section. The first of them is inspired (and shares a part of its proof) from the first part of the proof of Lemma 3.2 of [@galigarc07]. We sketch here the proof for the reader’s convenience. We thank Dikran Dikranjan for pointing a misguiding sentence in a previous version of this proof.
\[descomp\] Every Abelian group admits a decomposition $$G=\left(
\bigoplus_{p^k \in {{\mathbb P}}_0^\uparrow} \bigoplus_{\gamma(p^k)}{{\mathbb Z}}(p^k)
\right)\bigoplus H$$ where $ {{\mathbb P}}_0^\uparrow $ is a finite subset of ${{\mathbb P}}^\uparrow$ and $H$ is a subgroup of $G$ with $$\left| n H\right|=|H|, \mbox{ for all }n\in {{\mathbb N}}.$$
Decompose $t(G)=\bigoplus_p G_p$ as a direct sum of $p$-groups $G_p$ and let $B_p$ denote a basic subgroup of $G_p$ for each $p$. This in particular means that $B_p$ is a direct sum of cyclic $p$-groups, $$B_p = \bigoplus_{n < \omega} B_{p,n} \mbox{ with }
B_{p,n} \cong \bigoplus_{\beta_{p^n}}{\textbf}Z(p^n)$$ and that $G_p/B_p$ is divisible. Define $\mathcal{D}=\{|B_{p,n}|\colon p^n \in
\mathbb{P}^\uparrow\}$. If $\mathcal{D}$ has no maximum or $\beta_0=\max \mathcal{D}$ is attained at an infinite number of $|B_{p,n}|$’s we stop here. If, otherwise, $\beta_0=\max
\mathcal{D}=|B_{p_1,n_1}|=\ldots=|B_{p_r,n_r}|$ and $|B_{p_j,n_j}|<\beta_0$ for all the remaining $p_j^{n_j}\in
{{\mathbb P}}^\uparrow$ we repeat the process with the set $\mathcal{D}\setminus |B_{p_1,n_1}|$. After a finite number of steps we obtain in this manner a finite collection of cardinals $F\subset
\mathcal{D}$ such that either:
1. *Case 1:* the supremum $\beta:=\sup\left( \mathcal{D}\setminus F\right)$ is not attained, or
2. *Case 2:* the supremum $\beta:=\sup \left(\mathcal{D}\setminus F\right)$ is attained infinitely often, i.e., there is an infinite subset $I\subset {{\mathbb P}}^{\uparrow}$ with $|B_{p,n}|=\beta$ for all $p^n \in I$.
Define ${{\mathbb P}}_0^{\uparrow}=\{ p^n \in {{\mathbb P}}^\uparrow \colon |B_{p,n}|\in
F\}$ (observe that ${{\mathbb P}}_0^\uparrow$ is necessarily finite), and set $\gamma(p_k^{n_k})=|B_{p_k,n_k}|$ if $p_k^{n_k}\in {{\mathbb P}}_0^{\uparrow}$. Since the subgroups $B_{p_k,n_k}$ are bounded pure subgroups, there will be [@fuchs Theorem 27.5] a subgroup $H$ of $G$ such that $$G=\left(\bigoplus_{p_k^{n_k}\in {{\mathbb P}}_0^{\uparrow}}
\bigoplus_{\gamma(p_k^{n_k})}B_{p_k,n_k}\right) \bigoplus H,$$
For each prime $p$, consider a $p$-basic subgroup $B_{p,H}=\oplus_{n} B_{p,n,H}$ of $H_p$, the $p$-part of $t(H)$, it is immediately checked that either $B_{p,H}$ itself (if $p\not \in
{{\mathbb P}}_0^\uparrow$) or $B_{p,H} \bigoplus \left(\bigoplus
_{\overset{p_k^{n_k}\in {{\mathbb P}}_0^{\uparrow}}{p_k=p}}
\bigoplus_{\gamma(p_k^{n_k})}B_{p_k,n_k}\right)$ (if $p \in
{{\mathbb P}}_0^\uparrow$) is also $p$-basic in $G$.
Since different basic subgroups are necessarily isomorphic [@fuchs Theorem 35], we have that $B_{p,H}$ or $B_{p,H}
\bigoplus \left(\bigoplus_{\overset{p_k^{n_k}\in
{{\mathbb P}}_0^{\uparrow}}{p_k=p}}
\bigoplus_{\gamma(p_k^{n_k})}B_{p_k,n_k}\right)$ is isomorphic to $B_p$. We have therefore that, for each $p$, either $\sup
|B_{p,n,H}|$ is not attained (case 1 above) or attained at infinitely many $p^n$’s (case 2).
Let now $n$ be any natural number. Then $|n
B_{p_k,n_k,H}|=|B_{p_k,n_k,H}|$ unless $p_k^{n_k}$ divides $n$. Since this will only happen for finitely $p_k^{n_k}$’s, we conclude, in both cases 1 and 2 that $|nB_{p,H}|=|B_{p,H}|$.
Using that $B_{p,H}$ is pure in $H_p$ and that $H_p/B_{p,H}$ is divisible we have that, $$\begin{aligned}
|nH_p|&=\left|\frac{nH_p}{nB_{p,H}}\right|+\left|nB_{p,H}\right| \\
&=
\left|n\left(\frac{H_p}{B_{p,H}}\right)\right|+\left|B_{p,H}\right|\\
&=
\left|\frac{H_p}{B_{p,H}}\right|+\left|B_{p,H}\right|=|H_p|.\end{aligned}$$ Since $ |H|=\sum_p H_p + r_0(H)|$ for every infinite group $H$ and $r_0(nH)=r_0(H)$ we have finally that $|H|=|nH|$, for every $n\in
{{\mathbb Z}}$.
The terminology introduced in the next definition is motivated, in the present context, by Theorem \[estrpseu\] below.
\[def:split\]If $G$ is an Abelian group, the set ${{\mathbb P}}_0^\uparrow$ of Lemma \[descomp\] can be partitioned as ${{\mathbb P}}_0^\uparrow={{\mathbb P}}_1^\uparrow\cup{{\mathbb P}}_2^\uparrow$ with $p_i^{n_i}\in
{{\mathbb P}}_1^\uparrow$ if, and only if, $\gamma(p_i^{n_i})> r_0(G)$.
The cardinal numbers $\gamma(p_i^{n_i})$ with $p_i^{n_i} \in
{{\mathbb P}}_1^\uparrow$ will be called the *dominant ranks* of $G$.
\[estrdikgio\] If $G$ is a nontorsion pseudocompact group, then there is a positive integer such that: $$\label{ineqwd}m(w(nG))\leq r_0(nG)\leq 2^{w(nG)}.$$
If $nG$ is metrizable for some $n\in {{\mathbb N}}$, then $nG$ is a compact metrizable group. Therefore $r_0(nG)= {\mathfrak{c}}$ and the inequalities in hold for this $n$.
If $nG$ is not metrizable for any $n\in {{\mathbb N}}$, then $G$ is, in the terminology of [@dikrgior08], *nonsingular*. Combining Lemma 3.3 and Theorem 1.15 of [@dikrgior08], there must be $n\in
N$ such that $r_0(nG)$ is the cardinal of a pseudocompact group of weight $w(nG)$. Therefore $$m(w(nG))\leq r_0(nG)\leq 2^{w(nG)}.$$
\[estrpseu\] Let $G$ be an Abelian group. If $G$ admits a pseudocompact group topology, then $G$ can be decomposed as $$G=
\left(\bigoplus_{ p^k \in {{\mathbb P}}_1^\uparrow} \bigoplus_{\gamma(p^k)}
{{\mathbb Z}}(p^k)\right) \oplus G_0$$ where $\gamma(p_i^{k_i})$, $p_i^{k_i} \in
{{\mathbb P}}_1^\uparrow$, are the dominant ranks of $G$ and there is a cardinal $\omega_d(G)$ such that $$\label{eq:estr}
m(\omega_d(G))\leq r_0(G)\leq |G_0|\leq 2^{\omega_d(G)}.$$
Since every pseudocompact torsion group must be of bounded order, the theorem is trivial (and vacuous) for such groups, we may assume that $G$ is nontorsion.
Decompose $G$ as in Lemma \[descomp\]: $$\left( \bigoplus_{p^k \in {{\mathbb P}}_0^\uparrow} \bigoplus_{\gamma(p^k)}{{\mathbb Z}}(p^k) \right)\bigoplus H$$ with ${{\mathbb P}}_0^{\uparrow}$ a finite subset of ${{\mathbb P}}^\uparrow$ and $$\left| n H\right|=|H| \mbox{ for all }n\in {{\mathbb N}}.$$
Split ${{\mathbb P}}_0^\uparrow={{\mathbb P}}_1^\uparrow\cup {{\mathbb P}}_2^\uparrow$ as in Definition \[def:split\] and define $$G_0=\bigoplus_{p_i^{k_i} \in {{\mathbb P}}_2^\uparrow}
\bigoplus_{\gamma(p_i^{k_i})}{{\mathbb Z}}(p_i^{k_i})\bigoplus H.$$ We will prove that the inequalities \[eq:estr\] hold for $w_d(G)=w(nG_0)$.
Lemma \[estrdikgio\] proves that there is some $n\in {{\mathbb N}}$ with $$\label{inwd} m(w(nG_0))\leq r_0(G_0)\leq
2^{w(nG_0)}.$$ If $|G_0|=\gamma(p_i^{k_i})$ for some $p_i^{k_i} \in {{\mathbb P}}_2^\uparrow$, it follows from the definition of $P_2^\uparrow$ that $|G_0|=
r_0(G)$ and is deduced from . If, otherwise, $|G_0|=|H|$, then $|nG_0|\geq |nH|=|H|= |G_0|$ and we deduce that $|G_0|=|nG_0|$ and thus that $|G_0|\leq 2^{w(nG_0)}$. This together with gives again with $w_d(G)=w(nG_0)$.
The cardinal $w_d(G)$ used in Theorem \[estrpseu\] is precisely the *divisible weight* of $G$ that was introduced and studied by Dikranjan and Giordano-Bruno [@dikrgior08]. We refer the reader to that paper to get an idea of the important role played by the divisible weight in the structure of pseudocompact groups. One of its applications (Theorem 1.19 loc. cit.) is to prove that $r_0(G)$ is an admissible cardinal for every pseudocompact group $G$, a fact first proved by Dikranjan and Shakhmatov in [@dikrshak09].
Pseudocompact groups with property ${{\mathbf \sharp}}$
=======================================================
The results of the previous sections will be used here to obtain sufficient conditions for the existence of pseudocompact group topologies with property ${{\mathbf \sharp}}$.
\[enumer\] Let $\pi \colon G_1\to G_2$ be a quotient homomorphism between two Abelian topological groups $G_1$ and $G_2$ and let $L$ be a compact Abelian group. Assume that the following conditions hold:
1. $G_1$ contains a free ${G_{\delta}}$-dense subgroup $H_1$ such that $H_1$ and $\pi(H_1)$ are isomorphic and have property ${{\mathbf \sharp}}$.
2. $G_1$ contains another free subgroup $H_2$ such that $H_1\cap H_2=\{0\}$, $H_1+H_2$ and $\pi(H_1+H_2)$ are isomorphic and have property ${{\mathbf \sharp}}$.
3. $m(w(L))\leq |H_2|$.
Under these conditions the product $G_1\times L$ contains a ${G_{\delta}}$-dense subgroup $\widetilde{H}$ such that both $\widetilde{H}$ and $\pi\left(p_1(\widetilde{H})\right)$ have property ${{\mathbf \sharp}}$, where $p_1\colon G_1\times L\to G_1$ denotes the first projection.
We first enumerate the elements of $H_1$ and $H_2$ as $H_1=\{f_\beta\colon \kappa <\beta\}$ and $H_2=\{ g_\eta \colon \eta
<\alpha\}$. Since $m(w(L))\leq \alpha=|H_2|$, we can also enumerate a ${G_{\delta}}$-dense subgroup $D$ of $L$ (allowing repetitions if necessary) as $D=\{d_\eta \colon \eta <\alpha\}$. We now define the subgroup $\widetilde{H}$ of $G_1\times L$ as $$\widetilde{H}= \left\langle \,(f_\kappa + g_\eta,d_\eta)
\colon \eta <\alpha, \kappa<\beta\,\right\rangle.$$ It is easy to check that $\widetilde{H}$ is a ${G_{\delta}}$-dense subgroup of $G_1\times L$ with $\widetilde{H}\cap \{0\}\times
L=\{(0,0)\}$.
Since the homomorphism $p_1$ is continuous and establishes a group isomorphism between $\widetilde{H}$ and $H_1+H_2$, Lemma \[lem:quotients\] shows that $\widetilde{H}$ has property ${{\mathbf \sharp}}$. The same argument applies to the group $\pi\left(
p_1(\widetilde{H})\right)=\pi(H_1+H_2)$.
Let $\alpha\geq \omega$ be a cardinal. We say that *$\alpha$ satisfies property $(\ast)$ if:* $$\tag{*}\label{*} \mbox{there is a cardinal $\kappa$ with }
\kappa^\omega \leq \alpha\leq 2^\kappa$$
Every cardinal $\alpha$ with $\alpha^\omega = \alpha$ satisfies property . This condition is equivalent to the condition $(m(\alpha))^\omega \leq \alpha$.
To apply Lemma \[enumer\] we need the following result:
\[comfgali\] Let $G=(G,\mathcal{T}_1)$ be a pseudocompact Abelian group with $w(G)=\alpha>\omega$, and set $$\sigma=\min\{r_0(N):N \text{ is a closed ${G_{\delta}}$-subgroup of $G$}\}.$$ If $\alpha^\omega\leq\sigma$ and if $\lambda\geq\omega$ satisfies $m(\lambda)\leq\sigma$, then $G$ admits a pseudocompact group topology $\mathcal{T}_2$ such that $w(G,\mathcal{T}_2)=\alpha+\lambda$ and $\mathcal{T}_1\bigvee\mathcal{T}_2$ is pseudocompact. Moreover, every closed ${G_{\delta}}$-subgroup of $(G,\mathcal{T}_1)$ is ${G_{\delta}}$-dense $(G,\mathcal{T}_2)$.
\[cor:comfgali\] Let $\sigma,\alpha$ and $\lambda$ be cardinals with $\alpha^\omega\leq \sigma$ and $m(\lambda)\leq \sigma$. If $H$ is a free, dense subgroup of ${{\mathbb T\,}}^\sigma$ with property ${{\mathbf \sharp}}$ and cardinality $\alpha$, then ${{\mathbb T\,}}^\sigma $ contains another subgroup $H_2$ with $H\cap H_2=\{0\}$, $|H_2|=\lambda+\alpha$ and such that $H+H_2$ has property ${{\mathbf \sharp}}$.
Let $F(\sigma)$ denote the free Abelian group of rank $\sigma$. We apply Theorem \[comfgali\] to the pseudocompact group $(F(\sigma),{\mathcal{T}_{\mbox{\tiny $H$}}})$ defined by $H$. We obtain thus a pseudocompact topology $\mathcal{T}_{_{H_2}}$ on $F(\sigma)$ induced by a subgroup $H_2$ of ${{\mathbb T\,}}^\sigma$ of cardinality $|H_2|=\alpha+\lambda$ such that ${\mathcal{T}_{\mbox{\tiny $H$}}}\bigvee \mathcal{T}_{_{H_2}}=\mathcal{T}_{_{H+H_2}}$ is pseudocompact. By Theorem \[hernmaca\] the subgroup $H+H_2$ has property ${{\mathbf \sharp}}$ and, since closed ${G_{\delta}}$-subgroups of ${\mathcal{T}_{\mbox{\tiny $H$}}}$ are ${G_{\delta}}$-dense in $\mathcal{T}_{_{H_2}}$, we also have that $H\cap
H_2=\{0\}$.
\[main\] Let $G$ be a pseudocompact Abelian group with dominant ranks $\gamma(p_1^{n_1}),\ldots, \gamma(p_k^{n_k})$ and suppose that $\gamma(p_i^{n_i})$, $1\leq i\leq k$, satisfy property . If $r_0(G)$ also satisfies property for some $\kappa$ with $m(|G_0|)\leq 2^\kappa$, then $G$ admits a pseudocompact topology with property ${{\mathbf \sharp}}$.
Decompose, following Theorem \[estrpseu\], $G$ as a direct sum $$G=\left(\bigoplus_{\gamma(p_1^{n_1})}{{\mathbb Z}}(p_1^{n_1})\bigoplus \cdots
\bigoplus_{\gamma(p_k^{n_k})}{{\mathbb Z}}(p_k^{n_k})\right) \bigoplus G_0$$ Let $F$ denote a free Abelian group of cardinality $r_0(G)$ contained in $G_0$ and denote by $D(F)$ and $D(t(G_0))$ divisible hulls of $F$ and $t(G_0)$, respectively. There is then a chain of group embeddings (here we use [@fuchs Lemmas 16.2 and 24.3])
$$\label{basicemb}
F \overset{j_1}{\to} G_0 \overset{j_2}{\to} D(F)\oplus D(t(G_0))$$
Denote by $\chi$ the quotient homomorphism obtained as the dual map of the canonical embedding ${{\mathbb Z}}\to{{\mathbb Q}}$. Observe that identifying $F$ with $\oplus_{r_0(G)}{{\mathbb Z}}$ and $D(F)$ with $\oplus_{r_0(G)}{{\mathbb Q}}$, the dual map of $j_2\circ j_1$ is exactly $\chi^{r_0(G)}$.
Taking $\sigma=r_0(G)$, $G={{\mathbb Q}}_d^\wedge$ and $\alpha=\kappa^{\omega}$, we can apply Proposition \[prop:freetorsion\] to get a ${G_{\delta}}$-dense subgroup $H_1$ of $\left(D(F)_d\right)^\wedge=\Bigl({{\mathbb Q}}_d^\wedge\Bigr)^{r_0(G)}$ with $|H_1|=\kappa^\omega$ and such that $H_1$ and $\chi^{r_0(G)}(H_1)$ are isomorphic and have property ${{\mathbf \sharp}}$ (notice that $\kappa^\omega $ and $r_0(G)$ satisfy the hypothesis of that Proposition).
We now apply Corollary \[cor:comfgali\] to $\chi^{r_0(G)}(H_1)$ to obtain another free subgroup $H_2^\prime$ of ${{\mathbb T\,}}^{r_0(G)}$ with $\chi^{r_0(G)}(H_1)\cap H_2^\prime=\{0\}$, $|H_2^\prime|=2^\kappa$ and such that $\chi^{r_0(G)}(H_1)+H_2^\prime$ has property ${{\mathbf \sharp}}$. By lifting (through $\chi^{r_0(G)}$) the free generators of $H_2^\prime$ to $(D(F)_d)^\wedge$, we obtain a free subgroup $H_2$ of $(D(F)_d)^\wedge$ such that $H_1\cap H_ 2=\{0\}$ and $|H_2|=
2^\kappa$. Clearly $H_1+H_2$ is isomorphic to $\chi^{r_0(G)}(H_1)+H_2^\prime$ and therefore $H_1+H_2$ has property ${{\mathbf \sharp}}$ by Lemma \[lem:quotients\].
We finally apply Lemma \[enumer\]. The role of $G_1\times L$ is played by $(D(F)_d)^\wedge\times \biggl(D(t(G_0))_d\biggr)^\wedge$; $G_2$ is here identified with ${{\mathbb T\,}}^{r_0(G)}$ and $\pi$ is $\chi^{r_0(G)}$. Lemma \[enumer\] then provides a ${G_{\delta}}$-dense subgroup $\widetilde{H}$ of $\biggl(D(F)_d\biggr)^\wedge\times \biggl(D(t(G_0))_d\biggr)^\wedge$ such that both $\widetilde{H}$ and $\chi^{r_0(G)}(p_1(\widetilde{H}))$ have property ${{\mathbf \sharp}}$. This subgroup generates a pseudocompact topology $\mathcal{T}_{_{\widetilde{H}}}$ on $D(F)\oplus D(t(G_0))$ with property ${{\mathbf \sharp}}$ that makes $F$ pseudocompact (the induced topology on $F$ is just the topology inherited from $\chi^{r_0(G)}(p_1(\widetilde{H}))$). Since $G_0$ sits between $F$ and $D(F)\oplus D(t(G_0))$, it follows that the restriction of $\mathcal{T}_{_{\widetilde{H}}}$ to $G_0$ is pseudocompact and has property ${{\mathbf \sharp}}$.
By Proposition \[prop:boundedtorsion\] the bounded group ${\displaystyle \bigoplus_{\alpha(p_1^{n_1})}{{\mathbb Z}}(p_1^{n_1})\bigoplus
\cdots \bigoplus_{\alpha(p_k^{n_k})}{{\mathbb Z}}(p_k^{n_k})}$ also admits a pseudocompact group topology with property ${{\mathbf \sharp}}$ and the theorem follows.
Dikranjan and Shakmatov [@dikrshak05] prove under a set-theoretic axiom called $\nabla_\kappa$ (that implies ${\mathfrak{c}}=\omega_1$ and $2^{\mathfrak{c}}=\kappa$ with $\kappa$ being any cardinal $\kappa\geq \omega_2$) that every pseudocompact group of cardinality at most $2^{\mathfrak{c}}$ has a pseudocompact group topology with no infinite compact subsets. It follows from Theorem \[main\] that the result is true in ZFC, even for larger cardinalities.
Let $G$ be a pseudocompact Abelian group of cardinality $|G|\leq 2^{2^{\mathfrak{c}}}$. Then $G$ admits a pseudocompact topology with property ${{\mathbf \sharp}}$ (and thus a pseudocompact topology with no infinite compact subsets).
Since a pseudocompact group with $ r_0(G)<{\mathfrak{c}}$ is a bounded group it will suffice to check that every cardinal $\alpha$ with $\alpha\leq 2^{2^{{\mathfrak{c}}}}$ satisfies property . Theorem \[main\] will then be applied. We consider the following two cases:
*Case 1: ${\mathfrak{c}}\leq \alpha \leq 2^{\mathfrak{c}}$*. In this case we put $\kappa ={\mathfrak{c}}$.
*Case 2: $\alpha>2^{\mathfrak{c}}$*. Choose $\kappa =2^{\mathfrak{c}}$ for this case.
Observe that in both cases $|m(|G|)|\leq 2^\kappa$ and hence that all hypothesis of Theorem \[main\] are fulfilled.
By van Douwen’s theorem [@douw80], a strong limit admissible cardinal must have uncountable cofinality. Under mild set-theoretic assumptions this implies that admissible cardinals must have property . It suffices, for instance, to assume the *Singular Cardinal Hypothesis* SCH.
\[th:SCH\] If SCH is assumed, then every admissible cardinal has property .
Combining Theorem \[estrpseu\] and Theorem \[main\], it turns out that, under SCH, every pseudocompact group admits a pseudocompact group topology with property ${{\mathbf \sharp}}$.
\[maingch\] Every pseudocompact Abelian group $G$ admits a pseudocompact group topology with property ${{\mathbf \sharp}}$.
Let $\gamma(p_1^{n_1})\geq\cdots\geq \gamma(p_k^{n_k})$ be the dominant ranks of $G$. Then $|G|=\gamma(p_1^{n_1})$ and, $ \gamma(p_1^{n_1})$ is admissible. Since we can assume that $n_i<n_j$ when $j>i$ and $p_i=p_j$, $p_1 G$ will be a pseudocompact group of cardinality $|p_1 G|=\gamma(p_2^{n_2})$. Proceeding in the same way we obtain that the dominant ranks are admissible cardinals. By Theorem \[th:SCH\] all these cardinals must satisfy property . Theorem \[estrpseu\] shows, on the other hand, that the cardinal $r_0(G)$ is also admissible and, actually: $$m(w_d(G_0))\leq r_0(G_0)=r_0(G)\leq |G_0|\leq 2^{w_d(G_0)}$$ In order to apply Theorem \[main\] and finish the proof, we must show that $r_0(G)$ also satisfies property for some cardinal $\kappa$ with $m(|G_0|)\leq 2^{\kappa}$.
We have two possibilities:
*Case 1: $m(w_d(G_0)) \leq r_0(G)\leq (w_d(G_0))^{\omega}$*. In this case, we put $\kappa =\log(w_d(G_0))$. Then, bearing in mind that, under SCH, we have $m(\alpha)=(\log(\alpha))^{\omega}$ for every infinite cardinal $\alpha$, we get: $$\kappa^{\omega}=\biggl(\log\bigl(w_d(G_0)\bigr)\biggr)^{\omega}=
m\bigl(w_d(G_0)\bigr)\leq r_0(G)$$ and $$r_0(G)\leq \bigl(w_d(G_0)\bigr)^{\omega}\leq \biggl(2^{\log\bigl(w_d(G_0)\bigr)}\biggr)^{\omega}=(2^{\kappa})^{\omega}= 2^{\kappa}.$$ So property is checked. On the other hand, $$m(|G_0|)\leq m\bigl(2^{w_d(G_0)}\bigr)=\biggl(\log\bigl(2^{w_d(G_0)}\bigr)\biggr)^{\omega}\leq \bigl(w_d(G_0)\bigr)^{\omega}\leq 2^{\kappa}$$
*Case 2: $\bigl(w_d(G_0)\bigr)^{\omega}\leq r_0(G)\leq 2^{w_d(G_0)}$*. In this case, property and condition $m(|G_0|)\leq 2^{\kappa}$ are obviously fulfilled with $\kappa =w_d(G_0)$.
Theorem \[maingch\] relies quite strongly on SCH. It uses the construction of Theorem \[main\] made applicable to all admissible cardinals by Theorem \[th:SCH\]. We do not know whether SCH is essential for Theorem \[maingch\], i.e., whether the theorem is true for pseudocompact groups whose cardinal does not satisfy property .
Indeed, admissible cardinals not satisfying property are hard to find in the literature. The following (consistent) example, suggested to us by W.W. Comfort and based on a construction due to Gitik and Shelah, produces one such cardinal. We refer to Remark 3.14 of the forthcoming paper [@comfgotc] for additional remarks concerning the Gitik-Shelah models. This same paper contains related results concerning the cardinals $m(\alpha)$ and, more generally, the density character of powers of discrete groups in the $\kappa$-box topology.
\[gitikshel\] A pseudocompact group $G$ whose cardinality does not satisfy property .
Gitik and Shelah, [@gitikshel], construct a model where $m(\aleph_\omega)=\aleph_{\omega+1}$ while $2^{\aleph_\omega}=(\aleph_{\omega})^\omega=\aleph_{\omega+2}$. This means that the compact group $\{1,-1\}^{\aleph_\omega}$ has a ${G_{\delta}}$-dense subgroup $G$ of cardinality $|G|=\aleph_{\omega +1}$. Let us denote for simplicity $\alpha=\aleph_{\omega +1}$.
Suppose that $\alpha$ satisfies property . There is then a cardinal $\kappa$ with $$\label{2}\kappa^\omega\leq \alpha \leq 2^\kappa.$$ Since $\alpha^\omega \geq( \aleph_\omega)^\omega=
\aleph_{\omega+2}>\alpha$, we see that $\kappa^\omega\neq \alpha$. It follows then from that $\kappa^\omega \leq
\aleph_{\omega} \leq 2^\kappa$. But then $m(\aleph_\omega)\leq
m(2^\kappa)\leq \kappa^\omega\leq \aleph_\omega$, whereas, by construction, $m(\aleph_\omega)=\aleph_{\omega+1}$. This contradiction shows that $\alpha$ does not satisfy property .
Property ${{\mathbf \sharp}}$ and the duality of totally bounded Abelian groups
===============================================================================
Pontryagin duality was designed to work in locally compact Abelian groups and usually works better for complete groups. This behaviour raised the question (actually our first motivating Question \[Qref\]) as to whether all totally bounded reflexive group should be compact, [@chasmart08]. We see next that this is not the case.
If a pseudocompact Abelian group contains no infinite compact subsets, then it is Pontryagin reflexive.
Let $G=(G,{\mathcal{T}_{\mbox{\tiny $H$}}})$ be a pseudocompact group with no infinite compact subsets. The group of continuous characters of $G$ is then precisely $H$ and since $G$ has no infinite compact subsets, the topology of this dual group will equal the topology of pointwise convergence on $G$, therefore $G^\wedge=(H,\mathcal{T}_{_{G}})$ (see in this connection [@racztrig01]). By Theorem \[hernmaca\], $(H,\mathcal{T}_{_{G}})$ must be again a totally bounded group with property ${{\mathbf \sharp}}$ and hence with no infinite compact subsets, the same argument as above then shows that $G^{\wedge\wedge}=
\left(H,\mathcal{T}_{_{G}}\right)^{\wedge}=(G,{\mathcal{T}_{\mbox{\tiny $H$}}})$ and therefore that $G$ is reflexive.
This last theorem combined with Lemma \[nocompact\] and the results of Section 5 provides a wide range of examples that answer negatively Question \[Qref\]. This question has also been answered independently in [@ardaetal] where another collection of examples has been obtained.
Every infinite pseudocompact Abelian group $G$ supports a noncompact, pseudocompact group topology ${\mathcal{T}_{\mbox{\tiny $H$}}}$ such that $(G,{\mathcal{T}_{\mbox{\tiny $H$}}})$ is reflexive.
Every infinite pseudocompact Abelian group $G$ with $|G|\leq 2^{2^{\mathfrak{c}}}$ supports a noncompact, pseudocompact group topology ${\mathcal{T}_{\mbox{\tiny $H$}}}$ such that $(G,{\mathcal{T}_{\mbox{\tiny $H$}}})$ is reflexive.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
----------------
We heartily thank M.G. Tkachenko for sharing with us a preprint copy of [@ardaetal] and D. Dikranjan for his remarks on a previous version of this paper and for making us aware of Lemma \[estrdikgio\]. We are also indebted to W. W. Comfort and to D. Dikranjan for their help concerning Example \[gitikshel\]. \#1[0=]{} \#1[0=]{}
[10]{} S. Ardanza-Trevijano, M.J. Chasco, X. Domínguez, and M. G. Tkachenko. Precompact noncompact reflexive abelian groups. *Forum Mathematicum*. To appear.
A. Arhangelskii and M. G. Tkachenko. , volume 1 of [ *Atlantis Studies in Mathematics*]{}. Atlantis Press, Paris, 2008.
M. J. Chasco and E. Martín-Peinador. An approach to duality on abelian precompact groups. , 11:5:635–643, 2008.
W. W. Comfort and J. Galindo. Pseudocompact topological group refinements of maximal weight. , 131(4):1311–1320 (electronic), 2003. W. W. Comfort and I. Gotchev. Cardinal invariants for $\kappa$-box products: weight, density, character and Souslin number. Preprint., 2010.
W. W. Comfort and D. Remus. Imposing pseudocompact group topologies on abelian groups. , 142(3):221–240, 1993.
W. W. Comfort and L. C. Robertson. Cardinality constraints for pseudocompact and for totally dense subgroups of compact topological groups. , 119(2):265–285, 1985.
W. W. Comfort and K. A. Ross. Topologies induced by groups of characters. , 55:283–291, 1964.
W. W. Comfort and Kenneth A. Ross. Pseudocompactness and uniform continuity in topological groups. , 16:483–496, 1966.
D. Dikranjan and A. Giordano Bruno. w-divisible groups. , 155(4):252–272, 2008.
D. Dikranjan and D. Shakhmatov. Algebraic structure of pseudocompact groups. , 133(633):x+83, 1998.
D. Dikranjan and D. Shakhmatov. Forcing hereditarily separable compact-like group topologies on abelian groups. , 151(1-3):2–54, 2005.
D. Dikranjan and D. Shakhmatov. Selected topics from the structure theory of topological groups. In Elliott Pearl, editor, [*Open problems in topology*]{}, pages 389–406. Elsevier, 2007.
D. Dikranjan and D. Shakhmatov. Algebraic structure of pseudocompact abelian groups. Preprint, 2008.
E. K. van Douwen. The weight of a pseudocompact (homogeneous) space whose cardinality has countable cofinality. , 80(4):678–682, 1980.
E. K. van Douwen. The maximal totally bounded group topology on ${G}$ and the biggest minimal ${G}$-space, for abelian groups ${G}$. , 34(1):69–91, 1990.
L. Fuchs. . Academic Press, New York, 1970.
J. Galindo and S. García-Ferreira. Compact groups containing dense pseudocompact subgroups without non-trivial convergent sequences. , 154(2):476–490, 2007.
J. Galindo, S. García-Ferreira, and A. H. Tomita. Pseudocompact group topologies with prescribed topological subspaces. , 70(3):269–279, 2009.
J. Galindo and S. Hernández. On a theorem of van [D]{}ouwen. , 13(1):115–123, 1998.
J. Galindo and S. Hernández. The concept of boundedness and the [B]{}ohr compactification of a [MAP]{} abelian group. , 159(3):195–218, 1999.
M. Gitik and S. Shelah. On densities of box products. , 88:219–237, 1998.
S. Hernández and S. Macario. Dual properties in totally bounded abelian groups. , 80(3):271–283, 2003.
S. U. Raczkowski and F. Javier Trigos-Arrieta. Duality of totally bounded abelian groups. , 7(1):1–12, 2001.
M. G. Tka[č]{}enko. Compactness type properties in topological groups. , 38(113)(2):324–341, 1988.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'For this paper, we studied the time evolution of a system of coagulating particles under a generalized electrorheological (ER) kernel with real power, $K\left(i,j\right) = \left( \frac{1}{i}+\frac{1}{j} \right)^\alpha$, and monodisperse initial conditions. We used a combinatorial framework in which time and cluster sizes were discrete and the binary aggregation governed the time evolution of the system. We modified a previously-known solution for the constant kernel to cover the generalized ER kernel and used it in the framework to obtain the exact expression for the cluster size distribution (the average number of particles of a given size) and the standard deviation. Our theoretical solution is validated by a comparison to numerically simulated results for several values of $\alpha$ and to the experimental data of coagulating polystyrene particles. Theoretical predictions were accurate for any time of the aggregation process and for a wide range of $\alpha$.'
author:
- 'Michał Łepek[^1], Agata Fronczak, Piotr Fronczak'
title: Combinatorial solutions to generalized electrorheological kernel aggregation
---
Introduction {#SectIntro}
============
Coagulation processes (also known as aggregation or coalescence) are widespread in nature. They govern many everyday–life phenomena (such as blood coagulation, milk curdling, and cloud formation) and are of great interest in physics [@paper1; @paper2; @paper3], chemistry [@paper4; @paper5; @paper6], biology [@paper7], and mathematics [@paper8; @paper9; @paper10]. Several technological applications are based on coagulation, including the formation of aerosols [@Drake_1972; @Pruppacher_1978] and polymers [@Stockmayer_1943] and material processing [@Wattis_2004; @Harris_2001].
ER fluids are colloidal suspensions of electrically-active particles in an insulating fluid [@Winslow_1949]. If an external electric field is applied to the system, the particles acquire electric dipoles and irreversibly aggregate into linear chains oriented in the direction of the field, considerably changing the rheological and optical properties of the suspension. One important property to observe is the fluid’s fast response time. Typical ER fluid can change consistency from a liquid to a gel in few milliseconds. Due to this advantage, ER fluids are sometimes called as “smart” materials and are used in several applications, such as hydraulic valves [@Simmonds_1991], clutches [@Monkman_1997], brakes [@Seed_1986], shock absorbers [@Stanway_1996], abrasive polishing [@Kim_2003], and tactile displays [@Monkman_1992; @Liu_2005]. Recently, the coagulation of colloidal particles in the presence of an external magnetic field has also been studied [@Bossis_2013; @Reynolds_2016].
The coagulation process can be regarded as the evolution of a closed system of clusters merging irreversibly as a result of binary collisions (coagulation acts) according to the general scheme $$\label{EQ1}
\left(i\right)+\left(j\right){{\stackrel{K\left(i,j\right)}{\longrightarrow}}}\left(i+j\right)$$
where $\left(i\right)$ stands for a cluster of mass $i$ and $K\left(i,j\right)$ is the coagulation kernel representing the rate of the process. As the process is irreversible, the number of clusters decreases in time and eventually all of the clusters join into one single cluster.
The classic (deterministic) model for an aggregation process is the Smoluchowski aggregation equation [@paper12; @paper13; @paper14; @paper15; @paper16; @paper17; @paper18; @paper19]. The advantage of this approach is that explicit analytical solutions are known for particular kernels (e.g., constant, multiplicative, or additive). However, this approach has several weaknesses. In particular, it requires the following assumptions: an infinite size for the system considered and continuous cluster concentrations. Because this does not account for small systems and because the number of clusters in large systems decreases significantly over time, this equation becomes unusable. These problems can be especially observed in the case of so-called “gelling” kernels. Moreover, the solutions arising from the Smoluchowski aggregation equation are stochastically incomplete and describe only the average behavior of clusters without providing any information on deviations.
For these reasons, a stochastic approach to studying finite coagulating systems has been proposed in recent literature [@paper20; @paper21; @paper22; @paper23; @paper24]. This idea for solving aggregating systems uses combinatorial equations to derive exact expressions for cluster size distribution in time. Thus far, this combinatorial approach was used to find solutions to constant, additive, and multiplicative kernels [@2018_PREFronczak; @2019_ROMP_Lepek; @grassberger1; @grassberger2]. The combinatorial framework proposed in [@2019_ROMP_Lepek] is of particular interest as it not only provides the expressions for the standard deviation of the mean values of cluster size distribution, but also can be extended to cover other arbitrary kernels if the aggregation rate $K$ can be written in the appropriate form. Additionally, it has been proven to be effective for systems with constant, multiplicative, and additive kernels and monodisperse initial conditions.
Several other works [@Miyazima_1987; @Fraden_1989; @Melle_2001; @Mimouni_2007; @Wattis_2009] studied the kinetics of irreversible aggregation in ER fluids. In the latest one [@Wattis_2009], the authors analyzed a system of aggregating polystyrene particles. They showed that the process is governed by the coagulation kernel with negative powers of cluster sizes $$\label{electrorheological_kernel}
K\left(i,j\right) = \frac{1}{i}+\frac{1}{j}$$
and used the reduction of the classic Smoluchowski aggregation equation to a similarity solution in a large-time limit. These theoretical results were compared to the experimental data and their limited accuracy was observed.
In this paper, we used the combinatorial approach proposed in [@2019_ROMP_Lepek] to solve the generalized form of the ER kernel (Eq. (\[electrorheological\_kernel\])). The generalized form is obtained by using a real power: $$\label{generalized_electrorheological_kernel}
K\left(i,j\right) = \left( \frac{1}{i}+\frac{1}{j} \right)^\alpha.$$
Many real processes can be approximated by using formulas with power factors. In [@Wattis_2009], other power forms are proposed for further investigation. In the next sections, we solve the coagulation process Eq. (\[EQ1\]) using the kernel Eq. (\[generalized\_electrorheological\_kernel\]) with an arbitrary real power and compare the results with numerical simulations for several values of $\alpha$. We believe that these power-generalized form can be better used with experimental data.
The combinatorial framework we used requires the following assumptions: (i) monodisperse initial conditions, (ii) discrete time, and (iii) one coagulation act occurring in each time step. ER fluid is especially well-suited for this approach as its aggregation generally meets condition (i). Successive steps of the coagulation process define the space of available states, and the probability distribution over the state space is determined by studying the possible growth histories of clusters using combinatorial expressions. Then, the expressions for cluster size distribution and its standard deviation are derived. Although the combinatorial approach may seem complex, it is vital to emphasize that most of the equations are provided by the framework at once. The only issue that we worked on in this contribution involved transforming a recurrent expression for the number of possible internal states of a cluster to a non-recurrent form.
The paper is organized as follows. Section 2 presents the basics of the combinatorial approach. Section 3 provides a detailed description of our method for calculating the number of possible internal states of a cluster for the generalized ER kernel (Eq. (\[generalized\_electrorheological\_kernel\])). Section 4 compares the results of theoretical predictions to numerical simulations. Section 5 gives concluding remarks and describes possible extensions to this work.
Combinatorial approach essentials {#Essentials}
=================================
Here, we briefly describe the essentials of the combinatorial approach to coagulating systems [@2018_PREFronczak; @2019_ROMP_Lepek] that we used in this work. When investigating the aggregating system with this methodology, we assume discrete time and monodisperse initial conditions (all of the clusters are monomers of size of one). A single coagulation act occurs in one time step. Then, the total number of clusters, $k$, at time $t$ is $$\label{EQ2}
k=N-t,$$
where $N$ is the total number of monomeric units in the system. As this number does not change during the evolution of the system, $N$ is equivalent to the initial number of clusters (preservation of mass). The state of the system at time $t$ is described by $$\label{EQ3}
\mathrm{\Omega }\left(t\right)=\left\{n_1,n_2,\dots ,n_g,\dots ,n_N\right\},$$
where $n_g\ge 0$ stands for the number of clusters of mass $g$ (therefore $g$ is the number of monomeric units included in the cluster) and $n_1$ corresponds to monomers, $n_2$ to dimers, $n_3$ to trimers, and so on. During the coagulation process the sequence $\left\{n_g\right\}$ is not arbitrary and satisfies following conditions corresponding to the preservation of the number of monomeric units in the system: $$\label{constraints}
\sum^N_{g=1}{n_g=k} \;\;\;\; \textrm{and} \;\;\;\; \sum^N_{g=1}{{g\ n}_g=N}.$$
According to [@2018_PREFronczak; @2019_ROMP_Lepek], there are three origins of combinatorial expressions to model the aggregation process. The first one results from the fact that the set of monomers can be divided into subsets in a specific number of ways. The second origin results from distributing coagulation acts of the process in different time steps. The third aspect of combinatorial description covers the number of ways in which a given cluster could be created (the number of possible histories of a cluster). It has been shown (in [@2018_PREFronczak]) that by combining these expressions together one can derive the average number of clusters $\left\langle n_s\right\rangle$ of a given size $s$ as $$\label{ns_general}
\left\langle n_s\right\rangle =\binom{N}{s}{\omega }_s\frac{B_{N-s,k-1}\left(\left\{{\omega }_g\right\}\right)}{B_{N,k}\left(\left\{{\omega }_g\right\}\right)}$$
or, for simplicity’s sake, as $$\label{omega_s}
\omega_s = \frac{x_s}{(s-1)!} \;\;\;\; \textrm{and} \;\;\;\; \left\{\omega_g\right\} = \left\{ \frac{x_g}{(g-1)!} \right\} .$$
Here, we need to better explain Eq. (\[ns\_general\]). It describes the average number of clusters of size $s$ after $t$ steps of the aggregation process. Although $t$ is not explicitly present in the equation, $k$ plays $t$’s role, as $k$ is the total number of clusters in the system and decreases linearly with time.
We must also explain the difference between $\omega_s$ and $\omega_g$. The first one is a single value and depends on cluster size $s$, while $\{\omega_g\}$ is a sequence not dependent on $s$, where $g$ varies from $1$ to $N-k+1$ (i.e., to $t+1$).
The sequence $\left\{\omega_g\right\}$ is used to calculate so–called partial (or incomplete) Bell polynomials. They are defined as $$\begin{gathered}
\label{Bell_polynom_def}
B_{N,k}\left(z_1,z_2,\dots ,z_{N-k+1}\right)=B_{N,k}\left(\left\{z_g\right\}\right) \\ =N!\sum_{\left\{n_g\right\}}{\prod^{N-k+1}_{g=1}{\frac{1}{n_g!}{\left(\frac{z_g}{g!}\right)}^{n_g}}} \end{gathered}$$
where the summation is taken over all non-negative integers $\left\{n_g\right\}$ that satisfy Eq. (\[constraints\]). Bell polynomials are a useful tool in combinatorics as they provide detailed information about the partition of an arbitrary set. Several computational environments implement Bell polynomials (e.g. Mathematica). In the Appendix [@appendix], we provide efficient equation to calculate partial Bell polynomials used in this research.
As mentioned in the Introduction, not only can the average number of clusters be estimated in the combinatorial framework, but so can the corresponding standard deviation of this average, $$\label{std_dev_general}
{\sigma }_s=\sqrt{\left\langle n_s\left(n_s-1\right)\right\rangle +\left\langle n_s\right\rangle -{\left\langle n_s\right\rangle }^2}$$
where, for $2s \leqslant N$, $$\label{std_dev_general_addition}
\left\langle n_s\left(n_s-1\right)\right\rangle =\binom{N}{s,s}{{\omega }_s}^2\frac{B_{N-2s,k-2}\left(\left\{{\omega }_g\right\}\right)}{B_{N,k}\left(\left\{{\omega }_g\right\}\right)}$$
with $\binom{N}{s,s}=\binom{N}{s}\binom{N-s}{s}$ and $\left\langle n_s\left(n_s-1\right)\right\rangle = 0$ for other cases.
Up to this point, the combinatorial equations were generic and applicable to any kind of aggregation kernel. Therefore, since this approach focuses on the reaction kernel $K$, the kernel is only used to calculate the number of possible histories of a cluster of given size $x_g$ (it can be also regarded as a number of possible internal states of a cluster). This number is unambiguously defined by the kernel.
For the most basic case of the constant kernel, the number $x_g$ is specified by the recurrent expression [@2019_ROMP_Lepek] $$\label{xg_recurrent_definition}
x_g=\frac{1}{2}\sum^{g-1}_{k=1}\binom{g}{k}\binom{g-2}{k-1}x_kx_{g-k}$$
where $x_k$ and $x_{g-k}$ are the numbers of ways to create the two merging clusters. This recurrent expression is build as follows. The first Newton symbol, $\binom{g}{k}$, denotes the number of ways of choosing clusters of size $k$ out of $g$ monomers as we can divide the cluster of size $g$ into subclusters of size $k$ and size $(g-k)$ in exactly $\binom{g}{k}$ ways. The second Newton symbol, $\binom{g-2}{k-1}$, stands for the fact that the coagulation acts of clusters of sizes $(g-k)$ and $k$ could appear in different time steps. Coagulation acts related to the creation of a cluster of size $k$ could occur in $k-1$ time steps out of the total number of $g-2$ time steps needed to create clusters of sizes $k$ and $(g-k)$. The sum is taken over the possible pairs of clusters that can result in the merged cluster of size $g$. The factor of $\frac{1}{2}$ is used to prevent double counting of coagulation acts.
In the next section, we will modify Eq. (\[xg\_recurrent\_definition\]) to describe the generalized ER kernel and transform it to the non-recurrent form that can be used in Eq. (\[ns\_general\]) to calculate $\left\langle n_s\right\rangle$.
Calculating $x_g$ for generalized electrorheological kernel
===========================================================
At this point, we must modify the recurrent expression for $x_g$ to cover the ER kernel. In the previous work [@2019_ROMP_Lepek], we have shown that $x_g$ for the constant kernel can be modified to cover the additive and multiplicative kernels by multiplying the right-hand side of Eq. (\[xg\_recurrent\_definition\]) by a specific factor. This factor is the kernel reaction rate $K$ itself, but translated into the variables $g$ and $k$ used in Eq. (\[xg\_recurrent\_definition\]). This multiplying is the result of the fact that the probability of the coagulation act is proportional to $K$. Therefore, the general expression for $x_g$ for any kernel is $$\label{xg_recurrent_definition_general}
x_g=\frac{1}{2}\sum^{g-1}_{k=1}\binom{g}{k}\binom{g-2}{k-1}x_kx_{g-k}K(g,k).$$
Please note that this multiplying is also consistent with the constant kernel, since $K=1$ for the constant kernel.
Now, we must translate the ER kernel, $K\left(i,j\right) = \left( \frac{1}{i}+\frac{1}{j} \right)^\alpha$, to the language of $g$ and $k$. The ER kernel can be rewritten to $$\label{Kij_rewritten}
K\left(i,j\right) = \left( \frac{i+j}{ij} \right)^\alpha.$$
Bearing in mind that $i$ and $j$ are the masses of two merging clusters, $g$ is the mass of the resulting cluster, and $k$ is the mass of one of the subclusters (e.g., $i=k$), we can write $$\label{Kgk}
K\left(g,k\right) = \left( \frac{k+(g-k)}{k(g-k)} \right)^\alpha =
\left( \frac{g}{k(g-k)} \right)^\alpha.$$
Thus, the recurrent expression for $x_g$ for the ER kernel is $$\label{xg_recurrent_electro}
x_g=\frac{1}{2}\sum^{g-1}_{k=1}\binom{g}{k}\binom{g-2}{k-1}x_kx_{g-k} \left( \frac{g}{k(g-k)} \right)^\alpha.$$
Expanding the Newton symbols and substituting $y_g=\frac{x_g}{g!(g-1)!g^\alpha}$ we obtain $$\label{electro_2}
(g-1)y_g=\frac{1}{2}\sum^{g-1}_{k=1}{y_ky_{g-k}}.$$
Note that Eq. (\[electro\_2\]) is exactly the same as for the constant kernel in [@2019_ROMP_Lepek] with the only difference being the definition of $y_g$.This equation can be transformed to the explicit expression for $y_g$ using the generating function method. As it was solved in the previous work [@2019_ROMP_Lepek], here we will use the known solution, $$\label{yg_general_solution}
y_g=\frac{1}{2^{g-1}},$$
which, with the substitution, results in this equation: $$\label{electro_3}
\frac{1}{2^{g-1}} = \frac{x_g}{g!g^\alpha\left(g-1\right)!}.$$
Finally, the non-recurrent form of $x_g$ for the generalized ER kernel is $$\label{electro_xg}
x_g=\frac{g!g!g^{\alpha-1}}{2^{g-1}}.$$
The “regular” ER process is described by $x_g$ with $\alpha=1$. It is worth noting that for $\alpha=0$, the solution fully corresponds to the solution for the constant kernel, known from [@2019_ROMP_Lepek].
\[Figure\_1\] {width="100.00000%"}
The final expression for $\left\langle n_s\right\rangle$ compared to numerical results and experimental data
============================================================================================================
Theoretical solutions arising from our combinatorial equations have been compared to the results obtained by numerical simulations. These solutions were obtained using the general expression for $\left\langle n_s\right\rangle$, Eq. (\[ns\_general\]), and the expression for $x_g$, which was the number of possible internal states of a cluster of size $g$ (Eq. (\[electro\_xg\])) derived in the previous section. The expression for $x_g$ is used in Eq. (\[ns\_general\]) twice: once as $x_s$, $$\label{omega_s_later}
\omega_s = \frac{ s!s!s^{\alpha-1} }{ 2^{s-1}(s-1)! } =
\frac{ s!s^{\alpha} }{ 2^{s-1} },$$
and once in the sequence $\left\{\omega_g\right\}$, $$\label{omega_g_later}
\left\{\omega_g\right\} = \left\{ \frac{ g!g!g^{\alpha-1} }{ 2^{g-1}(g-1)! } \right\} = \left\{ \frac{ g!g^{\alpha} }{ 2^{g-1} } \right\},$$
where $g$ changes from $1$ to $N-k+1$ (i.e., to $t+1$).
Therefore, the final expression for the average number of clusters of a given size, $\left\langle n_s\right\rangle$, as it is plotted in the figures, takes the form $$\label{ns_solved_final}
\left\langle n_s\right\rangle =\binom{N}{s} \frac{ s!s^{\alpha} }{ 2^{s-1} } \frac{ B_{N-s,k-1}\left( \left\{ \frac{ g!g^{\alpha} }{ 2^{g-1} } \right\} \right) }{ B_{N,k}\left(\left\{ \frac{ g!g^{\alpha} }{ 2^{g-1} } \right\}\right)}$$
where, again, $g$ changes from $1$ to $N-k+1$ (i.e., to $t+1$).
Although Eq. (\[ns\_solved\_final\]) is sufficient and fully defines $\left\langle n_s\right\rangle$, for this particular $\left\{\omega_g\right\}$, it can be further simplified. Using the relation [@Comtet_1974] $$\begin{gathered}
\label{Bell_relation_1}
B_{N,k}\left(abz_1,ab^2z_2,\dots,ab^{N-k+1}z_{N-k+1}\right) \\ =
a^kb^NB_{N,k}\left(z_1,z_2,\dots,z_{N-k+1}\right),\end{gathered}$$
we obtain simplified form of Eq. (\[ns\_solved\_final\]), $$\label{ns_solved_final_simplified}
\left\langle n_s\right\rangle =\binom{N}{s} s!s^{\alpha} \frac{ B_{N-s,k-1}\left( \left\{ g!g^{\alpha} \right\} \right) }{ B_{N,k}\left(\left\{ g!g^{\alpha} \right\}\right)}.$$
Moreover, to avoid expensive calculations of Bell polynomials, further simplification can be done for the ”regular” ER kernel ($\alpha=1$) using the identity relation with the so–called falling factorial [@Wang_2009]. This relation is $$\begin{gathered}
\label{Bell_relation_2}
B_{N,k}\left(\left\{ g!g \right\}\right) =
\frac{1}{k!} \sum^{k}_{j=0} (-1)^{k-j} \binom{k}{j} (j+k+N-1)_N\end{gathered}$$
and the falling factorial is defined as $$\label{falling_factorial}
(a)_b = a(a-1) \dots (a-b+1).$$
Using the relation (\[Bell\_relation\_2\]), we can transform $\left\langle n_s\right\rangle$ for the ”regular” ER kernel to the form which does not consist of Bell polynomials, $$\begin{gathered}
\label{ns_solved_final_simplified_alpha_1}
\left\langle n_s(\alpha=1) \right\rangle \\ =
\binom{N}{s} s!sk \frac{ \sum^{k-1}_{j=0} (-1)^{k-1-j} \binom{k-1}{j} (j+k+N-2)_N }{ \sum^{k}_{j=0} (-1)^{k-j} \binom{k}{j} (j+k+N-1)_N }
.\end{gathered}$$
In Figure 1, the results for several values of power $\alpha=0.0, 0.3, 1.0$, and $2.0$ are presented. There are three data series contained in each plot, corresponding to three different stages of the system evolution. The initial number of monomers is $N=100$. The first series ($t=30$) corresponds to the early stage of the aggregation process; the second series ($t=70$) covers the later stage of the process; and the third series shows the average numbers of clusters near the end of the process ($t=95$), which is five steps before the moment when all of the particles are joined into one single cluster. For low values of $\alpha$ ($0.0$ and $0.3$), the theoretical prediction reflects the simulation with excellent precision, even for the latest phase of the process ($t=95$). A somewhat precise result can also be obtained also for $\alpha=1.0$ (“regular” ER kernel) and $\alpha=2.0$, although, the predicted average values of $\langle n_s \rangle$ for the smallest clusters (i.e. $s<5$) are higher than the values calculated from the simulation. Notably, the highest point of the cluster size distribution is always modeled precisely by the theoretical curves (in this regime, it can be regarded as the exact solution).
It was proposed in [@2019_ROMP_Lepek] that the disagreement between theoretical and numerical results for the later phases for the gelling kernels is caused by the appearance of a giant gel cluster in the system. When the system crosses the gelling point, this giant cluster changes the probabilities in the system, which is not covered in the combinatorial expressions. Although the ER kernel is not obviously gelling (like, e.g., multiplicative kernel), the largest clusters are the clusters of moderate $s$ (especially for higher $\alpha$). Thus, there is a relatively high number of large clusters in the system. For the gelling kernels solved in this combinatorial approach, the theoretical solutions (for the latest stages of the process) are then “delayed” in comparison to the numerical simulation. This effect can be seen (slightly) for $\alpha=2.0$ in the case of the ER kernel.
In Figure 2, we present standard deviation estimates given by the combinatorial approach, Eq. (\[std\_dev\_general\]), and compare them to the standard deviation calculated for the data obtained by simulation. The results for three values of $\alpha$ are presented. It can be seen that the combinatorial estimates behave similarly to the average number of clusters, being precise for the lowest $\alpha$ and somewhat precise for the “regular” ER kernel. For the highest $\alpha=2.0$ the deviation estimates are only approximate for the lowest $s$ but still acceptable for the rest of the distribution. Minimal variations from the numerical data also occur for the highest $s$ (see Figure 2b and 2c).
Additionally, to compare our theoretical predictions to the experimental data, we have adopted the data gained by Wattis and Mimouni [@Wattis_2009]. These authors performed an experiment in which polystyrene particles were suspended in the liquid (water and heavy water). When the alternating electric field was applied, the particles started to coagulate into chains, a process was observed by the microscope and the camera. In their work, the authors provided the raw data (the probabilities of finding clusters of a given size) for four time steps of the process ($t1=1 min$, $t2=3 min$, $t3=5 min$, and $t4=7 min$). The total number of monomer units in the system was estimated by the authors as 173, 141, 118, and 121 (for several time steps). Thus, we took the average of these numbers, $N=138$. We also normalized the raw data probabilities in such a way, that the number of monomers $N$ was preserved for each time step. Then, having the number of clusters in the system for several time steps, the time in minutes could be translated into the time counted as binary coagulation acts. In this way, we obtained: $t1=83$, $t2=95$, $t3=107$, and $t4=117$. As we had $N$ and $t$, we could instantaneously plot the theoretical curves versus the data. Please see Figure 3 for the comparison of the data and the theoretical predictions for the “regular” ER kernel ($\alpha=1$). Mostly, the data points for all of the time points shown stay inside the area limited by the theoretically predicted standard deviation. Evidently, the combinatorial predictions described this coagulation process properly.
The methods and issues related to the numerical studies and calculations are outlined in the Appendix [@appendix]. The code used for the simulations and for the theoretical predictions is available at https://github.com/mlepek/aggregation.
Concluding remarks {#SecSum}
==================
As previously know, an exact combinatorial approach with recursive equations gives excellent results for simple kernels as the constant or additive [@2019_ROMP_Lepek]. In this research, we used the combinatorial approach for determining the number $x_g$ in all possible histories of a cluster of a given size to cover a generalized ER kernel with real power. This approach can be useful in studies on real systems as they are often are likely to behave as power functions. We showed the performance of these combinatorial solutions by comparing the results of numerical simulations with a system size of $N=100$. The performance varied for different values of $\alpha$ and different times of coagulation. In the early stages of the process ($t=30$), we obtained excellent results for all of kernel forms considered. In the later stages ($t=70$), theoretical predictions followed the numerical simulations with excellent ($\alpha=0.0$, $\alpha=0.3$, $\alpha=1.0$) or, at least, high precision ($\alpha=2.0$). In the last stages of the process, just before merging into one single cluster ($t=95$), the results remained very good for all of the cases, preserving the top peak of the curve with excellent precision. However, in the case of $\alpha=2.0$ and the regime of the smallest clusters ($s=1,2,3,4$), theoretical predictions were higher than the numerical results. Similarly, the precision of standard deviation estimates decreased for low $s$ and higher $\alpha$.
\[Figure\_2\] ![Standard deviation predicted by the theoretical model, Eq. (\[std\_dev\_general\]), vs. standard deviation obtained by the simulation for the electrorheological kernel with $t=70$ and several values of $\alpha$: (a) $\alpha=0.3$, (b) $\alpha=1.0$, and (c) $\alpha=2.0$. Solid and dashed lines represent combinatorial results for the average number of clusters of a given size, $\langle n_s\rangle$, and for standard deviation, respectively; squares and circles represent, respectively, the average number of clusters and standard deviation obtained by simulation. Upper inset figures: plots of variance divided by mean, $ \sigma^2/ \langle n_s\rangle$ (solid lines for theorhetical prediction and circles for numerical data). Lower inset figures: plots of $\langle n_s\rangle$ for higher $s$ (logarithmic scale). For each case, ${10}^5$ independent simulations were performed.](praca_electro_Fig2.eps "fig:")
\[Figure\_3\] {width="100.00000%"}
In previous work on ER aggregation [@Wattis_2009], Wattis and Mimouni considered the “regular” form of the kernel (\[generalized\_electrorheological\_kernel\]) with $\alpha=1$ and, deriving from the Somuchowski’s equation, they obtained theoretical results that compare with the experimental data. This data has been obtained in the setup [@Mimouni_2007] that used a small transparent cell containing a colloidal suspension of spherical polystyrene particles in a mixture of water (H~2~O) and heavy water (D~2~O). Wattis and Minouni showed that the data shows good agreement with their theory for the later stages of the aggregation process. However, there was a considerable difference between the theory and the data at the initial time steps (please cf. Fig. 4 in [@Wattis_2009]). In Fig. 3 we show that using the combinatorial approach presented herein we can model the process with high precision for any time. Particularly, the quality of the solution Eq. (\[ns\_solved\_final\_simplified\_alpha\_1\]) is demonstrated in comparison with the experimental data.
The results presented in this work prove the evident generality of the combinatorial approach. This generality is a new quality in aggregation studies, since the only element needed to cover another type of kernel is the number of possible histories of a cluster, $x_g$, which can sometimes be easily obtained. All of the theoretical solutions are also supplied by the information on the standard deviation for each kernel, providing “stochastic completeness.”
What can we suggest to be done further? For sure, an obvious task is developing the approach to cover initial conditions other than monodisperse conditions as it was done for the product kernel in the Marcus-Lushnikov framework [@2019_PRE_Fronczak]. It would be of particular interest in view of the known sensitivity of the coagulation process to its initial conditions [@2004_Menon]. Of course, there are also other interesting questions. Why the methodology used here gives exact results for some kernels, while approximate for others? Is it possible to modify the combinatorial expressions to obtain better results for the time after the phase transition in case of the gelling kernels? Answering these questions would have a great impact on the coagulation theory as it would allow to model large variety of systems in arbitrary conditions with high precision.
This work has been supported by the National Science Centre of Poland (Narodowe Centrum Nauki) under grant no. 2015/18/E/ST2/00560 (A.F. and M.Ł.).
[99]{}
P.L. Krapivsky, S. Redner and E. Ben-Naim: [*A Kinetic View of Statistical Physics*]{} (Chapter 5), Cambridge University Press, New York 2010.
J.A.D. Wattis: [*Physica D*]{} [**222**]{}, 1 (2006), An introduction to mathematical models of coagulation–fragmentation processes: A discrete deterministic mean–field approach.
F. Leyvraz: [*Phys. Rep.*]{} [**383**]{}, 95 (2003), Scaling theory and exactly solved models in the kinetics of irreversible aggregation.
H. Sontag and K. Strenge: [*Coagulation Kinetics and Structure Formation*]{}, Plenum Press, New York 1987.
F. Family and D.P. Landau: [*Kinetics of Aggregation and Gelation*]{}, North–Holland, Amsterdam 1984.
R.L. Drake in: G.M. Hidy and J.R. Brock (eds.): [*Topics in Current Aerosol Researches*]{} (Part II), Pergamon, New York 1972.
J. Hein, M.H. Schierup and C. Wiuf: [*Gene Genealogies, Variation and Evolution – A Primer in Coalescent Theory*]{}, Oxford University Press, New York 2005.
J. Bertoin: [*Random Fragmentation and Coagulation Processes*]{}, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2006.
J. Pitman: [*Combinatorial Stochastic Processes*]{}, Springer–Verlag, Berlin 2006.
D.J. Aldous: [*Bernoulli*]{} [**5**]{}, 3 (1999), Deterministic and stochastic models for coalescence (aggregation and coagulation): a review of the mean field theory for probabilists.
R.L. Drake: [*A general mathematical survey of the coagulation equation, in: International Reviews in Aerosol Physics and Chemistry*]{}, Pergamon Press, New York 1972.
H.R. Pruppacher, J.D. Klett: [*Microphysics of clouds and precipitation*]{}, Reidel, Dodrecht 1978.
W.H. Stockmayer: [*J. Phys. Chem.*]{} [**11**]{}, 45-55 (1943), Theory of molecular size distribution and gel formation in brached-chain polymers.
J.A.D. Wattis, D.G. McCartney, T. Gudmundsson: [*J. Eng. Math.*]{} [**49**]{}, 113-131 (2004), Coagulation equations with mass loss.
J.R. Harris, J.V. Wood, J.A.D. Wattis: [*Acta. Met.*]{} [**49**]{}, 3991-4003 (2001), A comparison of potential models for mechanical alloying.
W.M. Winslow: [*J. Appl. Phys.*]{} [**20**]{}, 1137-1140 (1949), Induced fibration of suspensions.
A.J. Simmonds: [*IEE Proceedings D*]{} [**138**]{}, 400-404 (1991), Electro-rheological valves in a hydraulic circuit.
G.J. Monkman: [*Mechatronics*]{} [**7**]{} (1) 27–36 (1997), Exploitation of compressive stress in electrorheological coupling.
M. Seed, G.S. Hobson, R.C. Tozer, A.J. Simmonds: [*Proc. IASTED Int. Symp. Measurement, Sig. Proc. and Control.*]{} Paper No. 105–092–1 (1986), Voltage-controlled Electrorheological brake.
R. Stanway, J.L. Sproston, A.K. El-Wahed: [*Smart Mater. Struct.*]{} [**5**]{}, 464–482 (1996), Applications of electro-rheological fluids in vibration control: a survey.
W.B. Kim, S.J. Lee, Y.J. Kim, E.S. Lee: [*International Journal of Machine Tools and Manufacture*]{} [**43**]{} (1) 81-88 (2003), The electromechanical principle of electrorheological fluid-assisted polishing.
Y. Liu, R. Davidson, P. Taylor: [*Proceedings of SPIE. Smart Structures and Materials 2005: Smart Structures and Integrated Systems*]{} [**5764**]{}, 92–99 (2005), Investigation of the touch sensitivity of ER fluid based tactile display.
G.J. Monkman: [*Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments*]{} [**1**]{} (2) 219–228 (1992), An Electrorheological Tactile Display.
G. Bossis, P. Lancon, A. Maunier, et al.: [*Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications*]{} [**392**]{} (7) 1567-1576 (2013), Presence: Kinetics of internal structures growth in magnetic suspensions.
C. Reynolds:: [*Field induced assembly of paramagnetic colloidal particles*]{}, PhD Thesis, University of Oxford, 2016.
M. Smoluchowski: [*Phys. Z.*]{} [**17**]{}, 557 (1916), Drei vortrage uber diffusion bewegung und koagulation von kolloidteilchen.
W.H. White: [*Proc. Amer. Math. Soc.*]{} [**80**]{}, 273 (1980), A global existence theorem for Smoluchowski’s coagulation equation.
R.M. Ziff and G. Stell: [*J. Chem. Phys.*]{} [**73**]{}, 3492 (1980), Kinetics of polymer gelation.
E.M. Hendriks, M.H. Ernst and R.M. Ziff: [*J. Stat. Phys.*]{} [**31**]{}, 519 (1983), Coagulation equation with gelation.
P.G.J. van Dongen and M.H. Ernst: [*J. Stat. Phys.*]{} [**44**]{}, 785 (1986), On the occurrence of a gelation transition in Smoluchowski’s coagulation equation.
M. Kreer and O. Penrose: [*J. Stat. Phys.*]{} [**75**]{}, 389 (1994), Proof of dynamical scaling in Smoluchowski’s coagulation equation with constant kernel.
F. Leyvraz: [*Physica D*]{} [**222**]{}, 21 (2006), Scaling theory for gelling systems: Work in progress.
J. Burnett and I.J. Ford: [*J. Chem. Phys.*]{} [**142**]{}, 194112 (2015), Coagulation kinetics beyond mean field theory using an optimized Poisson representation.
A.H. Marcus: [*Technometrics*]{} [**10**]{}, 133 (1968), Stochastic coallescence.
M.H. Bayewitz, J. Yerushalmi, S. Katz and R. Shinnar: [*J. Atmos. Sci.*]{} [**31**]{}, 1604 (1974), The extent of correlations in a stochastic coalescence process.
A.A. Lushnikov: [*J. Colloid Interface Sci.*]{} [**65**]{}, 276 (1978), Coagulation in finite systems.
E.M. Hendriks, J.L. Spouge, M. Eibl and M. Schreckenberg: [*Z. Phys. B*]{} [**58**]{}, 219 (1985), Exact solutions for random coagulation processes.
A.A. Lushnikov: [*Physica D*]{} [**222**]{}, 37 (2006), Gelation in coagulating systems.
A. Fronczak, A. Chmiel, P. Fronczak: [*Phys. Rev. E*]{} [**97**]{}, 022126 (2018), Exact combinatorial approach to finite coagulating systems.
A. Fronczak, M. Łepek, P. Kukliński, P. Fronczak: [*Rep. Math. Phys.*]{} [**84**]{} (1) 117-130 (2019), Exact combinatorial approach to finite coagulating systems through recursive equations.
S.-W. Son, C. Christensen, G. Bizhani, P. Grassberger, and M. Paczuski: [*Europhys. Lett.*]{} [**95**]{}, 58007 (2011), Irreversible aggregation and network renormalization.
S.-W. Son, C. Christensen, G. Bizhani, P. Grassberger, and M. Paczuski: [*Phys. Rev. E*]{} [**84**]{}, 040102 (2011), Exact solutions for mass-dependent irreversible aggregations.
S. Miyazima, P. Meakin, F. Family: [*Phys. Rev. A*]{} [**36**]{} (3) 1421-1427 (1987), Aggregation of oriented anisotropic particles.
S. Fraden, A.J. Hurd, R.B. Meyer: [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**63**]{}, 2373-2376 (1989), Electric-field-induced association of colloidal particles.
S. Melle, M.A. Rubio, G.G. Fuller: [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**87**]{}, 115501 (2001), Time scaling regimes in aggregation of magnetic dipolar particles.
Z. Mimouni: [*C. R. Physique* ]{} [**8**]{}, 115-120 (2007), Cinetique d’agregation en chaines dans une suspension colloidale soumise a un champ electrique alternatif.
Z. Mimouni, J.A.D. Wattis: [*Physica A* ]{} [**388**]{}, 1067-1073 (2009), Similarity solution of coagulation equation with an inverse kernel.
L. Comtet: [*Advanced Combinatorics: The Art of Finite and Infinite Expansions*]{}, Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht, Holland / Boston, U.S., 1974.
W. Wang, T. Wang: [*Computers and Mathematics with Applications* ]{} [**58**]{}, 104-118 (2009), General identities on Bell polynomials.
See Supplemental Material at \[URL will be inserted by publisher\] for numerical simulation algorithm for an arbitrary kernel and for issues of theoretical calculations.
A. Fronczak, M. Łepek, P. Kukliński, P. Fronczak: [*Phys. Rev. E*]{} [**99**]{}, 012104 (2019), Coagulation with product kernel and arbitrary initial conditions: Exact kinetics within the Marcus-Lushnikov framework.
G. Menon, R.L. Pego: [*Commun. Pure Appl. Math.* ]{} [**57**]{}, 1197-1232 (2004), Approach to self-similarity in Smoluchowski’s coagulation equations.
[^1]: Corresponding author: [email protected]
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We show that there is a minimal pair in the nonuniform generic degrees, and hence also in the uniform generic degrees. This fact contrasts with Igusa’s result that there are no minimal pairs for relative generic computability, and answers a basic structural question mentioned in several papers in the area.'
address: 'Department of Mathematics, The University of Chicago'
author:
- 'Denis R. Hirschfeldt'
title: A Minimal Pair in the Generic Degrees
---
Generic computability is a notion of “almost everywhere computability” introduced by Kapovich, Myasnikov, Schupp, and Shpilrain [@KMSS]. Beginning with the work of Jockusch and Schupp [@JocSch], it and the related notion of coarse computability have been studied from the computability-theoretic viewpoint by several authors. (See Jockusch and Schupp [@JocSch2] for a survey. Coarse computability had actually been consider earlier by Terwijn [@Terwijn].) Here, “almost everywhere” is defined in terms of (asymptotic) density. A set $A$ has *density $1$* if $\lim_n \frac{|A {\upharpoonright}n|}{n} = 1$, and has *density $0$* if its complement has density $1$.
A *generic description* of a set $A$ is a partial function $f$ such that $\operatorname{dom}f$ has density $1$ and $f(n)=A(n)$ whenever $f(n)$ is defined. A set is *generically computable* if it has a partial computable generic description.
A *coarse description* of a set $A$ is a set $C$ such that $\{n :
C(n)=A(n)\}$ has density $1$. A set is *coarsely computable* if it has a computable coarse description.
Thus generic computability captures the idea of computing a set while allowing for a small number of errors of omission, while coarse computability captures the idea of computing a set while allowing for a small number of errors of commission. We can also consider notions that allow both kinds of errors, as was done by Astor, Hirschfeldt, and Jockusch [@AHJ].
We can of course relativize the above notions to an oracle. We can also use them to define notions of reducibility. For coarse reducibility, doing so is straightforward, though there are two natural versions. (The fact that these versions are different, as are the analogous ones for generic computability defined below, was shown by Dzhafarov and Igusa [@DI].)
We say that $A$ is *nonuniformly coarsely reducible* to $B$ if every coarse description of $A$ computes a coarse description of $B$. We say that $A$ is *uniformly coarsely reducible* to $B$ if there is a Turing functional $\Phi$ such that if $C$ is a coarse description of $B$, then $\Phi^C$ is a coarse description of $A$.
Generic descriptions are partial functions, so we cannot use them directly as oracles, but we can use their graphs, together with the notion of enumeration reducibility, which does not allow us to use negative information about an oracle. Recall that an *enumeration operator* is a c.e. set $W$ of pairs $(F,k)$ with each $F$ finite. For an oracle $X$, let $W^X = \{k : \exists
(F,k) \in W\, [F \subseteq X]\}$. Then $Y$ is *enumeration reducible to* $X$ if there is an enumeration operator $W$ such that $Y = W^X$. We identify a partial function with its graph, so for partial functions $f$ and $g$, we say that $f$ is enumeration reducible to $g$ if $\operatorname{graph}(f)$ is enumeration reducible to $\operatorname{graph}(g)$, and we write $W^g$ for $W^{\operatorname{graph}(g)}$. We write $W^X[s]$ for $\{k : \exists (F,k) \in W[s]\, [F \subseteq X]\}$. The *use* of an enumeration $k \in W^X[s]$ is the least $n$ such that $\exists (F,k) \in W[s]\, [F \subseteq X {\upharpoonright}n]$.
We say that $A$ is *nonuniformly generically reducible* to $B$ if for every generic description $f$ of $B$, there is a generic description of $A$ that is is enumeration reducible to $f$. We say that $A$ is *uniformly generically reducible* to $B$ if there is an enumeration operator $W$ such that if $f$ is a generic description of $B$, then $W^f$ is a generic description of $A$.
These reducibilities induce equivalence relations on $2^\omega$, from which degree structures arise as usual. For any degree structure with a least element $\bf 0$, a *minimal pair* is a pair of degrees ${\bf a},{\bf b} > {\bf 0}$ such that if ${\bf c}<{\bf a},{\bf b}$ then ${\bf c} = {\bf 0}$. Most degree structures studied in computability theory have minimal pairs, and proving this fact is often one of the first structural results one establishes about such a structure. For the (nonuniform and uniform) coarse degrees, the existence of minimal pairs was proved by Hirschfeldt, Jockusch, Kuyper, and Schupp [@HJKS]. For the generic degrees, however, the following basic question had remained open.
\[question\] Are there minimal pairs in the (nonuniform or uniform) generic degrees?
An interesting aspect of this question is its relationship to relative generic computability. In the case of coarse computability, the aforementioned proof of the existence of minimal pairs follows from the following stronger result. (See e.g. [@DowHir] for more on notions of algorithmic randomness.)
\[randthm\] If $X$ is not coarsely computable and $Y$ is weakly $3$-random relative to $X$ then $X$ and $Y$ form a minimal pair for relative coarse computability. That is, if a set is coarsely computable relative both to $X$ and to $Y$, then it is coarsely computable.
In the generic case, however, the situation is quite different.
\[igthm\] There are no minimal pairs for relative generic computability. That is, if $X$ and $Y$ are not computable, then there is a set that is not generically computable, but is generically computable relative both to $X$ and to $Y$.
Thus the methods of [@HJKS], and the related ones of [@AHJ], are not available here. Nevertheless, in this paper we give a positive answer to Question \[question\] in both cases. (Notice that it is enough to consider the nonuniform case, since if the nonuniform generic degrees of two sets form a minimal pair, then so do their uniform generic degrees.) Despite solving a reasonably well-known open problem, the proof is fairly short. It is inspired by the construction of a minimal pair of c.e. Turing degrees, but is a finite injury construction that relies on the monotonicity of enumeration operators.
We now give the proof, followed by a few comments on coarse computability, further work of Igusa [@Igusa2], and the notions of dense and effective dense computability studied in [@AHJ].
\[main\] There is a minimal pair in the nonuniform generic degrees (and hence in the uniform generic degrees).
Let $R_e = \{n : 2^e \mid n \, \wedge \, 2^{e+1} \nmid n\}$. Let $W_0,W_1,\ldots$ be an effective listing of the enumeration operators.
We will build $\Delta^0_2$ sets $A_0$ and $A_1$ with the following properties. Let $f_{j,s}$ be the partial function defined by letting $f_{j,s}(n)=1$ if $n \notin A_j[s]$, and $f_{j,s}(n){\mathord{\uparrow}}$ if $n
\in A_j[s]$. Let $f_j$ be the partial function defined by letting $f_j(n)=1$ if $n \notin A_j$, and $f_j(n){\mathord{\uparrow}}$ if $n \in A_j$.
1. Each $A_j \cap R_e$ is finite, so $A_j$ is almost entirely contained in each $\bigcup_{e>k} R_e=\{n>0 : 2^{e+1} \mid n\}$, and hence has density $0$.
2. If $\operatorname{dom}\Phi_e \cap R_e$ is infinite then $\operatorname{dom}\Phi_e \cap R_e
\cap A_j \neq \emptyset$.
3. For each $e_0$, $e_1$, and $s$, if $x \in W_{e_0}^{f_{0,s}}[s] \cap
W_{e_1}^{f_{1,s}}[s]$, then $x \in W_{e_j}^{f_j}$ for some $j {\leqslant}1$.
Assuming we have done so, if $n \in \operatorname{dom}\Phi_e \cap R_e \cap A_j$ then let $X_j(n) \neq \Phi_e(n)$, and let $X_j(n)=1$ for all other $n$. We claim that the generic degrees of $X_0$ and $X_1$ form a minimal pair
If $\operatorname{dom}\Phi_e$ has density $1$ then $\operatorname{dom}\Phi_e \cap R_e$ is infinite, so by property (2), there is an $n \in \operatorname{dom}\Phi_e \cap R_e
\cap A_j$, and hence $\Phi_e$ is not a generic description of $X_j$. Thus neither $X_j$ is generically computable.
By property (1) and the definition of $X_j$, each $f_j$ is a generic description of $X_j$, so if $Y$ is generically reducible to both $X_0$ and $X_1$, then there are $e_0$ and $e_1$ such that each $W_{e_j}^{f_j}$ is a generic description of $Y$. Let $\Psi$ be defined as follows. For each $n$, search for an $s$ and a $k {\leqslant}1$ such that $\langle n,k \rangle
\in W_{e_0}^{f_{0,s}}[s] \cap W_{e_1}^{f_{1,s}}[s]$. If one is found, then let $\Psi(n)=k$. By property (3), if $\Psi(n)=k$ then $\langle n,k
\rangle \in W_{e_j}^{f_j}$ for some $j {\leqslant}1$, which implies that $Y(n)=k$. There are density $1$ many $n$ such that $\langle n,Y(n)
\rangle \in W_{e_0}^{f_0} \cap W_{e_1}^{f_1}$. For any such $n$, there must be an $s$ such that $\langle n,Y(n) \rangle \in
W_{e_0}^{f_{0,s}}[s] \cap W_{e_1}^{f_{1,s}}[s]$, whence $\Psi(n)=Y(n)$. Thus $\Psi$ is a generic description of $Y$. But $\Psi$ is partial computable, so $Y$ is generically computable.
Thus the nonuniform generic degrees of $X_0$ and $X_1$ form a minimal pair, and hence so do their uniform generic degrees.
To explain the basic idea for building $A_0$ and $A_1$, consider requirements $$\mathcal P_{e,j} : |\operatorname{dom}\Phi_e \cap R_e|=\omega\; \Rightarrow\; \operatorname{dom}\Phi_e \cap R_e \cap A_j \neq \emptyset$$ and $$\mathcal N_{e_0,e_1} : \forall s\, \forall x\,
[x \in W_{e_0}^{f_{0,s}}[s] \cap
W_{e_1}^{f_{1,s}}[s]\; \Rightarrow\; \exists j\, [x
\in W_{e_j}^{f_j}]],$$ arranged into a priority list as usual. (In fact, only the $\mathcal
P$-requirements need to be assigned priorities.)
Let us consider the interaction of a requirement $\mathcal
N_{e_0,e_1}$ with the requirements $\mathcal P_{e,j}$. (Different $\mathcal N$-requirements will not interact with each other.) Whenever we have $x \in W_{e_0}^{f_{0,s}}[s] \cap W_{e_1}^{f_{1,s}}[s]$, we want to preserve at least one of the computations that have led to the enumerations of $x$. Each $\mathcal P_{e,j}$ acts by waiting for a witness $n \in \operatorname{dom}\Phi_e \cap R_e$ to appear, and then putting $n$ into $A_j$. Doing so might destroy computations we are trying to preserve, but only on the $j$-side. We can now force all requirements weaker than $\mathcal P_{e,j}$ to choose witnesses beyond the uses of all computations we are trying to preserve, thus keeping the $(1-j)$-side from harm by such requirements. (Notice that it is not $\mathcal N_{e_0,e_1}$ that imposes this restraint, but $\mathcal
P_{e,j}$, which is why the restraint imposed on a particular $\mathcal
P$-requirement will be bounded, even as $\mathcal N_{e_0,e_1}$ has more and more computations it wants to preserve.)
But what if a requirement $\mathcal P_{e',1-j}$ stronger than $\mathcal P_{e,j}$ wants to act, say at stage $t>s$? Then we must let it do so, which might destroy computations on the $(1-j)$-side. To compensate for that possibility, we remove the numbers we have put into $A_j$ for the sake of $\mathcal P_{e,j}$ (or any other requirement weaker than $\mathcal P_{e',1-j}$). The key observation here is the following: this action does not necessarily restore $f_{j,t}$ to be the same as $f_{j,s}$, but assuming that $\mathcal
P_{e',1-j}$ is the strongest requirement to act since stage $s$, it ensures that $f_{j,t} \supseteq f_{j,s}$, which means that every element of $W_{e_j}^{f_{j,s}}[s]$ is also in $W_{e_j}^{f_{j,t}}[t]$.
We now turn to the formal construction of $A_0$ and $A_1$. For each $e,j$, we have a restraint $r(e,j)$, initially set to $0$. We adopt the common convention that a use defined at stage $s$ cannot be larger than $s$.
At stage $s$, let $\langle e,j \rangle<s$ be least such that $\operatorname{dom}\Phi_e[s] \cap R_e \cap A_j[s] = \emptyset$ and there is an $n \in
\operatorname{dom}\Phi_e[s] \cap R_e$ that is larger than $r(e',j')$ for all $\langle e',j' \rangle < \langle e,j \rangle$. (If there is no such pair $e,j$ then proceed to the next stage.) We say that $\mathcal
P_{e,j}$ acts at stage $s$. Put $n$ into $A_j$. For each $\langle
e',1-j \rangle > \langle e,j \rangle$, remove every number put into $A_{1-j}$ at a previous stage at which $\mathcal P_{e',1-j}$ acted. Let $r(e,j)=s$.
We now verify that this construction has the desired properties.
If a requirement puts a number into $A_j$ and that number is later removed at stage $s$, then any number put into $A_j$ by that same requirement at a later stage will be bigger than $s$. Since only $\mathcal P_{e,j}$ can ever put a number into $R_e \cap A_j$, and the $R_e$’s are disjoint, each $A_j$ is $\Delta^0_2$ (in fact, d.c.e.).
Assume by induction that each $\mathcal P_{e',j'}$ with $\langle e',j'
\rangle < \langle e,j \rangle$ stops acting, say by stage $t$. Then all the corresponding restraints $r(e',j')$ stop changing, so if $\operatorname{dom}\Phi_e \cap R_e$ is infinite then either there is some $n \in \operatorname{dom}\Phi_e[t] \cap R_e \cap A_j[t]$ or $\mathcal P_{e,j}$ eventually gets to act after stage $t$ and put a number $n$ into $\operatorname{dom}\Phi_e \cap R_e
\cap A_j$. In either case, $n$ is never later removed from $A_j$, so property (2) holds. Furthermore, $\mathcal P_{e,j}$ acts at most once after stage $t$, so the induction can continue, and $\mathcal
P_{e,j}$ puts at most finitely elements into $A_j \cap R_e$ after stage $t$ (in fact, at most one), so property (1) also holds.
Now fix $e_0,e_1$. Suppose that $x \in W_{e_0}^{f_{0,s}}[s] \cap
W_{e_1}^{f_{1,s}}[s]$. Let $\langle e,j \rangle$ be the least pair such that $\mathcal P_{e,j}$ ever acts at a stage $t {\geqslant}s$. Then every element put into $A_{1-j}$ between stages $s$ and $t$ is removed from $A_{1-j}$ at stage $t$, so $f_{1-j,t} \supseteq f_{1-j,s}$, and hence $x \in W_{e_{1-j}}^{f_{1-j,t}}[t]$. By the definition of $r(e,j)$ at this stage, $f_{1-j}$ cannot change below the use of this enumeration after stage $t$, so $x \in
W_{e_{1-j}}^{f_{1-j}}$. Thus property (3) is satisfied.
The sets $X_j$ built in the proof of Theorem \[main\] have density $1$, which means that they are coarsely computable, and is also interesting in light of work of Igusa [@Igusa2]: Astor, Hirschfeldt, and Jockusch [@AHJ] showed that the upper cone above any nontrivial (nonuniform or uniform) generic degree has measure $0$, so a minimal generic degree would necessarily be half of a minimal pair. It is open whether there are minimal generic degrees, but Igusa [@Igusa2] showed that the generic degree of a density-$1$ set cannot be minimal. Interestingly, he also showed that if a uniform generic degree does not bound a nontrivial uniform generic degree containing a density-$1$ set, then it is half of a minimal pair, but again it is not known whether such degrees exist.
It is also worth noting that the $X_j$ are $\Delta^0_2$. In fact, they are both co-d.c.e. (Notice that a c.e. density-$1$ set is generically computable.) The case of Theorem \[igthm\] where both sets are $\Delta^0_2$ had been proved earlier by Downey, Jockusch, and Schupp [@DJS]. By Theorem \[randthm\], the coarse degree of every set that is not coarsely computable is half of a minimal pair, and indeed forms minimal pairs with the coarse degrees of measure-$1$ many sets, but the following questions are open.
Are there $\Delta^0_2$ sets whose (nonuniform or uniform) coarse degrees form a minimal pair?
The same question can be asked for the notion of dense computability introduced by Astor, Hirschfeldt, and Jockusch [@AHJ]. (In that paper, they showed that the resulting degree structures do have minimal pairs.)
Is the (nonuniform or uniform) generic degree of every set that is not generically computable half of a minimal pair? What is the measure of the set of all $X \oplus Y$ such that the generic degrees of $X$ and $Y$ form a minimal pair? More generally, what can be said about the distribution of minimal pairs in the generic degrees?
Astor, Hirschfeldt, and Jockusch [@AHJ] also studied the following notion, which had been briefly considered much earlier by Meyer [@Meyer] and Lynch [@Lynch].
An *effective dense description* of a set $A$ is a (total) function $f : \omega \to \{0,1,\square\}$ such that $f^{-1}(\square)$ has density $0$ and $f(n)=A(n)$ whenever $f(n) \in \{0,1\}$. A set is *effectively densely computable* if it has a computable effective dense description.
We say that $A$ is *nonuniformly effectively densely reducible* to $B$ if every effective dense description of $A$ computes an effective dense description of $B$. We say that $A$ is *uniformly effectively densely reducible* to $B$ if there is a Turing functional $\Phi$ such that if $f$ is an effective dense description of $B$, then $\Phi^f$ is an effective dense description of $A$.
These reducibilities lead to degree structures, for which the following question remains open. (It is also open whether there are minimal pairs for relative effective dense reducibility.)
Are there minimal pairs in the (nonuniform or uniform) effective dense degrees?
It does not seem that the proof of Theorem \[main\] can be adapted to this case in a straightforward way, because the key observation mentioned in the informal description of the construction in that proof does not apply here: Suppose that we make changes to the $j$-side of a pair of convergent computations, then find another such pair, and then again make changes to the $j$-side. If we later want to make changes to the $(1-j)$-side, we can no longer restore both computations on the $j$-side, because they might be based on different oracles. Because we are dealing with Turing functionals rather than enumeration operators, the only way to guarantee a return to a previous computation is to return to the exact original oracle (up to the relevant use). A proof along the lines of the usual construction of a minimal pair of c.e. Turing degrees, where we try to preserve at least one side of a pair of convergent computations up to their length of agreement (see e.g. [@DowHir Section 2.14.2]), also seems problematic, because if a computation converges on both sides to $0$, say, and then the computation on one side disappears, when that computation converges again, it might converge to $\square$, which now allows the computation on the other side to change to $1$ without creating a disagreement.
[99]{}
E. P. Astor, D. R. Hirschfeldt, and C. G. Jockusch, Jr., Dense computability, upper cones, and minimal pairs, Computability 8 (2019) 155–177.
R. G. Downey and D. R. Hirschfeldt, Algorithmic Randomness and Complexity, Theory and Applications of Computability, Springer, New York, 2010.
R. G. Downey, C. G. Jockusch, Jr., and P. E. Schupp, Asymptotic density and computably enumerable sets, J. Math. Log. 13 (2013) 1350005, 43 pp.
D. D. Dzhafarov and G. Igusa, Notions of robust information coding, Computability 6 (2017) 105–124.
D. R. Hirschfeldt, Some questions in computable mathematics, in Day, Fellows, Greenberg, Khoussainov, Melnikov, and Rosamond, eds., Computability and Complexity, Springer 2017, 22–55.
D. R. Hirschfeldt, C. G. Jockusch, Jr., R. Kuyper, and P. E. Schupp, Coarse reducibility and algorithmic randomness, J. Symbolic Logic 81 (2016) 1028–1046.
G. Igusa, Nonexistence of minimal pairs for generic computation, J. Symbolic Logic 78 (2013) 511–522.
G. Igusa, The generic degrees of density-$1$ sets, and a characterization of the hyperarithmetic reals, J. Symbolic Logic 80 (2015) 1290–1314.
C. G. Jockusch, Jr. and P. E. Schupp, Generic computability, Turing degrees, and asymptotic density, J. London Math. Soc. 85 (2012) 472–490.
C. G. Jockusch, Jr. and P. E. Schupp, Asymptotic density and the theory of computability : A partial survey, in Day, Fellows, Greenberg, Khoussainov, Melnikov, and Rosamond, eds., Computability and Complexity, Springer 2017, 501–520.
I. Kapovich, A. Myasnikov, P. Schupp, and V. Shpilrain, Generic-case complexity, decision problems in group theory and random walks, J. Algebra 264 (2003) 665–694.
N. Lynch, Approximations to the halting problem, J. Comput. System Sci. 9 (1974) 143–150.
A. R. Meyer, An open problem on creative sets, Recursive Function Theory Newsletter 4 (1973) 15–16.
S. A. Terwijn, Computability and Measure, PhD dissertation, University of Amsterdam, 1998.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
author:
- |
Jonathan Vacher\
CNRS UNIC and Ceremade\
Univ. Paris-Dauphine\
75775 Paris Cedex 16, FRANCE\
`[email protected]`\
Andrew Isaac Meso\
Institut de Neurosciences de la Timone\
UMR 7289 CNRS/Aix-Marseille Université\
13385 Marseille Cedex 05, FRANCE\
`[email protected]`\
Laurent Perrinet\
Institut de Neurosciences de la Timone\
UMR 7289 CNRS/Aix-Marseille Université\
13385 Marseille Cedex 05, FRANCE\
`[email protected]`\
Gabriel Peyré\
CNRS and Ceremade\
Univ. Paris-Dauphine\
75775 Paris Cedex 16, FRANCE\
`[email protected]`
bibliography:
- 'references.bib'
title: |
Biologically Inspired Dynamic Textures\
for Probing Motion Perception
---
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
bibliography:
- 'ref.bib'
---
=-0.2cm =-0.2cm 0.0cm =0.0cm =0.0cm =0.0cm =2.0cm 0.6cm 0.0cm
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[**Polaronic effects in strongly coupled electron-phonon systems:\
Exact diagonalization results for the 2D Holstein t–J model\
**]{} H. Fehske, G. Wellein, B. Bäuml, and H. Büttner\
[Physikalisches Institut, Universtät Bayreuth, D–95440 Bayreuth, Germany]{}\
Ground–state and dynamical properties of the 2D Holstein t–J model are examined by means of direct Lanczos diagonalization, using a truncation method of the phononic Hilbert space. The single–hole spectral function shows the formation of a narrow hole–polaron band as the electron–phonon coupling increases, where the polaronic band collapse is favoured by strong Coulomb correlations. In the two–hole sector, the hole–hole correlations unambiguously indicate the existence of inter–site bipolaronic states. At quarter–filling, a polaronic superlattice is formed in the adiabatic strong–coupling regime.
\
Polaronic features of dopant–induced charge carriers have been detected in the copper–based high-$T_c$ compounds $\rm La_{2-x}Sr_xCuO_{4+y}$, and even more in the isostructural nickel–based charge–transfer oxides $\rm La_{2-x}Sr_xNiO_{4+y}$ [@BE93]. To tackle the problem of (bi)polaron formation in such systems exhibiting besides a substantial electron–phonon (EP) coupling strong Coulomb interactions, it seems, at the moment, that approximation–free numerical quantum Monte–Carlo and exact diagonalization (ED) analyses of generic model Hamiltonians yield the most reliable results. Along this line, by use of ED, the ground–state properties of Hubbard and t–J models with an on–site Holstein EP coupling have been studied on finite clusters in 1D and 2D \[2-4\]. What is missing to date is an application of the powerful ED technique to the calculation of [*dynamical*]{} properties of the Holstein t–J model (HtJM), including the full quantum nature of phonons.
In this contribution, we employ the Lanczos algorithm in combination with a kernel polynomial moment expansion and the Maximum Entropy method [@Siea96] to investigate the quasiparticle spectrum of a single hole–polaron in the 2D HtJM on a ten–site square lattice. Moreover, we compute different hole–hole/phonon correlation functions at higher doping level in order to comment on hole–binding effects and charge-density-wave (CDW) formation.
The HtJM is described by the Hamiltonian [@WRF96] $${\cal H}={\cal H}_{ph}^{}+{\cal H}^{}_{t-J}
- \sqrt{\varepsilon_p\hbar\omega}
\sum_i \big(b_i^\dagger + b_i^{}
\big)\,\tilde{h}_i^{}\,,
\label{htjm}$$ where ${\cal H}_{ph}$ and ${\cal H}^{}_{t-J}$ represent the phonon part and standard t–J model, respectively, and the last term takes into account the interaction of doped holes $(\tilde{h}_i=1-\sum_\sigma
\tilde{c}_{i\sigma}^\dagger \tilde{c}_{i\sigma}^{})$ with a single dispersionless phonon mode (which, e.g., may be thought of as representing a local apical–oxygen coupling; $\varepsilon_p$ – EP coupling constant, $\omega$ – bare phonon frequency).
(70,58)
${\cal H}$ acts in a projected Hilbert space without double occupancy. A general state of (\[htjm\]) can be written as the direct product $|{\mit\Psi}\rangle= \sum_{l,k} c_l^k \;
|l\rangle_{el} \otimes |k\rangle_{ph}$, where $ l$ and $k$ label the electronic and bosonic basic states, respectively, and $ |k\rangle_{ph}=\prod_{i=1}^{N=10}
[\sqrt{n_i^k!}]^{-1} [b_i^\dagger]^{n_{i}^{k}}\,|0\rangle_{ph}$. Since the bosonic part of the Hilbert space is infinite dimensional we use a truncation method [@WRF96] restricting ourselves to phononic states with at most $M$ phonons. To control our truncation procedure as a function of $M$, we calculate the weight of the $m$–phonon states in the ground state $|{\mit \Psi}_0\rangle$ of ${\cal H}$: $|c^m|^2=\sum_{l,k} |c_{l}^{k}|^2$ with $m=\sum_{i=1}^N n_i^{k}$. In the numerical work convergence is achieved if the relative error of $E_0(M)$ is less than $10^{-7}$.
Figure \[F1\] shows $|c^m|^2$ for the 2D HtJM with a single hole at weak, intermediate and strong EP couplings \[in what follows we have fixed $J=0.4$ (all energies are measured in units of $t$)\]. The curves $|c^m|^2 (m)$ are bell-shaped and their maxima correspond to the most probable number of phonon quanta in the ground state. These results, as well as the $M$–dependence of $E_0$ at $\varepsilon_p=4$ (see inset), confirm the importance of multi-phonon states in the (adiabatic) strong–coupling regime $\varepsilon_p\gg 1,\; \hbar\omega$.
In the analysis of the HtJM we start with the study of just a single dynamic hole. Increasing the EP coupling in the adiabatic regime, we notice a continuous but rather sharp crossover from nearly–free polaron, described by an effective transfer amplitude that is only weakly reduced from its value in the pure t–J model, to a less mobile (small–size) adiabatic Holstein hole–polaron (AHP). Moreover, we found that the critical EP coupling for the polaron transition is substantially reduced due to prelocalization effects of the hole in the antiferromagnetic spin background [@Feea9395]. To elucidate the difference between the FP and AHP limits and to demonstrate the formation of a hole–polaron band at large $\varepsilon_p$, in Fig. \[F2\] we present the results for the $\vec{K}$–resolved spectral function $$\begin{aligned}
A_{\vec{K}}(E)^{}\!\!\!&=&\!\!\! \sum_{n,\sigma} |\langle {\mit\Psi}_n^{(N-1)}
|\,\tilde{c}_{\vec{K}\sigma}^{}\,|\,{\mit\Psi}_0^{(N)}\rangle|^2\qquad\nonumber\\
&&\quad\times\delta [E-(E_n^{(N-1)}-E_0^{(N)})]\,.
\label{spfu}\end{aligned}$$ Of course in the very weak–coupling regime the spectral function is barely changed from that of the pure t–J model. Increasing $\varepsilon_p$, the lowest peaks in each $A_{\vec{K}}$ separate from the rest of the spectrum. These states become very close in energy and a narrow well–separated energy band evolves in the strong–coupling case, where the gap to the next higher “band” is of the order of the phonon frequency $\hbar\omega$. Note that the transition to the AHP state is accompanied by a strong increase in the on–site hole–phonon correlations which are about one order in magnitude larger than the nearest–neighbour (NN) ones (cf. Fig. 11 in Ref. [@WRF96]). This indicates that the AHP quasiparticle comprising a ‘quasi–localized’ hole and the phonon cloud is mainly confined to a single lattice site. As the phonon frequency is enlarged at fixed, the hole–phonon correlations are smeared out, and the crossover to the small hole–polaron is shifted to larger values of the EP coupling.
Next we wish to discuss the two–hole problem. To get a feel for hole–binding effects, we have calculated the hole–hole correlation function $$C_{ho-ho}^{}(|i-j|)=\langle {\mit\Psi}_0(\varepsilon_p,J)
|\tilde{h}_i^{} \tilde{h}_j^{}|{\mit\Psi}_0(\varepsilon_p,J)\rangle\,.
\label{choho}$$ Results for $C_{ho-ho}^{}(|i-j|)$ are given in Fig. \[F3\]. In the weak–coupling region, $C_{ho-ho}(|i-j|)$ becomes maximum at the largest distance of the ten–site lattice, while in the intermediate EP coupling regime the preference is on next NN pairs. As expected, increasing further $\varepsilon_p$, the maximum in $C_{ho-ho}(|i-j|)$ is shifted to the shortest possible distance, indicating hole–hole attraction. At $\varepsilon_p\gg 1 $, the two holes become ‘self–trapped’ sharing a sizeable common lattice distortion, i.e., a nearly immobile hole–bipolaron is formed. The behaviour of $C_{ho-ho}$ is found to be qualitatively similar for higher (lower) phonon frequencies (see inset), except that the crossings of different hole–hole correlation functions occur at larger (smaller) values of $\varepsilon_p$, which shows the importance of [*both*]{} parameter ratios $\varepsilon_p/t$ and $\sqrt{\varepsilon_p/\hbar\omega}$.
Finally let us consider the quarter–filled band case. Here, we have investigated the more simple spinless fermion model (total $S^z=S^z_{max}$). In accordance with previous approximative treatments based on the inhomogeneous variational Lang–Firsov approach [@Feea9395], we found, as the EP coupling increases, evidence for a transition from a FP state to a 2D polaronic superlattice, where the holes are self–trapped on every each other site. This crossover is signaled by a pronounced peak in the charge structure factor at $(\pi,\pi)$. To visualize the correlations in this state in more detail, in Fig. \[F4\] we have depicted $C_{ho-ho}(|i-j|)$ and the corresponding hole–phonon density correlation function $C_{ho-ph}(|i-j|)=\langle {\mit\Psi}_0^{}|\tilde{h}_i^{} b^\dagger_j
b^{}_j|{\mit\Psi}_0^{}\rangle$ as a function of $|i-j|$. Our exact results clearly show the phonon–dressing of the holes and the resulting tendency towards CDW formation. A similar polaron ordering was observed in $\rm
La_{1.5}Sr_{0.5}NiO_4$.
This work was performed under the auspices of Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, SFB 279, Bayreuth. We thank the LRZ (München) and the GMD (St. Augustin) for allocation of CPU time on the IBM SP2 parallel computers. We are particularly indebted to R. N. Silver for putting his Maximum Entropy code at our disposal.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'It is known that the spectral type of the almost Mathieu operator depends in a fundamental way on both the strength of the coupling constant and the arithmetic properties of the frequency. We study the competition between those factors and locate the point where the phase transition from singular continuous spectrum to pure point spectrum takes place, which solves Jitomirskaya’s conjecture in [@Ji95; @J07]. Together with [@Aab], we give the sharp description of phase transitions for the almost Mathieu operator.'
address:
- 'CNRS UMR 7586, Institut de Mathématiques de Jussieu - Paris Rive Gauche, Bâtiment Sophie Germain, Case 7012, 75205 Paris Cedex 13, France & IMPA, Estrada Dona Castorina 110, 22460-320, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil'
- ' Department of Mathematics, Nanjing University, Nanjing 210093, China '
- 'Laboratoire de Probabilités et Modèles aléatoires, Université Pierre et Marie Curie, Boite courrier 188 75252, Paris Cedex 05, France '
author:
- Artur Avila
- Jiangong You
- Qi Zhou
title: Sharp Phase transitions for the almost Mathieu operator
---
Main results
============
This paper concerns the spectral measure of the Almost Mathieu operator: $$(H_{\lambda,\alpha,\theta} u)_n= u_{n+1}+u_{n-1} +2\lambda \cos 2
\pi (n\alpha + \theta) u_n,$$ where $\theta\in \mathbb{R}$ is the phase, $\alpha\in {{\mathbb R}}\backslash
{{\mathbb Q}}$ is the frequency and $\lambda\in {{\mathbb R}}$ is the coupling constant, which has been extensively studied because of its strong backgrounds in physics and also because it provides interesting examples in spectral theory [@L1]. We will find the exact transition point from singular continuous spectrum to purely point spectrum of Almost Mathieu operator, thus solve Jitomirskaya’s conjecture in 1995 [@Ji95](see also Problem 8 in [@J07]). More precisely, let $\frac{p_n}{q_n}$ be the $n-$th convergent of $\alpha,$ and define $$\label{defbeta}\beta(\alpha):=\limsup_{n\rightarrow \infty}\frac{\ln
q_{n+1}}{q_n},$$ our main results are the following:
\[main\] Let $\alpha\in {{\mathbb R}}\backslash {{\mathbb Q}}$ with $0<\beta(\alpha)<\infty$, then we have the following:
1. If $|\lambda|<1,$ then $H_{\lambda,\alpha,\theta}$ has purely absolutely continuous spectrum for all $\theta$.
2. If $1\leq |\lambda|<e^\beta,$ then $H_{\lambda,\alpha,\theta}$ has purely singular continuous spectrum for all $\theta$.
3. If $|\lambda|>e^\beta,$ then $H_{\lambda,\alpha,\theta}$ has purely point spectrum with exponentially decaying eigenfunctions for a.e. $\theta$.
Part (1) is proved by Avila [@Aab], we state here just for completeness.
The cases $\beta=0, \infty$ have been solved in previous works [@Aab; @AJ05]. Together with Theorem \[main\], one sees the sharp phase transition scenario of three types of the spectral measure. Moreover, the type of the spectral measure is clear for all $(\lambda, \beta)$ except the line $\lambda=e^\beta$. See Figure 1 and Figure 2 below.
(origin) at (0,0); (beta) at (2.5,0); (lambda) at (0,5);
(origin) – (beta); (origin) – (lambda);
(ac\_1) at (0,1); (ac\_2) at (2,1); (ac\_3) at (2,0); (ac\_1) – (ac\_2);
(origin)–(ac\_1)–(ac\_2)–(ac\_3)–cycle;
\(A) at (0\*0.17,[(e)\^(0\*0.17)]{}); (B) at (0.5\*0.17,[(e)\^(0.5\*0.17)]{}); (C) at (1\*0.17,[(e)\^(1\*0.17)]{}); (D) at (1.5\*0.17,[(e)\^(1.5\*0.17)]{}); (E) at (2\*0.17,[(e)\^(2\*0.17)]{}); (F) at (2.5\*0.17,[(e)\^(2.5\*0.17)]{}); (G) at (3\*0.17,[(e)\^(3\*0.17)]{}); (H) at (3.5\*0.17,[(e)\^(3.5\*0.17)]{}); (I) at (3.9\*0.17,[(e)\^(3.9\*0.17)]{}); (J) at (4.35\*0.17,[(e)\^(4.35\*0.17)]{}); (K) at (4.8\*0.17,[(e)\^(4.8\*0.17)]{}); (L) at (5.2\*0.17,[(e)\^(5.2\*0.17)]{}); (M) at (5.6\*0.17,[(e)\^(5.6\*0.17)]{}); (N) at (5.95\*0.17,[(e)\^(5.95\*0.17)]{}); (O) at (6.3\*0.17,[(e)\^(6.3\*0.17)]{}); (P) at (6.65\*0.17,[(e)\^(6.65\*0.17)]{}); (Q) at (7\*0.17,[(e)\^(7\*0.17)]{}); (R) at (7.3\*0.17,[(e)\^(7.3\*0.17)]{}); (S) at (7.6\*0.17,[(e)\^(7.6\*0.17)]{}); (T) at (7.9\*0.17,[(e)\^(7.9\*0.17)]{}); (U) at (8.2\*0.17,[(e)\^(8.2\*0.17)]{}); (V) at (8.45\*0.17,[(e)\^(8.45\*0.17)]{}); (OO) at (0,[(e)\^(8.45\*0.17)]{});
(A)–(B)–(C)–(D)–(E)–(F)–(G)–(H)–(L)–(M)–(N)–(O)–(P)–(Q)–(R)–(S)–(T)–(U)–(V)–(OO)–cycle;
in [A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I,J,K,L,M,N,O,P,Q,R,S,T,U,V]{} () circle (0.3pt);
(2.7,0) node[$\beta(\alpha)$]{}; (0,5.25) node[$\lambda$]{};
(1,0.5) node[$ac$]{}; (1.5,1.8) node[$sc$]{}; (0.5,3) node[$pp$]{};
(origin) at (0,0); (A) at (1,0); (B) at (2.5,0); (C) at (4.2,0);
(0.5,0.2) node[$ac$]{}; (1.75,0.2) node[$sc$]{}; (3.25,0.2) node[$pp$]{};
(origin) – (C);
/in [0,1]{} (0pt,1pt) – (0pt,-1pt) node\[below,fill=white\] [$\xtext$]{}; (0pt,1pt) – (0pt,-1pt) node\[below,fill=white\] [$e^{\beta}$]{};
Theorem \[main\](3), also called Anderson localization (AL), is optimal in the sense that the result can not be true for $G_{\delta}$ dense $\theta$ [@JS]. The arithmetic property of $\theta$ will influence the spectral measure.
Now we briefly recall the history of this problem. By symmetry, we just need to consider the case $\lambda>0$. In 1980, Aubry-André [@AA80] conjectured that the spectral measure of $H_{\lambda,\alpha,\theta}$ depends on $\lambda$ in the following way:
1. If $\lambda<1,$ then $H_{\lambda,\alpha,\theta}$ has purely absolutely continuous spectrum for all $\alpha\in
{{\mathbb R}}\backslash {{\mathbb Q}}$, and all $\theta\in{{\mathbb R}}$.
2. If $\lambda >1,$ then $H_{\lambda,\alpha,\theta}$ has pure point spectrum for all $\alpha\in {{\mathbb R}}\backslash {{\mathbb Q}}$, and all $\theta\in {{\mathbb R}}$.
However, Aubry and André overlooked the role of the arithmetic property of $\alpha$. Avron-Simon [@AS] soon found that by Gordon’s lemma [@G], $H_{\lambda,\alpha,\theta}$ has no eigenvalues for any $\lambda\in{{\mathbb R}}$, $\theta\in{{\mathbb R}}$ if $\beta(\alpha)=\infty$. Since then, people pondered how the arithmetic property of $\alpha$ influences the spectral type and under which condition Aubry-André’s conjecture [@AA80] is true.
When $\alpha$ is Diophantine (i.e. there exist $\gamma,\tau>0$ such that $\|k\alpha\|_{{{\mathbb T}}} \geq
\frac{\gamma^{-1}}{|k|^{\tau}},$ for all $0
\neq k \in {{\mathbb Z}}$), and $\lambda$ is large enough, the operator has pure point spectrum [@E97; @FSW; @Sin], and when $\lambda$ is small enough, the operator has absolutely continuous spectrum [@CD; @DS75; @E92]. The common feature of the above results is that they both rely on KAM-type arguments, thus the largeness or smallness of $\lambda $ depend on Diophantine constant $\gamma,\tau$, we therefore call such results perturbative results. Non-perturbative approach to localization problem was developed by Jitomirskaya, based on partial advance [@J94; @J95], she finally proved that if $\alpha$ is Diophantine, $H_{\lambda,\alpha,\theta}$ has AL for all $\lambda>1$ and a.e. $\theta\in{{\mathbb R}}$. It follows from the strong version of Aubry duality [@GJLS], $H_{\lambda^{-1},\alpha,\theta}$ has purely absolutely continuous spectrum for a.e. $\theta\in{{\mathbb R}}$. Therefore, Jitomirskaya [@J99] proved Aubry-André’s conjecture in the measure setting, i.e. the conjecture holds for almost every $\alpha\in {{\mathbb R}}\backslash {{\mathbb Q}},$ $\theta\in \mathbb{R}$.
Before Jitomirskaya’s result, Last [@L93], Gesztesy-Simon [@GS], Last-Simon [@LS] have already showed that $H_{\lambda,\alpha,\theta}$ has absolutely continuous components for every $\lambda<1$, $\alpha\in {{\mathbb R}}\backslash
{{\mathbb Q}},$ $\theta\in \mathbb{R}$, so the conjecture in subcritical regime still has some hope to be true, which was also conjectured by Simon [@Si00]. Recently, Avila-Jitomirskaya [@AJ08] showed that if $\alpha$ is Diophantine, then $H_{\lambda,\alpha,\theta}$ is purely absolutely continuous for every $\theta\in \mathbb{R}$. For $\beta>0$, Avila-Damanik [@AD] proved that the conjecture (1) for almost every $\theta$. The complete answer of Aubry-André’s conjecture (1) was provided by Avila [@Aab]. One thus sees that $\lambda=1$ is the phase transition point from absolutely continuous spectrum to singular spectrum.
The remained issue is Aubry-André’s conjecture (2) when $\alpha$ is Liouvillean. People already knew that the spectral measure is pure point for Diophantine $\alpha$ and almost every phases, while it is purely singular continuous for $\beta(\alpha)=\infty$ and all phase. So there must be phase transition when $\beta(\alpha)$ goes from zero to infinity. In 1995, Jitomirskaya [@Ji95] modified the second part of the Aubry-André’s conjecture and conjectured the following
1. If $1<\lambda<e^\beta$, the spectrum is purely singular continuous for all $\theta$.
2. If $\lambda>e^\beta$, the spectrum is pure point with exponential decaying eigenfunctions for a.e. $\theta$.
Thus $\lambda=e^\beta$ is conjectured to be the exact phase transition point from continuous spectrum to pure point spectrum. There are some partial results on Jitomirskaya’s conjecture. By Gordon’s lemma [@G] and the exact formula of Lyapunov exponent [@BJ], one can prove that $H_{\lambda, \alpha,\theta}$ has purely singular continuous spectrum for any $\theta\in{{\mathbb R}}$ if $1<\lambda<e^{\frac{\beta}{2}}$, see also Remark \[gordon\] for more discussions. For the pure point part, Avila-Jitomirskaya [@AJ05] showed that if $\lambda>e^{\frac{16\beta}{9}}$, then $H_{\lambda,\alpha,\theta}$ has AL for a.e. $\theta\in{{\mathbb R}}$. You-Zhou [@YZ] proved that if $\lambda>Ce^{\beta}$ with $C$ large enough [^1], then the eigenvalues of $H_{\lambda,\alpha,\theta}$ with exponentially decaying eigenfunctions are dense in the spectrum. Readers can find more discussions on these two results in section \[ander\]. The main contribution of this paper is to give a full proof of Jitomirskaya’s conjecture.
We remark that the spectral type at the transition points $\lambda=1$ and $\lambda=
e^\beta$ have not been completely understood so far. Partial results include the following: in case $\lambda=1$, since the Lebesgue measure of the spectrum is zero for every $\alpha\in {{\mathbb R}}\backslash {{\mathbb Q}}$ [@AK06; @L94], by Aubry duality [@GJLS], we know $H_{\lambda,
\alpha,\theta}$ is purely singular continuous for a.e. $\theta\in{{\mathbb R}}$. In fact, Avila [@App] has proved more: if $\theta$ is not rational w.r.t $\alpha$, then $H_{\lambda,
\alpha,\theta}$ is purely singular continuous. We remark that, by Gordon’s lemma [@G], if $\beta > 0$, then $H_{\lambda,
\alpha,\theta}$ is purely singular continuous for $\lambda=1$ and every $\theta\in{{\mathbb R}}$, we include this in Theorem \[main\](2). Excluding or proving the existence of point spectrum in case that $\alpha $ is Diophantine is one of the major interesting problems for the critical almost Mathieu operator. For the second transition point $\lambda=e^\beta$, one knows almost nothing but purely singular continuous spectrum for a $G_{\delta}$ set of $\theta$ [@JS]. The spectral type possibly depends on the finer properties of approximation of $\alpha$, as conjectured by Jitomirskaya in [@J07].
preliminaries
=============
For a bounded analytic (possibly matrix valued) function $F$ defined on $ \{ \theta | | \Im \theta |< h \}$, let $
\|F\|_h= \sup_{ | \Im \theta |< h } \| F(\theta)\| $ and denote by $C^\omega_{h}({{\mathbb T}},*)$ the set of all these $*$-valued functions ($*$ will usually denote ${{\mathbb R}}$, $SL(2,{{\mathbb R}})$).
Continued Fraction Expansion {#sec:2.1}
----------------------------
Let $\alpha \in (0,1)$ be irrational. Define $ a_0=0,
\alpha_{0}=\alpha,$ and inductively for $k\geq 1$, $$a_k=[\alpha_{k-1}^{-1}],\qquad \alpha_k=\alpha_{k-1}^{-1}-a_k=G(\alpha_{k-1})=\{{1\over \alpha_{k-1}}\},$$ Let $p_0=0, p_1=1, q_0=1, q_1=a_1,$ then we define inductively $p_k=a_kp_{k-1}+p_{k-2}$, $q_k=a_kq_{k-1}+q_{k-2}.$ The sequence $(q_n)$ is the denominators of best rational approximations of $\alpha$ since we have $$\forall 1
\leq k < q_n,\quad \|k\alpha\|_{{{\mathbb T}}} \geq \|q_{n-1}\alpha\|_{{{\mathbb T}}},$$ and $$\|q_n \alpha \|_{{{\mathbb T}}} \leq {1 \over q_{n+1}}.$$ Note that $(\ref{defbeta})$ is equivalent to \[equibeta\] \_[k]{} =.
Cocycles
--------
A cocycle $(\alpha, A)\in {{\mathbb R}}\backslash
{{\mathbb Q}}\times C^\omega({{\mathbb T}}, SL(2,{{\mathbb R}}))$ is a linear skew product: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{cocycle}
(\alpha,A):&{{\mathbb T}}^{1} \times {{\mathbb R}}^2 \to {{\mathbb T}}^{1} \times {{\mathbb R}}^2\\
\nonumber &(\theta,v) \mapsto (\theta+\alpha,A(\theta) \cdot v),\end{aligned}$$ for $n \geq 1$, the products are defined as $$A_n(\theta)=A(\theta+(n-1)\alpha) \cdots
A(\theta),$$ and $A_{-n}(\theta)=A_n(\theta-n\alpha)^{-1}.$ For this kind of cocycles, the Lyapunov exponent $$L(\alpha, A)=\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty} \frac {1} {n}
\int \ln \|A_n(\theta)\| d\theta,$$ is well defined.
Assume now $A\in C^0({{\mathbb T}}, SL(2,{{\mathbb R}}))$ is homotopic to the identity. Then there exists $\psi:{{\mathbb T}}\times {{\mathbb T}}\to {{\mathbb R}}$ and $u:{{\mathbb T}}\times
{{\mathbb T}}\to {{\mathbb R}}^+$ such that $$A(x) \cdot \left (\bm \cos 2 \pi y \\
\sin 2 \pi y \em \right )=u(x,y) \left (\bm \cos 2 \pi (y+\psi(x,y))
\\ \sin 2 \pi (y+\psi(x,y)) \em \right ).$$ The function $\psi$ is called a [*lift*]{} of $A$. Let $\mu$ be any probability measure on ${{\mathbb T}}\times {{\mathbb T}}$ which is invariant by the continuous map $T:(x,y)
\mapsto (x+\alpha,y+\psi(x,y))$, projecting over Lebesgue measure on the first coordinate (for instance, take $\mu$ as any accumulation point of $\frac {1} {n} \sum_{k=0}^{n-1} T_*^k \nu$ where $\nu$ is Lebesgue measure on ${{\mathbb T}}\times {{\mathbb T}}$). Then the number $${\mathrm{rot}}_f(\alpha,A)=\int \psi d\mu {\operatorname{mod}}{{\mathbb Z}}$$ does not depend on the choices of $\psi$ and $\mu$, and is called the [*fibered rotation number*]{} of $(\alpha,A)$, see [@JM82] and [@H].
Let $$R_{\phi}=\left (\bm \cos 2\pi \phi&-\sin 2\pi \phi\\
\sin 2 \pi \phi &\cos 2\pi \phi \em \right ),$$ then any $A\in
C^0({{\mathbb T}}, SL(2,{{\mathbb R}})$ is homotopic to $\theta \mapsto R_{n\theta}$ for some $n\in{{\mathbb Z}}$, we call $n$ the degree of $A$, and denote $\deg A =n
$. The fibered rotation number is invariant under conjugation in the following sense: For cocycles $(\alpha,A_1)$ and $(\alpha,A_2)$, if there exists $B \in
C^0({{\mathbb T}},$ $ PSL(2,{{\mathbb R}}))$, such that $B(\theta+\alpha)^{-1}A_1(\theta)B(\theta)=A_2(\theta),$ then we say $(\alpha,A_1)$ is conjugated to $(\alpha,A_1)$. If $B$ has degree $n$, then we have $$\label{rot-conj}
{\mathrm{rot}}_f(\alpha, A_1)= {\mathrm{rot}}_f(\alpha, A_2)+\frac{1}{2} n \alpha.$$ If furthermore $B \in C^0({{\mathbb T}},$ $SL(2,{{\mathbb R}}))$ with $\deg B=n \in{{\mathbb Z}}$, then we have $$\label{rot-conj'}
{\mathrm{rot}}_f(\alpha, A_1)= {\mathrm{rot}}_f(\alpha, A_2)+ n \alpha.$$
The cocycle $(\alpha,A)$ is $C^\omega$ reducible, if it can be $C^\omega$ conjugated to a constant cocycle. The cocycle $(\alpha,A)$ is called $C^\omega$ rotations reducible, if there exist $B \in
C^\omega({{\mathbb T}},SL(2,{{\mathbb R}}))$ such that $B(\theta+\alpha)^{-1}A(\theta)B(\theta)\in SO(2,{{\mathbb R}}).$ The crucial reducibility results for us is the following:
[@AFK; @HoY]\[hy1\] Let $(\alpha, A) \in {{\mathbb R}}\backslash {{\mathbb Q}}\times C^\omega_{h}({{\mathbb T}},SL(2,{{\mathbb R}}))$ with $h>\tilde{h}>0,$ $R\in SL(2,{{\mathbb R}})$, for every $\tau>1,$ $\gamma>0,$ if ${\mathrm{rot}}_f(\alpha, A)\in DC_\alpha(\tau,\gamma),$ where $$DC_\alpha(\tau,\gamma)=\{ \phi\in {{\mathbb R}}| \|2\phi-m\alpha\|_{{{\mathbb R}}/{{\mathbb Z}}}\geq \frac{\gamma}{(|m|+1)^\tau}, m\in{{\mathbb Z}}\}$$ then there exist $T=T(\tau),$ $\kappa=\kappa(\tau)$, such that if $$\|
A(\theta)-R\|_h<T(\tau
)\gamma^\kappa(h-\tilde{h})^\kappa,$$ then there exist $B \in C^\omega_{\tilde{h}}({{\mathbb T}},SL(2,{{\mathbb R}}))$, $\varphi \in C^\omega_{\tilde{h}}({{\mathbb T}},{{\mathbb R}})$, such that $$B(\theta+\alpha) A(\theta) B(\theta)^{-1}= R_{\varphi(\theta)},$$ with estimates $\|B-{\operatorname{id}}\|_{\tilde{h}}\leq \|
A(\theta)-R\|_h^{\frac{1}{2}}$, $\|\varphi(\theta)-\hat\varphi(0)\|_{\widetilde{h}}\leq 2\|
A(\theta)-R\|_h.$
Almost Mathieu cocycle
----------------------
Note that a sequence $(u_n)_{n \in {{\mathbb Z}}}$ is a formal solution of the eigenvalue equation $H_{\lambda,\alpha,\theta} u=Eu$ if and only if it satisfied $\begin{pmatrix}
u_{n+1}\\u_n\end{pmatrix}=S_{E}^{\lambda}(\theta+n\alpha) \cdot
\begin{pmatrix} u_n\\u_{n-1} \end{pmatrix},$ where $$\begin{aligned}
S_{E}^{\lambda}(\theta)=\left( \begin{array}{ccc}
E-2\lambda\cos2\pi(\theta) & -1\cr
1 & 0\end{array} \right)\in SL(2,\mathbb{R}).\end{aligned}$$ We call $(\alpha,S_{E}^{\lambda} )$ an almost Mathieu cocycle.
Denote the spectrum of $H_{\lambda,\alpha,\theta}$ by $\Sigma_{\lambda,\alpha}$, which is independent of $\theta$ when $\alpha\in {{\mathbb R}}\backslash {{\mathbb Q}}$. If $E \in \Sigma_{\lambda,\alpha}$, then the Lyapunov exponent of almost Mathieu cocycle can be computed directly.
[@BJ]\[bj-formula\] If $\alpha \in {{\mathbb R}}{\ssm}{{\mathbb Q}}$, $E \in \Sigma_{\lambda,\alpha}$, then we have $$L(\alpha,S_E^{\lambda})=\max
\{0,\ln |\lambda|\}.$$
Global theory of one frequency quasi-periodic $SL(2,{{\mathbb R}})$ cocycle
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We make a short review of Avila’s global theory of one frequency quasi-periodic $SL(2,{{\mathbb R}})$ cocycle [@Aglobal]. Suppose that $A\in$ $C^\omega({{\mathbb R}}/{{\mathbb Z}},{\mathrm{SL}(2,\mathbb{R})}(2,{{\mathbb R}}))$ admits a holomorphic extension to $|\Im \theta|<\delta$, then for $|\epsilon|<\delta$ we can define $A_\epsilon \in
C^\omega({{\mathbb R}}/{{\mathbb Z}},{\mathrm{SL}(2,\mathbb{R})}(2,{{\mathbb C}}))$ by $A_\epsilon(\theta)=A(\theta+i \epsilon)$. The cocycles which are not uniformly hyperbolic are classified into three regimes: subcritical, critical, and supercritical. In particular, $(\alpha, A)$ is said to be subcritical, if there exists $\delta>0,$ such that $L(\alpha,A_{\varepsilon})=0$ for $|\varepsilon|<\delta.$
The heart of Avila’s global theory is his Almost Reducibility Conjecture(ARC), which says that subcriticality implies almost reducibility. Recall the cocycle $(\alpha,A)$ is called almost reducible, if there exists $h_*>0$, and a sequence $B_n \in C^\omega_{h_*}({{\mathbb T}},PSL(2,{{\mathbb R}}))$ such that $
B_n(\theta+\alpha)^{-1}A(\theta)B_n(\theta)$ converges to constant uniformly in $|\Im \theta|<h_*.$ For our purpose, we need this *strong* version of almost reducibility, and $h_*$ should be chosen to be $\delta- \epsilon$ with $\epsilon$ arbitrary small.
The full solution of ARC was recently given by Avila in [@Aac; @A2]. In the case $\beta(\alpha)>0$, it is the following:
[@Aac]\[arc\] Let $\alpha\in{{\mathbb R}}\backslash {{\mathbb Q}}$ with $\beta(\alpha)>0$, $h>0$, $A
\in C^\omega_h({{\mathbb T}},{{\mathbb R}})$. If $(\alpha, A)$ is subcritical, then for any $0<h_*<h$ there exists $C>0$ such that if $\delta>0$ is small enough, then there exist $B \in C^\omega_{h_*}({{\mathbb T}},PSL(2,{{\mathbb R}}))$ and $R_*\in SO(2,{{\mathbb R}})$ such that $\|B\|_{h_*}\leq e^{C\delta q}$ and $$\| B(\theta+\alpha)^{-1}A(\theta)B(\theta)- R_*\|_{h_*}\leq e^{-\delta q}.$$
Aubry duality
-------------
Suppose that the quasi-periodic Schrödinger operator $$(H_{V,\alpha,\theta} x)_n= x_{n+1}+x_{n-1} +V( n\alpha + \theta)
x_n=Ex_n,$$ has an analytic quasi-periodic Bloch wave $x_n = e^{2\pi i n\varphi} \overline{\psi}\left(n\alpha + \phi
\right)
$ for some $
\overline{\psi}\in C^\omega({{\mathbb T}}, {{\mathbb C}})$ and $\varphi \in [0,1)$. It is easy to see the Fourier coefficients of $\overline{\psi}(\theta)$ satisfy the following Long-range operator: $$(\widehat{L}_{V,\alpha, \varphi}u)_n=\sum _{k\in{{\mathbb Z}}}
V_ku_{n-k}+2cos2\pi (\varphi+n\alpha)u_n=Eu_n,$$ Almost Mathieu operator is the only operator which is invariant under Aubry duality, and the dual of $H_{\lambda,\alpha,\theta}$ is $H_{\lambda^{-1},\alpha,\varphi}$.
Rigorous spectral Aubry duality was founded by Gordon-Jitomirskaya-Last-Simon in [@GJLS], where they proved that if $H_{\lambda,\alpha,\theta}$ has pure point spectrum for a.e. $\theta\in{{\mathbb R}}$, then $H_{\lambda^{-1},\alpha,\varphi}$ has purely absolutely continuous spectrum for a.e. $\varphi\in{{\mathbb R}}$. Readers can find more discussions about dynamical Aubry duality in section 4.
Singular continuous spectrum
============================
In this section, we prove Theorem \[main\] (2). We re-state it as in following
\[singular\] Let $\alpha\in {{\mathbb R}}\backslash {{\mathbb Q}}$ with $0<\beta(\alpha)\le\infty$. If $1\leq \lambda<e^{\beta}$, then $H_{\lambda,\theta,\alpha}$ has purely singular continuous spectrum for any $\theta\in{{\mathbb T}}$.
\[gordon\] We stress again by classical Gordon’s argument [@G], one can only obtain result in rigime $1\leq \lambda<e^{\frac{\beta}{2}}$. The reason why one can only obtain $e^{\frac{\beta}{2}}$ is that, in the classical Gordon’s lemma, one has to approximate the solution by periodic ones along double periods.
If $1<\lambda<e^{\beta}$, $E \in \Sigma_{\lambda,\alpha}$, then by Theorem \[bj-formula\], one always has $L(E,\alpha)=\ln\lambda>0$. By Kotani’s theory [@Ko84], the operator $H_{\lambda,\theta,\alpha}$ doesn’t support any absolutely continuous spectrum, thus one only needs to exclude the point spectrum. In the case $\lambda=1$, since Lebesgue measure of $\Sigma_{1,\alpha}$ is zero for any $\alpha\in {{\mathbb R}}\backslash {{\mathbb Q}}$ [@AK06; @L94], then $H_{1,\theta,\alpha}$ also doesn’t support any absolutely continuous spectrum, thus to prove Theorem \[singular\], it is also enough to exclude the point spectrum.
As in classical Gordon’s lemma, we approximate the quasi-periodic cocycles by periodic ones. Denote $A(\theta)=S_{E}^{\lambda}(\theta)$ and $$\begin{aligned}
A_m(\theta)&=&A(\theta+(m-1)\alpha)\cdots A(\theta+\alpha)A(\theta),\\
\nonumber &=&A^m(\theta)\cdots A^2(\theta)A^1(\theta) \end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\widetilde{A}_m(\theta)&=&A(\theta+(m-1)\frac{p_n}{q_n})\cdots
A(\theta+\frac{p_n}{q_n})A(\theta),\\
\nonumber &=&\widetilde{A}^m(\theta)\cdots
\widetilde{A}^2(\theta)\widetilde{A}^1(\theta) , \end{aligned}$$ for $m\geq1.$ We also denote $A_{-m}(\theta)=A_m(\theta-m\alpha)^{-1},$ $\widetilde{A}_{-m}(\theta)=\widetilde{A}_m(\theta-m\frac{p_n}{q_n})^{-1}.$ Our proof is based on the following
\[appro\] Let $\alpha\in {{\mathbb R}}\backslash {{\mathbb Q}}$. If $\lambda \geq 1$ and $E\in \Sigma_{\lambda,\alpha}$, then for any $\epsilon>0$, there exists $N=N(E,\lambda, \epsilon)>0$ such that if $q_n>N$, then we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{appro-2}\sup_{\theta\in{{\mathbb T}}}\|\widetilde{A}_{ \pm
q_n}(\theta)-A_{\pm q_n}(\theta)\| & \leq& \frac{1}{q_{n+1}}
e^{(\ln\lambda+ \epsilon)q_n},\\
\label{appro-7}\sup_{\theta\in{{\mathbb T}}}\| A_{q_n}(\theta+q_n\alpha)-
A_{q_n}(\theta)\|& \leq& \frac{1}{q_{n+1}}
e^{(\ln\lambda+ \epsilon)q_n}.\end{aligned}$$
Furman’s result [@F] gives $$\begin{aligned}
\label{appro-3}\lim_{m \rightarrow
\pm \infty} \sup_{\theta \in {{\mathbb T}}} \frac{1}{|m|}\log
\|A_m(\theta)\|\le L(\alpha,S_E^{\lambda}).\end{aligned}$$ Then by Theorem \[bj-formula\], we know for any $\epsilon>0$, there exists $K=K(E,\lambda,\epsilon)>0$, such that for any $|m| \geq K$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{appro-6}
\sup_{\theta\in{{\mathbb T}}}\|A_{m}(\theta)\| & \leq&
e^{|m|(\ln\lambda+\epsilon/2)}.\end{aligned}$$
In the following, we only consider $m$ is positive, the proof is similar for negative $m$. In order to prove $(\ref{appro-2}),$ we need the following:
\[appro-lemma\] Let $\alpha\in {{\mathbb R}}\backslash {{\mathbb Q}}$. If $
\lambda \geq 1$ and $E\in \Sigma_{\lambda,\alpha}$, then for any $\epsilon>0$, there exists $N_-=N_-(E,\lambda, \epsilon)>2K$, such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label {3.7}
\sup_{\theta\in{{\mathbb T}}}\|\widetilde{A}_{m}(\theta)\| & \leq&
e^{m(\ln\lambda+2 \epsilon/3)}\end{aligned}$$for any $q_n \geq N_-$, $m \geq K$.
Clearly, for fixed $m \in {{\mathbb Z}}$ and $\delta>0$, if $q_n$ is sufficiently large we have $$\sup_{\theta\in{{\mathbb T}}}\big|\frac{1}{m} \ln \|\widetilde{A}_m(\theta)\|- \frac{1}{m} \ln \|A_m(\theta)\| \big|<\delta.$$ Thus, there exists $N_-=N_-(E,\lambda,\epsilon)>0$ such that if $q_n
\geq N_-$ then $(\ref {3.7})$ holds for $K \leq m \leq 2K-1$. Since any $m \geq K$ can be written as a sum of integers $m_i$ satisfying $K \leq m_i \leq 2K-1$, this implies that $(\ref {3.7})$ holds for all $m \geq K$.
Once we have Lemma \[appro-lemma\], $(\ref{appro-2})$ can be proved directly by telescoping arguments. In fact, if $q_n \geq N_-$ we can write $$\begin{aligned}
A_{q_n} - \widetilde{A}_{q_n} &=& \sum_{i=1}^{q_n}A^{q_n}\cdots
A^{i+1}\Big(A^{i}-\widetilde{A}^{i}\Big)\widetilde{A}^{i-1}\cdots
\widetilde{A}_1\\ &=& \Big(\sum_{i=1}^{K}+ \sum_{i=K+1}^{q_n-K}
+\sum_{i=q_n-K+1}^{q_n}\Big)A^{q_n}\cdots
A^{i+1}\Big(A^{i}-\widetilde{A}^{i}\Big)\widetilde{A}^{i-1}\cdots
\widetilde{A}_1\\
&=& (I)+(II)+(III),\end{aligned}$$ since for $i\leq q_n$, we have $\|A^{i}-\widetilde{A}^{i}\|\leq
\frac{4 \pi \lambda (i-1)}{q_{n}q_{n+1}}\leq \frac{4 \pi
\lambda}{q_{n+1}},$ then by $(\ref{appro-6})$ and Lemma \[appro-lemma\], we can estimate $$\begin{aligned}
(I)&\leq& \frac{4 \pi \lambda}{q_{n+1}} \sum_{i=1}^{K}
(4\lambda+3)^{i-1}e^{(q_n-i)(\ln\lambda+2\epsilon/3)}, \\
(II)&\leq& \frac{4 \pi \lambda}{q_{n+1}}
\sum_{i=K+1}^{q_n-K}e^{(q_n-1)(\ln\lambda+2\epsilon/3)},\\
(III)&\leq & \frac{4 \pi \lambda}{q_{n+1}} \sum_{i=q_n-K+1}^{q_n}
(4\lambda+3)^{q_n-i}e^{(i-1)(\ln\lambda+2\epsilon/3)}.\end{aligned}$$ If $q_n$ is sufficiently large, then $(\ref{appro-2})$ follows directly. Using the similar argument as above, we can prove $(\ref{appro-7})$.
Now we finish the proof of Theorem \[singular\] by contradiction. For any fixed $\theta$, we suppose that $E$ is an eigenvalue of $H_{\lambda,\alpha,\theta}$, then there exists $\overline{v}= \begin{pmatrix} v_0\\v_{-1}
\end{pmatrix} $ with $\|\overline{v}\|=1,$ and for any $\varepsilon>0$, there exists $\overline{N}=\overline{N}(E,\lambda,\varepsilon)$, such that if $|m|> \overline{N}(E,\lambda,\varepsilon)$, then $\|A_m(\theta)\overline{v}\|\leq \varepsilon.$ In particular, for any $0<2\epsilon< \ln\lambda-\beta$, we can select $q_n>\max\{ N(E,\lambda,\epsilon),$ $
\overline{N}(E,\lambda,\varepsilon)\}$, and $q_{n+1}>e^{(\beta-\epsilon)q_n}$, such that $$\label{initial} \|A_{q_n}(\theta)\overline{v}\|\leq
\varepsilon,
\qquad \|A_{-{q_n}}(\theta)\overline{v}\|\leq \varepsilon,$$ where $N(E,\lambda,\epsilon)$ is defined in Proposition \[appro\].
What’s important is the following observation:
\[trace\]The following estimate holds: $$\begin{aligned}
\|A_{q_n}(\theta+q_n\alpha)+A_{-{q_n}}(\theta+q_n\alpha)\| \leq 2\varepsilon+ 10 e^{-(\beta-\ln\lambda-2
\epsilon)q_n}.\end{aligned}$$
By $(\ref{appro-2})$, it is sufficient for us to prove $$\begin{aligned}
\label{midesti}
\|\widetilde{A}_{q_n}(\theta+q_n\alpha)+\widetilde{A}_{-{q_n}}(\theta+q_n\alpha)\| \leq 2\varepsilon+ 8 e^{-(\beta-\ln\lambda-2
\epsilon)q_n}.\end{aligned}$$ By Hamilton-Clay Theorem, for any $M\in SL(2,{{\mathbb R}})$, one has $$\begin{aligned}
\label{hamicaly}
M+M^{-1}=\tr M\cdot Id,
\end{aligned}$$ for every $\theta' \in {{\mathbb T}}$. Take $M=\widetilde{A}_{{q_n}}(\theta')$, then $$\begin{aligned}
\label{hami-caly}
\widetilde{A}_{{q_n}}(\theta')+\widetilde{A}_{-{q_n}}(\theta')=\tr
\widetilde{A}_{q_n}(\theta').\end{aligned}$$
By assumptions $(\ref{initial})$ and $(\ref{appro-2})$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
&&\| \tr
\widetilde{A}_{q_n}(\theta)\|\\
\nonumber &\leq& \| A_{q_n}(\theta)\overline{v}+ A_{-{q_n}}(\theta)
\overline{v}\|+\|\widetilde{A}_{q_n}(\theta)-A_{q_n}(\theta)\|+\|\widetilde{A}_{-{q_n}}(\theta)-A_{-{q_n}}(\theta)\|\\
\nonumber &\leq& 2\varepsilon+2 e^{-(\beta-\ln\lambda-2
\epsilon)q_n}.\end{aligned}$$ As a result of $(\ref{appro-2})$ and $(\ref{appro-7})$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
&&\| \tr \widetilde{A}_{q_n}(\theta+q_n\alpha)\|\\ &\leq& \| \tr
\widetilde{A}_{q_n}(\theta+q_n\alpha)- \tr
A_{q_n}(\theta+q_n\alpha)\|+\|\tr A_{q_n}(\theta+q_n\alpha)- \tr
A_{q_n}(\theta)\|\\
&& +\|\tr A_{q_n}(\theta)-\tr \widetilde{A}_{q_n}(\theta)\|+\|\tr
\widetilde{A}_{q_n}(\theta)\|\\
&\leq & 2\varepsilon+8 e^{-(\beta-\ln\lambda-2 \epsilon)q_n},\end{aligned}$$ then $(\ref{midesti})$ follows from $(\ref{hami-caly})$.
However by Lemma \[trace\], we have $$\begin{aligned}
&&\|A_{2q_n}(\theta)\overline{v}\|=
\|A_{q_n}(\theta+q_n\alpha) A_{q_n}(\theta)\overline{v} \|\\
&\geq& \|A_{-{q_n}}(\theta+q_n\alpha) A_{q_n}(\theta)\overline{v} \|- \|\widetilde{A}_{q_n}(\theta+q_n\alpha)+\widetilde{A}_{-{q_n}}(\theta+q_n\alpha)\| \|A_{q_n}(\theta)\overline{v}\| \\
&\geq&1- 2\varepsilon^2-10 \varepsilon e^{-(\beta-\ln\lambda-2
\epsilon)q_n}> \frac{1}{2},\end{aligned}$$ which contradicts with the assumption that $E$ is an eigenvalue.
Anderson localization {#ander}
=====================
In this section, we prove Theorem \[main\] (3). We re-state it as the following
\[anderson-transition\] Let $\alpha\in{{\mathbb R}}\backslash {{\mathbb Q}}$ be such that $0<\beta(\alpha)<\infty.$ If $\lambda>e^{\beta},$ then the almost Mathieu operator $H_{\lambda,\alpha,\phi}$ has Anderson Localization for a.e. $\phi$.
Traditional method for Anderson Localization is to prove the exponentially decay of Green function [@AJ05; @J94; @J95; @J99]. Due to the limitation of the method, Anderson Localization can be proved only for Liouvillean frequency with $\lambda>e^{ \frac{16\beta}{9}}$ so far [@AJ05]. So there is still a gap between $e^{\beta}$ and $e^{ \frac{16\beta}{9}}$.
In this paper, we develop a new approach depending on the reducibility and Aubry duality. We will show that Theorem \[anderson-transition\] can be obtained by dynamical Aubry duality and the following full measure reducibility result:
\[full\] Let $\alpha \in {{\mathbb R}}{\ssm}{{\mathbb Q}}$ with $\beta(\alpha)>0$, if $\lambda>e^\beta$, ${\mathrm{rot}}_f(\alpha, S_E^{\lambda^{-1}})$ is Diophantine w.r.t. $\alpha$, then $(\alpha, S_E^{\lambda^{-1}})$ is reducible.
The dynamical Aubry duality was established by Puig [@Pui06], who proved that Anderson localization of the Long range operator $\widehat{L}_{V,\alpha, \varphi}$ for almost every $\varphi\in{{\mathbb T}}$ implies reducibility of $(\alpha,S_E^V)$ for almost every energies. Conversely, to deal with localization problem by reducibility was first realized by You-Zhou in [@YZ]. However, in [@YZ] they can only prove the eigenvalues of $\widehat{L}_{V,\alpha, \varphi}$ with exponentially decaying eigenfunctions are dense in the spectrum. The main issue remained is to prove those eigenfunctions form a complete basis. The key point in this paper is that, we find that the quantitative estimates in the proof of Theorem \[full\] actually provides an asymptotical distribution of the eigenvalues and eigenfunctions, which ultimately implies pure point spectrum for almost every phases. Compared with tradition localization argument, the price we have to pay is that we lose precise arithmetic control on the localization phases. However, by this approach, one can indeed establish a kind of equivalence between quantitative full measure reducibility of Schrödinger operator (or Schrödinger cocycle) and Anderson localization of its dual Long-range operator.\
**Proof Theorem \[anderson-transition\]:** We need the following definition:
For any fixed $N\in{{\mathbb N}},C>0,\varepsilon>0$, a normalized eigenfunction $u(n)$ is said to be $(N,C,\varepsilon)$-good, if $|u(n)|\leq
e^{-C\varepsilon|n|}$, for $|n|\geq (1-\varepsilon)N$.
We label the $(N,C,\varepsilon)$-good eigenfunctions of $H_{\lambda,
\alpha,\phi}$ by $u_j^\phi(n)$, denote the corresponding eigenvalue by $E_j^\phi$, also we denote $$\mathcal {E}_{N,C,\varepsilon}^{\phi}=\{E_j^\phi| u_j^\phi(n) \text{ is a
$(N,C,\varepsilon)$-good normalized eigenfunction}\}$$ and denote $\mathcal {E}(\phi)= \bigcup_{N>0} \mathcal {E}_{N,C,\varepsilon}^{\phi}.$ Let $\mu_{\delta_0,\phi}^{pp}$ be the spectral measure supported on $\mathcal {E}(\phi)$ with respect to $\delta_0$.\
The following spectral analysis is completely new and will be crucial for our proof.
\[distribution\] Suppose that there exists $C>0$, such that for any $\delta>0,$ there exists $\varepsilon>0$, and for a.e. $\phi$, $$\label{good} \#\{\text{linearly independent
$(N,C,\varepsilon)$-good eigenfunctions}\}\geq
(1-\delta)2N,$$ for $N$ large enough, then for a.e. $\phi$, we have $\mu_\phi=\mu_{\delta_0,\phi}=
\mu_{\delta_0,\phi}^{pp}$.
Fix $\phi\in{{\mathbb T}}^1$ such that (\[good\]) is satisfied. Denote $$K_{N,C,\varepsilon}^{\phi}=\{ j\in{{\mathbb N}}| u_j^\phi(n) \text{ is a
$(N,C,\varepsilon)$-good eigenfunction}\}.$$ Notice that for any fixed ${N,C,\varepsilon}$, $\# K_{N,C,\varepsilon}^{\phi}$ is finite, and also $$\label{eigen}
\sum_{|n|\leq (1-\varepsilon)N}|u_j^\phi(n)|^2 >1- e^{-C\varepsilon
N},$$ for $(N,C,\varepsilon)$-good eigenfunction $u_j^\phi(n)$.
Let $\widetilde{\mu}^{pp}_{\delta_n,\phi}=
\widetilde{\mu}^{pp}_{\delta_n,\phi}(N,C,\varepsilon)$ be the truncated spectral measure supported on $\mathcal
{E}_{N,C,\varepsilon}^{\phi}$. Then by spectral theorem and $(\ref{eigen})$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{2N}\sum_{|n|\leq N}|\mu^{pp}_{\delta_n,\phi}|&>&
\frac{1}{2N}\sum_{|n|\leq N}|\widetilde{\mu}^{pp}_{\delta_n,\phi}|\\
&=&\frac{1}{2N}\sum_{|n|\leq N}\langle P_{\mathcal
{E}_{N,C,\varepsilon}^{\phi}}\delta_n,
\delta_n\rangle\\
&=&\frac{1}{2N}\sum_{|n|\leq N}\sum_{j\in
K_{N,C,\varepsilon}^{\phi}}\langle P_{E_j^\phi}\delta_n,
\delta_n\rangle\\
&>&\frac{1}{2N}\sum_{|n|\leq(1-\varepsilon)N}\sum_{j\in
K_{N,C,\varepsilon}^{\phi}}|u_j^\phi(n)|^2\\
&>&\frac{1}{2N} \# K_{N,C,\varepsilon}^{\phi}(1- e^{-C\varepsilon N})\\
&>& (1-\delta)(1-e^{-C\varepsilon N}).\end{aligned}$$ Since $ \mathcal {E}(\phi) =\mathcal {E}(\phi+\alpha)$, we can rewrite the above inequalities as $$\frac{1}{2N}\sum_{|n|\leq N}|\mu^{pp}_{\delta_0,\phi+n\alpha}|> (1-\delta)(1-e^{-C\varepsilon N}),$$ Let $N$ go to $\infty$, since $\delta$ is arbitrary small, we have $$\int_{{{\mathbb T}}^1}
| \mu^{pp}_{\delta_0,\phi}|d\phi=1,$$ by Birkhoff’s ergodic theorem. Thus for $a.e.$ $\phi\in{{\mathbb T}}^1$, $\mu_\phi=\mu_{\delta_0,\phi}= \mu_{\delta_0,\phi}^{pp}.$
Let $\Theta_\gamma=\{\phi| \phi\in DC_\alpha(\tau,\gamma)
\}$. We have $ \bigcup_{\gamma>0}\Theta_\gamma=1$, which implies that for any $\delta>0$, there exists $
\widetilde{\varepsilon}>0$, such that if $|\gamma|<\widetilde{\varepsilon},$ then $|\Theta_\gamma |>
1-\frac{\delta}{3}.$ By Birkhoff’s ergodic theorem again, we have $$\lim_{\widetilde{N} \rightarrow \infty} \frac{1}{2\widetilde{N}} \sum_{|k|\leq \widetilde{N}} \chi_{\Theta_\gamma }(\phi+k\alpha)= \int_{{{\mathbb T}}^1}\chi_{\Theta_\gamma }(\phi)d\phi.$$ Thus for $N$ large enough (we take $\widetilde{N}=N(1-\frac{\delta}{3})$), we have $$\label{number}
\#\{k| \phi+k\alpha \in \Theta_\gamma, |k|\leq
2N(1-\frac{\delta}{3}) \}\geq (1-\delta)2N.$$
For any $\phi \in \Theta_\gamma$, we choose $\bar N$ sufficiently large such that (\[number\]) holds for $N>\bar N$. We will prove that $H_{\lambda, \alpha,\phi}$ has at least $(1-\delta)2N$ different eigenvalues $E_k^\phi$ whose eigenfunctions $u_k^\phi(n)$ are $(N,\ln
\lambda -\beta-\epsilon, \varepsilon)$-good for any $\epsilon$. To prove this, we need the following *quantitative* version of Theorem \[full\]:
\[prop\] Let $\alpha \in {{\mathbb R}}{\ssm}{{\mathbb Q}}$ with $\beta(\alpha)>0$ and $\lambda>e^\beta$. Suppose that ${\mathrm{rot}}_f(\alpha,
S_{\lambda^{-1}E_k}^{\lambda^{-1}})=\phi+k\alpha \in
DC_\alpha(\tau,\gamma)$. Then for any fixed $\gamma>0$, $\tau>0$ and small enough $\epsilon>0$, there exist $c_1(\lambda, \gamma,\tau,\epsilon,\alpha), c_2(\lambda,\gamma,\tau,\epsilon)$ and $B_k \in
C^\omega_{\ln\lambda-\beta-\epsilon}({{\mathbb T}},SL(2,{{\mathbb R}}))$, such that $$\label{prop-1} B_k(\theta+\alpha)^{-1}
S_{\lambda^{-1}E_k}^{\lambda^{-1}}(\theta)B_k(\theta)=R_{\phi+k^{'}\alpha},$$ with estimates: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{esti-1} \| B_k\|_{\ln\lambda-\beta-\epsilon} &\leq&
c_1(\lambda,\gamma,\tau,\epsilon,\alpha),\\
\label{esti-2} |k-k^{'}|&\leq& c_2(\lambda,\gamma,\tau,\epsilon).\end{aligned}$$
If $\lambda>e^{\beta}>1$, $\lambda^{-1} E_k \in \Sigma_{\lambda^{-1},\alpha}$, then the almost Mathieu cocycle $(\alpha,
S_{\lambda^{-1}E_k}^{\lambda^{-1}})$ is subcritical in the regime $|\mathfrak{I}\theta|<\ln\lambda$. To prove Proposition \[prop\], we need Theorem \[bj-formula\] and the following:
If $\alpha \in {{\mathbb R}}{\ssm}{{\mathbb Q}}$, $\lambda>1$, $E \in {{\mathbb R}}$, then for $\epsilon \geq 0$, $$L(\alpha,(S_E^{\lambda^{-1}})_\epsilon)=\max
\{L(\alpha,S_E^{\lambda^{-1}}),(\epsilon-\ln \lambda)\}.$$
The proof can be found in Appendix A of [@Aglobal].
Now by Theorem \[arc\], for $0<2\epsilon<\ln \lambda-\beta$, there exists a sequence of $\widetilde{B}_n \in
C^\omega_{\ln\lambda-\epsilon/2}({{\mathbb T}},PSL(2,{{\mathbb R}}))$ such that $$\widetilde{B}_n(\theta+\alpha)^{-1}S_{\lambda^{-1}E_k}^{\lambda^{-1}}(\theta)\widetilde{B}_n(\theta)= R_{\varphi_n}+F_n(\theta),$$ with estimate $$\begin{aligned}
\label{esti-1'}\|\widetilde{B}_n\|_{\ln\lambda-\epsilon/2}&\leq&
e^{C\delta^{'} q_n},\\
\nonumber \|F_n\|_{\ln\lambda-\epsilon/2}&\leq&
e^{-\delta^{'} q_n},\end{aligned}$$ which implies $$\label{deg1}
|\deg \widetilde{B}_n| \leq c(\lambda,\epsilon) q_n.$$ One may consult footnote 5 of [@Aac] in proving this.
If $\phi+k\alpha \in DC_\alpha(\tau,\gamma),$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
&&\|2(\phi+k\alpha)-m\alpha-k'\alpha\|_{{{\mathbb R}}/{{\mathbb Z}}}\\
&\geq& \frac{\gamma}{(|m+k^{'}|+1)^\tau} \geq
\frac{(1+|k^{'}|)^{-\tau}\gamma}{(|m|+1)^\tau}.\end{aligned}$$ By $(\ref{rot-conj})$, this formula implies that $ {\mathrm{rot}}_f(\alpha, R_{\varphi_n}+F_n(\theta)) \in
DC_\alpha(\tau,(1+|\deg \widetilde{B}_n|)^{-\tau}\gamma)$. Let $q_s$ be the smallest denominator such that $$\begin{aligned}
q_{s+1}&> &e^{(\beta-o(1))q_s},\\
e^{-q_s \delta^{'}} &<& T(\tau)(\frac{\gamma}{(1+c(\lambda,\epsilon)|q_s|)^{\tau}})^\kappa(\frac{\epsilon}{2})^\kappa,\end{aligned}$$ where $T=T(\tau),$ $\kappa=\kappa(\tau)$ are defined in Theorem \[hy1\]. By Theorem \[hy1\], there exist $\overline{B}_k(\theta) \in
C^\omega_{\ln\lambda-\epsilon}({{\mathbb T}},SL(2,{{\mathbb R}})),$ $\eta_k(\theta) \in
C^\omega_{\ln\lambda-\epsilon}({{\mathbb T}},{{\mathbb R}}),$ such that $$\overline{B}_k(\theta+\alpha)^{-1}( R_{\varphi_s}+F_s(\theta))\overline{B}_k(\theta)=R_{\eta_k(\theta)}.$$ with estimates $ \| \eta_k \|_{\ln\lambda-\epsilon} \leq e^{-q_s \delta^{'}} $ and $$\label{esti-9}
\| \overline{B}_k-id \|_{\ln\lambda-\epsilon} \leq e^{-q_s \delta^{'}/2} .$$ Let $\psi_k(\theta)$ satisfy $$\label{homo}
\psi_k(\theta+\alpha)-\psi_k(\theta)=\eta_k(\theta)-\hat{\eta}_k(0).$$ since $\ln \lambda>\beta$, by $(\ref{equibeta})$, we know that there exists $c=c(\alpha,\epsilon)$ such that $(\ref{homo})$ has analytic solution $\psi_k(\theta) \in
C^\omega_{\ln\lambda-\beta-\epsilon}({{\mathbb T}},{{\mathbb R}})$ with estimate $$\label{esti-10}
\|\psi_k\|_{\ln\lambda-\beta-\epsilon} \leq c(\alpha,\epsilon) \| \eta_k \|_{\ln\lambda-\epsilon} \leq c(\alpha,\epsilon) e^{-q_s \delta^{'}} .$$ Let $B_k(\theta)= \widetilde{B}_s(\theta)\overline{B}_k(\theta)R_{\psi_k(\theta)}$, then there exists $k^{'}\in {{\mathbb Z}}$, such that $$B_k(\theta+\alpha)^{-1}
S_{\lambda^{-1}E_k}^{\lambda^{-1}}(\theta)B_k(\theta)=R_{\hat{\eta}_k(0)}= R_{\phi+k^{'}\alpha}.$$ Since ${\mathrm{rot}}_f(\alpha,
S_{\lambda^{-1}E_k}^{\lambda^{-1}})$ is irrational w.r.t $\alpha$, then $B_k(\theta) \in
C^\omega_{\ln\lambda-\beta-\epsilon}({{\mathbb T}},SL(2,{{\mathbb R}}))$, one can consult Remark 1.5 of [@AK06] for this proof. Notice that $\deg R_{\psi_k(\theta)}=0$ and by $(\ref{esti-9})$, we have $\deg \overline{B}_k =0$. Consequently by $(\ref{rot-conj'})$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{deg2}k^{'}=k- \deg \widetilde{B}_s.\end{aligned}$$ $(\ref{esti-2})$ then follows from $(\ref{deg1})$ and $(\ref{deg2})$, and $(\ref{esti-1})$ follows from $(\ref{esti-1'})$, $(\ref{esti-9})$ and $(\ref{esti-10})$.
Rewrite $(\ref{prop-1})$ as $$\label{a-1} B_k(\theta+\alpha)^{-1}
S_{\lambda^{-1}E_k}^{\lambda^{-1}}(\theta)B_k(\theta)= \left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
e^{2\pi i(\phi+k^{'}\alpha)}& 0\cr
0 & e^{-2\pi i(\phi+k^{'}\alpha)}\end{array} \right),$$ and write $B_k(\theta)=\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
z_{11}(\theta) & z_{12}(\theta) \cr z_{21}(\theta) &z_{22}(\theta)
\end{array} \right),$ then we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{block-red}&& (\lambda^{-1}E_k-2\lambda^{-1}
\cos(\theta))z_{11}(\theta)\\ \nonumber&=&
z_{11}(\theta-\alpha)e^{-2\pi
i(\phi+k^{'}\alpha)}+z_{11}(\theta+\alpha)e^{2\pi
i(\phi+k^{'}\alpha)}.\end{aligned}$$ Taking the Fourier transformation for $(\ref{block-red})$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\widehat{z}_{11}(n+1)+\widehat{z}_{11}(n-1)+2\lambda\cos2\pi
(\phi+k^{'}\alpha+n\alpha)\widehat{z}_{11}(n)=
E_k\widehat{z}_{11}(n),\end{aligned}$$ then $\widehat{z}_{11}(n)$ is a eigenfunction, since $z_{11}\in
C^\omega_{\ln\lambda-\beta-\epsilon}({{\mathbb T}},{{\mathbb C}})$. To normalize $\widehat{z}_{11}(n)$, we need the following observation:
\[z1-estimate\] We have the following: $$\|\widehat{z}_{11}\|_{l^2}\geq (2\|B\|_{C^0})^{-1}.$$
Write $$u=\left(\begin{array}{c} z_{11}(\theta) \\
z_{21}(\theta)
\end{array}\right), \qquad v=\left(\begin{array}{c} z_{12}(\theta) \\
z_{22}(\theta)
\end{array}\right),$$ then $\|u\|_{L^2}\|v\|_{L^2}>1$ since $\det B_k(\theta)=1.$ This implies that $$\|z_{11}\|_{L^2}+ \|z_{21}\|_{L^2}= \|u\|_{L^2}> \|v\|_{L^2}^{-1}>(\|B\|_{C^0})^{-1}.$$ By $(\ref{a-1})$, we have $z_{21}(\theta+\alpha)=e^{-2\pi i(\phi+k^{'}\alpha)}z_{11}(\theta),$ therefore, we have $$\|\widehat{z}_{11}\|_{l^2}=\|z_{11}\|_{L^2} \geq (2\|B\|_{C^0})^{-1}.$$
Normalizing $\widehat{z}_{11}(n)$ by $u_k^{\phi}(n)=\frac{\widehat{z}_{11}(n+k^{'})}{
\|\widehat{z}_{11}\|_{l^2}}$. Now we prove it is in fact $(N,\ln \lambda -\beta-\epsilon,
\varepsilon)$-good. Let $$2\varepsilon< \frac{\delta}{3}- \frac{c_3(\lambda,\gamma,\tau,\epsilon,\alpha)}{N}- \frac{c_2(\lambda,\gamma,\tau,\epsilon)}{N},$$ where $c_3(\lambda, \gamma,\tau,\epsilon,\alpha)=\frac{\ln 2c_1(\lambda,\gamma,\tau,\epsilon,\alpha)}{ \ln\lambda-\beta-\epsilon }.$ Since $u_k^{\phi}(n)=u_k^{\phi+k^{'}\alpha}(n-k^{'})$, then by Proposition \[prop\] and Lemma \[z1-estimate\], we have $$\begin{aligned}
|u_k^{\phi}(n) | &=&|u_k^{\phi+k^{'}\alpha}(n-k^{'})|\\
&\leq& \| B_k\|_{\ln\lambda-\beta-\epsilon}^2
e^{-|n-k^{'}| (\ln \lambda -\beta-\epsilon)}\\
&\leq & e^{ ( c_3(\lambda,\gamma,\tau,\epsilon,\alpha)+
|k|+c_2(\lambda,\gamma,\tau,\epsilon))(\ln \lambda
-\beta-\epsilon)} e^{-|n| (\ln \lambda -\beta-\epsilon)}\\
&\leq&
e^{ (N(1-\frac{\delta}{3})+c_2(\lambda,\gamma,\tau,\epsilon)+c_3(\lambda,\gamma,\tau,\epsilon,\alpha))(\ln
\lambda -\beta-\epsilon)}e^{-|n|(\ln \lambda -\beta-\epsilon) }\\
&\leq& e^{-|n|(\ln \lambda -\beta-\epsilon)\varepsilon},\end{aligned}$$ for $|n|\geq N(1-\varepsilon)$, which means $ (u_k^{\phi}(n))$ is $(N,\ln \lambda -\beta-\epsilon, \varepsilon)$-good.
By Proposition \[distribution\] and the above estimate, we know for $a.e.$ $\phi\in{{\mathbb T}}^1$, $H_{\lambda,\alpha,\phi}$ has Anderson Localization.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
A.A was partially supported by the ERC Starting GrantQuasiperiodicand by the Balzan project of Jacob Palis. J. Y was partially supported by NNSF of China (11471155) and 973 projects of China (2014CB340701). Q. Z was partially supported by Fondation Sciences Mathématiques de Paris (FSMP) and and ERC Starting Grant Quasiperiodic.
[99]{}
S. Aubry and G. André, Analyticity breaking and Anderson localization in incommensurate lattices. In: Group Theoretical Methods in Physics (Proc. Eighth Internat. Colloq. Kiryat Anavim, 1979), Hilger, Bristol, pp. 133-164 (1980).
A. Avila, On point spectrum with critical coupling. http://w3.impa.br/ avila/
A. Avila, The absolutely continuous spectrum of the almost Mathieu operator. Preprint, 2008. arXiv:0810.2965 \[math.DS\].
A. Avila, Global theory of one-frequency Schrödinger operators, Acta Math. **215**, 1-54 (2015).
A. Avila, Almost reducibility and absolute continuity, http://w3.impa.br/ avila/
A. Avila, KAM, Lyapunov exponents and the spectral dichotomy for one-frequency schrödinger operators. In preparation.
A. Avila and D. Damanik, Absolute continuity of the integrated density of states for the almost Mathieu operator with non-critical coupling. Inventiones Mathematicae 172 (2008), 439-453.
A. Avila, B. Fayad and R. Krikorian, A KAM scheme for ${\mathrm{SL}(2,\mathbb{R})}(2,{{\mathbb R}})$ cocycles with Liouvillean frequencies, Geom. Funct. Anal. **21**, 1001-1019 (2011)
A. Avila and S. Jitomirskaya, The Ten Martini Problem, Ann. Math, **170**, 303-342 (2009)
A. Avila and S. Jitomirskaya, Almost localization and almost reducibility, J. Eur. Math. Soc, **12**, 93-131 (2010)
A. Avila and R. Krikorian, Reducibility or non-uniform hyperbolicity for quasiperiodic Schrödinger cocycles, Ann. Math, **164**, 911-940 (2006)
J. Avron and B. Simon, Singular continuous spectrum for a class of almost periodic Jacobi matrices, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. **6**, 81-85 (1982)
J. Bourgain and S. Jitomirskaya. Continuity of the Lyapunov exponent for quasiperiodic operators with analytic potential. J. Statist. Phys. **108**, 1203-1218 (2002)
V. Chulaevsky and F. Delyon, Purely absolutely continuous spectrum for almost Mathieu operators, J. Statist. Phys. 55 (1989), 1279-1284.
E. Dinaburg and Ya. Sinai, The one-dimensional Schrödinger equation with a quasi-periodic potential, Funct. Anal. Appl. **9**, 279-289 (1975).
H. Eliasson, Floquet solutions for the one-dimensional quasiperiodic Schrödinger equation, Comm.Math.Phys. **146**, 447-482 (1992).
H. Eliasson, Discrete one-dimensional quasi-periodic Schrödinger operators with pure point spectrum, Acta Math. **179**, 153-196 (1997)
A. Furman, On the multiplicative ergodic theorem for the uniquely ergodic systems. Ann. Inst. Henri Poincaré. **33**(1997), 797-815.
J.Fröhlich, T.Spencer and P. Wittwer, Localization for a class of one dimensional quasiperiodic Schrödinger operators. Commun. Math. Phys. **132**, 5-25 (1990)
F. Gesztesy and B. Simon, The xi function, Acta Math. 176 (1996), 49-71.
A. Gordon, The point spectrum of one-dimensional Schrödinger operator,(Russian). Uspehi Mat.Nauk. **31**, (1976), 257-258.
A. Gordon, S. Jitomirskaya, Y. Last, and B. Simon, Duality and singular continuous spectrum in the almost Mathieu equation. Acta Math. 178 (1997), 169-183.
M. Herman. Une méthode pour minorer les exposants de Lyapounov et quelques exemples montrant le caractère local d’un théorème d’Arnol’d et de Moser sur le tore de dimension $2$. Comment. Math. Helv. 58 (1983), no. 3, 453–502.
X. Hou and J. You, Almost reducibility and non-perturbative reducibility of quasiperiodic linear systems, Invent. Math **190**, 209-260 (2012)
S. Jitomirskaya and B. Simon, Operators with singular continuous spectrum. III. Almost periodic Schrödinger operators. Comm. Math. Phys. **165** no. 1, 201-205 (1994)
S. Jitomirskaya, Anderson localization for the almost Mathieu equation: a nonperturbative proof, Comm. Math. Phys. 165 (1994), 49-57.
S. Jitomirskaya, Anderson localization for the almost Mathieu equation. II. Point spectrum for $\lambda> 2$, Comm. Math. Phys. 168 (1995), 563-570.
S. Jitomirskaya, Almost Everything About the Almost Mathieu Operator, II. “Proceedings of XI International Congress of Mathematical Physics”,Int. Press, (1995), 373-382.
S. Jitomirskaya, Metal-insulator transition for the almost Mathieu operator. Ann. of Math. (2) 150 (1999), no. 3, 1159–1175.
S. Jitomirskaya, Ergodic Schrödinger operator (on one foot), Proceedings of symposia in pure mathematics. Volumn 76.2, 613-647 (2007)
R. Johnson and J. Moser, The rotation number for almost periodic potentials. Comm. Math. Phys. 84 (1982), no. 3, 403–438.
S. Kotani, Lyaponov indices determine absolutely continuous spectra of stationary random onedimensional Schrondinger operators, Stochastic Analysis (K. Ito, ed.), North Holland, Amsterdam, 225-248 (1984).
Y. Last, A relation between absolutely continuous spectrum of ergodic Jacobi matrices and the spectra of periodic approximants, Comm. Math. Phys. 151 (1993), 183-192.
Y. Last, Zero measure spectrum for the Almost Mathieu Operator. Commun Math Phys, **164**, 421-432 (1994)
Y. Last, Spectral theory of Sturm-Liouville operators on infinite intervals: a review of recent developments. In Sturm-Liouville Theory. Birkhauser Basel. 99-120. (2005)
Y. Last and B. Simon, Eigenfunctions, transfer matrices, and absolutely continuous spectrum of one-dimensional Schrödinger operators, Invent. Math. 135 (1999), 329-367
J. Puig, A nonperturbative Eliasson’s reducibility theorem, Nonlinearity. **19**, no. 2, 355-376 (2006).
B. Simon, Schrödinger operators in the twenty-first century. Mathematical physics 2000, 283-288, Imp. Coll. Press, London, 2000.
Ya. Sinai, Anderson localization for one-dimensional difference Schrödinger operator with quasiperiodic potential. J. Statist. Phys. **46**, 861-909 (1987)
J. You and Q. Zhou, Embedding of analytic quasi-periodic cocycles into analytic quasi-periodic linear systems and its applications. Commun Math Phys. **323**, 975-1005 (2013)
[^1]: If one check carefully the proof, it already gives $C=1$.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We notice that the “password security” discourse is missing the most fundamental notion of the [*password strength*]{} – it was never properly defined. We propose a canonical definition of the [*password strength*]{}, based on the assessment of the efficiency of a set of possible guessing attack. Unlike naive password strength assessments our metric takes into account the attacker’s strategy, and we demonstrate the necessity of that feature. This paper does NOT advise you to include “at least three capital letters”, seven underscores, and a number thirteen in your password.'
author:
- Eugene Panferov
title: A Canonical Password Strength Measure
---
Introduction
============
We are constantly told to choose strong passwords – but what is “strong"? A strong password is a password that is difficult to guess – but what is “guess" and what is “difficult"? The present paper is trying to answer these two questions.
In order to define “guess" we introduce a formal model of *guessing attack*. And then, in order to define “difficult", we do the following steps:
- we prove the theorem: **any two guessing attacks differ in which they try candidate-passwords**;
- we demonstrate that “password strength" (in any practical sense) is a function of an attack;
- corollary the strength of a given password is the position of this password in the attacker’s dictionary (because it is the only property this pair has);
- the defender’s strategy is represented by an approximation of the attacker’s dictionary order;
- easy to see that an approximate order is equivalent to a specific set of orders (i.e. different attacks);
- thus, the defender’s password strength is an expected value for the “password strength" over the given set of attacks.
We offer to the reader a non-orthodox perspective: the password’s strength is NOT a characteristic of a password, but a characteristic of an attack. Mark Stockley (perhaps summarizing the most popular ideas on password security) writes [@stockley]: [*The next best option is to try to work out what characteristics passwords that are difficult to crack share*]{}. In our opinion this is exactly the pitfall that has trapped the majority of mainstream security experts. Following this recommendation, whatever measure you create for (supposedly) the strength of the password, it will be a measure of mimicry between passwords – very likely irrelevant to the problem. The defender’s strategy is not to mimic a guru’s password, but to figure out a whole class of feasible attack strategies and infer the properties they have in common, and then to create a password that is likely to defeat all these strategies. The defender’s strategy is to make reasonable attack strategies (which a reasonable attacker can not avoid) ineffective, while keeping effective strategies unreasonable (which are very unlikely to be chosen by an attacker).
We focus on the one particular problem: making a password less susceptible for *guessing*. Thus, we assume that the attacker has no “back door" access to the defender’s hardware or software at all. The attacker is trying to crack the password not the software nor hardware. All he can use is a public (supposedly invulnerable) interface that expects a proper password to be input, and outputs [*success/failure*]{} value immediately. The interface does not impose any limits on the amount of requests. [This is equivalent to the “offline guessing" attack [@schn].]{}
Some important issues that are left out of the scope of the article: what if the attacker has a solid statistics on the password usage virtually worldwide? what if the attacker is a service provider with his own massive password dictionary? would it be a viable defensive move on the side of the defending service provider to publish his dictionary or password usage statistics in order to devaluate the attacker’s knowledge? – The present paper provides a formal basis for answering these questions.
Please, note: by the word “word" we do not refer to any natural language, but a finite sequence of symbols of a finite alphabet; by the word “dictionary" we do not refer to any natural language dictionary, but an ordered set of words.
State Of The Art
================
Despite the importance of the security issue in the ever growing world of electronic communications state of the art is as grim as medieval medicine. Bruce Schneier has described the global conditions as: “there’s been a lot written on this topic over the years – both serious and humorous – but most of it seems to be based on anecdotal suggestions rather than actual analytic evidence” [@schn]. The recent work [@zipf] clearly states the problem: “Surprisingly, as far as we know, existing literature has not provided a satisfactory answer to the above question of how to accurately measure the *strength of a given password dataset*.” And a popular website [@explained] illustrates these statements by giving a spectacularly hollow non-definition: “Password strength is a measure of the effectiveness of a password in resisting guessing and brute-force attacks. In its usual form, it estimates how many trials an attacker who does not have direct access to the password would need, on average, to guess it correctly. The strength of a password is a function of length, complexity, and unpredictability.” – it obscures the matter it addresses in almost every word: “effectiveness", “resisting", “complexity", “unpredictability" – what are they?
The missing definition, however, does not stop the service providers from condemning “weak” passwords, therefore, nearly all password creation policies are numerology, alchemy, and homeopathy such as the following examples:
Google says [@google]:
*Tips for creating a secure password:*
[ Include similar looking substitutions, such as the number zero for the letter ’O’]{}
[ Create a unique acronym]{}
[ Include phonetic replacements]{}
Microsoft says [@ms]:
*DO NOT USE:*
[ Common letter-to-symbol conversions, such as changing “o" to “0"]{}
[ Abbreviations]{}
[ Common misspellings]{}
The same source:
[*Give passwords the thought they deserve, and make them memorable. One way is to base them on the title of a favorite song or book, or a familiar slogan...* ]{} – [That’s exactly what I would never do! That is a secure way to win the popularity contest for passwords (according to [@schn2] 5th place belongs to “blink182"). Once you refer to anything like a slogan you end up in the same bucket with over 9000 creative and unique other individuals watching the same commercials on TV. Besides that, *The Titles* is a small dictionary, perhaps smaller than those “cybercriminals’ dictionaries” referred to with awe and fear in the same paper. The link between the dictionary size and the password strength is the major topic of the next section.]{}
Another example is numerous online password-strength-meters (which could be recognized (by easy googlability) as representatives of the mainstream culture). They do unanimously value the word “P1ayer" higher than the “letseatsomeofthoseprettygreenapplesdude". Mark Stockley has made a good point on this topic [@stockley]. Also [@zipf] emphasize the contradiction between “strength” values given by the variety of strength-meters to the same word. Of course they contradict each other! What else could we expect in the absence of the very definition of the strength!
In contrast to corporate and public guidelines and regulations, some papers seek to analyze password weaknesses empirically [@zipf] [@weir] [@amico] [@schn2] [@wu] [@florencio]. Bruce Schneier gave us a comprehensive overview of the popular dictionary attacks [@schn].
These papers unanimously agree that the widespread “best practices” have very little positive impact on security. And we want to comment that this is not an unexpected result. There are total $|A|^n$ words of the length $n$ over the alphabet $A$. Obviously, the effect of increasing the length $n$ dwarfs the effect of extending the alphabet $A$. In spite of that, all the “best practices” are strictly focused on the extending the alphabet (adding caps, numbers, etc). Even the U.S. Department of Homeland Security believes in the magical power of capital letters [@uscert]. The following simple example reveals the futility of those “best practices”. Let’s take a password vulnerable to a dictionary attack (i.e. a word of a natural language). There are approx 23000 English 7-letters words commonly used by scrabble players (a very good mark for a dictionary attack). If, according to the widespread recommendations, we require a capital letter the search space will be multiplied at very best by the factor 127. It is next to nothing! And it is the most optimistic estimation. In practice people will use just first capital or all capital in approx. 89% [@weir] which roughly means that the search space has increased merely by factor of 2. In contrast to this, if we ask users to use two words instead of one, then in the same terms of the search space, we get the factor 23000 – without negative memorability impact, and without any practical clues for the attacker. [The cardinality of the search space is not a password strength, but it is an optimistic estimate for one, and a good measure for defender’s strategy feasibility – its low value helps us to sort out hopeless defender’s strategies.]{}
Also these papers present clear evidence (such as patterns in passwords) that the users are very good at mocking [*proactive password checkers*]{}. Some of them [@wu] [@prost] [@amico] explicitly accent this point. Indeed, the apparent absurdity of these checks alone (see above) is a strong motivation to mock them.
Besides that, a particularly valuable research [@weir] makes a good point about the false assertions upon which the “best practices” are based. Matt Weir said about this work: “Our findings were that the NIST model of password entropy does not match up with real world password usage or password cracking attacks. If that wasn’t controversial enough, we then made the even more substantial claim that the current use of Shannon Entropy to model the security provided by human generated passwords at best provides no actionable information to the defender. At worse, it leads to a defender having an overly optimistic view of the security provided by their password creation policies while at the same time resulting in overly burdensome requirements for the end users.”
Still, Shannon’s entropy is commonly used, and very popular web-services appear to be using it too.
Still, the very notion of strength remains undefined.
Also, it is commonly asserted that password strength contradicts memorability. No work is done to understand why is it so, if at all! Every single paper on security asserts without a shed of evidence (quote from [@philosophical]): “Human memory is limited and therefore users cannot remember secure passwords" – what a leap of faith! We tried to trace the origin of this fundamental assertion and failed. This completely hollow claim is so widely accepted that no single paper attempted to however slightly substantiate the claim. On the same grounds we could assert that the mainstream security experts simply confuse strong passwords with ugly looking ones.
The Problem
===========
We insist that there is no such objective quality of a password as [*strength*]{}. What intuitively perceived as [*password’s strength*]{} is a quality of a hypothetical attack against the password. Indeed, if we choose a password “AjP\_(k13\]\*f9Ye” it will be cracked in no time by any attacker who have a dictionary of candidate passwords consisting of the single word “AjP\_(k13\]\*f9Ye”. Now, you are going to shout: “Who on Earth in his right mind would ever do such a cracking attempt?!" – And it is exactly an argument from an attacker’s strategy! You can not define [*password’s strength*]{} in isolation of a hypothetical attack, and you do not agree to use just any attack strategy (as that one proposed above), you want to match your password against a “reasonable” and “probable” and “plausible” strategy. So, in order to estimate your password’s strength, you have to make the theory of attacker’s mind.
In the following sections we will try to formalize the class of [*guessing attacks*]{}, and figure out what the attacker knows and what he can do in order to maximize his success. Through the understanding of the attacker’s strategies we can judge their efficiency against a particular password, thus determining [*password’s strength*]{}.
The [*password’s strength*]{} is an estimate of the [*attack’s cost*]{} from the defender’s standpoint.
The Model Of The Attack
-----------------------
Please, note: by the word “word" we do not refer to any natural language, but a finite sequence of symbols of a finite alphabet; by the word “dictionary" we do not refer to any natural language dictionary, but an ordered set of words.
Let’s assume the attacker has a dictionary (essentially an ordered set) of all candidate passwords that is guaranteed to contain the unique desired password. We call for short all candidate passwords *words* (elements of a dictionary), and the desired password *the password*. The attacker will check every word of the dictionary one by one for being the password until the check is successful. The outcome of the check procedure is strictly binary (either [*success*]{} or [*failure*]{}), and immediate. We call this procedure a *guessing attack*.
Easy to see that a guessing attack is finite and always successful. Thus, we can characterize an attack by its length expressed in the number of iterations (number of words checked). Shorter attacks are better for the attacker. Apparently, the attack’s length crucially depends on the ordering of the dictionary, so that the attacker’s strategy includes the dictionary ordering. Now we can show that the strategy consists of the dictionary ordering solely.
Immediately from the definition follows that the only information the attacker gathers during the attack is described by a set of failed attempts: let’s call it $D_{failed} \subset D$ where $D$ is the dictionary. Let’s assume we can reduce the dictionary according to the knowledge of $D_{failed}$, i.e. if $D_{failed}$ contains no password then $D_{improbable} \subset D$ contains no password. On the other hand, $D$ contains ONLY ONE password, hence: if $D_{failed}$ contains the password then $D_{improbable} \subset D$ contains no password. Therefore $D_{improbable}$ contains no password – we may simply remove $D_{improbable}$ from $D$ beforehand. Thus, we return to the exact same starting point: A dictionary with only relation of linear order. There are no other relations on the dictionary in any way connected to our problem. we can decide about the order we will check and then remove elements, and we can not remove a single element unless we checked it.
Easy to see that a content difference between dictionaries is reducible to the reordering by the following trivial procedure: given two dictionaries $D_1$, $D_2$, append $D_1 \setminus D_2$ to $D_2$, and append $D_2 \setminus D_1$ to $D_1$; the attack cost is preserved because the dictionaries are guaranteed to contain the password.
[The Golden Rule]{}: The attacker’s strategy is the way he orders his dictionary. There is nothing else he can do. [It suggests us that delving into details of an attack, such as a word mangling method (which is a focus of many researchers) might be misleading. The most sophisticated attack differs from the stupidest attack by the dictionary order only.]{}
Now, as the attack’s framework is known, the defender can theorize about the attacker’s strategy. Keeping in mind that the exact order of the attacker’s dictionary $D$ can not be known to the defender, we offer to ESTIMATE this order by a weak order $AS$, of the following form:
$$AS_1 \subset AS_2 \subset AS_3 \subset ... \subset AS_n,\ AS_n = D$$
Where the attack starts from $AS_1$ then proceeds to $AS_2$ etc. It essentially means: we do not know in what order every subset $AS_i$ will be searched, but we (to some extent) know that all elements of $AS_i$ must precede all elements of $AS_{i+1} \setminus AS_i$. From the defender’s perspective we refer to $AS$ as [*attacker’s strategy*]{}.
Apparently the plausibility of [*password’s strength*]{} derived from $AS$ entirely depends on how precise we estimate a real attacker’s strategy. In the section 3.3 we will discuss what we can do to this end. Anyway, an attacker’s strategy has now obtained a measurable form, and we can define a measure that corresponds to the intuitive notion of [*password’s strength*]{}.
The Measure
-----------
A [*brute force attack*]{} is a special case of the guessing attack where the dictionary is sorted randomly. This seemingly absurd concept if applied to a subdictionary is very important to comprehend attacker’s strategies, and necessary to define [*password’s strength*]{}.
Given a guessing attack with a randomly sorted dictionary $D$ we can conceive a random variable [*length of the attack*]{} $L(D)$ which is the number of iterations before success.
Probabilities of success on each iteration $P_{i}$ where $i = 1,2,3...|D|$ are: $$P_1 = \frac{1}{|D|}, \quad
P_2 = \frac{|D|-1}{|D|} \times \frac{1}{|D|-1}, \quad
P_3 = \frac{|D|-1}{|D|} \times \frac{|D|-2}{|D|-1} \times \frac{1}{|D|-2}, \quad
...$$ Easy to see that all these $P_i$ are equal to $|D|^{-1}$ therefore the Expected value of the $L(D)$ for an unsorted dictionary D is:
$$E(L(D)) = \sum_{i=1}^{|D|}{i \times P_i} = \frac{1+|D|}{2}$$
This expected value estimates the cost of a brute force attack with the dictionary $D$ let’s name it $BF(D)$. From the attacker’s standpoint it corresponds to the situation when we know nothing about defender’s password choosing habits (besides the fact (or maybe assertion) that the password is in the dictionary) so we resort to the [*brute force*]{}. From the defender’s standpoint it corresponds to the situation when we know (or reasonably estimate) the attackers dictionary, but unable to figure out the order of the dictionary.
Using the definitions above we can finally introduce the [*password strength*]{}. Given a password $pw$ and a strategy $AS$: $$AS:\ AS_1 \subset AS_2 \subset ... \subset AS_n$$ the [*strength*]{} of $pw$ against $AS$ is defined as: $$S(AS,pw) = |AS_{k-1}| + BF(AS_{k} \setminus AS_{k-1}), \quad \textrm{where} \quad pw \in AS_k \setminus AS_{k-1}.$$
Note that in the case of brute force [*password’s strength*]{} is literally equal to [*attack’s cost*]{}.
The Attacker’s Strategy
-----------------------
The defender’s password choosing strategy is entirely based on the estimation of the attacker’s strategy. Therefore the attacker’s strategy deserves a thorough investigation, particularly interesting are “moves" that an attacker can not avoid, all those subdictionaries that ought to be checked. The defender in turn should avoid picking elements from those dictionaries, trying to avoid as many “earlier" components of an attacker’s strategy as possible (NOTE: a dictionary (or a strategy component) is not necessarily defined by listing all its constituents).
Conversely, any comprehensive research on attacker’s behavior improves our [*password’s strength*]{} measure. It allows the reader to reassess his password’s strength by merely reading news instead of being cracked.
Although the goal of the present paper is far from giving you an unbeatable defender’s strategy, we want to discuss some “easy prey" qualities of the attacker’s strategies, giving the reader some clues to a plausible attacker’s strategy.
Remember, the attacker’s strategy is an order on the universum of passwords. Informally speaking, any attacker must arrange an attack so that more popular passwords would be checked before less popular ones.
To this end we may consult statistical properties of the leaked password lists (such as \cite{} \cite{}). It doesn’t mean we are going to list all known passwords, we need to extract some distinctive properties, telling us: “passwords with the property is more popular than passwords without it".
Another starting point for understanding attacker’s strategies is the offline password crackers (so called “password recovery tools" – enjoy the euphemism).
The same observation was done in [@weir], here is the quote: “In \[the previous\] paper, we designed a password cracking program that was trained on previously disclosed passwords. Our current version of this cracking program learns information such as the frequency people use certain words, case mangling, basic password structure, the probability of digits and special characters, etc. and uses that information to construct a probabilistic context free grammar that models how people select passwords. Our password cracker then proceeds to make guesses in probability order according to that grammar. ... We originally designed our cracker for law enforcement to help them deal with strong encryption, but we quickly found out that it was also useful for the defender to give an estimate on how strong a password actually was, or at least how different it was from the grammar that the password cracker was trained on.” The paper they refer to is [@weir2].
Many of those password crackers are described well enough to understand their strategies [@schn], and the dictionaries for them are not top secret either (e.g. famous dic-0294).
Finally we can ask some questions about particular qualities of the strategies, such as: shall we check the shorter words prior to the longer ones, even though knowing that the users are advised to avoid short passwords? Here is our half-answer to the last question.
Let there be a dictionary, from which the defender chooses a password, partitioned in two subsets: $$D = D_s \cup D_l,\ \textrm{where}\ D_s \cap D_l = \emptyset,\ |D_s| < |D_l|$$ There are two mutually exclusive strategies on this dictionary: $$AS_s:\ D_s \subset D \quad\ \textrm{and}\ \quad AS_l:\ D_l \subset D$$ Which one costs less?
Although we have limited the partition by only two subsets, nevertheless it does not limit the scope of our deduction, because the partition is very general, we can apply the following deduction iteratively to as many different arbitrary partitions as we need.
Let’s denote $P$ the probability that the defender’s password $pw$ falls into $D_l$ and $1-P$ is the probability of the opposite outcome.
Let us calculate conditional [*attack’s cost*]{} for each of the two possible defender’s choices and each of two strategies separately: $$Cost(AS_s,pw\in D_s) = BF(D_s)$$ $$Cost(AS_s,pw\in D_l) = |D_s| + BF(D_l)$$ $$Cost(AS_l,pw\in D_s) = |D_l| + BF(D_s)$$ $$Cost(AS_l,pw\in D_l) = BF(D_l)$$ Since all these are conditional expected values we summarize them according to the rules and get unconditional Costs of both strategies. $$Cost(AS_s) = \frac{1+|D_s|}{2} \times P + (|D_s| + \frac{1+|D_l|}{2}) \times (1 - P)$$ $$Cost(AS_l) = (|D_l| + \frac{1+|D_s|}{2}) \times P + \frac{1+|D_l|}{2} \times (1 - P)$$ Let’s solve the inequality $Cost(AS_s) > Cost(AS_l)$ over $P$ $$P < \frac{|D_s|}{|D|}$$ Unsurprisingly the “try longer first" strategy costs less if and only if the defender chooses a password from the shorter dictionary with the probability lower than $\frac{|D_s|}{|D|}$ which is exactly the probability of the same outcome being randomly produced from $D$. Because of that, if the defender however slightly tends to choose a password from $D_s$, then the strategy “shorter first" should be preferred.
This result is applicable to the situation where the defender is choosing a randomized password of arbitrary length. If there is a choice whether to add yet another letter to the password or not, then the threshold probability will be $\frac{1}{1+|A|}$ where $A$ is the alphabet.
It is very unlikely the defender chooses randomly one element out of $D$, more likely he chooses an arbitrary length first. In this case highly implausible that the shorter password probability is any less than $\frac{1}{1+|A|}$.
On the other hand, let us estimate the cost of a mistake, by comparing the worst case of $AS_s$ versus the best case of $AS_l$, i.e. when $P=0$ $$Cost(AS_s) = |D_s| + Cost(AS_l)$$ If $D_s$ and $D_l$ are sets of all words of the length $m$ and $m+1$ respectively then: $$\frac{Cost(AS_s)}{Cost(AS_l)} = 1 + \frac{1}{|A|}$$ The cost of a mistake is very low. Therefore the answer to the question is: the shorter passwords are better to be checked before the longer ones (in the absence of other factors).
Surprisingly, this reasoning holds even if the defender chooses words from a natural language dictionary. In this case the alphabet $A$, over which the defender composes his password, is the natural language dictionary itself. And the length of the password is $1$.
Furthermore, we conjecture that the intuitive assertion that the attacker’s alphabet is “Latin”, “alphanumeric”, or “ASCII”, or identical to the defender’s alphabet is a primary source of panic in face of dictionary attacks (see section 2). Same words could be produced from different alphabets. Indeed, a password “P1ayer” is also a word over the alphabet $\{0,1\}$ of the length 48, despite your mind uses another alphabet to produce it. A dictionary attack is just an extreme example of a very big alphabet, that reduces words (borrowed from a natural language) to the length 1. An obvious remedy follows immediately: make a password longer – 2,3,4 symbols instead of just 1, thus bloating the search space to the of 2,3,4.
We offer you a basic attacker’s strategy as follows: all combinations of 1 then 2 symbols,\
then all the most popular passwords (this raises the question about inclusion of a known black list in a particular attack)\
followed by all 4-digit integers\
followed by dic-0294 ordered by popularity with every word followed by its mangled versions\
followed by the 2 words combinations from dic-0294 with 1 of the words for colour\
same with all adjectives\
and then all 2 words combinations ordered by popularity of individual words\
followed by all random strings of 3,4,5... symbols.
This is just an example, by no means we try to give you the final answer to the password question and the meaning of life and stuff.
The Defender’s Strategy
-----------------------
This section may seem unrelated to the paper’s topic, but it is important to understand that we could not give you the following advice before we defined the [*password strength*]{}, everything we are about to say below makes any sence at all because of the definition above.
There are three problems that could be solved in one shot.
\(1) An inherent flaw of a password creation policy is that it conveys plenty of information about the passwords to the attacker. Since the “best practices” have become widespread, at very least an attacker may profit slightly by removing intact words from his dictionary. More careful examination may give him better insights about the password choosing strategies of the defenders. Some researchers recommend to prohibit the most popular passwords [@zipf] – this could easily become a huge passwords leaking source, if the active passwords are used for sampling. This could be exploited by the attacker, therefore it would.
\(2) Poor memorability of heavily mangled passwords, which is sadly a requirement nowadays.
\(3) A human brain can not conceive a random anything. This feature is well understood by the attacker and exploited (refer to any paper in the reference list) .
[The Solution:]{} Make your password longer. How long? As long as a 5 to 10 words sentence.\
Make it “Zeus’s 2nd daughter rode a pony through the jungle".
It immediately solves all aspects of the memorability problem. Firstly, something meaningful is always easy to remember, actually creating sentences is exactly the technique of memorizing words! This is how they teach you to memorize your passwords – why not to save you one step? Secondly, it allows you to accommodate those password mangling symbols (enforced by stupid policies) in a harmless manner, that does not damage memorability. At the same time numbers and punctuation used in a sentence does not satisfy the attacker’s expectations of you using these symbols.
Lastly, in a sentence like that, the mangling space alone delivers you 6 “bits of security": (1,2) do you capitalize names, sentences, all words? (3,4) do you omit spaces, punctuation? (5,6) do you have a bad habit of omitting possessive, or articles? (Not counting the mangling methods that damage memorability)
A dictionary attack?
Conclusion
==========
The more narrow definition you give to the set of the good passwords the worse these passwords become. In the very instant you tell the world THE best password it becomes one of the worst. The set of good passwords is normally defined as negation of the known set of bad passwords, and it should remain this way. There is no such thing as “the best practice of password choosing”, there are bad practices, and bad choices, and the only thing we can do is to avoid them. The proposed measure contributes to this cause, it tells us: “how many candidate passwords could be seen worse than the given password”.
An important difference to the entropy-based measures is that the entropy is based on the of “possible outcomes” [@shannon]. This assumption can be very accurate in many cases such as measuring the computer memory size, but it has absolutely no substance in the context of password choosing. The proposed measure is based on the assumption of the attacker’s strategy, which has a profound physical meaning in the context of our problem, and allows for a fruitful investigation.
How will the environment change when progressively more passwords begin to lose the popularity contest?
[29]{}
Matt Weir, Sudhir Aggarwal, Michael Collins, Henry Stern, *Testing Metrics for Password Creation Policies by Attacking Large Sets of Revealed Passwords*, ACM, 2010,\
[<http://goo.gl/wqcX>]{}
Matteo Dell’Amico, Pietro Michiardi, Yves Roudier, *Measuring Password Strength: An Empirical Analysis* arXiv:0907.3402 \[cs.CR\], 2009,\
[<http://arxiv.org/abs/0907.3402>]{}
Ding Wang, Gaopeng Jian, Xinyi Huang, Ping Wang, *Zipf’s Law in Passwords*, ACM, 2015,\
[<https://eprint.iacr.org/2014/631.pdf>]{}
*Google Accounts Help Center*, Google, 2015,\
[<https://accounts.google.com/PasswordHelp>]{}
*Microsoft Safety And Security Center*, Microsoft, 2014,\
[<https://www.microsoft.com/security/pc-security/password-checker.aspx>]{}
Bruce Schneier, *Choosing Secure Password*, 2007,\
[<https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2007/01/choosing_secure.html>]{}
Bruce Schneier, *MySpace Passwords Aren’t So Dumb* Wired.com, 2006,\
[<http://archive.wired.com/politics/security/commentary/securitymatters/2006/12/72300>]{}
Dinei Florencio, Cormac Herley, *A Large-Scale Study of Web Password Habits*, Microsoft Research, 2007,\
[<http://research.microsoft.com/pubs/74164/www2007.pdf>]{}
M. Weir, Sudhir Aggarwal, Breno de Medeiros, Bill Glodek, *Password Cracking Using Probabilistic Context Free Grammars*, Proceedings of the 30th IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, May 2009.
S. Prost, *A brief analysis of 40,000 leaked MySpace passwords* 2007,\
[<http://www.the-interweb.com/serendipity/index.php?>]{}\
[[/archives/94-A-brief-analysis-of-40,000-leaked-MySpace-passwords.html](/archives/94-A-brief-analysis-of-40,000-leaked-MySpace-passwords.html)]{}
Thomas Wu, *A real-world analysis of Kerberos password security*, Proceedings of 1999 Network and Distributed System Security Symposium, 1999,\
[<https://www.gnu.org/software/shishi/wu99realworld.pdf>]{}
Mark Stockley, *Why you can’t trust password strength meters*, Naked Security, 2015,\
[<https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2015/03/02/why-you-cant-trust-password-strength-meters/>]{}
M Atif Qureshi, Arjumand Younus, Arslan Ahmed Khan, *Philosophical Survey of Passwords*, IJCSI International Journal of Computer Science Issues, Vol. 2, 2009
Shannon, Claude E., *A Mathematical Theory of Communication*, 1948
U.S. Department of Homeland Security, *Choosing And Protecting Your Password*, 2013,\
[<https://www.us-cert.gov/ncas/tips/ST04-002>]{}
everything.explained.today, *Password Strength Explained*,\
[<http://everything.explained.today/Password_strength/#Ref-1>]{}
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We present a spectral line survey of the C-rich envelope in the $\lambda$ 2mm and 1.3mm bands carried out with the Arizona Radio Observatory (ARO) 12m telescope and the Heinrich Hertz Submillimeter Telescope (SMT). The observations cover the frequency ranges of 131–160GHz, 219–244GHz, and 252–268GHz with typical sensitivity limit of $T_R<10$mK. A total of 74 individual emission features are detected, of which 69 are identified to arise from 21 molecular species and isotopologues, with 5 faint lines remaining unidentified. Two new molecules (C$_4$H and CH$_3$CN) and seven new isotopologues (C$^{17}$O, $^{29}$SiC$_2$, $^{29}$SiO, $^{30}$SiO, $^{13}$CS, C$^{33}$S, and C$^{34}$S) are detected in this object for the first time. The column densities, excitation temperatures, and fractional abundances of the detected molecules are determined using rotation diagram analysis. Comparison of the spectra of to that of suggests that the spectral properties of are generally consistent with those of . For most of the molecular species, the intensity ratios of the lines detected in the two objects are in good agreement with each other. Nevertheless, there is evidence suggesting enhanced emission from CN and HC$_3$N and depleted emission from HCN, SiS, and C$_4$H in . Based on their far-IR spectra, we find that probably has a lower dust-to-molecular gas ratio than . To investigate the chemical evolution of evolved stars, we compare the molecular abundances in the AGB envelopes and and those in the bright proto-planetary nebula . The implication on the circumstellar chemistry is discussed.'
author:
- 'Yong Zhang & Sun Kwok'
- 'Dinh-V-Trung'
title: A Molecular Line Survey of the Highly Evolved Carbon Star CIT6
---
Introduction
============
The late stages of stellar evolution from the asymptotic giant branch (AGB) to planetary nebulae (PN) are now recognized as an active period of chemical synthesis of molecules. The detection and analysis of millimeter wave molecular emission lines are fundamental to the understanding of the physical conditions and chemical processes leading to chemical synthesis. Due to the rapid evolution of the star, the changing physical conditions, including dust, stellar winds, shock waves, UV emission and X-rays from the central star, etc. play different roles in circumstellar chemistry. This leads to corresponding different circumstellar chemical compositions in different evolutionary stages. The envelopes around C-rich stars, with their enhanced carbon abundance, provide a perfect cradle for molecule formation. Hitherto, more than 60 molecular species have been detected in C-star envelopes [@glassgold96; @olo97; @cernicharo00; @ziu07], most of which were discovered through their rotational lines at millimeter wavelengths.
Recent improvement in telescope design and receiver performance enable us to detect new molecular emission with a higher sensitivity, and thus with the possibility of shedding new light on circumstellar chemistry. The most frequently investigated C-star envelope is , which is one of the richest molecular sources in the sky. Several molecular line surveys have been presented for this object [see @cernicharo00; @he08 and the references therein], which was found to harbor extremely abundant carbon chain and metal-containing molecules. has been frequently used as a standard reference for the chemical compositions of late-type stars. This inevitably invites the issue whether is a chemically unique late-type star. To settle this question, we require systematic surveys of molecular line emission from other C-star envelopes. In the present study, we report a spectral-line survey of the C-star envelope at millimeter wavelengths. This allows us to compare the similarity and difference in the chemical compositions between the two C-star envelopes.
() was first discovered during the Caltech 2-$\mu$m sky survey and was among the 14 very red infrared-bright optical-faint sources found [@ulrich66]. is characterized by its very low color temperature, implying that the star is surrounded by a very thick dust envelope and has been identified as a long-period variable with a period of about 628 days [@alksnis95]. From the period-luminosity relation, @cohen96 estimated the distance of to be $400\pm50$pc, which is slightly more distant than , which has a distance of between $\sim120$pc [@groen98] and $\sim150$pc [@gue99]. is believed to be more evolved and has a lower mass loss rate compared to [see @fukasaku94 e.g.].
The large polarization found in the visible and infrared wavelengths implies that the distribution of circumstellar material around the star is asymmetric [@kruszewski68; @dyck71]. Multi-wavelength imaging observations have been performed to study the structure of the nebula around . The optical images obtained by the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) and the near-IR images of obtained by the Keck-I telescope have revealed a bipolar dust envelope and an elongated component with time-variable asymmetry [@monnier00]. Several scattering arcs were revealed by the HST-NICMOS imaging polarimetry [@schmidt02]. These arcs are nearly concentric and extend to large stellar radii. Mid-IR images of were obtained by @lagadec05 using the ESO 3.6-m telescope. A cometary-like feature was revealed in their 9.7$\mu $m image.
There have been several observations of molecular lines in at millimeter wavelength. @henkel85 reported observations of a few molecular lines in and between 18 and 150GHz. They found that relative abundances of observed molecules in the two sources have no significant differences. Using the Nobeyama 45m radio telescope, @fukasaku94 observed a few transitions in the frequency ranges between 39–47GHz and 85–91GHz in a sample of evolved stars including and found that the abundance of HNC increases with the evolutionary stage of the stars. @bujarrabal94 presented observations of 10 molecular transitions in C-rich and O-rich circumstellar envelopes including with the IRAM 30m radio telescope at 1.3mm, 2mm, and 3mm windows. A recent molecular line survey was presented by @woods03 using the SEST 15m and Onsala 20m telescopes. They found that stands out from the other C-rich envelopes due to its high CN/HCN ratio and low HNC/HCN ratio. To date, the molecular species positively detected in at millimeter wavelengths include CO, $^{13}$CO, CN, $^{13}$CN, CS, SiO, SiS, $^{29}$Si$^{32}$S, C$_{2}$H, SiC$_{2}$, HCN, H$^{13}$CN, HNC, C$_{3}$N, HC$_{3}$N, HC$^{13}$CCN, HCC$^{13}$CN, and HC$_{5}$N.
In this paper, we present the first systematical line survey of at the 2mm and 1.3mm windows, using the Arizona Radio Observatory (ARO) 12m telescope and the Heinrich Hertz Submillimeter Telescope (SMT). The observations are described in Sec. 2. In Sect. 3 we present the identifications and abundance calculations of the detected molecular species. In Sect. 4 we discuss the implication of our findings on circumstellar chemistry. The conclusions are given in Sect. 5.
Observations and data reduction
===============================
The observations were carried out in beam switching mode with an azimuth beam throw of 2$'$ during the period from 2005 April to 2006 September. Pointing was checked by observations of a planet every 2 hours. The 131–160GHz (2mm window) spectra were obtained with the ARO 12m telescope at Kitt Peak, and the 219–244GHz and 252–268GHz (1.3mm window) spectra with the SMT 10m telescopes on Mount Graham, Arizona. The 2- and 1.3-mm dual-channel SIS receivers were employed, operated in single sideband dual polarization mode with a typical image rejection ratio of $>18$dB. At the ARO 12m, the spectrometer back-ends were two 256-channel filter banks (FBs) with a channel width of 1MHz and a millimeter autocorrelator (MAC) with 3072 channels and 195kHz per channel. The spectrometers utilized at SMT were a 2048-channel acousto-optical spectrometer (AOS) with a channel width of 500kHz and 1024-channel Forbes Filterbanks (FFBs) with a channel width of 1MHz. The system noise temperatures were typically 150–400K at 2mm and 400–700K at 1.3mm. The temperature scales at the ARO 12m and the SMT, $T^*_R$ and $T^*_A$, were obtained using standard vane calibration. A $\sim15\%$ calibration error was obtained from a few strong lines detected in different spectrometers and different epochs. The main beam brightness temperatures were derived through $T_R=T^*_R/\eta^*_m$ and $T_R=T^*_A/\eta_{mb}$, for the 12m and the SMT data, respectively, where $\eta^*_m$ is the corrected beam efficiency ($\sim0.75$; see the ARO 12m manual for its definition) and $\eta_{mb}$ the beam efficiency ($\sim0.7$). Both telescopes have a large beam size, covering the whole emission region.
The CLASS software package in GILDAS [^1] was used to reduce the spectra. After discarding the bad scans which are seriously affected by bandpass irregularities, we co-added the spectra from individual scans. The baseline was fitted with a low-order polynomial. In order to improve the signal-to-noise ratios, the spectra were smoothed and rebinned by a factor of 3, yielding a typical $rms$ noise temperature of $<10$mK in main beam brightness temperature units and a spectral resolution of $\sim 4$km/s. Since each line has been observed by two different spectrometers, we can reduce the uncertainties caused by ripples and bad channels.
Results
=======
Line identification and measurement
-----------------------------------
A total of 74 individual features were detected in our survey, including some less than certain detections. Line identification is mainly based on the JPL catalog [@pickeet98][^2] and the Cologne database for molecular spectroscopy [CDMS, @muller01; @muller05][^3], which give the molecular line frequencies based on theoretical calculations. We also used the NIST Recommended Rest Frequencies for Observed Interstellar Molecular Microwave Transitions[^4], which provides the molecular line frequencies derived from observations of various sources. Moreover, we utilized the recent observations of and by @he08, @cernicharo00, and @pardo07 for reference. The complete spectra obtained with the ARO 12m telescope and the SMT 10m telescope are plotted in Figs. \[spe\_cit6\_12m\] and \[spe\_cit6\_smt\] along with identified lines marked. Figs. \[pro\_12m\] and \[pro\_smt\] give the detected molecular line profiles. Note that the two features at 221.459GHz and 241.458GHz clearly seen in Fig. \[spe\_cit6\_smt\] are the strong CO lines from the image sideband. Among the detected features, 69 are identified to arise from 21 molecular species and their isotopic variants. Table \[line\] lists their assignments, peak and integrated intensities and line widths species-by species. The half maximum line widths ($FWHM$) were obtained by fitting Gaussian line profiles. If a line has an unresolved hyperfine structure, the peak intensity of the strongest transition is given, and the integrated intensity and the $FWHM$ are those of the combined feature.
Five faint features remain unidentified and they are listed in Table \[uline\]. Comparing with the unidentified line listing in the NIST frequency table, we find that the 148444, 255940, and 265936 MHz lines have no previous recorded detections elsewhere, and the 257035 and 262255 MHz may have corresponding U lines at 257015 and 262273 MHz detected in Sgr B2 (N) [@num98].
A detailed description of the molecules detection is given below.
$CO$. The $J=2$–1 transitions of CO, $^{13}$CO, and C$^{17}$O were detected at the 1.3mm window. Fig. \[pro\_smt\] clearly shows that the shape of the CO line differs from that of the $^{13}$CO line. The CO line shows a parabolic profile, while the $^{13}$CO line has a double-peaked profile, suggesting the former is optically thick, while the latter is optically thin. @teyssier06 observed the CO transitions from $J=1$–0 to $J=6$–5 in . The shape of the CO (2–1) line obtained by our observations is very similar to their results (see their Fig. 6). The CO (2–1) and $^{13}$CO (2–1) lines have also been observed by @groenewegen96 using the IRAM telescope in 1991. They obtained the integrated intensities of the CO (2–1) and $^{13}$CO (2–1) lines to be 230 and 16.5Kkms$^{-1}$ respectively, a factor of $\sim3$ larger than our results. As the beam size of the IRAM telescope is about half of that of the SMT, the discrepancy of the CO intensity can be explained with different beam dilution effects. Hence, we can conclude that the variation of CO intensity is relatively small (within 10$\%$) during the past 15 years. The extremely faint C$^{17}$O emission should be a new detection for this object.
$SiC_2$. SiC$_2$ has been detected by @woods03 in the spectra of through the SiC$_2$ (5$_{0,5}$–4$_{0,4}$)) transition at 115.382GHz. In our line survey, a number of SiC$_2$ transitions were prominently detected at the 2mm and 1.3mm windows. These lines have a similar profile with an average linewidth of $\Delta V_{FWHM}=23.9\pm1.9$kms$^{-1}$. We also detected two faint $^{29}$SiC$_2$ transition although their intensities are only at a 2–3$\sigma$ noise level. We cannot find previous papers reporting on the detections of these SiC$_2$ and $^{29}$SiC$_2$ transitions tabulated in Table \[line\].
$CN$. is characterized by bright CN emission. The frequencies of three CN (2–1) fine-structure groups lie in the region of the SMT spectrum. All of them were clearly seen in Fig. \[spe\_cit6\_smt\]. The three CN (2–1) fine-structure groups consist of 18 hyperfine structure components. @bachiller97 carried out a survey of CN (2–1) and (1–0) emission in a sample of evolved stars. They detected the strongest two CN (2–1) groups in . Their observations suggests the intensity ratio of high- and low-frequency fine-structure groups to be 1.5, in excellent agreement with our result of 1.6.
$CS$. Strong CS (3–2) emission was detected in the 2mm window. This line had previously been discovered by @bujarrabal94 and @henkel85. We also clearly detected its isotopic transitions, $^{13}$CS (3–2, 5–4) and C$^{34}$S (3–2, 5–4). The faint C$^{33}$S (5–4) emission was only marginally discovered. The CS (5–4) transition at 244.9GHz does not lie in the frequency region observed in the work because of a gap between 244.5–252.5GHz in the survey. Figs. \[pro\_12m\] and \[pro\_smt\] show some evidences that the line profiles of CS and its isotopologue emission are slightly asymmetric in shape with a brighter red wing.
$SiS$. The $J=6$–5 and $J=5$–4 transitions of SiS in have previously been observed by many researchers [@henkel85; @bujarrabal94; @woods03; @schoier07]. In this work, three SiS transitions with higher $J$ (8–7, 13–12, and 14–13) were clearly detected with an average linewidth of $\Delta V_{FWHM}=22.6\pm2.2$kms$^{-1}$.
$SiO$. SiO emission in this carbon star has been extensively studied. The transitions observed by previous studies include $J=2$–1, 3–2, 5–4, and 8–7 [@bujarrabal94; @bieging00; @woods03; @schoier06]. In this work, we report the detection of the SiO (6–5) transition and its $^{29}$S and $^{30}$S isotope lines as well. The SiO (6–5) line detected in this survey has a similar width to other SiO transitions detected by previous researchers.
$C_2H$. The $N=1$–0 transition of C$_2$H in this object has been detected by @fukasaku94. The $N=3$–2 transition lies in our surveyed frequency range. The rotation transition is split in six hyperfine-structure lines grouped in three fine-structure groups, all of which were detected at the 2mm window. The two main components (3$_{7/2}$–2$_{5/2}$ and 3$_{5/2}$–2$_{3/2}$) are quite strong and have a well-defined profile, which is similar to that of the CS line with higher flux in the red wing. The 3$_{7/2}$–2$_{5/2}$ transition is blended with a weak SiC$_2$ line. The 3$_{5/2}$–2$_{5/2}$ transition is too faint to obtain a reliable intensity.
$HCN$. The $J=3$-2 transitions of HCN and H$^{13}$CN were clearly detected. The HCN (3–2) transition is the second brightest line after the CO (3–2) transition in our survey. This line was first observed by @bieging00 using the SMT, who obtained an integrated intensity of 43.1Kkms$^{-1}$, in excellent agreement with our measurement. Given its line shape, the line should be optically thick. There are five favorable vibrationally excited lines of HCN present in the surveyed frequency range. Three of them were clearly detected, as illustrated in Table \[line\]. The weak $\nu_2=2^{2f},2^{2e}$ $J=3$–2 transitions are below the 3$\sigma$ noise level. In , HCN is the only species with detected vibrationally excited transitions. Fig. \[pro\_smt\] shows that these vibrationally excited lines are probably narrower than the HCN (3–2) line. Discarding the uncertain detection of the $\nu_2=2^{2f},2^{2e}$ $J=3$–2 transitions and the $\nu_2=1^{1e}$ $J=3$–2 transition which is partially blended with the HCN (3–2) line, we obtain the average width of the vibrationally excited lines of HCN to be 14.2Kkms$^{-1}$. The narrow linewidth of the vibrationally excited lines suggests that they might arise from the hot inner region with low expansion velocity. We do not detect the vibrationally excited lines of H$^{13}$CN.
$C_3N$. @fukasaku94 and @woods03 observed the C$_3$N (11–10 a,b) transitions in . Both lines are relatively weak. Due to fine-structure interactions, every rotational transition of C$_3$N is split into doublets of similar intensity. There are 12 C$_3$N transitions present in our survey range with six at the 2mm window and six at the 1.3mm window. We detected the strongest four C$_3$N transitions (14–13 a,b and 15–14 a,b) at the 2mm window with $T_R>20$mK. The 16–15 a,b transitions at around 158GHz have a comparable intensity with the other four transitions at the 2mm window. However, they fall within a spectral region with a high noise level, and thus are not listed in Table. \[line\].
$C_4H$. To our knowledge, C$_4$H has not been detected in before this work. @fukasaku94 and @woods03 estimated the intensity upper-limits of the C$_4$H (10–9 a,b) transitions, which indicate that C$_4$H emission in this object is relatively weak. Analogous to that of C$_3$N, every rotational transition of C$_4$H is split into two components with a similar intensity. There are 12 favorable lines of C$_4$H present in the frequency range surveyed here. Eight of them were detected with $T_R=9$–35mK. The C$_4$H (15–14 a,b) and (16–15 a,b) transitions were clearly detected with well-defined profiles at the 2mm window. The C$_4$H (14–13 a,b) lines fall within a spectral region with a high noise level, and thus are not listed in Table \[line\]. The four C$_4$H lines (24–23 a,b and 28–27 a,b) at the 1.3mm window are extremely faint, and are only marginally detected. The C$_4$H (25–24 a,b) transitions at around 238GHz are overwhelmed by noise.
$HC_3N$. Seven HC$_3$N transitions from $J=15$–14 to $J=29$–28 are in the frequency range of our survey. All of them were prominently detected with $T_R>45$mK. Previously only lower $J$ transitions of HC$_3$N have been reported [@henkel85; @bujarrabal94; @fukasaku94; @woods03] and to the best of our knowledge all these detections are new. Because of a gap in the 1.3mm spectrum, the HC$_3$N (27–26) at 245.606GHz was not detected here. As shown in Table \[line\], there is a trend that the widths of HC$_3$N lines decrease with increasing $J$-values, suggesting that the high-$J$ transitions might originate in hot inner regions which have a lower velocity compared to the regions from where the low-$J$ transitions arise. All HC$_3$N lines detected in this survey show asymmetric profiles (see Fig. \[pro\_12m\] and \[pro\_smt\]). Opposite to CS and C$_2$H lines, HC$_3$N lines have a brighter blue wing relative to the red one. This indicates that the molecular envelope is asymmetric along the line of sight, i.e., the chemical compositions and/or physical conditions in the red and blue sides are different.
$CH_3CN$. There are 14 favorable CH$_3$CN transitions in the survey region. We detected the blended features of the (12$_1$–11$_1$) and the (12$_0$–11$_0$) transitions with $T_R\sim23$mK, which are the strongest two among the 14 CH$_3$CN transitions. @woods03 failed to detect CH$_3$CN in this object and only estimated the intensity upper limit of the (6$_1$–5$_1$) transition. This is therefore the first detection of CH$_3$CN in .
All the lines discovered in this survey have been detected in [@he08; @cernicharo00]. Compared to the spectrum of in the same frequency range, the non-detected species in the spectrum of include C$_3$H, C$_3$H$_2$, C$_2$S, C$_3$S, H$_2$CO, SiC, SiN, PN, and metal containing molecules, all of which have only weak emission in the spectra of , and thus are below our detection limit. A number of vibrationally excited species have been detected in [see @cernicharo00 and the references therein]. For , however, no vibrationally excited lines except those of HCN are strong enough to be detected. Moreover, we find no evidence for the presence of ionic species in .
Rotation diagram analysis and fractional abundances
---------------------------------------------------
The standard “rotation-diagram" method was applied to calculate the excitation temperatures ($T_{ex}$) and column densities ($N$) of the molecules observed in our spectra. From the equation of radiative transfer and assuming that the lines are optically thin, the level populations are in local thermal equilibrium (LTE), and $T_{ex}>>T_{bg}$, where $T_{bg}$ is the cosmic background radiation temperature (2.7K), we have the well-known relation, $$\ln \frac{N_u}{g_u}=\ln\frac{3k\int T_s dv}{8\pi^3\nu S\mu^2}=
\ln\frac{N}{Q(T_{ex})}-\frac{E_u}{kT_{ex}}.$$ $N_u$, $g_u$, and $E_u$ are the population, degeneracy, and excitation energy of the upper level, $\int T_s dv$ is the integration of the source brightness temperature over the velocity, $S$ is the line strength, $\mu$ is the dipole moment, $\nu$ is the line frequency, and $Q$ is the rotational partition function. If several transitions arising from levels covering a wide energy range are observed, $T_{ex}$ and $N$ can be deduced using a straight-line fit to ${N_u}/{g_u}$ versus ${E_u}/{kT_{ex}}$.
The rotation-diagram provides important tools for studies of excitation conditions. Departure from the linear relation can be caused by different excitation mechanisms or misidentification. For SiC$_2$, SiS, HC$_3$N, and C$_4$H, there are adequate numbers of detected transitions covering a wide range of excitation energy and their rotation diagrams are given in Fig. \[dia\_cit6\]. Good linear correlations were obtained for these species. For the calculations, we have corrected the effect of beam dilution through $T_s=T_R(\theta^2_b+\theta^2_s)/\theta^2_s$, where $\theta_b$ is the antenna full beam at half-power ($\sim40$ and 30 for the ARO 12m and the SMT respectively) and $\theta_s$ is the source diameter. $\theta_s$ may be different for different species. We followed the assumption by @fukasaku94 and took an common $\theta_s$ of $20''$ for all the species. Since the source size is likely to vary from species to species [@lin00], this assumption will introduce a $\sim50\%$ uncertainty in the derived column densities. The derived excitation temperatures and column densities are given in Table \[col\_cit6\]. For these species for which only one line was detected or observed transitions arise from a narrow range of energy levels, the method of rotation diagram method cannot be employed and a constant $T_{ex}$ of 40K was assumed for the calculations of their column densities.
Assuming that the molecular envelope is a spherical shell, the emission is optically thin, $T_{ex}$ is uniform throughout the envelope, mass loss rate and expansion velocity are constant during the formation of the envelope, and the molecular density follows an $r^{-2}$ law, we determined the fractional abundances of the observed species with respect to H$_2$ through the formula proposed by @olofsson96, $$\label{abundance}
f_{\rm X}=1.7\times10^{-28}\frac{v_e\theta_bD}{\dot{M}_{{\rm H}_2}}
\frac{Q(T_{ex})\nu_{ul}^2}{g_uA_{ul}}
\frac{e^{E_l/kT_{ex}}\int T_Rdv}{\int^{x_e}_{x_i}e^{-4\ln2x^2}dx},$$ where $\int T_Rdv$ is given in Kkms$^{-1}$, the full half power beam width $\theta_b$ is in arcsec, the expansion velocity $v_e$ is in kms$^{-1}$, $D$ is the distance in pc, $\dot{M}_{{\rm H}_2}$ is the mass loss rate in M$_{\sun}\,{\rm yr}^{-1}$, $\nu_{ul}$ the line frequency in GHz, $g_u$ is the statistical weight of the upper level, $A_{ul}$ is the Einstein coefficient for the transition, $E_l$ is the energy of the lower level, and $x_{i,e}=R_{i,e}/(\theta_bD)$ with $R_i$ and $R_e$ the inner radius and outer radius of the shell. For the calculations, we adopted $D=400$pc [@cohen96].
For the determination of molecular abundances using eq. 2, we first derive the expansion velocity $v_e$=18 km s$^{-1}$ from the profile of the CO (2–1) line. The mass loss rate of $\dot{M}_{{\rm H}_2}=3.2\times10^{-6}$M$_\sun ~{\rm yr}^{-1}$ is obtained by applying eq. 2 of @winters02 to the CO (2–1) line assuming $f_{\rm CO}=1\times10^{-3}$. These values of $v_e$ and $\dot{M}_{{\rm H}_2}$ are in excellent agreement with those given by @fukasaku94. These parameters suggest that has a similar expansion velocity and about one order of magnitude lower mass loss rate in comparison with .
The resultant abundances are given in Table. \[col\_cit6\]. Combined with the uncertainties introduced by calibration, noise, baseline, and source size, we estimate that the errors of the column densities and abundances amount to a factor of $\sim 2$. One should bear in mind that when the emission is optically thick the $N$ and $f_{\rm X}$ listed in Table. \[col\_cit6\] represent only lower limits. A comparison of our results with those derived by @fukasaku94 and @woods03 are also given in Table. \[col\_cit6\] and no significant discrepancies are found.
Discussion
==========
Chemistry
---------
### Oxygen-bearing molecules
Similar to , the molecular envelope of CIT 6 is also characterized by a lack of oxygen-bearing compounds and abundance of carbon-bearing compounds. In , three O-bearing molecules are observed, CO, SiO and HCO$^+$ [@cernicharo00] whereas in , only two O-bearing molecules (CO and SiO) are detected. We find that the SiO (6–5)/$^{13}$CO (2–1) integrated intensity ratio in is 1.05, in excellent agreement with the value of 1.13 in [@he08]. In our discussion, $^{13}$CO is taken as a reference molecule because the $^{13}$CO (2–1) line is likely optically thin and the $^{12}$C/$^{13}$C isotopic ratios are similar in and (see Sect. 4.2). SiO has been commonly detected in C-rich envelopes [@schoier06], implying the presence of icy comets surrounding the stars [@agundez06] and/or non-equilibrium chemical processes [@cherchneff06]. HCO$^+$ has a relatively low abundance in [@glassgold96], and is presumably below the current detection limit even if it might be present in .
### Carbon-bearing molecules {#carbon}
We observed abundant carbon chains and radicals in , including CO, SiC$_2$, CN, HCN, CS, C$_2$H, C$_3$N, C$_4$H, HC$_3$N, and CH$_3$CN, all of which are linear. This characteristic feature is similar to those of and [see @cernicharo00] although these lines are much fainter in .
The most intriguing characteristic of is the strong CN emission. The integrated intensity ratio of the CN (2–1) group and the $^{13}$CO (2–1) transition is 4.6, a factor of 2.2 larger than the value in [@he08]. CN is mainly formed through the photodissociation of HCN, $$\label{hcn}
{\rm HCN+{\it h\nu} \rightarrow CN+H}.$$ According to @he08, the H$^{13}$CN (3–2)/$^{13}$CO (2–1) integrated intensity ratio in is 4.5, a factor of 3.2 larger than that in . Therefore, our observations provide strong evidence that reaction (\[hcn\]) dominates the chemistry of CN and HCN in AGB stars and the photodissociation is more efficient in the more evolved C-rich envelope .
The above discussion also suggests that about 30$\%$ CN formed from HCN has been destroyed. On the other hand, CN can be reprocessed into HC$_3$N through the reaction $${\rm CN+C_2H_2 \rightarrow HC_3N+H}.$$ We do find that the HC$_3$N line intensities relative to the $^{13}$CO (2–1) transition in are a factor of $\sim3$ larger than those in , indicating efficient formation of HC$_3$N in . We did not find evidence for the enhancement of the C$_3$N radical, suggesting that photodissociation of HC$_3$N into C$_3$N is insignificant in this object.
shows strong C$_2$H emission. The C$_2$H radical is dominantly produced through the photodissociation reaction $$\label{c2h2}
{\rm C_2H_2+{\it h\nu} \rightarrow C_2H+H}.$$ Our observations show that the C$_2$H line intensities relative to the $^{13}$CO (2–1) transition in are almost the same at those in , suggesting that there is no significant C$_2$H enhancement in compared to . This probably has an implication that C$_2$H is dominantly processed in early AGB stages. Since C$_2$H and HC$_3$N have the same chemical precursor, the $f$(C$_2$H)/$f$(HC$_3$N) abundance ratio can be used to test the chemical formation path [@wootten80]. Our results yield a ratio of 4.2 for $f$(C$_2$H)/$f$(HC$_3$N), which is in good agreement with those found in interstellar clouds by @wootten80 and is consistent with the prediction of gas phase chemistry.
On the other hand, as shown in Figs. \[pro\_12m\] and \[pro\_smt\], HC$_3$N lines show profiles that differ from those of the C$_2$H lines. This suggests that the $f$(C$_2$H)/$f$(HC$_3$N) ratio is not a constant in the envelope. The chemistry structures in the red and blue sides of the star are not identical. This is probably a consequence of an inhomogeneous density distribution or physical environment. A complete understanding of the molecular environment of calls for a comprehensive 3D photochemistry model and high-resolution mapping observations.
C$_4$H is positively detected in . The C$_4$H radical can be formed via $${\rm C_2H_2+C_2 \rightarrow C_4H+H}.$$ @nejad87 suggested that ion-molecule reactions also play an important role for the production of C$_4$H, unlike those for HC$_3$N. Based on millimeter interferometer observation, @dayal93 found that the photochemical model underestimates the C$_4$H abundance in by a factor of 5. Our observations suggest that has a $f$(C$_4$H)/$f$(HC$_3$N) abundance ratio of 3.1, which is lower than that in [@he08] by a factor of $\sim3$. On the other hand, C$_4$H can be photodissociated into C$_2$H. However, as no enhancement of C$_2$H is found in , destruction of C$_4$H should be insignificant in this C-rich envelope. Therefore, the high radical abundance of C$_4$H in still remains mystery.
CH$_3$CN is a new finding for this C-rich envelope. This molecule is a symmetric top and has been widely used as diagnostics of excitation temperature. We detected only one weak CH$_3$CN line in , and thus cannot use it to derive an excitation temperature. CH$_3$CN can be produced via $${\rm CH^+_3+HCN \rightarrow CH_3CNH^+},$$ followed by $${\rm CH_3CNH^++e \rightarrow CH_3CN+H}.$$ The formation of CH$_3$CN may be very efficient in since strong HCN emission is detected. has a CH$_3$CN (12–11)/$^{13}$CO (2–1) integrated intensity ratio of 0.058, in good agreement with the value of 0.043 in [@he08].
Strong CS emission has been detected in our survey. According to @willacy98, CS can be rapidly destroyed by shocks which might occur after a star leaves the AGB stage and ejects material in a very fast wind [@herpin02]. Therefore, the high abundance of CS in suggests that shocks are not important for the chemistry in this C-rich envelope.
### Silicon-bearing molecules
Three refractory Si-bearing species (SiO, SiS, and SiC$_2$) were detected in . Although other Si-bearing species were detected in [@cernicharo00], emission from the other Si-bearing species is relatively faint and should be below the detection limit of our observations of .
We find that the abundances of SiO and SiC$_2$ in are similar to those in determined by @he08. Although the situation may be complicated by optical depth effects, the HCN/SiO line intensity ratio has the potential to provide a useful tool to discriminate between C-rich and O-rich envelopes and is a good tracer of mass loss rate for M and S stars [see e.g. @bieging00]. The HCN (3–2)/SiO (6–5) intensity ratio in is 8.4, in good agreement the value of 9.7 in [@he08]. There is no evidence showing that the HCN/SiO line intensity ratio has dependance on the mass loss rate of C-rich stars. @gonzalez03 and @schoier06 found a correlation between the mass loss rate and the SiO abundance for AGB stars. This is described as freeze-out of SiO molecules onto dust grains. The similarity of the SiO abundances in and suggests that the depletion of SiO onto dust grains might be insignificant for the two C-rich envelopes.
Our observations show that the SiS abundance in is lower than that in . The SiS (14–13)/SiO (6–5) intensity ratio in is 1.1, about half of that in found by @he08. @schoier07 did not find a strong correlation between the mass loss rate and the SiS abundance, suggesting that SiS molecules are less likely to be depleted onto dust grains than SiO molecules. Therefore, freeze-out should not be the reason for the depletion of SiS in since no depletion of SiO is found for this object. On the other hand, with a high efficiency, SiS can be photodissociated into Si$^+$, which initiates circumstellar SiC$_n$ chemistry [@mackay99]. Hence, we infer that efficient photodissociation in has destroyed SiS, and silicon chemistry has been ongoing in this evolved C-star envelope. Interferometric observations of these Si-bearing molecules are obviously needed to verify the conjecture.
Isotopic ratios
---------------
Isotopic ratios of various elements provide substantial tests for nucleosynthesis of low- and intermediate-mass stars (LIMS). When a LIMS evolves into the AGB stage, the nucleosynthesized products synthesized through the CNO cycle inside the star are dredged up to the surface and then are ejected into the circumstellar envelope. Consequently, the isotopic composition in the circumstellar shell can be markedly changed. Based on the fractional abundances proposed in Table \[col\_cit6\], we deduce the isotopic ratios (or their lower limits) of carbon, oxygen, silicon, and sulfur in . The results are listed in Table \[isoto\_cit6\]. The errors estimated from the measurement and calibration are given. For comparison, we also list the isotopic ratios for [@cernicharo00] and the Sun [@lodders].
### Carbon
The $^{12}$C/$^{13}$C abundance ratio is the most studied isotopic abundance in LIMS. Standard stellar models predict that the $^{12}$C/$^{13}$C abundance ratio can be significantly increased during the nucleosynthesis and dredge-up processes in the AGB stage. However, extensive observations have shown that the $^{12}$C/$^{13}$C abundance ratios in LIMSs are considerably lower than those expected by standard stellar models [e.g. @charbonnel98]. @charbonnel95 proposed an extra mixing process to account for the low $^{12}$C/$^{13}$C. In low-mass AGB stars, the nonstandard mixing called cool bottom processing may decrease the $^{12}$C/$^{13}$C ratio to $\sim4$ [@sackmann99; @boothroyd99]. For AGB stars more massive than $\sim4 M_\sun$, the hot bottom burning may take place and induce $^{12}$C/$^{13}$C to further decrease to its equilibrium value of $\sim3.5$ [@frost98]. Current observations of the CO isotopologues in PNs [@balser02; @josselin03] suggest that the $^{12}$C/$^{13}$C ratio is in the range of 2.2–40, supporting the theory including nonstandard mixing processes.
Three $^{13}$C-bearing species have been detected in this survey, including $^{13}$CO, $^{13}$CS, and H$^{13}$CN. However, their main lines are likely optically thick. Therefore, the abundance ratios of CO, CS, and HCN and their isotopologues only provide lower limits of the $^{12}$C/$^{13}$C ratio. Our results are in good agreement with those presented by @sopka89 who derived the abundance ratios $^{12}$CO/$^{13}$CO$\ga25\pm10$ and H$^{12}$CN/H$^{13}$CN$\ga5.4$ for .
We have detected the rare isotopes, $^{12}$C$^{34}$S and $^{13}$C$^{32}$S. If the $^{32}$S/$^{34}$S abundance ratio were known, we could obtain the $^{12}$C/$^{13}$C ratio using the two optically thin species. @cernicharo00 found that the sulfur isotopic ratios in are close to solar. Therefore, we reasonably assume that the $^{32}$S/$^{34}$S ratio in is the solar value. It follows that we obtained the $^{12}$C/$^{13}$C ratio of $45.4\pm4.9$ in , which is in perfect agreement with that found in and is significantly lower than the solar value. The $^{12}$C/$^{13}$C ratios found in these C-rich envelopes are also lower than the value of $75\pm9$ in the Orion Bar proposed by @keene98 using the C$^{18}$O/$^{13}$C$^{18}$O abundance ratio. This is consistent with the hypothesis that nonstandard mixing processes have decreased the $^{12}$C/$^{13}$C ratios in the envelopes around AGB stars.
As shown in Table \[isoto\_cit6\], different $^{12}$C/$^{13}$C values are obtained for if different species are used for the calculations. If completely ascribing the $^{12}$C/$^{13}$C discrepancies found for to the opacity effects of the main lines, we can estimate the optical depths of the CO (2–1), CS (3–2), and HCN (3–2) lines, which are 1.3, 1.2, and 2.0, respectively. If the isotopic lines are also optically thick, the optical depths obtained here should be considered as lower limits.
### Oxygen
The nucleosynthesis and dredge-up processes in the AGB stage can lead to strong enrichment of $^{17}$O relative to $^{16}$O and $^{18}$O [see @busso06 for a recent review]. @wannier87 found that the $^{17}$O/$^{18}$O ratios in C-rich envelopes are markedly higher than the terrestrial and interstellar values, but the $^{16}$O/$^{18}$O ratios are comparable to the solar value.
We have detected C$^{17}$O, allowing us to derive the $^{16}$O/$^{17}$O ratio in . The C$^{16}$O/C$^{17}$O abundance ratio give a lower limit of $237\pm26$. We may also use the optically thin species $^{13}$C$^{16}$O and $^{12}$C$^{17}$O to derive the $^{16}$O/$^{17}$O ratio. Assuming $^{12}$C/$^{13}$C$=45.4$ (see above), we obtain a $^{16}$O/$^{17}$O ratio of $890\pm97$. @cernicharo00 did not obtain the oxygen isotopic ratios. @kahane92 calculated the $^{16}$O/$^{17}$O ratio for a sample of C-rich envelopes. They found that $^{16}$O/$^{17}$O$=840^{+450}_{-270}$ and $840^{+230}_{-170}$ for and , respectively. These values are in good agreement with our result, agree with each other, and are lower than the solar value by a factor of about three, which is consistent with predictions of stellar models.
No $^{18}$O-bearing species was detected. The non-detection of the C$^{18}$O (2–1) transition at 219560MHz seems to suggest that $^{17}$O/$^{18}$O$>1$ in . However, this result should be taken with some caution since the C$^{18}$O line is very close to the edge of the spectrum.
### Silicon and sulfer
The nucleosynthesis in LIMS is expected to hardly affect the elements in the 3rd row of the periodic table, such as Si and S. @cernicharo00 indeed found that the Si and S isotopic ratios in are compatible with the solar values.
The silicon isotopes, $^{29}$Si and $^{30}$Si, have been detected through faint emission from $^{29}$SiO, $^{30}$SiO, and $^{29}$SiC$_2$. Since the SiO and SiC$_2$ lines are probably optically thick, the lower limits of the $^{28}$Si/$^{30}$Si and $^{28}$Si/$^{29}$Si ratios were derived. Given the low abundances of $^{29}$Si and $^{30}$Si, the $^{29}$Si/$^{30}$Si ratio is not affected by opacity effects. We obtained $^{29}$Si/$^{30}$Si$=1.0\pm0.4$, comparable with the values in and in the Sun.
The C$^{32}$S/C$^{34}$S ratio gives a lower limit of $^{32}$S/$^{34}$S in . C$^{33}$S was only marginally detected. The two optically thin species, C$^{33}$S and C$^{34}$S, give a $^{33}$S/$^{34}$S ratio of $0.2\pm0.2$. Consequently, we did not find a significant deviation of the S isotopic ratios in from those in and in the Sun.
Is IRC+10216 unique?
--------------------
Given its brightness and abundant molecular emission, is the most surveyed object and has frequently served as a standard reference for studying circumstellar chemistry. A commonly asked question is whether can truly represent C-rich AGB stars. To investigate the problem, we systematically compare the spectra of with those of obtained in the same survey program [@he08].
We find that all lines detected in this work have also been observed in , and all the strong lines detected in are seen in . In Fig. \[linecomp\], we compare the intensity ratios of the lines detected in both objects. The results show that the line intensity ratios in the two objects are in agreement within one order of magnitude with an average value of 0.08 with a standard deviation of 0.05. The intensity ratios, however, might be affected by beam dilution. is a more compact object and thus suffers from a larger beam dilution effect. If we correct for the beam dilution effect, the $I$(CIT6)/$I$(IRC+10216) ratios should increase by a factor of $\xi$, where $$\xi=(1+\frac{\theta_b^2}{\theta_{\rm CIT\,6}^2})/(1+\frac{\theta_b^2}{\theta_{\rm IRC+10216}^2}).$$ Assuming $\theta_{\rm CIT\,6}=20''$ and $\theta_{\rm IRC+10216}=30''$ [@fukasaku94] and using $\theta_b=40''$ and 30$''$ for the ARO 12m and the SMT respectively, we obtain the $\xi$ values of 1.8 and 1.6 for the 12m and SMT data, respectively. While recognizing that eq. 9 assumes uniform brightness temperature which is probably not realistic, the result does suggest that there is no large correction factor difference between the $\lambda$ 2 mm and 3 mm bands. Our conclusion that for most of the species the $I$(CIT6)/$I$(IRC+10216) line ratios are in good agreement therefore stands. Consequently, we conclude that is indeed likely representative of C-rich envelopes although comparisons with a larger sample of objects will be needed to make a stronger statement. The richness of molecular lines in the spectra of is mainly due to its relatively nearby distance, and not due to any special circumstances.
Fig. \[linecomp\] also shows that there are a few molecular species for which the $I$(CIT6)/$I$(IRC+10216) ratios depart from the average value. For the CN and HC$_3$N lines, the ratios are higher, whereas for HCN, SiS, and C$_4$H, the ratios are lower. As discussed in Sect. \[carbon\], this partly reflects the chemical evolution in the circumstellar envelope around the more evolved AGB star . However, the cause of the abnormally strong C$_4$H emission in remains unknown.
Far-IR spectra of and have been obtained by the ISO Long Wavelength Spectrometer (LWS) [@schoier02; @cernicharo96]. The rotational transitions revealed by the ISO spectra can trace the inner regions of the circumstellar envelopes [@herpin02]. In Fig \[iso\_con\], we compare the far-IR spectra of the two objects. The spectra were retrieved from the ISO archive. Inspection of the figure shows that their far-IR spectra are dominated by thermal continuum emission from the dust with some superimposed molecular lines. @lin00 fitted the dust continuum of IRC+10216 with a single blackbody of 510 K and the continuum of CIT 6 with two blackbodies of 1000 K and 510 K. In the long wavelength region, the dust temperatures of the two objects are therefore almost identical.
Fig. \[isocomp\] gives the continuum-subtracted ISO LWS spectra of the two C-rich envelopes. A number of lines from CO, HCN, H$^{13}$CN, and vibrationally excited HCN have been identified by @cernicharo96 in the spectrum of . Fig. \[isocomp\] shows that the relative flux ratios of the lines detected in the two object are in good agreement although the detection of some weak lines is difficult in as it is fainter. The far-IR line fluxes detected in are a factor of about 10 higher than those in , consistent with that found for the molecular lines at millimeter wavelengths. However, we find that the far-IR dust continuum emission in is a factor of about 20 times higher than that of , as shown in Fig \[iso\_con\]. This probably suggests that has a larger dust-to-molecular gas ratio.
Abundance variations expected in later evolutionary stages
----------------------------------------------------------
Since has been proposed to be a highly evolved AGB star on the verge to become a Proto-PN (or PPN) [@schmidt02], it would be useful to compare the molecular abundances of with the corresponding molecular abundances in the evolved AGB star and a PPN. The archetypical PPN has abundant molecular emission. It is one of the brightest molecular sources in the sky and is an ideal target for investigating circumstellar chemistry [see e.g. @pardo07]. All three objects are carbon rich, and are commonly assumed to belong to a common evolutionary sequence. Any systematic difference in molecular abundances in these three objects can be used to infer on the processes of chemical synthesis and destruction.
Fig. \[compare\] gives the fractional abundances of the species in the three objects as a function of their photodissociation rates taken from the UMIST database for a temperature of 300K. The abundances in and are taken from @woods03 and @pardo07, respectively. To facilitate the comparison, we follow @pardo07 and give the molecular abundances relative to HC$_3$N. According to this figure, except for CN and HCN, the molecular abundances in are obviously closer to those in than to . has lower abundances of SiO and CS, suggesting that destruction by shocks and depletion onto dust grains may play an important role for the chemistry in this object. Compared to the other two objects, , having a B0 central star, is exposed in a stronger UV radiation field. However, we do not find a correlation between the abundance differences of these objects and the molecular photodissociation rates, suggesting that the destruction by photodissociation is not a factor affecting the chemistry in these objects during the AGB-PPN transition. However, we do find that some molecules have been efficiently reprocessed during this transition. Since the dynamical timescale of PPN is $\sim$10$^3$ years, our results therefore suggest a rapid change of the chemical compositions after the star evolves into the PPN stage.
We should note that this study is limited to simple molecules in the gas phase. There is strong evidence from infrared spectroscopy that the solid-state phase chemistry is very active in the AGB-PPN evolutionary transition, with many aromatic and aliphatic compounds being formed in the circumstellar envelope [@kwok04]. Even some simple gas-phase molecules (e.g., acetylene and benzene) are difficult to detect via rotational transitions in the mm/submm region, and complex organics even more so. Consequently, the technique of rotational mm/submm spectroscopy is unable to serve as a complete diagnostic tool for circumstellar chemistry. It is more useful as a probe of photo- or shock-chemistry in the PN phase, or during the formative stage of early AGB evolution.
Conclusions
===========
The presence of rich molecular species around evolved stars provides an opportunity to study the evolution of chemistry in circumstellar envelopes, which have been widely suggested as one of the main sources of organic compounds in space. As part of our project of investigating circumstellar chemistry, this paper reports a spectral line survey of the carbon-rich envelope , covering the frequency range between 131–160, 219–244, and 252–268GHz with a high sensitivity. A total of 74 lines are reported in the survey. We identify 69 lines belonging to 21 different molecular species and isotopologues, most of which are carbon-bearing species. The new species include two carbon-chain molecules, C$_4$H and CH$_3$CN, and seven C, O, S, and Si isotopologues. Several new transitions from known species have been detected for the first time in this object. The species with the largest number of detected emission lines in our survey is SiC$_2$, which has 19 lines. It is followed by HC$_3$N, with 7 lines.
We find that the line profiles for some molecular species have different shapes, suggesting that the chemical structure is asymmetric in the envelope. A comprehensive 3D photochemistry model is required to account for the line intensities and profiles in .
The excitation temperatures, column densities and abundances of the detected molecules are determined through rotation-diagram analysis. The spectra of are characterized by a large CN/HCN abundance ratio. Our results suggest that there is evidence for the photodissociation of HCN and SiS and the formation of CN and HC$_3$N in the evolved AGB envelope. The strong SiO and CS emission may suggest that depletion onto dust grains and destruction by shocks are insignificant in this object. An abundance comparison with the PPN implies to a rapid chemical evolution after a star leaves the AGB stage.
In order to investigate whether the molecular environment of is intrinsically unique, we systematically compare its spectra with those of . According to the comparison, we find that the molecular species can be classified into three groups, a) for most of the species, the intensity ratios of individual lines in the two objects are in good agreement with each other; b) the emission from HC$_3$N and CN may be enhanced in ; c) the emission from SiS, HCN, and C$_4$H may be depleted in . The differences of the line-intensity ratios in the two objects are probably a consequence of chemical evolution with the exception of C$_4$H, for which a high abundance in cannot be explained by photochemical models. The ISO LWS spectra show that has a lower continuum-to-line ratio than , suggesting that the latter might have a larger dust-to-molecular gas ratio.
Using the same telescope settings, we also obtained the spectra of the AGB stars and , the PPN , and the young PN . A detailed study of the chemical compositions in different evolutionary stages will be published in a separate paper.
We are grateful to the ARO staff for their help during the observing run. Otto Peng and Yu-Chin Huang assisted in the observations. We also thank Jun-ichi Nakashima and Jin-Hua He for useful discussions. We acknowledge an anonymous referee for comments which helped strengthen the paper. The work was supported by a grant from the Research Grants Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China (Project No. HKU 7028/07P).
Agúndez, M., & Cernicharo, J. 2006, , 650, 374
Alksnis, A. 1995, Baltic Astron., 4, 79
Bachiller, R., Fente, A., Bujarrabal, V., Colomer, F., Loup, C., Omont, A., & de Jong, T. 1997, , 319, 235
Balser, D. S., McMullin, J. P., & Wilson, T. L. 2002, , 572, 326
Bieging J. H., Shaked, S., & Gensheimer, P. D. 2000, , 543, 897
Boothroyd, A. I., & Sackmann, I.-J. 1999, , 510, 232
Bujarrabal, V., Fuente, A., & Omont, A. 1994, , 285, 247
Busso, M. M. 2006, in IAU Symp. 234 Planetary Nebulae, eds. M. J. Barlow, & R. H. Méndez (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), P.91
Cernicharo, J., Barlow, M. J., González-Alfonso, E. et al. 1996, , 315, L201
Cernicharo, J., Gu[' e]{}lin, M., & Kahane, C. 2000, , 142, 181
Charbonnel, C. 1995, , 453, L41
Charbonnel, C., & do Nascimento, J. D. 1998, , 336, 915
Cherchneff, I. 2006, , 456, 1001
Cohen, M., & Hitchon, K. 1996, , 111, 962
Dayal, A., & Bieging, J. H. 1993, , 407, L37
Dyck, H. M., Forbes, F. F., & Shawl, S. J. 1971, AJ, 76, 901
Frost, C. A., Cannon, R. C., Lattanzio, J. C., Wood, P. R., & Forestini, M. 1998, , 332, L17
Fukasaku, S., Hirahara, Y., Masuda, A. et al. 1994, , 437, 410
Glassgold, A. E. 1996, , 34, 241
González Delgado, D., Olofsson, H., Kerschbaum, F., Schöier, Lindqvist, M., & Groenewegen, M. A. T. 2003, , 411, 123
Groenewegen, M. A. T., Baas, F., de JONG, T., & Loup, C. 1996, , 306, 241
Groenewegen, M.A.T., Whitelock, P.A., Smith, C.H., & Kerschbaum, F. 1998, MNRAS, 293, 18
He, J.-H., Dinh-V-Trung, Kwok, S., Müller, H. S. P., Zhang, Y., Hasegawa, T., Peng, T. C., & Huang, Y. C. 2008, , 177, 275
Henkel, C., Matthews, H. E., Morris, M., Terebey, S., & Fich, M. 1985 , 147, 143
Herpin, F., Goicoechea, J. R., & Cernicharo, J. 2002, , 577, 961
Josselin, E., & Bachiller, R. 2003, , 397, 659
Kahane, C., Cernicharo, J., Gómez-González, J., & Guélin, M. 1992, A&AS, 256, 235
Keene, J., Schilke, P., Kooi, J., Lis, D. C., Mehringer, D. M., & Phillips, T. G. 1998, , 494, L107
Kruszewski, A. 1968, PASP, 80, 560
Kwok, S. 2004, Nature, 430, 985
Lagadec, E., M[' e]{}karnia, D., de Freitas Pacheco, J. A., & Dougados, C, 2005, A&A, 433, 553
Lindqvist, M., Schöier, F.L., Lucas, R., & Olofsson, H. 2000, , 361, 1036
Lodders, K. 2003, , 591, 1220
Lucas, R., Guélin, M. 1999, in IAU Symp. 191 Asymptotic Giant Brnach Stars, T. Le Bertre, A. Lébre, C. Waelkens (eds), ASP, p. 305
MacKay, D. D. S., & Charnley, S. B. 1999, , 302, 793
Monnier, J. D., Tuthill, P. G., & Danchi, W. C. 2000, , 545, 957
Müller, H. S. P., Thorwirth, S., Roth, D. A., & Winnewisser, G., 2001, , 370, L49
Müller, H. S. P., Schlöder, F., Stutzki, J., & Winnewisser, G., 2005, J. Mol. Struct. 742, 215
Nejad, L. A. M., & Millar, T. J. 1987, , 183, 279
Nummelin, A., Bergman, P., Hjalmarson, A. et al. 1998, , 117, 427
Olofsson, H. 1996, in IAU Symp. 178, Molecules in Astrophysics: Probes & Processes, ed. E. van Dishoeck (Dordrecht: Kluwer), 457
Oloffson, H. 1997, Astrophys. Sp. Sci., 251, 31
Pardo, J. R., Cernicharo, J., Goicoechea, J. R., Gu[’e]{}lin, M., & Ramos, A. A. 2007, , 661, 250
Pickett, H. M., Poynter, R. L., Cohen, E. A., Delitsky, M. L., Pearson, J. C., & Muller, H. S. P., 1998, J. Quant. Spectrosc. & Rad. Transfer, 60, 883
Sackmann, I.-J., & Boothroyd, A. I. 1999, ApJ, 510, 217
Schöier, F. L., Olofsson, H., & Lundgren, A. A. 2006, , 247, 255
Schöier, F. L., Ryde, N., & Olofsson, H., 2002, , 391, 577
Schöier, F. L. , Bast, J., Olofsson, H., & Lindqvist, M. 2007, , 473, 871
Schmidt, G. D., Hines, D. C., & Swift, S. 2002, , 576, 429
Sopka, R. J., Olofsson, H., Johansson, L. E. B., Nguyen-Q-Rieu, & Zuckerman, B. 1989, , 210, 78
Teyssier, D, , Hernandez, R., Bujarrabal, V., Yoshida, H., & Phillips, T. G. 2006, , 450, 167
Ulrich, B.T., Neugebauer, G., McCammono, D., Leighton, R. B., Hughes, E. E., & Becklin, E. 1966, , 146, 288
Wannier, P. G., & Sahai, R. 1987, , 319, 367
Willacy, K., & Cherchneff, I. 1998, , 330, 676
Winters, J. M., Le Bertre, T., Nyman, L.-[Å]{}, Omont, A., & Jeong, K. S. 2002, , 388, 609
Woods, P. M., Schöier, F. L., Nyman, L.-[Å]{}, & Olofsson, H. 2003, , 402, 617
Wootten, A., Bozyan, E. P., & Garrett, D. B. 1980, ApJ, 239, 844
Ziurys, L. M., Milam, S. N., Apponi, A. J., & Woolf, N. J. 2007, Nature, 447, 1094
[lllccccc]{} 230538.0& CO & J=2–1 & 4.2 & 2.555& 67.590 & 23.7\
220398.7& $^{13}$CO & J=2–1 & 5.6 & 0.163& 4.996 & 29.0\
224714.4& C$^{17}$O & J=2–1 & 7.1 & 0.022& 0.258 & 25.6\
137180.8& SiC$_2$ & 6$_{0,6}$–5$_{0,5}$ & 6.8 & 0.040& 1.040 & 24.2\
140920.1& SiC$_2$ & 6$_{2,5}$–5$_{2,4}$ & 4.8 & 0.062& 1.459 & 22.6\
141751.5& SiC$_2$ & 6$_{4,3}$–5$_{3,2}$ & 6.1 & 0.073& 1.671 & 23.4 & \*\
141755.4& SiC$_2$ & 6$_{4,2}$–5$_{4,1}$ & —& — & — & —& \*\
145325.8& SiC$_2$ & 6$_{2,4}$–5$_{2,3}$ & 6.5 & 0.088& 1.867 & 21.1\
158499.2& SiC$_2$ & 7$_{0,7}$–6$_{0,6}$ & 9.5 & 0.086& 2.548 & 25.3\
220773.7& SiC$_2$ & 10$_{0,10}$–9$_{0,9}$ & 5.6& 0.087& 2.282 & 22.8\
222009.4& SiC$_2$ & 9$_{2,7}$–8$_{2,6}$ & 6.4& 0.069& 1.887& 24.8\
232534.1& SiC$_2$ & 10$_{2,9}$–9$_{2,8}$ & 4.0& 0.072& 1.937& 25.2\
234534.0& SiC$_2$ & 10$_{8,2}$–9$_{8,1}$ & 4.8& 0.030& 0.452 & 16.1:& \*\
234534.0& SiC$_2$ & 10$_{8,3}$–9$_{8,2}$ & —& — & — & —& \*\
235713.0& SiC$_2$ & 10$_{6,5}$–9$_{6,4}$ & 5.2& 0.045& 1.101 & 25.2 &\*\
235713.1& SiC$_2$ & 10$_{6,4}$–9$_{6,3}$ & —& — & — & —& \*\
237150.0& SiC$_2$ & 10$_{4,7}$–9$_{4,6}$ & 5.8& 0.038& 0.859 & 20.7\
237331.3& SiC$_2$ & 10$_{4,6}$–9$_{4,5}$ & 5.8& 0.036& 0.771 & 23.5\
241367.7& SiC$_2$ & 11$_{0,11}$–10$_{0,10}$ & 4.2& 0.074& 1.770 & 22.7\
254981.5& SiC$_2$ & 11$_{2,10}$–10$_{2,9}$ & 3.9& 0.094& 2.448 & 23.6\
258065.0& SiC$_2$ & 11$_{8,3}$–10$_{8,2}$ & 9.3& 0.039& 0.471 & 10.5:\
258065.0& SiC$_2$ & 11$_{8,4}$–10$_{8,3}$ & —& — & — & — &\*\
259433.3& SiC$_2$ & 11$_{6,6}$–10$_{6,5}$ & 7.8& 0.054& 1.301 & 27.5 &\*\
259433.3& SiC$_2$ & 11$_{6,5}$–10$_{6,4}$ & —& — & — & — &\*\
261150.7& SiC$_2$ & 11$_{4,8}$–10$_{4,7}$ & 4.1& 0.044& 1.049 & 21.5\
261509.3& SiC$_2$ & 11$_{4,7}$–10$_{4,6}$ & 4.1& 0.051& 1.270 & 26.5\
261990.7& SiC$_2$ & 12$_{0,12}$–11$_{0,11}$ & 7.1& 0.387& 9.945 & 26.1 &\$\
238347.0& $^{29}$SiC$_2$ & 11$_{0,11}$–10$_{0,10}$ & 5.3& 0.013 & 0.366 & 35.3\
255631.6& $^{29}$SiC$_2$ & 11$_{6,6}$–10$_{6,5}$ & 4.2& 0.010 & 0.127 & 32.9:&\*\
255631.8& $^{29}$SiC$_2$ & 11$_{6,5}$–10$_{6,4}$ & —& — & — & — &\*\
226287.4& CN & N(J,F)=2(3/2,1/2)–1(3/2,1/2)&4.9 & 0.034& 1.278 & 53.0: &\*\
226298.9& CN & N(J,F)=2(3/2,1/2)–1(3/2,3/2) & —& — & — & — &\*\
226303.0& CN & N(J,F)=2(3/2,3/2)–1(3/2,1/2) & —& — & — & — &\*\
226314.5& CN & N(J,F)=2(3/2,3/2)–1(3/2,3/2) & —& — & — & — &\*\
226332.5& CN & N(J,F)=2(3/2,3/2)–1(3/2,5/2) &4.9 & 0.052& 1.819 & 25.6 & \*\
226341.9& CN & N(J,F)=2(3/2,5/2)–1(3/2,3/2) & —& — & — & — &\*\
226359.9& CN & N(J,F)=2(3/2,5/2)–1(3/2,5/2) & —& — & — & — &\*\
226616.6& CN & N(J,F)=2(3/2,1/2)–1(1/2,3/2) &4.9 & 0.053& 1.593 & 26.8 &\*\
226632.2& CN & N(J,F)=2(3/2,3/2)–1(1/2,3/2) & —& — & — & — &\*\
226659.6& CN & N(J,F)=2(3/2,5/2)–1(1/2,3/2) &4.9 & 0.178& 6.092 & 29.3 & \*\
226663.7& CN & N(J,F)=2(3/2,1/2)–1(1/2,1/2) & —& — & — & — &\*\
226679.3& CN & N(J,F)=2(3/2,3/2)–1(1/2,1/2) & —& — & — & — &\*\
226874.2& CN & N(J,F)=2(5/2,5/2)–1(3/2,3/2) &4.9 & 0.394& 12.176 & 24.6& \*\
226874.8& CN & N(J,F)=2(5/2,7/2)–1(3/2,5/2) & —& — & — & — &\*\
226875.9& CN & N(J,F)=2(5/2,3/2)–1(3/2,1/2) & —& — & — & — &\*\
226887.4& CN & N(J,F)=2(5/2,3/2)–1(3/2,3/2) & —& — & — & — &\*\
226892.1& CN & N(J,F)=2(5/2,5/2)–1(3/2,5/2) & —& — & — & — &\*\
226905.4& CN & N(J,F)=2(5/2,3/2)–1(3/2,5/2) & —& — & — & — &\*\
146969.0& CS & J=3–2 & 4.8 & 0.303& 7.058 & 21.6\
138739.3& $^{13}$CS & J=3–2 & 4.6 & 0.023& 0.495 & 21.0\
231221.0& $^{13}$CS & J=5–4 & 5.0 & 0.027& 0.846 & 27.6\
242913.6& C$^{33}$S & J=5–4 & 7.4 & 0.032& 0.563:& 12.4:\
144617.1& C$^{34}$S & J=3–2 & 4.9 & 0.040& 1.039 & 26.1\
241016.1& C$^{34}$S & J=5–4 & 4.6& 0.062& 1.315 & 23.1\
145227.0& SiS & J=8–7 & 6.5& 0.067& 1.745 & 22.1\
235961.1& SiS & J=13–12 & 5.2& 0.119& 2.598 & 20.6\
254102.9& SiS & J=14–13 & 3.6& 0.213& 5.791 & 25.0\
260518.0& SiO & J=6–5 & 4.8& 0.233& 5.233 & 20.3\
254216.7& $^{30}$SiO & J=6–5 & 3.6& 0.022& 0.581 & 21.5\
257255.2& $^{29}$SiO & J=6–5 & 6.9& 0.021& 0.583 & 30.3\
262005.3& C$_2$H & N$_{\rm J}$=3$_{7/2}$–2$_{5/2}$ & 7.1& 0.387& 9.945 & 26.1 &\$\
262066.1& C$_2$H & N$_{\rm J}$=3$_{5/2}$–2$_{3/2}$ & 7.1& 0.244& 6.596 & 25.4\
262208.4& C$_2$H & N$_{\rm J}$=3$_{5/2}$–2$_{5/2}$ & 6.0& 0.024& 0.539:& 22.9:\
265886.4& HCN & J=3–2 & 3.7& 1.959& 43.942 & 21.2\
265852.8& HCN & $\nu_2$=1$^{1e}$ J=3–2 & 3.7& 0.067& 1.392 & 20.4\
267109.1& HCN & $\nu_2$=2$^{2f}$ J=3–2 & 4.2 & 0.011& 0.098:& 22.5:& \*\
267120.1& HCN & $\nu_2$=2$^{2e}$ J=3–2 & —& — & — & — &\*\
267199.3& HCN & $\nu_2$=1$^{1f}$ J=3–2 & 4.2 & 0.050& 0.876 &14.4\
267243.2& HCN & $\nu_2$=2$^0$ J=3–2 & 4.2 & 0.020& 0.318 &14.0\
259011.8& H$^{13}$CN & J=3–2 & 9.6 & 0.296& 7.120 & 20.8\
138515.7& C$_3$N & N=14–13 a & 7.3 & 0.039& 0.747 & 21.5\
138534.5& C$_3$N & N=14–13 b & 7.3 & 0.031& 0.674 & 25.5\
148409.1& C$_3$N & N=15–14 a & 4.2 & 0.021& 0.537 & 29.9\
148427.8& C$_3$N & N=15–14 b & 4.2 & 0.021& 0.521 & 35.6\
142728.8& C$_4$H & N=15–14 a & 6.0 & 0.022& 0.567 & 33.7\
142767.3& C$_4$H & N=15–14 b & 6.0 & 0.021& 0.450 & 23.1\
152243.6& C$_4$H & N=16–15 a & 5.7 & 0.018& 0.433 & 23.6\
152282.1& C$_4$H & N=16–15 b & 5.7 & 0.020& 0.505 & 27.2\
228348.6& C$_4$H & N=24–23 a & 4.1& 0.015& 0.224:& 19.7:\
228387.0& C$_4$H & N=24–23 b & 4.1& 0.035& 0.256:& 13.1:\
266389.9& C$_4$H & N=28–27 a & 3.9& 0.008& 0.140:&29.9:\
266428.2& C$_4$H & N=28–27 b & 3.9& 0.009& 0.175:& 19.1:\
136464.4& HC$_3$N & J=15–14 & 6.6& 0.160& 4.131 & 24.0\
145560.9& HC$_3$N & J=16–15 &6.5& 0.139& 3.772 & 24.1\
154657.3& HC$_3$N & J=17–16 & 7.0& 0.131& 3.165 & 24.4\
227418.9& HC$_3$N & J=25–24 & 6.3& 0.064& 1.404 & 22.0\
236512.8& HC$_3$N & J=26–25 & 6.2 & 0.053& 1.078 & 21.7\
254699.5& HC$_3$N & J=28–27 &3.9& 0.068& 1.160 & 21.7\
263792.3& HC$_3$N & J=29–28 & 7.9 & 0.048& 0.990 & 19.6\
220743.0& CH$_3$CN &12(1)–11(1) & 5.6 & 0.023& 0.290 & 17.6:& \*\
220747.2& CH$_3$CN &12(0)–11(0) & – & – & – & – & \*\
[lllll]{} 148444 & 4.5 & 0.008& 0.249 & 14.8\
257035 & 7.1 & 0.015& 0.442 &38.6\
255940 & 4.9 & 0.012& 0.207 &29.4\
262255 & 6.0 & 0.022& 0.501 & 26.7\
265936 & 3.7 & 0.012& 0.214 & 37.3\
[lccrccr]{} SiC$_2$ & 57.6 & 1.53(14) & & &2.4(-6) & 3.1(-6)\
$^{29}$SiC$_2$ & & 2.26(13) & & &3.6(-7) &\
SiS & 29.6 & 2.96(14) & & &3.4(-6) & 3.1(-6)\
C$_4$H & 53.9 & 3.04(14) & $<5.54$(13) & &4.0(-6) & $<1.7$(-6)\
HC$_3$N & 41.0 & 7.69(13) & $2.7\pm2.3$(14) & &1.3(-6) & 2.4(-6)\
CO & & 1.63(17) & & &&\
$^{13}$CO & & 1.35(16) & & &&\
C$^{17}$O & & 6.89(14) & & &&\
CS & & 1.72(14) & & &2.0(-6) & 2.5(-6)\
$^{13}$CS & & 1.28(13) & & &1.5(-7) &\
C$^{33}$S & & 6.18(12):& & &7.2(-8): &\
C$^{34}$S & & 2.58(13) & & &3.0(-7) &\
SiO & & 2.15(13) & & &7.0(-7) & 1.0(-6)\
$^{30}$SiO & & 2.45(12) & & &8.0(-8) &\
$^{29}$SiO & & 2.43(12) & & &7.9(-8) &\
HCN & & 1.10(14) & 5.13e15 & &1.2(-6) & 1.1(-5)\
H$^{13}$CN & & 1.83(13) & & &2.0(-7) & 3.0(-7)\
CN & & 1.22(15) & & & 2.6(-5) & 2.0(-5)\
C$_2$H & & 7.43(14) & $4.0\pm2.0$(14) & & 5.4(-6) & 6.9(-6)\
C$_3$N & & 2.16(13) & & & 1.9(-6) & 2.6(-6)\
CH$_3$CN & & 7.88(12) & & & 1.1(-7) & $<1.3$(-7)\
[lllll]{} $^{12}$C/$^{13}$C & $^{12}$C$^{34}$S/$^{13}$C$^{32}$S &45.4$\pm4.9^d$ & 45$\pm3$ & 89\
&$^{12}$CO/$^{13}$CO & 12.1$\pm1.3$$^e$ & &\
&$^{12}$CS/$^{13}$CS & 13.4$\pm1.7$$^e$ & &\
&H$^{12}$CN/H$^{13}$CN& 6.0$\pm0.7$$^e$ & &\
$^{16}$O/$^{17}$O & $^{13}$C$^{16}$O/$^{12}$C$^{17}$O & 890$\pm97^f$ & & 2680\
& C$^{16}$O/C$^{17}$O & 237 $\pm26^e$ & &\
$^{29}$Si/$^{30}$Si & $^{29}$SiO/$^{30}$SiO & 1.0$\pm0.4$ & 1.45$\pm0.13$ & 1.52\
$^{28}$Si/$^{30}$Si & $^{28}$SiO/$^{30}$SiO & 8.8$\pm1.9$$^e$ & 20.3$\pm2.0^e$ & 29.9\
$^{28}$Si/$^{29}$Si & $^{28}$SiO/$^{29}$SiO& 8.9$\pm2.8^e$ & 15.4$\pm2.0^e$ & 19.6\
& $^{28}$SiC$_2$/$^{29}$SiC$_2$& 6.7$\pm3.1^e$ & &\
$^{32}$S/$^{34}$S & C$^{32}$S/C$^{34}$S & 6.7$\pm1.2$$^e$ & 21.8$\pm2.6$ & 22.5\
$^{33}$S/$^{34}$S & C$^{33}$S/C$^{34}$S & 0.2$\pm0.2$ & 0.18$\pm0.1$ & 0.18\
[^1]: GILDAS is developed and distributed by the Observatoire de Grenoble and IRAM.
[^2]: http://spec.jpl.nasa.gov.
[^3]: http://www.ph1.uni-koeln.de/vorhersagen/.
[^4]: http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/micro/table5/start.pl
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We use a high resolution cosmological zoom simulation of a Milky Way-sized halo to study the observable features in velocity and metallicity space associated with the dynamical influence of spiral arms. For the first time, we demonstrate that spiral arms, that form in a disc in a fully cosmological environment with realistic galaxy formation physics, drive large-scale systematic streaming motions. In particular, on the trailing edge of the spiral arms the peculiar galacto-centric radial and [azimuthal]{} velocity field is directed radially outward and [azimuthal]{}ly backward, whereas it is radially inward and [azimuthal]{}ly forward on the leading edge. Owing to the negative radial metallicity gradient, this systematic motion drives, at a given radius, an azimuthal variation in the residual metallicity that is characterised by a metal rich trailing edge and a metal poor leading edge. We show that these signatures are theoretically observable in external galaxies with Integral Field Unit instruments such as VLT/MUSE, and if detected, would provide evidence for large-scale systematic radial migration driven by spiral arms.'
author:
- |
\
$^1$Heidelberger Institut für Theoretische Studien, Schloss-Wolfsbrunnenweg 35, 69118 Heidelberg, Germany\
$^2$Zentrum für Astronomie der Universität Heidelberg, Astronomisches Recheninstitut, Mönchhofstr. 12-14, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany\
$^3$Mullard Space Science Laboratory, University College London, Holmbury St. Mary, Dorking, Surrey, RH5 6NT, United Kingdom\
$^4$Leibniz-Institut für Astrophysik Potsdam (AIP), An der Sternwarte 16, D-14482, Potsdam, Germany\
$^5$Departamento de Física Teórica, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Cantoblanco, E28049, Spain\
$^6$Instituto de Astrofísica, Universidad Pontifica Católica de Chile, Av. Vicuña Mackenna 4860, Santiago, Chile\
$^7$Max-Planck-Institut für Astrophysik, Karl-Schwarzschild-Str. 1, D-85748, Garching, Germany\
$^8$Department of Physics, Kavli Institute for Astrophysics and Space Research, MIT, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA\
$^9$Institute for Computational Cosmology, Department of Physics, Durham University, South Road, Durham, DH1 3LE, UK\
bibliography:
- 'GG3d3R1.bib'
date: 'Accepted XXX. Received YYY; in original form ZZZ'
title: 'Spiral-induced velocity and metallicity patterns in a cosmological zoom simulation of a Milky Way-sized galaxy'
---
\[firstpage\] \[lastpage\]
galaxies: evolution - galaxies: kinematics and dynamics - galaxies: spiral - galaxies: structure
Introduction
============
Spiral arms are typical features of late-type disc galaxies, which make up roughly $\sim 70 \%$ of the bright galaxies in the local volume. They are found not only in the distribution of cold gas and young, bright stars, but also in the old stellar populations [@RZ95], which indicate that they are a dynamical phenomenon. Most theoretical models in the last 50 years have centred on variations of the classic density wave theory [@LS64] or swing amplification theory [@JT66]. In the former, the spiral density enhancement is regarded as a crest of stars that preserves its shape as it propagates around the disc, whereas in the latter it is described by a shearing over-density that grows and decays around a preferred pitch angle [e.g., @BSW12; @GKC13; @MK14]. In the last decades many observational attempts have been made to test these theories, using methods such as the Tremaine-Weinberg equations [@TW84] and the spatial distribution of star forming tracers [e.g., @FR10; @FCK12]. However, despite decades of study, the nature of spiral arms remains an unsolved problem in contemporary astrophysics.
In recent years, numerical simulations have provided new insights into the formation and evolution of spiral arms. Crucially, $N$-body simulations commonly show transient spiral arms [@Se11], which form and disrupt on the order of a dynamical time. An important secular effect of transient spiral arms is their ability to change the angular momentum of individual star particles around the co-rotation radius, which over several dynamical times leads to significant radial mixing of star particles throughout the disc [@SB02]. @GKC11 showed that transient spiral arms appear to wind-up because of their co-rotation with disc particles at all radii, which can induce systematic motion of star particles along the leading and trailing edges of the spiral arms [@GKC13b; @KHG14], in addition to changing the metal distribution in the disc [@GKC15].
The majority of simulations used for the study of spiral arms are set up in isolated, idealised initial conditions, such as pure exponential discs set up in equilibrium and in the absence of many important aspects of galaxy formation physics such as stellar accretion and gas inflows/outflows. While a major advantage of these simulations is the ability to control parameters and study individual effects, the lack of a realistic cosmological setting can limit their predictive power in the sense that the predicted relations between kinematics, metallicity and age may be somewhat artificial, particularly over cosmological time-scales. In this Letter, we show for the first time systematic radial migration around the spiral arms in a high-resolution self-consistent cosmological simulation which includes a wide range of galaxy formation physics. This implies that the nature of spiral arms is similar to the transient, winding spiral density enhancements commonly seen in idealised $N$-body simulations. Furthermore, we demonstrate for the first time that the systematic motion drives clear patterns of azimuthal variation of the metallicity distribution. We demonstrate that the peculiar velocity field and metallicity distribution around the spiral arms can be detected with current Integral Field Unit (IFU) instruments, such as VLT/MUSE [@BAA10].
Numerical simulation {#secsim}
====================
We focus on one high-resolution cosmological zoom simulation taken from the Auriga simulation suite [see @GSG16 and Grand et al. in preparation for a full description], performed with the state-of-the-art magneto-hydrodynamical moving-mesh code [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;"></span>]{} [@Sp10]. The halo was initially selected from a parent dark matter only cosmological simulation of comoving periodic box size 100 Mpc, with the standard $\Lambda$CDM cosmology. The adopted cosmological parameters are $\Omega _m = 0.307$, $\Omega _b = 0.048$, $\Omega _{\Lambda} = 0.693$ and a Hubble constant of $H_0 = 100 h$ km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$, where $h = 0.6777$, taken from @PC13. At the end-point of this simulation, candidate halos were selected within a narrow mass range interval around $10^{12} \rm M_{\odot}$ which are located at least $1.37$ Mpc from any object more than half the mass of the candidate at $z=0$, in order to select a sample of Milky Way size systems that are relatively isolated. At $z=127$, the resolution of the dark matter particles of this halo is increased and gas added to create the initial conditions of the zoom, which is then evolved to present day. The typical mass of a high resolution dark matter particle is $\sim 3 \times 10^{5}$ $\rm M_{\odot}$, and the baryonic mass resolution is $\sim 4 \times 10^{4}$ $\rm M_{\odot}$, with a maximum physical softening length equal to $369$ pc [[see]{} @GSG16].
The simulation includes a comprehensive galaxy formation model [see @VGS13; @MPS14; @GSG16 for more details], which reproduces many of the global properties representative of observed galaxy populations, such as the stellar to halo mass function, cosmic star formation rate density and galaxy morphologies. The simulation discussed in this study is Au 25 presented in @GSG16, which is a relatively isolated galaxy that displays clear two-armed spiral structure and is therefore an ideal choice to study the nature of spiral arms in cosmological simulations and their effects on disc chemo-dynamics.
\
Results
=======
Spiral structure is situated in the disc component of galaxies, and it follows that stars that spend much of their orbit in the disc mid-plane are dynamically responsive to such structures. We therefore focus our analysis on young stars (age $< 3$ Gyr) that belong to the thin disc, [which constitute about $27\%$ of the total stellar mass within a radius of 25 kpc. Note that if all star particles were to be considered, the observable features described in this Letter would be weaker, owing to contamination of bulge and halo stars.]{} We focus on a single snapshot of galaxy Au 25 at a lookback time of $2.67$ Gyr, which we choose because of its late time, quiescent environment and well-formed spiral arms in order to demonstrate clearly the dynamical signatures related to spiral structure, which is the aim of this study. The nature of the spiral arms and their evolution will be studied in a forthcoming paper.
Velocity fields
---------------
In the following, we define the azimuthal peculiar velocity, $V_{\phi}$, as the difference between the azimuthal velocity of a star particle and the mean rotation velocity at the particle radius, and define $V_{\phi} > 0$ as faster than mean rotation. The radial and vertical peculiar velocities, $V_R$ and $V_Z$, are defined as the radial and vertical velocities, with $V_R > 0$ toward the galactic anti-centre and $V_Z > 0$ toward the north galactic pole.
In the left panel of Fig. \[vint\] we show the face-on map of $V_{\phi}$, with azimuthal over-density contours of the mass distribution, given by $(\Sigma (R,\phi) - \Sigma(R)) / \Sigma (R)$, overlaid in white contours. The spiral structure extends from about $5$ to $15$ kpc, and is accompanied by a well-defined spiral-shaped pattern in the azimuthal peculiar velocity field: stars rotate locally slower on the trailing side of the spiral arm, whereas they rotate locally faster on the leading side. The middle panel of Fig. \[vint\] shows the face-on map of $V_R$. Similarly, this velocity field reveals a spiral shaped pattern in which the spiral arm locus delineates the outward and inward streaming motions that are situated on the trailing and leading sides of the spirals, respectively. The right panel of Fig. \[vint\] shows the face-on map of $V_Z$, the fluctuations of which are of a lower amplitude in comparison to the planar velocity fields. We note that there may be indications of vertical modes in this galaxy [such as those shown in @GWM15], which will be investigated in a forthcoming paper (Gomez et al. in preparation).
These patterns in the velocity fields are qualitatively similar to the systematic motions discussed in several recent studies of idealised simulations of isolated discs [e.g., @KHG14; @HKG15; @GBK15] and in some observational work [e.g., @CRS15]. In the former studies, the systematic motions have been linked to transient, winding spiral density enhancements commonly seen in $N$-body simulations, in which star particles on the trailing or leading side of the spiral maintain their position with respect to the spiral peak, and are continuously torqued to larger or smaller guiding centre radii [@GKC11; @GKC12; @GKC13b].
\
Metal distribution
------------------
The torques applied to stars from spiral arms that generate the systematic streaming motions play a significant role in re-distributing individual stars around the disc, a process referred to as radial migration [@SB02; @MF10; @GKC11]. For a disc with a negative radial metallicity gradient, such as that of the Milky Way [e.g., @BSP13; @BRS14; @ACS14], the radial re-distribution of stars can lead to changes in the metal distribution, in particular metal rich (poor) stars from the inner (outer) regions are brought to the outer (inner) regions. Such a radial re-distribution of stars has been shown to broaden the metallicity distribution [@MCM13; @GKC15], and is required to explain the large scatter in the age-metallicity relation in the solar neighbourhood [@CM01; @H08; @CSA11]. However, the observation of these trends is possible in the Milky Way only, for which star-by-star measurements are available. A more directly observable signature of radial migration along spiral arms may come from azimuthal trends of metallicity at a given radius, in much the same spirit as the velocity trends are found in Fig. \[vint\]. To date, the only study of such a signature from a simulation perspective is that of @DiM13, who studied the azimuthal variation of the metallicity distribution of old stars around a bar and found a pattern characteristic of radial migration around the bar co-rotation radius. A detailed [study]{} of the azimuthal variations of chemical abundances in APOGEE data, and their relation to Milky Way spiral structure, will be presented in Minchev et al. in preparation [see also @BNR14].
In the top panel of Fig. \[metint\], we show the face-on map of the azimuthal residual metallicity distribution, defined as $\delta \mathrm{[Fe/H]} (R,\phi) = \mathrm{[Fe/H]} (R,\phi) - \overline{\mathrm{[Fe/H]}}(R)$. It is clear that in the radial range of spiral structure the metallicity pattern is characterised by an over-density of metal rich stars on the trailing side of the spiral arm, whereas an over-density of metal poor stars are found on the leading side of the spiral. [These features are a consequence of the radial metallicity distribution, which has a radial gradient of $-0.035$ $\rm dex$ $\rm kpc^{-1}$ and metallicity dispersion of about $0.19$ dex at a given radius.]{} We note that the trend is even more clear in the bottom panel of Fig. \[metint\], in which the radial metallicity distribution is artificially set 120 Myr earlier (about a dynamical time) with a fixed radial gradient of $-0.08$ $\rm dex$ $\rm kpc^{-1}$ and a radially constant metallicity dispersion of $0.05$ dex. This confirms that the dynamics are consistent with large-scale radial migration along the spiral arms, and also that the signatures become more clear for steeper radial gradients and narrower metallicity dispersions, respectively. This is the first time that such a trend has been shown, and provides a further observational test for the radial migration driven by spiral arms.
Observing the line-of-sight signatures
--------------------------------------
The features of the peculiar velocity and residual metallicity fields shown above can be directly observed in external galaxies with [IFU]{} instruments, such as VLT/MUSE. To demonstrate how the peculiar velocity field and metallicity distribution are mapped to the line-of-sight (LOS) velocity field[^1], $\rm \delta V_{los,pec}$, and LOS metallicity distribution, we [set the disc to]{} an inclination of $30$ degrees[, which is enough inclined to observe planar peculiar velocities while maintaining a clear view of the spiral structure. The projected]{} LOS peculiar velocity map and residual metallicity map [are shown]{} in the top panels of Fig. \[los\]. For $X<0$, positive $V_{\phi}$ is mapped to positive LOS velocities (away from the observer), and to negative LOS velocities (toward the observer) for $X>0$. Positive $V_R$ is mapped to positive LOS velocities for $Y>0$, and negative LOS velocities for $Y<0$.
To quantify the fluctuations in both fields, we show in the bottom panels of Fig. \[los\] the azimuthal profiles of the residuals of the mass surface density, metallicity and LOS peculiar velocity fields at two different radii. [We define $\phi = 0$ for $X=0$ and $Y>0$, which increases counter-clockwise in the disc plane.]{} The patterns in the LOS peculiar velocity, $\rm \delta V_{los,pec}$, depend on the location of the spiral arms, because the direction of the LOS projection of the radial and [azimuthal]{} peculiar velocities flips around $Y=0$ and $X=0$, respectively. At $R=10$ kpc, the spiral arm at $\phi \sim 5.5$ rad is located at $Y > 0$. Both the [leading ($\phi < 5.5$ rad) and trailing side ($\phi > 5.5$ rad)]{}, have positive $X$ and $Y$ coordinates, where [azimuthal]{}ly fast (slow) and radially inward (outward) peculiar velocities on the leading (trailing) edge give rise to negative (positive) $\rm \delta V_{los,pec}$. Clockwise (decreasing $\phi$) of this spiral arm the $\rm \delta V_{los,pec}$ remains negative because the radially positive motion on the trailing edge of the next spiral ($\phi \sim 3.0$ rad) for $Y<0$ is directed toward the observer. On the leading edge of this spiral arm ($\phi \sim 1.5$ rad) the [large peculiar [azimuthal]{}]{} velocity leads to a positive $\rm \delta V_{los,pec}$. A similar trend is present at $R=16$ kpc, though there is [a small additional peak at $\phi \sim 4.0$ owing to]{} the phase shift in spiral arm position with respect to $R=10$ kpc [that causes negative peculiar [azimuthal]{} velocities on the trailing side of the spiral to contribute to positive $\rm \delta V_{los,pec}$ for $X>0$ and $Y<0$]{}. The [semi]{}amplitude of $\rm \delta V_{los,pec}$ is about $10-15$ $\rm km \, s^{-1}$. For the metallicity residuals, the [semi]{}amplitude is $\sim 0.05$ dex, which yields a total variation of $\sim 0.1$ dex. The [semi]{}amplitudes of the LOS peculiar velocity can be increased up to $\sim 20$ $\rm km \, s^{-1}$ for inclinations up to $\sim 60$ degrees, however the spatial resolution is lower. The magnitudes of these fluctuations should be large enough to be detected with [IFU]{} observations of nearby late-type galaxies.
Conclusions
===========
In this study we have analysed signatures in the peculiar velocity and residual metallicity fields linked to the dynamical influence of spiral arms, in one of the high resolution, fully cosmological zoom simulations from the Auriga suite [@GSG16]. We have demonstrated that the peculiar [azimuthal]{} velocity is locally slower (faster) on the trailing (leading) edge of the spiral arm. Similarly, the peculiar radial velocity is directed radially outward (inward) on the trailing (leading) edge of the spiral arm, which in combination with the [azimuthal]{} velocity creates a systematic streaming motion along the spiral arm. This represents the first confirmation of systematic radial migration around spiral arms in a fully cosmological zoom simulation, which is in agreement with idealised $N$-body simulations of isolated discs that show transient, winding spiral arms.
In addition, we show for the first time that the radial migration caused by the spiral arms leads to azimuthal variations of the metallicity distribution: at a given radius, star particles that originated from interior regions of the disc are metal rich with respect to the azimuthal mean metallicity at that radius, because of the negative metallicity gradient commonly observed in disc galaxies. As indicated by the systematic streaming motions, the metal rich particles are transported outward along the trailing edge of the spiral. Similarly, the metal poor star particles that originate in the outer disc regions are transported radially inwards along the leading edge of the spiral. The result of these motions is a residual metallicity pattern in azimuth which is systematically more metal rich (poor) along the trailing (leading) edge of the spiral arm at many radii.
Finally, we have shown that the azimuthal variations of the peculiar LOS velocity and metallicity maps in a disc inclined at an angle of 30 degrees are about 20-30 $\rm km \, s^{-1}$ and 0.1 dex, respectively. These variations can be detectable in nearby late-type spiral galaxies with IFU instruments such as VLT/MUSE.
We note that a systematic difference in azimuthal velocity across a density wave-like spiral arm has been suggested by @MQ08 [@PNK15]. However, these motions would depend on the location of the resonance points and are not expected to drive a metallicity variation around the spiral arm, because they are not [associated with radial]{} migration. The results of this Letter therefore represent a prediction of the dynamical influence of spiral arms on stars that differs qualitatively from that of density wave-like spirals [see also @MFS16], and have the potential to test spiral arm formation mechanisms.
This Letter is an encouraging first step toward making new testable predictions of the systematic radial migration driven by spiral arms in fully cosmological simulations, which we have demonstrated are sufficiently advanced to study spiral arms. The exact values of the difference in the LOS velocities and residual azimuthal metallicity likely depend on the amplitude and pitch angle of spiral arms, the metallicity gradient, and the other properties of the thin disc. In future work, we will study a variety of spiral arm features using both [cosmological and idealised simulations.]{}
acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
[We thank the anonymous referee for a constructive report.]{} RG and VS acknowledge support by the DFG Research Centre SFB-881 ‘The Milky Way System’ through project A1. DJRC acknowledges STFC studentship ST/K501979/1. This work has also been supported by the European Research Council under ERC-StG grant EXAGAL- 308037. Part of the simulations of this paper used the SuperMUC system at the Leibniz Computing Centre, Garching, under the project PR85JE of the Gauss Centre for Supercomputing. This work used the DiRAC Data Centric system at Durham University, operated by the Institute for Computational Cosmology on behalf of the STFC DiRAC HPC Facility ‘www.dirac.ac.uk’. This equipment was funded by BIS National E-infrastructure capital grant ST/K00042X/1, STFC capital grant ST/H008519/1, and STFC DiRAC Operations grant ST/K003267/1 and Durham University. DiRAC is part of the National E-Infrastructure.
[^1]: We note that the contribution from the vertical peculiar velocity to the LOS velocity within this radial range is minor and does not affect the trends discussed in this paper.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We show that in the loop-erased random walk problem, the exponent characterizing probability distribution of areas of erased loops is superuniversal. In $d$-dimensions, the probability that the erased loop has an area $A$ varies as $A^{-2}$ for large $A$, independent of $d$, for $2 \le d \le 4$. We estimate the exponents characterizing the distribution of perimeters and areas of erased loops in $d = 2$ and $3$ by large-scale Monte Carlo simulations. Our estimate of the fractal dimension $z$ in two-dimensions is consistent with the known exact value $5/4$. In three-dimensions, we get $z = 1.6183 \pm 0.0004$. The exponent for the distribution of durations of avalanche in the three-dimensional abelian sandpile model is determined from this by using scaling relations.'
address: 'Theoretical Physics Group, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Homi Bhabha Road, Mumbai – 400 005, India'
author:
- 'Himanshu Agrawal[@HA] and Deepak Dhar[@DD]'
title: |
Distribution of sizes of erased loops of loop-erased random walks in\
two and three dimensions
---
Introduction {#Sec:Intro}
============
The loop erased random walk (LERW) problem was first defined by Lawler [@LAW80] as a more tractable variant of the well-known self-avoiding walk problem. The problem turns out to be related to many well-studied problems in statistical physics, but seems to have attracted less attention than it deserves. It was shown by Lawler [@LAW87] to be equivalent to a special case of the Laplacian self-avoiding walk problem defined by Lyklema [*et al.*]{} [@LYK86]. Majumdar [@MAJ92] showed that this model is equivalent to the classical graph-theoretical problem of spanning trees on graphs, and the $q$-state Potts model in the limit $q \to 0$. This equivalence also makes this problem related to the abelian sandpile model of self-organized criticality [@DD99]. In fact, as we shall show in this paper, this model provides a numerically efficient method of determining the only unknown critical exponent of the abelian sandpile model in three-dimensions.
This prompted us to undertake the numerical study of the LERW’s in $d = 2$ and $3$ reported in this paper. We obtain fairly precise estimates of the fractal dimension of LERWs in $d = 2$ and $3$. We note the interesting consequence of the scaling theory that the distribution of the area of the erased loop has the same exponent $2$, [*independent of the dimension*]{} $d$, for $2 \le d \le
4$. In $d = 3$, the numerical value of fractal dimension of LERW’s enables us to determine the avalanche durations exponent of the abelian sandpile model, using the scaling relations and other exactly known exponents of the model [@KTIT00].
A good review of earlier results on the LERW problem can be found in [@LAWbook]. Lawler showed that the fractal dimension $z$ of LERWs is $2$ for $d \ge 4$, and $z \le (d+2)/3$ for $d \le 4$ [@LAWbook]. Recently, it was shown rigorously that in two-dimensions $z$ is strictly larger than 1 [@Law98]. Using the known exact results about the critical exponents of Potts model from conformal field theory, Majumdar was able to prove exactly that $z = 5/4$ for LERW problem in $d = 2$ [@MAJ92], a result which was guessed earlier by Guttmann and Bursill from numerical simulations [@GUT90]. A proof of this result without using conformal field theory has been given by Kenyon [@kenyon]. Using conformal invariance, Duplantier has obtained the exact probabilities of no intersection of $n$ LERWs of $\ell$ steps starting near each other in two-dimensions, and also the winding angle distribution [@DUP92]. The distribution of sizes of erased loops was first studied in [@DD97]. Priezzhev has used bounds on intersection probability of loop erased walks with random walks to show that the upper-critical dimension of the Bak-Tang-Wiesenfeld (BTW) sandpile model is 4 [@PR99].
The plan of this paper is as follows: The LERW model is defined in Sec.\[Sec:Model\]. In Sec. \[Sec:Scale\], we recall the main points of the scaling theory of the distribution of erased loops [@DD97], and apply it to show that the exponent characterizing the distribution of area enclosed by erased loop is the same for $2 \leq d \leq 4$. We determine the behavior of the distribution functions for the perimeter and the area of the loop in the scaling limit, for very small or very large values of the argument of the scaling functions. The simulation technique and the results obtained are described in Sec. \[Sec:Sim\]. The exponent characterizing the distribution of durations of avalanches in BTW sandpile model in $d = 3$ is determined in Sec.\[Sec:Sand\], and some concluding remarks follow in Sec. \[Sec:Conc\].
Definition of the Model {#Sec:Model}
=======================
Consider a simple random walk on a $d$-dimensional lattice. We start with a particular realization ${\cal W}$ of the random walk having $N$ steps, ${\cal W}
= \lbrace w_{0}$, $w_{1}$, $w_{2}$, $\ldots$, $w_{N-1}$, $w_{N}\rbrace$, where $w_{i}$ is the site reached by the $i$-th step of walk. We define the LERW ${\cal L}$ corresponding to ${\cal W}$ as the path obtained from ${\cal W}$ by erasing each loop as soon as it is formed. If ${\cal W}$ has no self-intersections, we define ${\cal L} = {\cal W}$. If ${\cal W}$ has self-intersections, let $j$ be earliest step which leads to self-intersection in ${\cal W}$, so that $j$ is the least integer such that $w_{j} = w_{i}$ for some $i < j$. Then, we obtain a new walk ${\cal W}' = \lbrace w_{0}$, $w_{1}$, $\ldots$, $w_{i}$, $w_{j-1}$, $\ldots$, $w_{N-1}$, $w_{N}\rbrace$ by deleting all steps between $i$ and $j$, keeping $i$ and deleting $j$. This process, corresponding to loop erasure of the earliest loop formed, is repeated till loops can no longer be found. The resulting walk ${\cal L}$ is the required LERW corresponding to ${\cal W}$. This procedure of loop-erasure is illustrated in Fig. \[F:LoopEr\].
The length of ${\cal L}$ is the number of steps in ${\cal L}$. We will denote it by $n$. For a fixed $N$, $n$ is a random variable. We define the critical exponent $z$ of the LERW by the relation that $$\label{E:nNz}
\langle n\rangle \sim N^{z/2}$$ for large $N$, where the angular brackets denote averaging over all random walks of $N$ steps. As the root-mean-square end to end distance $R$ is same as for random walks, we have $R \sim N^{1/2}$, and $ \langle n \rangle \sim R^z$. Thus, $z$ is the fractal dimension of the LERW.
Scaling Theory for the Distribution of Loop-sizes {#Sec:Scale}
=================================================
Let $\text{Prob}(\ell,N)$ denote the probability that a loop of perimeter $\ell$ will be erased at the $N$-th step of the random walk. Let $F(\ell,N)$ denote the cumulative probability that a loop of perimeter $\ell$ [*or greater*]{} will be erased at the $N$-th step of the random walk. We shall study the behavior of this function for large $N$, and write $$\text{Prob}(\ell) = \lim_{N \to \infty} \text{Prob}(\ell,N)$$ and $$F(\ell) = \lim_{N \to \infty} F(\ell,N)$$
We adopt the convention that if no loop is formed at a step, it will be said to be erasure of loop of perimeter $0$. With this convention, we clearly have $F(0,N) = 1$, for all $N$.
For $d \le 4$, the mean number of loop-length erased per step tends to $1$ for large $N$. This implies that $$\sum_{\ell = 0}^{\infty} \ell \text{~Prob}(\ell) = 1, \quad \text{for~}
d \le 4$$
For large $\ell$, $F(\ell)$ is expected to vary as a power of $\ell$, say as $\ell^{-\tau +1}$. However, for a finite $N$, there is a cutoff size $\ell^{\star}$, and loops of size $\ell > \ell^{\star}$ are very unlikely. The cutoff value $\ell^{\star}$ varies as a power of $N$, say $\ell^{\star} \sim
N^{\phi}$. This suggests that $F(\ell,N)$ satisfies the scaling form $$\label{E:FlN_FlNPhi}
F(\ell,N) \sim \ell^{-\tau +1} f\bigl(\ell/N^{\phi}\bigr)$$
The cutoff exponent $\phi$ can be determined by the following simple argument [@DD97]: The cutoff for the perimeter of erased loops should also vary as $\langle n\rangle$, the average length of the LERW after $N$ steps. Since this scales as $N^{z/2}$ \[Eq. (\[E:nNz\])\], we get $\phi = z/2$.
The exponent $\tau$ is also expressible in terms of $z$. For $\ell \ll
\ell^{\star}$, the total number of loops of size $ \geq \ell$ for a walk of $N$ steps varies as $N F(\ell)$, and is much greater than $1$. For $\ell >
\ell^{\star}$, we expect a much stronger decay. For $2 \le d \le 4$, we get a significant number of large loops, and thus in this case, we expect that $$N F(\ell^{\star},N) \sim O(1)$$ Putting in the scaling form (\[E:FlN\_FlNPhi\]), this implies that $$\tau = 1 + 2/z$$
Thus, the scaling form for the distribution of loop perimeters is determined in terms of a single exponent $z$, and is given by $$\label{E:FlN}
F(\ell,N) \sim \ell^{-2/z} f\bigl(\ell/N^{z/2}\bigr),
\quad \text{for~} \ell \gg 1.
\label{scaling_eq}$$
The scaling function $f(x)$ is assumed to tend to $1$ as $x$ tends to zero, and tend to zero for large $x$. We define $$\Delta \text{Prob}(\ell,N) = \text{Prob}(\ell,N) - \text{Prob}(\ell)$$
If for $x$ near zero, $1-f(x)$ varies as $ x^a$, we see that keeping $\ell$ fixed, and in the limit of large $N$ $$\Delta\text{Prob}(\ell,N) \sim - K_{\ell} N^{-az/2}
\label{f_near_zero}$$ where $K_{\ell}$ is an $\ell$-dependent constant, and the exponent is independent of $\ell$. It is easy to calculate $\text{Prob}(2,N)$ in arbitrary dimension $d$. The conditional probability of forming a loop of perimeter $2$ at the $N$-th step is $0$, if the random walker returned to origin at step $(N-1)$, and it is $1/(2d)$ otherwise (for a $d$-dimensional hypercubical lattice with coordination number $2d$). Thus $$\text{Prob}(2,N) = \frac{1}{2d} (1 - g_{N})$$ where $g_{N}$ is the probability that the random walker returns to origin after $N-1$ steps. In $d$-dimensions, $g_{N}$ varies as $N^{-d/2}$ for large $N$. Thus, we see that for large $N$, $\Delta \text{Prob}(2,N)$ varies as $N^{-d/2}$. Comparing this with Eq. (\[f\_near\_zero\]), we see that $a = d/z$. Thus, we get $$f(x) \simeq 1 - K x^{d/z}, \quad \text{for~} x \text{~near~} 0.
\label{E:fx}$$ \[We shall denote an undetermined constant by $K$. Its value in different equations need not be the same.\] For other values of $\ell \neq 2$, this then implies that $$K_{\ell} \simeq K \ell^{d/z}, \quad \text{for~} \ell \gg 1.$$ This may be understood as follows: The main deviation of $\text{Prob}(\ell,N)$ from its asymptotic value comes from the cases when the LERW at step $N-1$ is of length $\lesssim \ell$, and the probability that walker after $N$ steps is within a sphere of radius $\ell^{1/z}$ centered at the origin varies as $\ell^{d/z} N^{-d/2}$ for $\ell \ll N$.
We can also determine the leading $N$-dependence of $\text{Prob}(\ell=0,N)$. Since for any non-zero $\ell$, $\text{Prob}(\ell,N)$ is less than than its limiting value for large $N$, $\text{Prob}(0,N)$ must be larger than $\text{Prob}(0)$. In fact $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta \text{Prob}(0,N)
& = & -\sum_{\ell=2}^{\infty} \Delta \text{Prob}(\ell,N)
\nonumber\\
& \sim & K N^{-d/2} \sum_{\ell} \ell^{(d-2 -z)/z}\end{aligned}$$ This summation over $\ell$ has an upper cutoff proportional to $\ell^{\star}$. In two dimensions, we get $$\Delta \text{Prob}(\ell=0,N) \sim K(\log N)/N$$ In three dimensions, the summation diverges as $(\ell^{\star})^{1/z} \sim
N^{1/2}$. Thus, we get $$\Delta \text{Prob}(\ell = 0,N) \sim K/N, \quad \text{for~} d=3.$$
For large $x$, $f(x)$ is expected to decrease as $\exp(-K x^b)$. The exponent $b$ can be determined as follows: We note that for any constant $\epsilon \ll
1$, the probability that a loop of perimeter $\epsilon N$ is formed at $N$-th step should vary as $\exp\{-K(\epsilon) N\}$ for fixed $\epsilon$ and $N$ tending to infinity [@fisher]. This implies that $b = 2/(2 - z)$, and hence $$f(x) \sim \exp\Bigl(-K x^{2/(2 - z)}\Bigr), \quad \text{for large~} x.$$
An interesting quantity is the area enclosed by a loop. In two-dimensions, this is straightforward to determine. In three-dimensions, it may be defined as the minimum number of plaquettes required to form a simply-connected surface bounded by the loop. In this study, we used an alternate, computationally simpler, measure of this area. We simply project the loop on to the three coordinate planes, and measure the areas of the projections. If the three areas are $a_{1}$, $a_{2}$ and $a_{3}$, we define the area of the loop to be $(a_{1}^{2} +
a_{2}^{2} + a_{3}^{2})^{1/2}$. The generalization to higher dimensions is obvious.
Let $F(A,N)$ be the probability that a loop of area greater than or equal to $A$ generated at the $N$-th step of the random walk. A loop of perimeter $\ell$ has a linear size $R \sim \ell^{1/z}$ and an area $A \sim R^2$, then, it is easy to see from Eq. (\[E:FlN\]) that for $N, A \gg 1$ $$F(A,N) \sim A^{-1} g(A/N)$$ Here also the scaling function $g(x)$ goes to a constant for $x\to0$, and decreases rapidly to zero for $x \gg 1$.
Thus we find the rather unexpected result that the distribution for the area of the loop is independent even of $z$, and hence is the same for all dimensions $d$, with $2 \le d \le 4$. This argument does not work in $d = 1$, as there $\text{Prob}(\ell)$ decreases exponentially with $\ell$, and the scaling theory assuming power-law decays fails [@footnote]. For $d \geq 4$, the LERW behaves as a random walk, and for random walks, the area of loop varies as the perimeter of the loop. Hence we would expect that the probability that a loop of area $A$ is formed varies as $A^{-d/2}$ for $d > 4$. The probability that a loop of area greater than or equal to $A$ is formed, varies as $A^{-d/2 + 1}$ for $d
> 4$.
Using the fact that $A$ varies as $\ell^{2/z}$ for $\ell \lesssim \ell^{\star}$, from Eq. (\[E:fx\]) we see that the function $g(x)$ determining the finite-$N$ cutoff effects varies as $$\label{E:gsmall}
g(x) \simeq g(0) \exp\bigl(-K x^{d/2}\bigr), \quad \text{for small~} x.$$
For large $x$, $g(x)$ should vary as $\exp(-K x^{c})$, where $c$ is some exponent. Let $\epsilon$ be a small number $\ll 1$. Using the fact that loops of area $\epsilon L^{2}$ should decrease only as $\exp\{-K(\epsilon) L\}$ for fixed $\epsilon$ in the limit of large $L$, we see that $c = 1$, and $$\label{E:glarge}
g(x) \sim \exp(-Kx), \quad \text{for large~} x.$$ It is interesting to compare this behavior with that of $f(x)$ for large $x$. These behaviors are consistent only if for a large loop of area $A \gg N$, the average perimeter varies as $$\ell \sim \ell^{\star} (A/N)^{1- z/2}$$
This behavior should be contrasted with the behavior for $A \ll N$, where the average perimeter varies as $A^{z/2}$ with no explicit dependence on $\ell^{\star}$. It is interesting to note that this scaling law for large loops remains valid even outside the scaling limit for $A$ of order $N^\alpha$ with $1
\leq \alpha \leq 2$. For $\alpha = 2$, it gives perimeter proportional to $N$, as it should.
Numerical Simulations {#Sec:Sim}
=====================
The simplest algorithm to simulate the LERW problem on computer is to actually generate the trail of a random walk step-by-step on a $d$-dimensional lattice. At each new step, if a loop is formed it is erased. This is straight-forward to implement, but requires large memory in large dimensions $d$, as for simulating a walk of $N$ steps, one needs to have a lattice of linear size $N^{1/2}$, which means that the required memory increases as ${\cal O}\bigl(N^{d/2}\bigr)$.
The algorithm that makes the most efficient use of memory would store the walk as a linked list, keeping only the unerased steps. But there is a memory/CPU tradeoff, and the computation time increases as searching for self-intersections is very inefficient in this scheme.
In our simulations we used a hybrid scheme for storing the coordinates of the points visited by the walk. We store the coordinates of the LERW in not one, but $M$ lists, where $M$ is a large number. There is a unique hashing rule which assigns a site to one of the lists, so that checking for intersection has to be done only within one list. To see if a point already belongs to the LERW, we have to search only in the list corresponding to the point in question. The best choice of $M$ is ${\cal O}(\ell^{\star})$, as then each list has ${\cal O}(1)$ entries. With this, we were able to simulate a two-dimensional walk of $2^{33}$ steps in about 3 hours 16 minutes using $\sim 60$ Mb of memory on a 350 MHz Pentium-II machine. In three-dimensions, a walk of $2^{29}$ steps took about $24$ minutes and $\sim 300$ Mb of memory on a similar machine.
Simulations were carried out for total walk length $N$ of $2^{r}$ steps, with $r
= 25, \ldots, 29$ for two-dimensional walks and $r = 24, \ldots, 28$ for three-dimensional walks. To eliminate the initial transients, we collected the statistics of loops only after discarding the first $N/2$ steps. In addition, ensemble average was taken over $10^3$ distinct realizations of random walks in each case. For the two-dimensional case we also simulated a small number of walks for $r$ up to $34$.
Two-dimensional LERW
--------------------
In Fig. \[F:Fl2d\] we show the plot for the cumulative distribution function $F(\ell,N)$ [@note1]. We plot $\ell^{2/z}F(\ell,N)$ versus $\ell$. There is a significant deviation from simple power-law behavior for very small $\ell$, and for large $\ell$. For $\ell \lesssim \ell^{\star}$, the data fits well to the functional form given by Eq. (\[E:fx\]). In the small $\ell$ regime, the leading correction is a correction to scaling. Incorporating this, we fit the data to the form $$F_{0}(\ell,N)
= \frac{C_{1}}{\ell^{C_{2}}}
\exp\left[
-C_{3} \bigl(\ell^{C_{2}}/N\bigr)^{-d/2}
\right]
\left(
1+\frac{C_{4}}{\ell^{C_{5}}}
\right)
\label{E:F0}$$ where $C_{2}$ is related to the fractal dimension via $C_{2} = 2/z$.
The best fit values of all the parameters in Eq. (\[E:F0\]) are tabulated in Table \[T:EstPar\]. We note that $C_{5}$ is $1$ within our error bars. Furthermore, the exact value of $C_{2}$ is also known to be $8/5$. As a result, one more set of values were estimated for the parameters by constraining $C_{2}$ and $C_{5}$ to these values. The parameter values thus obtained are also tabulated in Table \[T:EstPar\]. The fit is rather good for all $\ell \gtrsim
10$. Statistical fluctuations are large for $\ell \gtrsim 10^4$, as there are not many such loops generated.
In Fig. \[F:FA2d\] we have plotted the $A F(A,N)$ versus $A$ for different values of $N$, and also shown the best fit using the fitting form Eq. (\[E:F0\]) with $\ell$ substituted by $A$. While estimating the parameters we constrained $C_{2}$ and $C_{5}$ to $1$. This is because the exact value of $C_{2}$ is known to be $1$ and unconstrained value of $C_{5}$ turns out to be $1$ within error bars. This allows a better estimate of the remaining parameters. The estimated best fit values of parameters for this data set are tabulated in Table \[T:EstPar\]. It is clearly seen from Fig. \[F:FA2d\] that the scaling form fits the data very well in nearly the entire range.
We obtained more accurate estimates of $\text{Prob}(\ell,N)$ for $\ell \leq 100$ by taking an ensemble average over $10^{9}$ different realizations of the random walk. In Fig. \[F:dP2d\], we have plotted the variation of $N \Delta
\text{Prob}(\ell,N)$ versus $\log(N)$ in two dimensions for $\ell = 0$, $2$, $4$ and $6$. We see clearly that while $N \Delta \text{Prob}(0,N)$ has a linear variation with $\log(N)$, for other values of $\ell$, this tends to a limiting constant value for $\ell \gg 1$.
Three-dimensional LERW
----------------------
The distribution of loop-sizes for the three-dimensional walks by perimeter is shown in Fig. \[F:Fl3d\]. The format of presentation is exactly the same as in the previous subsection. We fit the data to the form given by Eq. (\[E:F0\]). From the figure it is seen that this scaling form fits the entire data very well for $\ell \gtrsim 10$. The best fit values of parameters in this equation are tabulated in Table \[T:EstPar\]. We find that in this case the best-fit value of the correction to scaling exponent $C_{5}$ turns out to be $0.86$, clearly different from $1$.
Our estimate of the best fit value of the fractal dimension $z$ gives $$z = 1.6183 \pm 0.0004, \qquad d = 3$$ This value is not very sensitive to the choice of parameters $C_{1}$, $C_{3}$, $C_{4}$, and $C_{5}$. The error bar on $z$ gives our subjective estimate of errors of extrapolation. This should be compared with the value $z = 1.623 \pm
0.011$ obtained by Guttmann and Bursill [@GUT90]. Because of the larger fractal dimension of walks, for the same value of $N$, there are significantly more longer loops generated in $d = 3$ than in $d = 2$. As a result, we see power-law scaling over roughly $5$ decades of $\ell$ in Fig. \[F:Fl3d\] compared to that of about $4$ decades of $\ell$ in Fig. \[F:Fl2d\].
In Fig. \[F:FA3d\] we show the plot for $F(A,N)$ the cumulative distribution function for loop area. We have plotted $A F(A,N)$ versus $A$ for different values of $N$. An unbiased estimate of $C_2$ from the best-fit gives a value $1.00000 \pm 0.00005$. Thus, we put $C_{2}$ to be exactly $1$ and estimated the remaining parameters by fitting the scaling form given by Eq. (\[E:F0\]) with $\ell$ substituted by $A$. From the figure it is clearly seen that this form approximates the entire data very well for $A \gtrsim 10$. The estimated values of parameters is tabulated in Table \[T:EstPar\]. Here also, the exponent in the correction to scaling term turn out to be different from $1$.
In Fig. \[F:FA3dnl\] we have replotted the data of Fig. \[F:FA3d\] with $A
F(A,N)$ plotted against $(A/N)^{3/2}$. We see that the curves are approximately linear for small $A/N$, verifying the theoretical prediction of Eq. \[E:gsmall\]. For larger values of $A/N$, the slope decreases as expected from Eq. \[E:glarge\].
In Fig. \[F:dP3d\], we have plotted the variation of $\Delta
\text{Prob}(\ell,N)$ versus $N$ for $\ell = 0$, $2$, and $4$. The data was obtained by averaging over $10^{9}$ different realizations of $100$-stepped walks. For $\text{Prob}(\ell)$, we used the values from the $N = 2^{28}$ simulation. We see good agreement with the predicted $1/N$ variation for $\ell =
0$, and $1/N^{3/2}$ variation for $\ell = 2$ and $4$.
Relation to Exponents of the Sandpile Model {#Sec:Sand}
===========================================
The sandpile model of Bak-Tang-Wiesenfeld is defined as follows [@BTW]: We consider a hypercubical lattice of linear size $L$ in $d$ dimensions. At each site is a non-negative integer which gives the “height” of the pile at that point. The system is driven by adding a grain of sand at a randomly chosen site, thereby increasing the height of pile at that site by one. If the height at any site exceeds $(2d-1)$, it topples, and its height decreases by $2d$, and one grain is transferred to each of its neighbors. If this makes some other sites unstable, they are toppled in turn, until all sites are stable, and then a new grain of sand is added.
Bak [*et al.*]{} observed that in the steady state of such a pile, adding a grain gives rise to a sequence of topplings, and the size of such avalanches is a random variable with a power-law tail. Determining the exact values of the exponents characterizing these tails has been the main theoretical problem in the area of self-organized criticality.
The model in $d=1$ is rather trivial, and does not show simple power-law tails of avalanche sizes, as most avalanches are large [@1dBTW]. In $d =2$, unlike in $d=1$, most avalanches are finite, but they involve multiple topplings of sites. A theoretical understanding of this case remains incomplete [@2dBTW]. For $d \geq 4$, mean-field description of avalanche propagation is adequate, and the corresponding exponents are the same as of sizes of clusters in critical percolation theory [@PR99].
The BTW model for $d=3$ does not suffer from the problems caused by multiple topplings. It is thus the simplest undirected model for studying self-organized criticality with nontrivial (non-mean-field) critical behavior. In this case, multiple topplings at a site occur with very low probability, and the avalanche clusters are found to be compact, with fractal dimension $3$. Then, simple scaling arguments [@zhang; @KTIT00] show that if the probability that there are exactly $s$ topplings in an avalanche in a system of linear size $L$ is $\text{Prob}(s\mid L)$, which satisfies the simple finite-size scaling form $$\text{Prob}(s\mid L) \sim s^{-a} h\bigl(s/L^{b}\bigr)$$ then we must have $a= 4/3$ and $b=3$.
The theoretical assumptions that go into the scaling argument have been checked extensively in simulations, but a rigorous theoretical proof is not yet available. Since the number of distinct toppled sites is assumed to be proportional to the number of topplings, we see that the probability that an avalanche has $s_{d}$ distinct sites toppled also varies as $s_{d}^{-4/3}$.
As a check on the scaling theory, note that the probability that avalanche reaches a distance $R$ scales as the probability that number of topplings is greater than $R^{3}$, hence as $1/R$, which also agrees with the known result about expected number of topplings at a distance $R$.
The only exponent which this simple argument does not give is the exponent for the duration of avalanches. But the propagation of avalanches occurs along spanning trees path in the equivalence between the sandpile model and spanning trees [@DD99]. Hence, the duration $T$ of an avalanche must vary with its linear extent as $T \sim R^{z}$. And the $z$ is for spanning trees, which is the same as the $z$ we used for LERWs. The knowledge of $z$, thus, allows us to estimate the exponent for duration of avalanches: the probability that the duration of avalanche is greater than $T$ varies as $T^{-y}$, where $$y = 1/z = 0.61795 \pm 0.00015$$
Concluding Remarks {#Sec:Conc}
==================
We have already noted that the LERW problem is very suited for numerical studies. In the two-dimensional case, we have collected data for over $10^3$ realizations of walks with $N$ up to $2^{29}$. Thus the numerically determined loop-size distribution is an average over more than $8 \times10^{10}$ loops (only about $31.25\%$ of the steps taken form non-trivial loops on square lattice). For the three-dimensional case, the corresponding number is $2.8
\times 10^{10}$ loops (only about $21.17\%$ steps form non-trivial loops on cubic lattice). The quantity which corresponds closest to loop-erasures are avalanches in the sandpile model (more correctly, subavalanches) [@shcherbakov]. Clearly, simulation of the Abelian sandpile model with equal number of avalanches is not possible with available computing machines.
Secondly, our simulations are done on an effectively infinite lattice, and there are no complicated boundary effects to complicate the analysis of data. Corrections due to finite size of system show up only in the finiteness of the number of steps $N$ of the random walk. This seems to be well described by simple finite-size scaling theory. If we wanted to determine the exponent $z$ using the sandpile model, or the spanning trees, the largest system sizes accessible would be much smaller.
The dimension-independence of the exponent characterizing the distribution of areas of erased loops for $2 \le d \le 4$ is rather unexpected. The exponent does depend on dimension for $d > 4$. We have been unable to find a more transparent proof of this result.
We would like to thank S. N. Majumdar for his critical reading of an earlier version of this paper.
E-Mail: [email protected] E-Mail: [email protected]
G. F. Lawler, Duke Math J. [**47**]{}, 655 (1980).
G. F. Lawler, J. Phys. [**A 20**]{}, 4565 (1987).
J. W. Lyklema and C. Evertz, J. Phys. [**A 19**]{}, L895 (1986). LERWs correspond to the parameter value $\eta = 1$ of the general model defined here.
S. N. Majumdar, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**68**]{}, 2329 (1992).
For a recent review, see D. Dhar, Physica A [**263**]{}, 4 (1999); a longer review is available in the LANL archive \[cond-mat/9909009\].
D. V. Ktitarev, S. Lübeck, P. Grassberger and V. B. Priezzhev, Phys. Rev. E [**61**]{}, 81 (2000).
G. F. Lawler, [*Intersections of Random Walks*]{}, (Birkhauser, Boston, 1991), Chap. 7.
G. F. Lawler, preprint math/9803034.
A. J. Guttmann and R. J. Bursill, J. Stat. Phys. [**59**]{}, 1 (1990).
R. Kenyon, preprint (1999).
B. Duplantier, Physica [**A 191**]{}, 516 (1992).
A. Dhar and D. Dhar, Phys. Rev. E [**55**]{}, R2093 (1997).
V. B. Priezzhev, J. Stat. Phys.,[**98**]{} (2000) 667..
On a linear chain, only possible loops are of length zero or two. Longer loops do occur on more complicated one-dimensional graphs, such as ladders.
A similar argument, in the context of self-avoiding walks was used earlier in M. E. Fisher, J. Chem. Phys.,[**44**]{} 616 (1966).
To be precise, the function plotted is an average of $F(\ell,N')$ with $N'$ lying between $N/2$ and $N$.
Bak P., Tang C. and Wiesenfeld K., Phys. Rev. Lett., [**59**]{} (1987) 381.
Ruelle P. and Sen S., J. Phys. [**A 25**]{} (1992) 1257; Ali A. A. and Dhar D., Phys. Rev. [**E 51**]{} (1995) R 2705.
Priezzhev V. B., Ktitarev D. V. and Ivashkevich E. V., Phys. Rev. Lett. [**76**]{} (1996) 2093; Paczuski M. and Boettcher S., Phys. Rev. [**E 56**]{} (1997) R3745; De Menech M., Stella A. L., and Tebaldi C., Phys. Rev. [**E 58**]{} (1998) R 2677.
Zhang Y. C., Phys. Rev. Lett., [**63**]{} (1989) 470.
Shcherbakov R. R., Papoyan V. V., and Povolotsky A. M., Phys. Rev [**E 55**]{} (1997) 3686.
2ex
\[T:EstPar\]
$C_{1}$ $C_{2}$ $C_{3}$ $C_{4}$ $C_{5}$
----- -------- ----------------------- ------------------- ------------- ----------------- -----------------
2-D $\ell$ $0.3533\pm0.0004$ $1.5997\pm0.0005$ $1.1\pm0.1$ $1.58\pm0.03$ $1.000\pm0.007$
$\ell$ $0.35385\pm0.00025$ $8/5$ $1.1\pm0.1$ $1.56\pm0.03$ $1$
$A$ $0.127316\pm0.000015$ $1$ $9.8\pm0.7$ $0.494\pm0.003$ $1$
3-D $\ell$ $0.1527\pm0.0003$ $1.2359\pm0.0003$ $2.8\pm0.3$ $1.69\pm0.02$ $0.86\pm0.05$
$A$ $0.1312\pm0.0002$ $1$ $35\pm7$ $0.142\pm0.005$ $0.394\pm0.015$
0.6
1ex
1ex
1ex
1ex
1ex
1ex
1ex
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We present the results of a search for optical counterparts to the two quiescent low mass X-ray binaries (X5 and X7) in the globular cluster 47 Tucanae, using high quality [[*Chandra*]{}]{} and [[*HST*]{}]{} images. A faint blue ($V=21.7$; $U-V=0.9$) star within 003 of the eclipsing system X5 shows variability on both short and long timescales, and is the counterpart of the X-ray source. The colors and variability of this object are consistent with the combination of light from an accretion disk and a red main sequence star (possibly somewhat larger than a normal MS star with similar luminosity). No evidence is found for a star showing either variability or unusual colors near the position of X7, but a probable chance superposition of a star with $V=20.25$ limits the depth of our search.'
author:
- 'Peter D. Edmonds,Craig O. Heinke, Jonathan E. Grindlay and Ronald L. Gilliland'
title: '[[*HST*]{}]{} Detection of a Quiescent Low Mass X-Ray Binary Companion in 47 Tucanae '
---
Introduction
============
It has long been thought that quiescent low mass X-ray binaries (qLMXBs) dominate the most luminous of the dim sources in globular clusters (Hertz & Grindlay 1983, Verbunt et al. 1984). Recent observations using Chandra/ACIS imaging and spectroscopy have demonstrated that this is indeed the case. Two systems, X5 and X7 in the massive globular cluster 47 Tuc were previously suspected to be qLMXBs (Hasinger, Johnston & Verbunt 1994, Verbunt & Hasinger 1998) but the sensitivity and resolution of [[*Chandra*]{}]{} was required to confirm this suspicion (Grindlay et al. 2001a, hereafter GHE01a and Heinke et al. 2001a, in preparation, hereafter HGL01). One qLMXB has also been found in each of NGC 6397 (Grindlay et al. 2001b; hereafter GHE01b) and $\omega$ Cen (Rutledge et al. 2001). These 4 qLMXB systems all have thermal spectra that are well modeled by hydrogen atmospheres of hot neutron stars (NSs), with no power law components required. None of them are obviously variable with the exception of X5 (HGL01) which shows deep eclipses as well as dips showing increased neutral hydrogen (X7 shows marginal evidence for a 5.5 hr period).
The logical extension of this work is to search for optical counterparts to these sources, using the potent combination of [[*Chandra*]{}]{} and [[*HST*]{}]{}. With astrometric errors $<$ 01 routinely being achieved for X-ray sources, optical identifications are being reported with unprecedented frequency. These identifications include cataclysmic variables (CVs) and BY Draconis variables (GHE01a, GHE01b), millisecond pulsars (MSPs; Edmonds et al. 2001, hereafter EGH01 and Ferraro et al. 2001) and active LMXBs (Heinke et al. 2001b and White & Angelini 2001).
Searches for optical counterparts to qLMXBs have been less successful. No counterpart has been found for the NGC 6397 qLMXB (any possible companion has [$M_V$]{}> 11; GHE01b) while the $\omega$ Cen qLMXB lies outside the field of view (FOV) of current [[*HST*]{}]{} datasets and stellar crowding will limit deep searches from the ground. Here, we report the use of high quality [[*Chandra*]{}]{}and [[*HST*]{}]{} data to search for optical counterparts to the 47 Tuc qLMXBs X5 and X7. We have discovered a faint, blue and variable counterpart to the eclipsing X5, as reported briefly in GHE01a. This detection, combined with the well determined period, distance, inclination and X-ray spectrum of X5 makes this the best constrained qLMXB known. We also report limits on the qLMXB X7. The astrometry, photometry and time series for both of these searches are described below.
Observations and Analysis
=========================
Details of the [[*Chandra*]{}]{} data used here are given by GHE01a and HGL01. The qLMXBs X5 and X7 have 4576 and 5488 counts respectively (over the 72 ksec observation), with internal, 1$\sigma$ errors of 00082 and 00089 respectively. To search for optical counterparts to X5 and X7, two [[*HST*]{}]{} datasets have been analysed, the 8.3 d observations of Gilliland et al. 2000 (GO-8267: July 3 1999 to July 11 1999) and the archival data of Meylan obtained in three different epochs with $\sim$ 2 year spacings (GO-5912: October 25 1995; GO-6467: November 3 1997; GO-7503: October 28 1999). The Gilliland data provides exquisite $V$ and $I$ time series (with some $U$ data) and the Meylan data provides F300W images in the first two epochs and F300W and F555W images in the third epoch (with limited time series information in each epoch).
Astrometry
----------
Using the zeropoint positional offsets between the [[*Chandra*]{}]{} and [[*HST*]{}]{}coordinate frames, the region within $\sim$20 of the nominal X5 position lies outside the FOV of the Gilliland data set, but is found on the inner part (with respect to cluster center) of the WF4 chip in the Meylan data. Since no [[*Chandra*]{}]{} source in the WF4 FOV with $>50$ counts (not including X5) currently has a plausible optical counterpart, we used the PC astrometry to align the X-ray and optical coordinate frames (incurring a systematic chip-to-chip error, assumed to be 005, which dominates the total error budget). After this correction we found that only three stars are within 05 of the nominal X5 position, with separations of 0033 (0.6$\sigma$; C1), 023 (4.5$\sigma$; C2) and 0292 (5.7$\sigma$; C3). The finding chart shows the F300W (Fig. \[fig1\]a) and F555W (Fig. \[fig1\]b) images, from Meylan epoch 3, for the region around X5 and the insets in Fig. 1a show epochs 1 (‘U(1)’) and 2 (‘U(2)’). Since faint red MS stars appear brighter in the F555W image than in the F300W image, Figures 1a and 1b show that C1 has a blue color. However, C3 (just outside the 5$\sigma$ error circle to the NE) has an even stronger blue color and so is also a potentially viable optical counterpart if the astrometric shift between the PC and WF4 chips is much larger than assumed. This ambiguity is resolved by noting that C1, unlike C3, is clearly brighter in epoch 1 than in epoch 2 (see inset) confirming it as the optical counterpart (hereafter [$\mathrm{X5_{opt}}$]{}).
\[fig1\]
The region within a few arcsec of X7 falls on the PC images of both the Gilliland and Meylan data sets. Since 17 [[*Chandra*]{}]{} sources have likely optical counterparts on the Gilliland PC image, we have corrected for small linear terms in the residual astrometric errors between [[*Chandra*]{}]{} and [[*HST*]{}]{} using least squares fitting. We computed the positional errors for X7 by adding the systematic errors to the random [wavdetect]{} errors in quadrature, resulting in 1$\sigma$ errors of 00065 in RA and 00088 in Dec (see Fig. \[fig1\]c and \[fig1\]d, where 20$\sigma$ error circles are shown). The three nearest stars to X7 in the Gilliland [[*HST*]{}]{} image are 0019 (2.3$\sigma$), 012 (14.7$\sigma$) and 023 (28.6$\sigma$) away (N1, N2 and N3 respectively). Clearly, astrometrically, only N1 ($V=20.25$; $U-V=1.72$; [$M_V$]{} = 6.8) is a viable candidate for the optical companion of X7. Given the FOV of the PC and the detected number of stars on the PC chip with $V<20.25$ (6367), only $6.3\times10^{-3}$ stars are expected within 0019 of N1, assuming constant density over the PC FOV.
Photometry
----------
The Gilliland dataset photometry (containing only X7) is described in Gilliland et al. (2000) and Albrow et al. (2001). The photometry for the Meylan observations (containing X5 and X7) was based on combining the images at each epoch using drizzle routines (Hook, Pirzkal, & Fruchter 1999) in [STSDAS]{} and then using PSF-fitting in [DAOPHOT]{} to calculate instrumental magnitudes. The F555W filter is a good approximation to Johnson $V$ (Holtzman et al. 1995), but F300W differs significantly from the nearest Johnson filter ($U$). Therefore, we used ground-based photometry of 47 Tuc (Sills et al. 2000) and matching of main sequence (MS) turnoffs between the [[*HST*]{}]{} and ground-based datasets to calculate the zeropoint and then applied corrections to F300W-$V$ (by measuring MS ridgelines) to convert it to $U-V$. By definition this MS-ridgeline technique is only applied to stars (like [$\mathrm{X5_{opt}}$]{}) with colors ranging from the main sequence turn-off to the detected end of the MS.
\[fig2\]
Since this technique is non-standard we have performed two consistency checks with other calibration methods. We applied this technique to the Meylan PC data and performed a star-by-star comparison between our photometry and the Gilliland et al. (2000) photometry. Mean differences between the two photometric systems were $< 0.05$ mag in both $U$ and $V$. A star-by-star comparison between the MS-ridgeline $V$ calibration for the Meylan WF4 chip (containing [$\mathrm{X5_{opt}}$]{}) and the standard calibration of Holtzman et al. (1995) applied to a 47 Tuc F555W image from the archive (program GO-6095), also gave mean errors < 0.05 mag. Combined with the 0.1 mag rms internal error in $U-V$ at the $U$ mag of [$\mathrm{X5_{opt}}$]{}, we estimate absolute errors for [$\mathrm{X5_{opt}}$]{} of $\sim$0.2 mag in both $U$ and $V$.
The color magnitude diagrams (CMDs) for the Gilliland PC and Meylan WF4 images are shown in Fig. \[fig2\]. Fig. \[fig2\]a shows the mean epoch 3 CMD position of [$\mathrm{X5_{opt}}$]{} ($V=21.7$; $U-V=0.9$; [$M_V$]{} = 8.2), along with reasonable ranges in magnitude and color given the variability (see below). With [$M_V$]{}$=8.2$, [$\mathrm{X5_{opt}}$]{} has a similar absolute magnitude to that of the qLMXBs Cen-X4 ([$M_V$]{}$=7.5-8.5$; Chevalier et al. 1989) and Aql X-1 ([$M_V$]{}$=8.1$; Chevalier et al. 1999). Also shown are CO and He WD cooling sequences (see caption). Clearly, [$\mathrm{X5_{opt}}$]{} is unlikely to be either a CO WD or a He WD, unlike the MSP companion [$\mathrm{U_{opt}}$]{} (EGH01). Instead, it is more likely that the CMD position of [$\mathrm{X5_{opt}}$]{} represents the sum of a red MS star and a blue component from an accretion disk (see below).
\[fig3\]
Fig. \[fig2\]b shows the Gilliland CMD for X7 showing the position of the three nearest stars (N1, N2 and N3). The only viable counterpart astrometrically, N1, falls very close to the MS ridge line (also in $V$ vs $V-I$) and therefore appears like a normal MS star (unlike [$\mathrm{X5_{opt}}$]{}). This CMD position is consistent, within the errors, with the position in the Meylan data, and the F300W magnitudes from the three epochs are consistent with non-variability, again unlike [$\mathrm{X5_{opt}}$]{}. This suggests that N1 is probably not the X7 counterpart, despite the good astrometric match. Assuming that the real counterpart falls in the less confused part of a 5-$\sigma$ error circle we set limits on its detection of $U >$ 23, $V >$ 23, $I >$ 22 (using the Gilliland data).
Time Series {#timeser}
-----------
Since [$\mathrm{X5_{opt}}$]{} is near (or beyond) the limit of detectability in individual F300W exposures, the time series for [$\mathrm{X5_{opt}}$]{} were calculated by co-adding groups of 3-4 images. Figures \[fig3\]a, b and c show the F300W time series for the 3 different epochs. Also shown are the eclipsed portion of the X-ray phase plot from HGL01 (units converted into time) and a 4.333 hour period sinusoid, as appropriate for X5 but with the 8.666 hour X-ray period divided by two to simulate a double-peaked (ellipsoidal) time series. Eclipses are not included in this model. This model has been shifted in time and magnitude so that it plausibly matches the data for each epoch (the period is not known with sufficient accuracy to phase correct from [[*Chandra*]{}]{} to different [[*HST*]{}]{} epochs). Significant variability is seen within all three epochs and [$\mathrm{X5_{opt}}$]{} is clearly brighter in epoch 1 than in the 2nd and 3rd epochs (see Fig \[fig1\]a). This longterm variability is further evidence for the presence of an accretion disk. Note the deep eclipse observed in both epochs 2 and 3. The F300W eclipse appears to be significantly wider than in X-rays, though we do not observe the system coming out of eclipse. The turnover at the beginning of the second epoch (near Time$=0$ hr) may represent a minimum from ellipsoidal variability, since the timescale of variability agrees well with the ellipsoidal model. The 1st epoch observations may also represent ellipsoidal variations rather than an eclipse, since in its brighter state the relative brightness of the disk compared to the secondary should be enhanced and the eclipse depth should increase. The $V$-band variations, not plotted here, show neither an eclipse nor clear evidence for ellipsoidal variations (expected to have a smaller amplitude than in F300W).
No suggestion of variability is present in the N1 time series (Fig. \[fig3\]d) and no significant signal is seen in the N1 power spectrum ($V$ or $I$), including the possible 5.5 hr period noted by HGL01. The highest peak in the $V$-band corresponds to a period of 2.52 hours (or twice this), with a false-alarm probability = 0.27. The corresponding $V$ amplitude is 0.0043 $\pm$ 0.0011 ($<$ 4-$\sigma$, insignificant for a blind search; similar results hold for $I$). If N1 [*is*]{} the X7 counterpart and is close to filling its Roche lobe then an inclination $< 2.5$ is required to reduce the amplitude for ellipsoidal variations from the maximum expected value of $\sim$0.1, for 90 inclination, to $<0.0043$. This implies that N1 is unlikely to be the X7 companion, and we have calculated the brightness limit for a faint variable star (lying near the line of sight of N1) to be missed by our variability search. The X7 coordinates are so close to N1 that it will be included in any time series extraction. A star at $V=22.9$ with intrinsic variations of 0.1 mag superimposed on the time series of N1 would yield an 8-$\sigma$ detection (versus the highest detected peak at $\sim$ 4-$\sigma$). This time series limit of $V\sim23$ for a companion to X7 will decrease for inclinations $< 90$.
Discussion
==========
Using the stellar models of Bergbusch & Vandenberg (1992), we estimated the brightest possible secondary consistent with our photometry ([$\mathrm{T_{eff}}$]{}$ =
4100$K, $V=21.7$ and mass = 0.53[M$_{\odot}$]{}). Using the secondary radius, the X-ray luminosity of X5 and the binary separation (from Kepler’s Third Law) we estimate that the maximum luminosity from heating of the secondary by the NS (when measured as a fraction of the secondary luminosity) is 2.7%. Therefore, secondary heating probably makes only a small contribution to the variability described above. The dominant sources of short-term variability are likely to be a combination of eclipses of the disk and hot spot by the MS star, ellipsoidal variations and flickering. Further observations are required to better define this variability.
The likely presence of an accretion disk in [$\mathrm{X5_{opt}}$]{}, from variability and the blue color, may appear to be inconsistent with the lack of X-ray evidence for accretion currently in the X5 system, which should yield either long-term X-ray variations or a power law component, neither of which are seen (HGL01). One possible explanation is that the X5 secondary is no longer filling its Roche lobe causing it to be detached from the disk. Such a disk would no longer be accreting matter from the secondary, possibly causing it to enter a long-term quiescent phase with low density and little or no accretion onto the NS. The X5 disk does appear to be relatively faint compared to 47 Tuc CVs, since the $U-V$ color of [$\mathrm{X5_{opt}}$]{} (0.9) is much redder than that of the 47 Tuc CVs V1, V2, W1 and W2 with $U-V$ colors ranging from $-1.25$ to $-0.4$ (Edmonds et al. 2001, in preparation).
To test this ‘detached disk’ theory we have estimated the degree to which [$\mathrm{X5_{opt}}$]{} fills its Roche-lobe as defined by $F$, the ratio between the stellar radius and the Roche lobe radius. Using the Roche-lobe formula from @pac71 ($r/a=\mathrm{0.462[(M_{opt}/(M_{NS}+M_{opt})]^{1/3}}$, where $r$ is the Roche-lobe radius, $a$ is the binary separation, $\mathrm{M_{opt}}$ is the mass of [$\mathrm{X5_{opt}}$]{}, and $\mathrm{M_{NS}=1.4}$[M$_{\odot}$]{}), the stellar radius for a 4100 K model and the binary separation, we find that [$\mathrm{X5_{opt}}$]{} has $F=0.6$, underfilling its Roche lobe. Fainter cooler secondaries will underfill their Roche lobes by slightly larger amounts (e.g. a star with [$M_V$]{} = 10.0 has $F=0.5$). This behavior is consistent with the ‘detached disk’ theory given above, but would be inconsistent with the possible detection of ellipsoidal variations of relatively large amplitude, requiring the secondary to have $F\sim$1.0. The latter possibility would suggest that the X5 secondary is either bloated or slightly evolved, as appears to be the case for some of the CVs in NGC 6397 (Grindlay et al. 2001, in preparation) and as might be expected for a star undergoing mass loss.
If the 5.5 hr X-ray period for X7 (HGL01) is real, and if the X7 secondary underfills its Roche lobe by about the same amount as [$\mathrm{X5_{opt}}$]{}, then [$M_V$]{}$\sim10.6$ and $V\sim24.1$, beyond our variability detection limits and beyond our CMD search limit except with the presence of a reasonably bright disk. The close proximity of N1 only $\sim$002 from the line of sight of X7, clearly makes prospects for such an optical identification difficult. Alternatively, the period could be longer and N1 could be the counterpart, however the complete lack of evidence for a disk or variability rules against this possibility.
The logical follow-up to these observations are spectroscopic studies to measure the radial velocity amplitude of absorption lines from [$\mathrm{X5_{opt}}$]{}. This, combined with the known inclination and spectroscopic and photometric determinations of $\mathrm{M_{opt}}$ would give an estimate of the mass of the X5 NS. Using the X-ray spectrum constraints on the NS radius and redshift (HGL01) combined with the NS mass would give the first compelling test of the equation of state of a NS. Also of interest would be the detection of emission lines in the optical spectrum. Since there is evidence for an accretion disk (from this work) and hot gas in the system (from the X-ray light curve), we expect strong disk or coronal emission lines to be superimposed on the absorption line spectrum of the secondary. Study of the emission line profiles can test for mass outflow (visible as P Cygni profiles) from the system, or detect evidence for a bipolar jet (visible as broadened emission lines).
We thank Ata Sarajedini, Raja Guhathakurta, and Justin Howell for contributing to the photometric analysis and Bryan Gaensler and Frank Verbunt for helpful comments on the manuscript. This work was supported in part by STScI grants GO-8267.01-97A (PDE and RLG) and HST-AR-09199.01-A (PDE).
Albrow, M. D, Gilliland, R. L., Brown, T. M., Edmonds, P. D., Guhathakurta, P., & Sarajedini, A. 2001, ApJ, accepted Bergbusch, P. A. & Vandenberg, D. A. 1992, , 81, 163 Bergeron, P., Wesemael, F., & Beauchamp, A. 1995, , 107, 1047 Chevalier, C., Ilovaisky, S. A., van Paradijs, J., Pedersen, H., & van der Klis, M. 1989, , 210, 114 Chevalier, C., Ilovaisky, S. A., Leisy, P., & Patat, F. 1999, , 347, L51 Edmonds, P. D., Gilliland, R. L., Heinke, C. O., Grindlay, J. E., & Camilo, F. 2001, ApJ, 557, L57 (EGH01) Ferraro, F. R., Possenti, A., D’Amico, N., & Sabbi, E. 2001, ApJ, submitted Freire, P., Camilo, F., Lorimer, D. R., Lyne, A. G., Manchester, R. N. & D’Amico, N. 2000, , In press (astro-ph/0103372) Gilliland, R. L. et al. 2000, , 545, L47 Grindlay, J. E., Heinke, C. O., Edmonds, P. D. & Murray, S. 2001a, Science, 292, 2290 (GHE01a) Grindlay, J. E., Heinke, C. O., Edmonds, P. D. Murray, S., & Cool, A. M. 2001b, ApJ, accepted (GHE01b) Hasinger, G., Johnston, H. M., & Verbunt, F. 1994, , 288, 466 Heinke, C. O., Edmonds, P. D. & Grindlay, J. E. 2001b, ApJ, accepted Hook, R. N., Pirzkal, N., & Fruchter, A. S. 1999, ASP Conf. Ser. 172: Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems VIII, 8, 337 Hertz, P. & Grindlay, J. E. 1983, , 275, 105 Holtzman, J. A., Burrows, C. J., Casertano, S., Hester, J. J., Trauger, J. T., Watson, A. M., & Worthey, G. 1995, , 107, 1065 Paczy[ń]{}ski, B. 1971, , 9, 183 Rutledge, R. E., Bildsten, L., Brown, E. F., Pavlov, G. G., & Zavlin, V. E. 2001, ApJ, submitted (astro-ph/0105405) Serenelli, A. M., Althaus, L. G., Rohrmann R. D. & Benvenuto, O. G. 2001, , 325, 607 Sills, A., Bailyn, C. D., Edmonds, P. D., & Gilliland, R. L. 2000, , 535, 298 Verbunt, F., Elson, R., & van Paradijs, J. 1984, , 210, 899 Verbunt, F. & Hasinger, G. 1998, , 336, 895 White, N. E. & Angelini, L. 2001, , accepted (astro-ph/0109359)
[cllrrccr]{}
X5 & 00 24 00.991(1) & $-$72 04 53.202(7) & 60.7 & 263.0 & 22.5(2) & 21.7(2) & 8.67\
X7 & 00 24 03.528(1) & $-$72 04 51.938(6) & 498.5 & 775.5 & & & 5.50\
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Recently, a Dirac (particle-hole symmetric) description of composite fermions in the half-filled Landau level (LL) was proposed \[D. T. Son, Phys. Rev. X [**5**]{}, 031027 (2015)\], and we study its possible consequences on BCS (Cooper) pairing of composite fermions (CF’s). One of the main consequences is the existence of anisotropic states in single and bilayer systems, which was previously suggested in Ref. \[J. S. Jeong and K. Park, Phys. Rev. B [**91**]{}, 195119 (2015)\]. We argue that in the half-filled LL in the single layer case the gapped states may sustain anisotropy, because isotropic pairings may coexist with anisotropic ones. Furthermore, anisotropic pairings with addition of a particle-hole (PH) symmetry breaking mass term may evolve into rotationally symmetric states, i.e. Pfaffian states of Halperin-Lee-Read (HLR) ordinary CF’s. On the basis of the Dirac formalism, we argue that in the quantum Hall bilayer at total filling one, with decreasing distance between layers weak pairing of $p$-wave paired CF’s is gradually transformed from Dirac to ordinary, HLR - like, with concomitant decrease in the CF number. Global characterization of low-energy spectrum based on the Dirac CF’s agrees well with previous calculations performed by exact diagonalization on a torus. Finally, we discuss features of Dirac formalism when applied in this context.'
author:
- 'M. V. Milovanović$^{1}$, M. Dimitrijević Ćirić$^{2}$, and V. Juričić$^{3}$'
title: Pairing instabilities of Dirac composite fermions
---
Introduction
============
Composite fermions (CF’s) \[\] describe the physics of electrons in fractional quantum Hall (FQH) regime. At filling factor $\nu=1/2$, essentially they absorb the external flux, and make a metallic state \[\] with its own Fermi surface - Fermi surface of CF’s. By slightly modifying Read’s dipole construction of composite (neutral) fermions in the half-filled lowest Landau level \[\], an argument can be given for the accumulation of Berry phase equal to $\pi$ as a CF encircles its own Fermi surface \[\]. This has motivated a description of the CF’s in this setting in terms of Dirac fermions, which has been recently introduced in Ref. \[\], and have attracted some interest \[\]. The PH symmetric description of the half-filled LL is given in terms of a Dirac system of composite quasiparticles - Dirac CF’s at a finite chemical potential \[\] and in the presence of a gauge field. However, the implied existence of singularity at zero momentum in the CF spectrum was criticized \[\]. We may add that, due to the requirement of gauge invariance in two dimensions (2D), a small mass must be introduced into the Dirac theory (“parity anomaly") \[\]. This may be a way to heal and complete in the high-energy domain (“UV completion" \[\]) Dirac description of CF’s, and avoid singularity.
Thus the description in terms of Dirac fermions may have capacity to capture essential, at least qualitative, aspects of the CF’s physics. To further examine this possibility in this work we consider BCS pairing of Dirac CF’s. First, in the framework of Dirac description of a single CF, we point out that, assuming Cooper pairing between spinor components, besides so-called PH symmetric Pfaffian, also anisotropic states can be realized. This is analogous to the ${^3}$He system in which both $B$ and $A$ (anisotropic) phases are possible \[\]. Next we discuss unconventional $p$-wave pairing of two kinds of Dirac CF’s, motivated by the situation in the quantum Hall bilayer (QHB) at total filling factor one, i.e. with each layer with half-filled lowest LL. In this system $p$-wave pairing between two kinds of non-relativistic Halperin-Lee-Read (HLR) composite fermions at intermediate interlayer distances was proposed in Ref. \[\], and, recently, this scenario was further substantiated by a detection of the topological signatures of the $p$-wave system in the torus geometry \[\]. Therefore, it is natural to ask how this picture may be modified if we take into account the description by two Dirac CF’s of the two half-filled LL monolayers, and consider their possible pairing.
One of the main conclusions that we can draw by applying the Dirac CF formalism in the context of BCS pairing is that due to the Dirac two-component nature, isotropic (gapped) pairing states may coexist with anisotropic ones, and this is in the accordance with the results on PH symmetric, single and bilayer fractional quantum Hall systems obtained by employing exact diagonalization \[\], as well as with experimental findings \[\], in which anisotropy is probed by in-plane magnetic field. This may be a direct consequence of the dipole nature of CF’s that is captured by Dirac formalism. Anisotropic pairing states may serve as seed states for Pfaffian and anti-Pfaffian through a process in which PH asymmetry increases by introducing a mass term, while rotational symmetry gradually sets in. Furthermore, we find that the features, in particular low-energy spectrum, of the QHB at intermediate distances between the layers are better captured if we assume Dirac rather than HLR $p$-wave paired CF’s at large distances (decoupled layers). Already at the effective field theory level, modeling the evolution with the distance between layers by Dirac CFs, we can detect the main feature of CF-composite boson (CB) mixed states \[\]: the decrease in the number of CF’s with decreasing distance.
The paper is organized as follows. In Section II , based on Dirac formalism, we discuss the single layer case and its pairing instabilities, including the situation when the PH symmetry is spoiled by a mass term. In Section III we discuss the pairing instabilities in the bilayer system when the PH symmetry inside each layer is intact. In Section IV we examine the evolution of low-energy properties of the QHB with distance between layers, by including a mass term with an opposite sign in the two layers. The last section, Section V, is devoted to discussion and conclusions. Mean-field analysis of the coexistence of the isotropic and anisotropic pairings is presented in the Appendices.
Dirac composite fermion and Cooper pairing
==========================================
We begin by considering a single Dirac fermion which was proposed to effectively describe half-filled lowest Landau level of electrons \[\], with $s$-wave pairing between spinor components. The $s$-wave pairing suggested in Ref. \[\], can be expressed by the following Bogoliubov - de Gennes Hamiltonian in the Nambu - Gorkov notation, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{BdGsD}
H &=&\frac{1}{2} \sum_{\bf k} \left[
\begin{array}{cc}
\Psi^\dagger ({\bf k}) & \tilde{\Psi}(-{\bf k}) \\
\end{array}
\right] \\ \nonumber
&\times&\left[
\begin{array}{cc}
{\cal D} ({\bf k}) & {\cal P}({\bf k}) \\
{\cal P}^\dagger ({\bf k}) & - {\cal D} (-{\bf k}) \\
\end{array}
\right]
\left[
\begin{array}{c}
\Psi ({\bf k}) \\
\tilde{\Psi}^\dagger (-{\bf k}) \\
\end{array}
\right],\end{aligned}$$ where $\Psi ({\bf k})$ denotes a two-component spinor with momentum ${\bf k}$, $$\Psi ({\bf k}) = \left[
\begin{array}{c}
\Psi_{a} ({\bf k}) \\
\Psi_{b} ({\bf k}) \\
\end{array}
\right], \,\,\,\,
\tilde{\Psi} ({\bf k}) = \left[
\begin{array}{c}
\Psi_{b} ({\bf k}) \\
\Psi_{a} ({\bf k}) \\
\end{array}
\right],$$ and $${\cal D}({\bf k}) = \left[
\begin{array}{cc}
- \mu & k_x - i k_y \\
k_x + i k_y & - \mu \\
\end{array}
\right]=-\mu\sigma_0+k_x \sigma_x+k_y \sigma_y, \label{dmatrix}$$ and $2 \times 2$ matrix ${\cal P}({\bf k})$ describes Cooper pairing between $a$ and $b$ spinor components $${\cal P}({\bf k}) = \left[
\begin{array}{cc}
\Delta_s & 0\\
0 & - \Delta_s \\
\end{array}
\right]=\Delta_s \sigma_z , \label{right_pairing_sD}$$ or more explicitly $$\delta {\cal H} = \sum_{\bf k} \{ - \Delta_s \Psi_{a}({\bf k}) \Psi_{b}(-{\bf k}) + h.c. \}. \label{rightH}$$ Here, $\sigma_0$ is the $2\times2$ identity matrix, while ${\bm \sigma}$ are the standard Pauli matrices. Throughout the paper we set $\hbar = 1$, and the Fermi velocity, $v_F = 1$. $\mu$ denotes a chemical potential equal to $\mu = \sqrt{B} = k_F$, where $B$ and $k_F$ are the external magnetic field and Fermi vector, respectively.
Since the pairing matrix anticommutes with the free Dirac Hamiltonian at the zero chemical potential, the dispersion of Bogoliubons has the rotationally symmetric form $$E_k^2 = (k \pm \mu)^2 + \Delta_{s}^2,$$ where $k\equiv |{\bf k}|$. This construction is considered in the literature as a basis for a PH symmetric Pfaffian system.
However, a different type of pairing is also possible with the pairing matrix $${\cal P}({\bf k}) = \left[
\begin{array}{cc}
0 & \alpha k_x + \beta k_y\\
\alpha k_x - \beta k_y & 0 \\
\end{array}
\right],$$ or more explicitly $$\begin{aligned}
\delta {\cal H}'& =&\sum_{{\bf k}} \alpha k_x \{ \Psi_{a}^\dagger ({\bf k}) \Psi_{a}^\dagger(-{\bf k}) + \Psi_{b}^\dagger({\bf k}) \Psi_{b}^\dagger(-{\bf k}) \} + h.c. \nonumber\\
&+&\sum_{\bf k} \beta k_y \{ \Psi_{a}^\dagger({\bf k}) \Psi_{a}^\dagger(-{\bf k}) - \Psi_{b}^\dagger({\bf k}) \Psi_{b}^\dagger(-{\bf k}) \} + h.c. \nonumber \\
\label{anisotropicH}\end{aligned}$$ where $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are, in general, allowed to be complex coefficients. The overall form of $ \delta {\cal H}'$ is fixed by the requirement of the $CP$ symmetry, which, as emphasized in Ref. \[\], is equivalent to the requirement of the PH symmetry in the real electron system. Namely, the $CP$ symmetry is a product of the charge conjugation, $C$, $$C \Psi({\bf k}) C^{-1} = \sigma_x \Psi^* ({\bf k}),$$ and a parity transformation, $P$, $$P \Psi({\bf k}) P^{-1} = \Psi^* ({\bf k}'),$$ where ${\bf k} = (k_x, k_y) \rightarrow {\bf k}' = (k_x, - k_y)$ under the parity transformation. Thus, $$CP \Psi({\bf k}) (CP)^{-1} = \sigma_x \Psi({\bf k}').
\label{CP}$$ The starting Dirac Hamiltonian (\[BdGsD\]) with ${\cal P}=0$, as well $ \delta {\cal H}'$ are both invariant under the $CP$ transformation (\[CP\]). Notice that (\[rightH\]) is invariant up to a sign change under $CP$ transformation. This is also a property of the small mass term that seems necessary to ensure the gauge invariance of the theory, and to avoid the singularity at ${\bf k} = 0$ \[\]. The BCS pairing terms as the one in (\[rightH\]) may accommodate the sign change by gauge transformations \[\]. Thus the theory is invariant under $CP$ transformation in a more general sense, allowing for terms that are invariant up to a change of the sign. This makes our choice for $p$ wave not unique. Indeed, other $p$ wave pairing order parameters are also possible, including one analogous to the A phase of ${^3}$He system that features two (gapless) Fermi points. This case can be analyzed analogously to the one considered here, and the main conclusions remain. In the following, we restrict our discussion to the $p$-wave case (\[anisotropicH\]) invariant under $CP$ transformation in the strict sense.
We now consider the pairings given by Eq. (\[anisotropicH\]), recently also discussed in Ref. \[\], in light of the possibility of introducing an anisotropy. The choice $\alpha = \Delta$ and $\beta = - i \Delta $ yields the pairing matrix, $ {\cal P}({\bf k})$, proportional to the Dirac Hamiltonian, ${\cal D}({\bf k})$, at chemical potential $\mu = 0$, and thus explicitly rotationally invariant. (See also Sec. III for further analysis of the rotational symmetry.). In that case, the dispersion relation of Bogoliubons, $E_{\bf k}^2 = k^2(1+\Delta^2)+\mu^2 \pm 2k \sqrt{\mu^2 + k^2 \Delta^2}$, implies that the the pairing just renormalizes chemical potential. On the other hand, by choosing $\alpha = \Delta$ and $\beta = + i \Delta $, we obtain $$E_{\bf k}^2 = k^2 (1 + \Delta^2) + \mu^2 \pm 2 \sqrt{\mu^2 k^2 + \Delta^2 (k_x^2 - k_y^2)^2}. \label{andispersion}$$ This dispersion describes an [*anisotropic*]{} gapless system with four nodes at $$k_x = \pm \frac{\mu}{\sqrt{1 - \Delta^2}}, \;\;\;\; {\rm and}\;\;\; k_y = 0,$$ and $$k_y = \pm \frac{\mu}{\sqrt{1 - \Delta^2}}, \;\;\;\; {\rm and}\;\;\; k_x = 0.$$ The appearance of the four nodes related by the discrete $C_4$ symmetry is a consequence of the $C_4$ symmetry of the pairing (\[anisotropicH\]) with $\alpha = \Delta$ and $\beta = + i \Delta $. In fact, Eq. (\[anisotropicH\]) describes a whole family of gapless anisotropic solutions.
If we consider both $s$-wave (\[rightH\]) and $p$-wave (\[anisotropicH\]) with $\alpha = \Delta$ and $\beta = + i \Delta $ pairings, the dispersion of the Bogoliubov quasiparticles is $$\tilde{E}_{\bf k}^2 = \Delta_s^2 + k^2 (1 + \Delta^2) + \mu^2 \pm 2 \sqrt{\mu^2 k^2 + \Delta^2 (k_x^2 - k_y^2)^2},$$ i.e. the dispersion (\[andispersion\]) simply acquired a shift of $\Delta_s^2$ in the presence of the $s$-wave pairing. This is a consequence of the anticommutation of the matrices corresponding to the two pairings, similarly to the situation in Refs. \[, \], which makes their coexistence likely at a finite chemical potential. Assuming a generic form of the two couplings driving the instabilities in the isotropic and anisotropic channels, in the presence of a small mass term, we show in Appendix A that the low energy description implies that the isotropic instability (\[rightH\]) may coexist with the anisotropic one. This is consistent with experimental \[\], and theoretical \[\] findings pointing out that gapped states at half-filled Landau level can sustain and even harbor anisotropy.
In connection with the possible pairings given by Eq. (\[anisotropicH\]) when $\alpha = \Delta$ and $\beta = + i \; \Delta $, we may notice that if we break $CP$ (particle-hole symmetry) by a mass term of the form $\sim \Psi^\dagger({\bf k}) \sigma_3 \Psi({\bf k})$, one component, $a$ or $b$, of the Dirac field will remain in the low energy sector. The remaining fermion should correspond to HLR (spinless) fermion which in turn pairs in the manner of $p$-wave. This should correspond to Pfaffian and anti-Pfaffian states (that comprise possible $( k_x \pm i k_y)$ states), in the absence of PH symmetry, but with an emergent rotational symmetry. A closely related proposal for the existence of the Pfaffian (Moore-Read) state in the presence of an excitonic instability already appeared in the context of Dirac CF physics in graphene Ref. \[\].
To further understand the pairings in Eqs. (\[rightH\]) and (\[anisotropicH\]), we now consider the chirality operator $\frac{{\bm\sigma} \cdot{\bf k}}{|k|}$, and its eigenstates $$|+ \rangle = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \left[
\begin{array}{c}
1 \\
\frac{k_+}{k} \\
\end{array}
\right], \,\,\,\,
|- \rangle = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \left[
\begin{array}{c}
- 1 \\
\frac{k_+}{k} \\
\end{array}
\right].\label{chiral-eigenstates}$$ We can introduce Dirac operators with a definite chirality $$\Psi_+ ({\bf k}) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}( \Psi_a ({\bf k}) + \frac{k_-}{k} \Psi_b ({\bf k})) ,$$ and $$\Psi_- ({\bf k}) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}( - \Psi_a ({\bf k}) + \frac{k_-}{k} \Psi_b ({\bf k})) ,$$ to find that $$\Psi_a ({\bf k}) \Psi_b ( - {\bf k})
=- \frac{1}{2} \frac{k_+}{k} [\Psi_+ ({\bf k}) \Psi_+ ( - {\bf k}) + \Psi_- ({\bf k}) \Psi_- (-{\bf k})],
\label{s_into_p}$$ with $k_\pm\equiv k_x\pm i k_y$. We can clearly see from Eq. (\[s\_into\_p\]) that in the chirality basis i.e. the eigenbasis of the non-interacting system, the pairing (\[rightH\]), in fact, describes a pairing in the odd ($p$-wave) channel. This can be understood as a consequence of the non-trivial Berry phase contributions, as discussed in Ref. \[\]; see also Ref. \[\] for the influence of the singularities (topological charges) on the vorticity of Cooper pairs. On the other hand, the anisotropic pairing (\[anisotropicH\]) is a combination of odd channel components in the chirality basis.
We now analyze an alternative scenario for the coexistence with the $p$-wave pairing represented by the pairing matrix ${\cal P}({\bf k})=(\alpha k_x+\beta k_y)\sigma_x$ that features two Fermi points and does not require a mass for the coexistence with the isotropic state. In particular, as shown in Appendix B, a special anisotropic pairing with $$\label{anisotropicHH}
{\cal P} \sim i k_y\sigma_x$$ can coexist with the isotropic pairing. Analogously, we can discuss pairing with ${\cal P}({\bf k})\sim(\gamma k_x+\delta k_y)\sigma_y$, where $\gamma$ and $\delta$ are, in general, allowed to be complex coefficients. The ensuing pairing is then given by $$\label{anisotropicHH2}
{\cal P}({\bf k})\sim k_x \sigma_y.$$ Both these pairings are invariant up to a change of sign (up to a gauge transformation) under the $CP$ transformation. Each pairing on its own features two Fermi points, and is likely energetically advantageous over the pairing in (\[anisotropicH\]) that has four Fermi points. As we explicitly show in Appendix B, these pairings do not need a mass term to coexist with the isotropic state. Furthermore, in the presence of a mass term, they develop new components, and may thus evolve into the rotationally symmetric pairings of HLR fermions. These are the reasons that make states given by Eqs. (\[anisotropicHH\]) or (\[anisotropicHH2\]) likely present when considering pairing instabilities in the half-filled LL, consistent with the exact diagonalization results of Refs. \[\].
Finally, we point out that the Dirac based microscopic wave functions of pairing instabilities have not been proposed and tested yet. The effective field theory approach seems currently to be the most efficient tool for treating the Dirac-based pairing instabilities and their properties. Once the microscopic description is provided, most importantly for the case of PH Pfaffian, anisotropic modifications may be induced in the manner described and discussed in Refs. \[, \].
Dirac fermions and $p$-wave pairing
===================================
We consider the following general form of the Bogoliubov-de Gennes Hamiltonian, motivated by the situation in a QHB system with each of the two layers at half filling, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{BdG}
H &=& \sum_{\bf k} \left[
\begin{array}{cc}
\Psi_\uparrow^\dagger ({\bf k}) & \Psi_\downarrow (-{\bf k}) \\
\end{array}
\right] \\ \nonumber
&\times&\left[
\begin{array}{cc}
{\cal D}_\uparrow ({\bf k}) & {\cal P}({\bf k}) \\
{\cal P}^\dagger ({\bf k}) & - {\cal D}_\downarrow (-{\bf k}) \\
\end{array}
\right]
\left[
\begin{array}{c}
\Psi_\uparrow ({\bf k}) \\
\Psi_\downarrow^\dagger (-{\bf k}) \\
\end{array}
\right],\end{aligned}$$ where $\Psi_\uparrow ({\bf k})$ and $\Psi_\downarrow ({\bf k})$ are two component spinors, $$\Psi_\uparrow ({\bf k}) = \left[
\begin{array}{c}
\Psi_{a \uparrow} ({\bf k}) \\
\Psi_{b \uparrow} ({\bf k}) \\
\end{array}
\right], \,\,\,\,
\Psi_\downarrow ({\bf k}) = \left[
\begin{array}{c}
\Psi_{b \downarrow} ({\bf k}) \\
\Psi_{a \downarrow} ({\bf k}) \\
\end{array}
\right].$$ Matrices ${\cal D}_\uparrow ({\bf k})$ and ${\cal D}_\downarrow ({\bf k})$ describe two identical Dirac systems, ${\cal D}_\uparrow ({\bf k})={\cal D}_\downarrow ({\bf k})={\cal D} ({\bf k})$, with ${\cal D} ({\bf k})$ given by Eq. (\[dmatrix\]), while $2 \times 2$ matrix ${\cal P}({\bf k})$ describes Cooper pairing between the two systems $\uparrow$ and $\downarrow$.
A triplet $p$-wave pairing between the same spinor components can be expressed as the following term in the Hamiltonian, $$\begin{aligned}
\delta {\cal H} &=& \sum_{\bf k} \{ [ \Delta^*_{\bf k} \Psi_{a \downarrow}(-{\bf k}) \Psi_{a \uparrow}({\bf k}) \\ \nonumber
&+&\Delta^*_{\bf k} \Psi_{b \downarrow}(-{\bf k}) \Psi_{b \uparrow}({\bf k}) ] \, + \, h.c. \},\end{aligned}$$ with a pairing function $ \Delta_{\bf k} = \Delta (k_x \pm i k_y)$. The corresponding pairing matrix in the Hamiltonian (\[BdG\]) is $${\cal P}({\bf k}) = \left[
\begin{array}{cc}
0 & \Delta_{\bf k} \\
\Delta_{\bf k} & 0 \\
\end{array}
\right] = \Delta_{\bf k} \sigma_x.\label{anisotropic_pairing}$$ A rotation around $z$ axis by an angle $\phi$ in both subsystems $\uparrow$ and $\downarrow$ is represented by a matrix $ R = \exp (i \sigma_z \phi/2)$ so that $$\begin{aligned}
R \sigma_x R^{-1} &=& \sigma_x \cos \phi - \sigma_y \sin \phi, \\ \nonumber
R \sigma_y R^{-1} &=& \sigma_x \sin \phi + \sigma_y \cos \phi.\end{aligned}$$ It can be readily seen that $ \tilde{R} H({\bf k}) \tilde{R}^{-1} \neq H({\bf k}')$ where $ k_{x}^{'} = k_x\cos\phi - k_y\sin\phi $ and $ k_{y}^{'} = k_x\sin\phi + k_y\cos\phi $, and ${\tilde R}=\tau_0\otimes R$, with $\tau_0$ as the $2\times2$ unity matrix in the subsystem space. Therefore, the system with the pairing matrix ${\cal P}({\bf k}) = \Delta_{\bf k} \sigma_x$ is not rotationally invariant, and may lead to anisotropic behavior. In fact, the system is gapless, and supports two anisotropic Dirac cones at $ k_x^2 = \mu^2/(1 - \Delta^2) = k_0^2$ and $k_y = 0$. Expanding around $\pm k_0$ we obtain for $\Delta \ll 1$, $ E^2 \approx (1 - 2 \Delta^2) (\delta k_x)^2 + \Delta^2 (\delta k_y)^2$. We find similar results if we choose, $${\cal P}({\bf k}) = \left[
\begin{array}{cc}
0 & \Delta_{\bf k} \\
-\Delta_{\bf k} & 0 \\
\end{array}
\right].\label{sign_anisotropic_pairing}$$ Therefore the systems that we considered by now do not possess quantum spin Hall effect, and due to anisotropy are likely to be fragile under disorder, and certainly can not represent stable phases in realistic circumstances.
On the other hand, the system with the pairing matrix $${\cal P}({\bf k}) = \left[
\begin{array}{cc}
\Delta_{\bf k} & 0\\
0 & - \Delta_{\bf k} \\
\end{array}
\right] = \Delta_{\bf k} \sigma_z , \label{right_pairing}$$ yields the dispersion relation of the Bogoliubons $$E_{\pm} = \sqrt{(k \pm \mu)^2 + |\Delta_{\bf k}|^2}, \label{disper_triplet}$$ and therefore resembles very closely $p$-wave pairing of ordinary fermions. We now express the pairing in the chirality basis to obtain $$\begin{aligned}
&&\Delta^*_{\bf k} (\Psi_{b \downarrow}(-{\bf k}) \Psi_{a \uparrow}({\bf k}) -
\Psi_{a \downarrow}(-{\bf k}) \Psi_{b \uparrow}({\bf k}))=- \Delta^*_{\bf k} \frac{1}{2} \frac{k_+}{k} \nonumber \\
&\times&
(\Psi_{+ \downarrow}(-{\bf k}) \Psi_{+ \uparrow}({\bf k}) -
\Psi_{- \downarrow}(-{\bf k}) \Psi_{- \uparrow}({\bf k})). \nonumber \\
\end{aligned}$$ Thus depending whether $ \Delta_{\bf k} = \Delta (k_x + i k_y)$ or $ \Delta_{\bf k} = \Delta (k_x - i k_y)$, we obtain $s$-wave or $d$-wave pairing, respectively, in the chirality basis. In this sense there is no surprise to find that the pairing matrix (\[right\_pairing\]) gives rise to a singlet state for $\uparrow$ and $\downarrow$ electrons. The choice for the pairing without the minus sign in Eq. (\[right\_pairing\]), i.e., ${\cal P}({\bf k})=\Delta_{\bf k}\sigma_0$, is not energetically favorable, since pairing just renormalizes chemical potential in that case.
We now provide a topological characterization of pairing in Eq. (\[right\_pairing\]) through the (pseudo)spin Chern number, $C_s$. In fact we find that in this case is $C_s = 1$, if we use the low-energy theory with (\[right\_pairing\]) and $ \Delta_{\bf k} = \Delta (k_x + i k_y)$. We calculated the Chern number by taking the eigenvectors of the two lower Bogoliubov bands, $ |v_{-}({\bf k})\rangle$ and $ |v_{+}({\bf k})\rangle$, corresponding to eigenvalues $ - E_{-}({\bf k})$ and $ - E_{+}({\bf k})$, respectively. We first computed the Berry curvature of each vector, $$F^{\sigma}_{xy}({\bf k}) = i (\partial_x \langle v_{\sigma}({\bf k})| \partial_y |v_\sigma ({\bf k}) \rangle - \partial_y \langle v_{\sigma}({\bf k})| \partial_x |v_\sigma ({\bf k}) \rangle ),$$ and then the Chern number, $$C_s = \frac{1}{2 \pi} \sum_\sigma \int d{\bf k} F^{\sigma}_{xy}({\bf k}),
\label{chern}$$ where the sum in (\[chern\]) is over the two lowest bands. Nevertheless, as discussed in the previous paragraph, and, also, due to the form of eigenvectors below, we expect that the real winding number is zero or two if a complete description is taken into account.
To further characterize the pairing state, let us consider the four-component vectors of the Bogoliubov bands with positive energy, $ E_{-}({\bf k})$ and $ E_{+}({\bf k})$, $$\begin{aligned}
u_{-}(k) &=& \frac{1}{2 \sqrt{E_{-}}} \left\{ - \sqrt{E_{-} - (\mu - k)} \left(1, \frac{k_{+}}{k}\right),\right. \nonumber\\
& & \left.\frac{\Delta \cdot k}{\sqrt{E_{-} - (\mu - k)}} \left(- \frac{k_{-}}{k},1\right) \right\},\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
u_{+}(k) &=& \frac{1}{2 \sqrt{E_{+}}} \left\{ \sqrt{E_{+} - (\mu + k)} \left(1, - \frac{k_{+}}{k}\right),\right.\nonumber\\
& &\left. \frac{\Delta \cdot k}{\sqrt{E_{+} - (\mu + k)}} \left(\frac{k_{-}}{k}, 1\right) \right\},\end{aligned}$$ where we regrouped components to appear with common factors. In each Bogoliubov eigenstate, the first two-component spinor, ( , ), is an eigenstate of the chirality operator, given by Eq. (\[chiral-eigenstates\]), while the second one is the eigenstate that is complex conjugated and with inverted components due to the ordering in the Nambu - Gorkov representation, and we fix $ \Delta_{\bf k} = \Delta (k_x + i k_y)$. From the coefficients in front of the fixed chirality states, we find the long-distance behavior of the pairing function ($g_{\bf k} \sim v_{\bf k}/u_{\bf k}$ in the usual BCS problem) in each band $$g(z) \sim 1/|z| ,$$ where $g(z)$ is the pairing function in the real space, and $z = x + i y$. Thus the pairing function has the characteristic $s$-wave feature.
In this case the lowest gap is at Fermi surface, $\Delta E \sim \Delta \cdot k_F$, in contrast with ordinary $p$-wave pairing where the lowest gap is at zero momentum, and it is equal to $\Delta E \sim k_F$ \[\].
Quantum Hall bilayer and $p$-wave paired composite fermions
===========================================================
In light of recent advance in understanding of each (isolated PH symmetric) half-filled quantum Hall monolayer based on Dirac CF’s it is quite natural to consider the physics of the bilayer, especially at the intermediate distances, in the same framework. It is important to take into account the $p$-wave pairing \[\] which was initially expressed in terms of ordinary HLR CF’s. The picture based on the ordinary CF’s does not have a clear answer for the lowest lying spectrum which appears nearly gapless (with small gap) or gapless when the system is put on a torus, while the topological $p$-wave pairing of ordinary fermions \[\] would likely produce a clear gap of the order $\mu$. However, even if we neglect possible insufficiencies with $p$-wave pairing of ordinary fermions, it is fundamentally important to address the problem of the QHB in terms of Dirac CF’s.
First we may notice that the presence of the interlayer Coulomb interaction, which increases with decreasing distance between layers, spoils PH symmetry inside a layer. We incorporate this breaking of the PH symmetry by introducing a mass $r$ in the Dirac matrices ${\cal D}_\uparrow ({\bf k})$ and ${\cal D}_\downarrow ({\bf k})$, with opposite signs in each layer, $${\cal D}_\uparrow ({\bf k}) = \sigma_x k_x + \sigma_y k_y - \mu + r \sigma_z = {\cal D}_\downarrow ({\bf k}).$$ Second, the components of the spinors in different layers are inverted with respect to each other, and thus the mass term of the opposite sign in the two layers enters with the same sign in the matrices ${\cal D}_\uparrow ({\bf k})$ and ${\cal D}_\downarrow ({\bf k})$. The dispersion relation in this case acquires the form $$E_{\pm} = \sqrt{(\sqrt{k^2 + r^2} \pm \mu)^2 + |\Delta_{\bf k}|^2}. \label{disper_triplet_with_r}$$ The masses in the two layers are of the opposite sign, due to the requirement of the PH symmetry of the whole system. Namely, under the transformation in each layer masses change sign \[\], and if we, in addition, exchange layer index we recover the original Hamiltonian.
There are two important things to notice regarding the evolution of the CF state with increasing mass $r$:
\(a) The minimum of the lower Bogoliubov band shifts from a finite value at $k_F^2 = \mu^2/(1 + \Delta^2)^2 - r^2$ to $k = 0$, and this transition - without closing of the gap - occurs at $r = \mu/(1 + \Delta^2)$;
\(b) Because $k_F^2 = \mu^2/(1 + \Delta^2)^2 - r^2$, the Fermi momentum decreases with the mass, and therefore the number of CF’s reduces as the distance between the layers decreases.
Therefore the most important consequence of the assumed Dirac description of individual layers at large distances is that the number of CF’s decreases as the distance between the layers decreases. For large distances we may assume that the pairing is weak, the order parameter is small, and the pairing cannot be detected then due to finite temperature effects, for instance. In any case we may choose, $ \Delta_{\bf k} = \Delta (k_x + i k_y)$, so that there is no Hall drag (pseudospin Hall effect) at large distances, but it develops gradually as the interlayer distance decreases and reaches the quantized value in agreement with experiments \[\]. This choice of the order parameter agrees with Refs. \[\]. For smaller distances $(r \sim \mu$ but $ r < \mu)$ we may assume that the upper Bogoliubov band is pushed to high energies and an effective description in terms of quadratically dispersing CF’s paired via weak $p$-wave pairing emerges, implying an algebraically decaying Cooper pair wave function \[\]. The description of the system within this scenario then implies that at intermediate distances CB-CF mixture accounts for the total number of electrons \[, \]. As a consequence, composite bosons cannot have long range order, and likely have critical, algebraic pairwise correlations \[\].
If at intermediate distances solely a collection of $p$-wave paired composite fermions, quadratically dispersing as in Ref. \[\], were present, signals of a topological phase with a large gap, $\Delta E \sim \mu$ would appear. Instead, as detected on a torus in Ref. \[\], there is an abundance of various low-energy excitations. This is in accordance with the above physical picture that implies a small portion of CF’s at intermediate distances in a topological phase with a small gap $\Delta E \sim \mu - r$, and $\mu \simeq r$.
As in the single layer case, anisotropic gapless solution (\[anisotropic\_pairing\]) is possible also for a bilayer. In the presence of a mass term $\sim r$ and in the case of the pairing (\[anisotropic\_pairing\]) we obtain two anisotropic Dirac cones at $ k_x^2 = \mu^2/(1 - \Delta^2) = k_0^2$ and $k_y = 0$. Expanding around $\pm k_0$ with $r \ll \mu$ we obtain $ E^2 \approx (1 - 2 \Delta^2 - \frac{r^2}{\mu^2}) (\delta k_x)^2 + \Delta^2 (\delta k_y)^2$. The absence of a gap suggests a non-topological behavior. On the other hand, topological signatures were detected at intermediate distances in Ref. \[\], in agreement with the characterization of isotropic weak $p$-wave pairing. Thus the presence of the isotropic pairing, which may be accompanied by anisotropic ones, seems crucial for the explanation of the properties at intermediate distances.
Discussion and Conclusions
==========================
The existence of anisotropic candidates for BCS paired states, in the case of monolayer (Sec. II), and bilayer (Sec. III and IV), is in agreement with the results in Ref. \[\]. In that paper, the physics of the PH symmetric case of half-filled second Landau level is studied by exact diagonalization on a torus. The main result of this numerical study is that the paired quantum Hall state in that case, as well closely related (by antisymmetrization) bilayer state, made of two kinds of electrons that each occupy quarter of the available single particle states in the second Landau level, are susceptible to anisotropic instabilities. By using the Dirac description of the dipole nature of CFs, we can identify the paired quantum Hall state of Ref. \[\] with PH Pfaffian, and its closeness to anisotropy as a sign of the relevance of anisotropic solutions discussed in Sec. II. On the other hand, the relevance of the anisotropy for the bilayer state at effective $\nu=1/2 = 1/4 + 1/4$ total filling factor \[\], may be again due to the composite - dipole nature of the CF’s at filling factor $\nu=1/4$. The Dirac description could be the easiest way to capture the dipole nature of a CF, despite the doubling of the fermionic degrees of freedom. In other words, we need particles and holes to describe dipoles \[\], and the Dirac formalism could be a way to achieve that even in the cases when CF’s have a Berry phase equal to $\pi/2$ (at quarter filling), with appropriate mass and chemical potential. If the Diracness is the cause of the anisotropic behavior, we can conclude that the Dirac formalism is equally applicable at $\nu=1/2$ and $\nu=1/4$. In this sense “nothing is special at $\nu=1/2$" (Ref. \[\]) since only PH symmetry singles out Dirac description. The PH symmetry is sufficient but not necessary to cause the Diracness at the filling equal to one half.
If we restrict our discussion only to the case when CF’s possess Berry phase equal to $\pi$, and thus Dirac formalism seems appropriate for the bilayer case at total filling one, we demonstrated that the description by Dirac fermions is justified due to a global appearance and characterization of low-energy spectrum from the exact diagonalization on a torus \[\]. In fact, the Dirac CF in the bilayer changes its Berry phase from value $\pi$ at large distances, to value $\sim 0$, at small distances (HLR fermion), while retaining its fermionic character. The second important consequence, due to the use of the Dirac formalism, is that the number of CF’s is decreasing with the decreasing distance between layers. This is in in agreement with the necessity to use CF-CB mixed states to describe the bilayer at intermediate distances \[\].
Thus we can conclude that Dirac formalism can capture the basic phenomenology of the bilayer at $\nu=1$, and the nature of the gapped paired states in the single layer quantum Hall systems with half-filled LL. We therefore expect it to become an indispensable tool for further understanding of the paired states in this context.
[*Note added:*]{} While this manuscript was in the final stage of preparation, Ref. \[\] appeared. It is a study of possible pairings, based on Dirac formalism, and their realization in the case of a single layer with the half-filled LL. Ref. \[\] considered pairings in the low-energy subspace of Dirac spectrum in the context of a specific pairing mechanism. In our work the low-energy projection is in place after the consideration of the pairing instabilities within the Dirac formalism. In this way we are able to account for the anisotropic pairings, with the consequences consistent with theoretical and experimental findings, as we already emphasized.
We would like to thank S. Simon for a discussion. The work was supported by the Ministry of Education, Science, and Technological Development of the Republic of Serbia under projects ON171017 and ON171031.
Coexistence of the $CP$ invariant $p$-wave and $s$-wave pairings: Mean-field analysis
=====================================================================================
The lower Bogoliubov band of the quadratic Hamiltonian, Eqs. (\[BdGsD\]-\[right\_pairing\_sD\]) with the additional pairing in Eq. (\[anisotropicH\]) with $\alpha = \Delta$ and $\beta = + i \Delta $, and a mass term $r \Psi^\dagger({\bf k}) \sigma_3 \Psi({\bf k})$, is $$\begin{aligned}
E^2&=&\mu^2 + \Delta_s^2 + r^2 + k^2 + \Delta^2 k^2 \nonumber \\
&-& 2 \sqrt{\mu^2 (k^2 + r^2) + [\Delta (k_x^2 - k_y^2) + \Delta_s r]^2 }. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$
We analyze the pairing instabilities in the low-energy theory by introducing a cut-off $\Lambda$, so that relevant momenta from the interval around Fermi energy are defined by $\Lambda$, $ k\in (\mu - \Lambda , \mu + \Lambda)$. Also we assume that $ \mu \Delta \ll \Delta_s \ll \Lambda \ll \mu$, and, at zero temperature, estimate the free energy when both isotropic $(\Delta_s)$ and anisotropic $(\Delta)$ pairings are present. From the BCS mean field decoupling of effective attractive interactions we obtain terms proportional to the order parameters $\Delta^2$ and $\Delta_s^2$ (condensate energy) besides the contribution arising from the quasiparticles in the lower Bogoliubov band. (The upper band is assumed effectively a constant due to the constraint on the momenta.) The free energy density, ${\cal F}/{A}$, then reads $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{{\cal F}}{A} & = & g_1 \Delta_s^2 + g_2 \Delta^2 - \frac{\mu}{4 \pi} \Lambda^2 \nonumber \\
&-& \frac{\mu}{4 \pi} \{(1 + \ln \frac{4 \Lambda^2}{\Delta_s^2}) {\cal M}\} , \nonumber \\ \label{M0A}\end{aligned}$$ where $${\cal M} = \Delta_s^2 + \frac{\Delta^2 \mu^2}{4} - \frac{r}{2} \Delta_s \Delta, \label{MA}$$ with $g_1$ and $g_2$ as positive coupling constants which drive the instabilities in the respective channels. Here, we assume $ r \ll \frac{\Delta_s}{\Lambda} ( \mu\Delta)$.
We derive Eq. (\[M0A\]) with (\[MA\]) by expanding the square root for large $\mu$, and then performing the integral over $k$ (i.e. radial component of vector ${\bf k}$). Before the final angular integration, we further simplified the result of the $k$ integration by assuming the stated ordering of scales.
In the BCS weak coupling limit, by minimizing the free energy i.e. the total ground state energy, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta_s & \approx & 2 \Lambda \exp\{- \frac{2 \pi g_1}{\mu}\}, \nonumber \\
\Delta & \approx & \frac{r \tilde{g_1}}{\tilde{g_1} \mu^2 - 4 g_2} \Delta_s ,\end{aligned}$$ where $ \tilde{g_1} = \frac{\mu}{4 \pi} + g_1$. Thus we can conclude that for $ \mu \Delta \ll \Delta_s \ll \Lambda \ll \mu$, and in the presence of small mass $r$, the isotropic instability can be accompanied by the anisotropic pairing. This is due to the cross term in ${\cal F}$ with $\Delta_s$ and $\Delta$ - see Eqs. (\[MA\]) and (\[M0A\]). This may also be understood from the fact that the matrices corresponding to the isotropic and anisotropic pairings anticommute.
Coexistence of the $CP$ asymmetric $p$-wave and $s$-wave pairings: Mean-field analysis
======================================================================================
Here we discuss a pairing defined by $${\cal P}({\bf k}) = \left[
\begin{array}{cc}
0 & \alpha k_x + \beta k_y\\
\alpha k_x + \beta k_y & 0 \\
\end{array}
\right] = (\alpha k_x+\beta k_y)\sigma_x , \label{AppBsecond_pairing_sD}$$ or in terms of the spinors, as a part of the complete Hamiltonian, $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{\bf k}(\alpha k_x + \beta k_y) \{ \Psi_{a}({\bf k}) \Psi_{a}(-{\bf k}) + \Psi_{b}({\bf k}) \Psi_{b}(-{\bf k}) \} + h.c. , \nonumber \\
\label{anisotropicHA}\end{aligned}$$ where $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are, in general, allowed to be complex coefficients.
The lower Bogoliubov band of the quadratic Hamiltonian, Eqs. (\[BdGsD\]-\[right\_pairing\_sD\]) with the additional pairing in (\[anisotropicHA\]), is $$\begin{aligned}
E^2&=&\mu^2 + \Delta_s^2 + k^2 (1 + f_1^2 + f_2^2) \nonumber \\
&-& 2k\sqrt{\mu^2 + \Delta_s^2 f_2^2 + k_x^2 (f_1^2 + f_2^2) - 2 \Delta_s f_2 \frac{k_y}{k} \mu }. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Here, $\alpha k_x + \beta k_y = k (f_1 + i f_2)$ where $ f_i = \alpha_i \cos \phi + \beta_i \sin \phi, i =1,2$ and $\alpha_1 , \alpha_2, \beta_1,$ and $ \beta_2 $ are real, and $\phi$ is the polar angle of the momentum vector.
As in Appendix A, here we also analyze the pairing instabilities in the low-energy theory by introducing a cut-off $\Lambda$, so that relevant momenta from the interval around Fermi energy are defined by $\Lambda$, $ k\in (\mu - \Lambda , \mu + \Lambda)$. Also we assume that $ \mu \omega \ll \Delta_s \ll \Lambda \ll \mu$, where $\omega$ can be $\alpha_1$, $\alpha_2, \beta_1,$ or $ \beta_2$, and, at zero temperature, estimate the free energy when both, isotropic $(\Delta_s)$ and anisotropic $(f_1 , f_2)$ pairings are present. From the BCS mean field decoupling of effective attractive interactions we have terms proportional to $f_1^2 , f_2^2$ (averaged over angles) and $\Delta_s^2$ next to the contribution from the lower Bogoliubov band. (The upper band is assumed effectively a constant due to the constraint on the momenta.) The free energy density, ${\cal F}/{A}$, then reads $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{{\cal F}}{A} & = & g_1 \Delta_s^2 + g_2 (\alpha_1^2 + \alpha_2^2 + \beta_1^2 + \beta_2^2) \nonumber \\
&-& \frac{1}{2} \frac{1}{(2\pi)^2} \{ \mu \; \Lambda^2 \; 2 \pi + (1 + \ln \frac{4 \Lambda^2}{\Delta_s^2}) \times \pi \mu {\cal M}\} \label{M0} \nonumber \\\end{aligned}$$ where $${\cal M} = \Delta_s^2 + \frac{1}{2}
\Delta_s \beta_2 \mu + \frac{1}{4} (\alpha_1^2 + \alpha_2^2 + 3 \beta_1^2 + 3 \beta_2^2) \mu^2, \label{M}$$ with $g_1$ and $g_2$ as positive coupling constants which drive the instabilities in the respective channels. The last contribution of the quadratic order in anisotropic parameters, proportional to $ \sum_i (\alpha_i^2 + 3 \beta_i^2)$ was derived assuming $ \Lambda \ll \frac{\beta_2 \mu}{\Delta_s} \mu $.
To find this result for the free energy density we applied the same set of approximations as in Appendix A. We derived Eq. (\[M0\]) with (\[M\]) by expanding the value of the square root for large $\mu$, and then performing the integral over $k$. Before the final angular integration, we further simplified the result of the integration over $k$ by assuming the stated ordering of scales.
In the BCS weak coupling limit, by minimizing the free energy i.e. the total ground state energy, assuming $ \Delta_s \gg \omega \mu$ where $\omega$ can be $\alpha_1$, $\alpha_2, \beta_1,$ or $ \beta_2$, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta_s & \approx & 2 \Lambda \exp\{- \frac{4 \pi g_1}{\mu}\}, \nonumber \\
\beta_2 & \approx & \frac{\mu^2}{32 \pi} \frac{1}{g_2} \Delta_s (1 + \frac{8 \pi g_1}{\mu}), \nonumber \\
\alpha_1 & = & \alpha_2 = \beta_1 = 0.\end{aligned}$$ Thus we can conclude that for cut-off $\Lambda$, $ \mu \beta_2 \ll \Delta_s \ll \Lambda \ll \mu$, and in the presence of the isotropic instability $\Delta_s$ we can expect the presence of the anisotropic pairing with the order parameter $\sim i \beta_2 k_y$. This is due to the cross term in ${\cal F}$ with $\Delta_s$ and $\beta_2$ - see Eqs. (\[M\]) and (\[M0\]).
In the presence of mass $r$ the dispersion of the Bogoliubons is modified as $$\begin{aligned}
E^2&=&\mu^2 + r^2 + \Delta_s^2 + k^2 (1 + f_1^2 + f_2^2) \nonumber \\
&-& 2 \sqrt{ \mu^2 k^2 + \Delta_s^2 f_2^2 k^2 + k_x^2 (f_1^2 + f_2^2)k^2 + {\cal R}}, \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal R}&=& r^2 (\Delta_s^2 + \mu^2) \nonumber \\
&+& 2 \Delta_s k (- k_y f_2 \mu + k_x f_1 r).\end{aligned}$$ We can notice that besides the cross term $ \sim \Delta_s f_2 k_y$ under square root in the above equation, we have, in the presence of a mass $r$, the term $ \sim \Delta_s f_1 k_x$. By performing the similar mean field analysis as before, we can find that this term will lead to the development of the real component proportional to $k_x$ in the anisotropic pairing, $\alpha k_x + \beta k_y = \alpha_1 k_x + i \beta_2 k_y$, with $ \alpha_1 /\beta_2 \sim r/\mu$ for $r \ll \mu$. Eventually , for $r \lesssim \mu$, we expect that $\Delta_s = 0$, and the presence of the rotationally symmetric $p$ wave, $\alpha k_x + \beta k_y \sim (k_x \pm i k_y)$ of one-component quadratically dispersing HLR composite fermions. Indeed the assumption $\Delta_s = 0$, and the presence of the $p$ wave are compatible with $ r < \mu$, and there is no closing of the gap.
[99]{} J.K. Jain, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**63**]{}, 199 (1989). B.I. Halperin, P.A. Lee, and N. Read, Phys. Rev. B [**47**]{}, 7512 (1993). N. Read, Semiconductor Science and Tehnology [**9**]{}, 1859 (1994); N. Read, Phys. Rev. B [**58**]{}, 16262 (1998). C. Wang and T. Senthil, Phys. Rev. B [**93**]{}, 085110 (2016). D.T. Son, Phys. Rev. X [**5**]{}, 031027 (2015). S. D. Geraedts, Michael P. Zaletel, R. S. K. Mong, M. A. Metlitski, A. Vishwanath, O. I. Motrunich, Science [**352**]{}, 197 (2016). A.C. Potter, M. Serbyn, A. Vishwanath, arXiv:1512.06852 G. Murthy and R. Shankar, Phys. Rev. B [**93**]{}, 085405 (2016). S. Kachru, M. Mulligan, G. Torroba, and H. Wang, Phys. Rev. B [**92**]{}, 235105 (2015). M. Mulligan, S. Raghu, and M. P. A. Fisher, arXiv:1603.05656 A. C. Balram, C. Tőke, and J. K. Jain, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**115**]{}, 186805 (2015). M. Barkeshli, M. Mulligan, and M. P. A. Fisher, Phys. Rev. B [**92**]{}, 165125 (2015). M. A. Metlitski and A. Vishwanath, arXiv:1505.05142 F.D.M. Haldane, APS March meeting 2016 A.C. Barlam and J.K. Jain, Phys. Rev. B [**93**]{}, 235152 (2016). A. N. Redlich, Phys. Rev. D [**29**]{}, 2366 (1984). C. Wang and T. Senthil, arXiv:1604.06807 G.E. Volovik, [*The Universe in a Helium Droplet*]{}, Oxford University Press, New York, 2009. G. Moller, S. H. Simon, and E. H. Rezayi, Phys. Rev. B [**79**]{}, 125106 (2009); G. Moller, S. H. Simon, and E. H. Rezayi, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**101**]{}, 176803 (2008). M.V. Milovanović, E. Dobardžić, and Z. Papić, Phys. Rev. B [**92**]{}, 195311 (2015). J.-S. Jeong and K. Park Phys. Rev. B [**91**]{}, 195119 (2015). X. Wan and K. Yang, Phys. Rev. B [**93**]{}, 201303 (2016). Y. Liu, S. Hasdemir, M. Shayegan, L. N. Pfeiffer, K. W. West, and K. W. Baldwin, Phys. Rev. B [**88**]{}, 035307 (2013). G. Liu, C. Zhang, D. C. Tsui, I. Knez, A. Levine, R. R. Du, L. N. Pfeiffer, and K. W. West, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**108**]{}, 196805 (2012). F. D. M. Haldane, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**107**]{}, 116801 (2011). A.C. Barlam and J.K. Jain, Phys. Rev. B [**93**]{}, 075121 (2016). S.H. Simon, E.H. Rezayi, and M.V. Milovanovic, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**91**]{}, 046803 (2003). Z. Wang and S. Chakravarty, arXiv:1606.00899 B. Roy and V. Juriči' c, Phys. Rev. B [**90**]{}, 041413(R) (2014). P. Goswami and B. Roy, Phys. Rev. B [**90**]{}, 041301(R) (2014). F. Cai, Y. Yu, and Z. Wang, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter [**25**]{}, 305601 (2013). S. Murakami and N. Nagaosa, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**90**]{}, 057002 (2003). N. Read and D. Green, Phys. Rev. B [**61**]{}, 10267 (2000). M. Kellogg, I. B. Spielman, J. P. Eisenstein, L. N. Pfeiffer, and K. W. West Phys. Rev. Lett. [**88**]{}, 126804 (2002); M. Kellogg, J. P. Eisenstein, L. N. Pfeiffer, and K. W. West Phys. Rev. Lett. [**90**]{}, 246801 (2003). G. Murthy and R. Shankar, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**75**]{}, 1101 (2003).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
We have used the full radial extent of images from the [*Hubble Space Telescope*]{}’s Advanced Camera for Surveys and Wide Field Planetary Camera 2 to extract surface brightness profiles from a sample of six, local lenticular galaxy candidates. We have modelled these profiles using a core-Sérsic bulge [*plus*]{} an exponential disk model. Our lenticular disk galaxies with bulge magnitudes $M_{V}\la-21.30$ mag have central stellar deficits, suggesting that these bulges may have formed from ‘dry’ merger events involving supermassive black holes while their surrounding disk was subsequently built up, perhaps via cold gas accretion scenarios. The central stellar mass deficits $M_{\rm def}$ are roughly 0.5 to 2 $M_{\rm BH}$ (black hole mass), rather than $\sim$10 to 20 $M_{\rm BH}$ as claimed from some past studies, which is in accord with core-Sérsic model mass deficit measurements in elliptical galaxies. Furthermore, these bulges have Sérsic indices n $\sim 3$, half light radii $R_{e} < 2$ kpc and masses $> 10^{11}
M_{\sun}$, and therefore appear to be descendants of the compact galaxies reported at $z \sim 1.5$ to 2. Past studies which have searched for these local counterparts by using single-component galaxy models to provide the $z \sim 0$ size comparisons have over-looked these dense, compact and massive bulges in today’s early-type disk galaxies. This evolutionary scenario not only accounts for what are today generally old bulges—which must be present in $z \sim 1.5$ images—residing in what are generally young disks, but it eliminates the uncomfortable suggestion of a factor of 3 to 5 growth in size for the compact, $z \sim 1.5$ galaxies that are known to possess infant disks.
author:
- 'Bililign T. Dullo, Alister W. Graham'
title: 'Central Stellar Mass Deficits in the bulges of Local Lenticular Galaxies, and the Connection with Compact $z \sim 1.5$ Galaxies'
---
Introduction
============
It is now widely believed that [*all*]{} massive elliptical galaxies, and massive bulges in disk galaxies, house a supermassive black hole (SMBH) at their center (Magorrian et al. 1998; Richstone et al. 1998; Ferrarese & Ford 2005). In the standard cosmological formation paradigm of the universe, galaxies grow hierarchically, such that smaller systems merge to build larger ones (e.g., White & Rees 1978; Khochfar & Burkert 2001). As galaxies containing SMBHs collide, their black holes will migrate to the center of the merger remnant through dynamical friction, and form a bound binary. The subsequent hardening of the black hole binary, following the dissipation of orbital energy and angular momentum to the nearby stars, impacts on the central stellar distribution of the newly merged galaxy. The gravitational slingshot ejection of these stars (from the binary’s loss cone) via three-body interactions involving the binary is thought to be responsible for the physical origin of the partially depleted nuclear regions in luminous “core-Sérsic” galaxies which experienced ‘dry’, i.e. gas poor, merger events (Begelman et al. 1980; Ebisuzaki et al. 1991; Faber et al. 1997; Milosavljević & Merritt 2001; Merritt 2006; Sesana 2010; Gualandris & Merritt 2012).
Given the above scenario, the sizes and mass deficits of partially depleted cores are thought to reflect the amount of galactic merging and the ensuing extent of damage caused by binary SMBHs (after having eroded any preexisting nuclear star clusters: Bekki & Graham 2010). Accurate measurements of the central stellar mass deficits in “core-Sérsic” galaxies can therefore provide useful constraints on models of galaxy formation and evolution. A key concept is that such core formation is by and large a cumulative process in which the ejected mass from SMBH binaries scales both with the final SMBH mass and the number of mergers (e.g., Milosavljević & Merritt 2001; Merritt 2006). Some recent studies have additionally postulated enhanced core depletions as a result of recursive core passages of recoiled SMBHs (Gualandris & Merritt 2008), or due to the actions of multiple SMBHs from merging galaxies (Kulkarni & Loeb 2011).
To date, several quantitative studies of the central stellar mass deficit have focused on elliptical galaxies (e.g., Graham 2004; Trujillo et al. 2004; Merritt 2006; Kormendy & Bender 2009; Dullo & Graham 2012). Violent, major dry merger events are commonly, or at least traditionally, thought to produce these elliptical galaxies (Toomre & Toomre 1972; Barnes & Herquist 1992; Kauffmann & Haehnelt 2000). Furthermore, as noted above, dry merger events involving supermassive black holes are also typically thought to be responsible for producing elliptical galaxies with partially depleted cores. Therefore, some ambiguity exists regarding the mechanisms for the formation of the lenticular (S0) disk galaxies having depleted cores.
In 1936 Hubble introduced lenticular galaxies into the tuning fork diagram (Jeans 1928; Hubble 1929); they were added as a hypothetical transition type between elliptical and spiral galaxies. Later observation of the populations of lenticular and spiral galaxies in clusters revealed the dominance of lenticular galaxies (spiral galaxies) in local (in distant) clusters (e.g., Dressler 1980; Dressler et al. 1997; Couch et al. 1998; Fasano et al. 2000; Desai et al. 2007; Poggianti et al. 2009; Sil’chenko et al. 2010). This suggested an evolutionary transformation of S0 galaxies from spiral galaxies, where mechanisms such as ram pressure stripping (Gunn & Gott 1972; Quilis et al. 2000), galaxy-galaxy harassment (Moore et al. 1996), strangulation (Larson et al. 1980; Bekki et al. 2002; Kawata & Mulchaey 2008) and gas starvation by AGN (van den bergh 2009) were forwarded to account for the removal of disk gas and the subsequent quenching of star formation, thereby passively fading the spiral galaxies and erasing their spiral arms. These formation scenarios, however, do not in themselves explain the central stellar depletions observed in some S0 galaxies.
The theoretical work of Steinmetz & Navarro (2002) has suggested that a galaxy’s morphology is a transient phenomenon. In this hierarchical picture, classic elliptical galaxies are built through major mergers (of disk galaxies) and may progressively regrow stellar disks, by gas accretion, which remain intact only until the next significant merger (see Okamoto & Nagashima 2001; Governato et al. 2009; Pichon et al. 2011; Sales et al. 2011; Conselice et al. 2012 for supporting arguments). The number of such cycles may however be low (i.e. 1) rather than several (3 to 5). Likewise, Arnold et al. (2011) and Forbes et al. (2011) recently pointed out that S0s might form through a two-phase inside-out assembly with the inner regions built early via a violent major merger, and “wet” minor mergers subsequently contributing to the outer parts.
This assembly scenario is consistent with the observed presence of partially depleted cores in luminous S0 galaxies. It also suggests that their bulges, most of which we know are old (e.g., MacArthur, González & Courteau 2009, and references therein), were already around at $z \approx 1.5$ to 2. Graham (2013, his Fig. 1) revealed that the compact galaxies at $z=1.5$ to 2 have masses and structural properties consistent with those of the brighter bulges in local disk galaxies. Rather than being the precursors of elliptical galaxies prior to significant size evolution, Graham (2013) advocated that some of these compact high-$z$ galaxies may therefore be associated with the bulges of modern disk galaxies. Furthermore, in this scenario in which compact [*galaxies*]{} evolve into disk galaxies with compact bulges, the (high velocity)-end of the galaxy ‘velocity dispersion function’ would not be expected to evolve from $z \sim 1.5$ to 0, just as observed (Bezanson, van Dokkum & Franx 2012).
Regarding the analysis of surface brightness profiles, Trujillo et al.(2004) avoided the inclusion of S0 galaxies in their sample of well-resolved local galaxies because it was felt that the introduction of an 8-parameter model (5 or 6 core-Sérsic parameters for the bulge plus 2 for the exponential disk) might be considered excessive at that time. Ferrarese et al. (2006) also avoided introducing two additional disk parameters in their modelling of well-resolved early-type galaxies in the Virgo cluster; however because their sample included disk galaxies, their core-Sérsic parameters do not correspond to the bulge component[^1]. Although Kormendy et al. (2009) did fit a Sérsic bulge plus an exponential disk to their S0 galaxies, they marked the core region by eye rather than objectively fitting a core-Sérsic bulge plus exponential disk model. Depending on the sharpness of the (inner core)-to-(outer Sérsic) transition region, this practice may substantially over-estimate the formal ‘break radius’ — which is not to be confused with the inner or outer edge of the transition region.
Here we endeavor to provide the most accurate measurements to date of the centrally depleted stellar mass in lenticular disk galaxies. This is achieved by simultaneously fitting both a core-Sérsic model to the bulge [*and*]{} an exponential model to the disk.
This paper is organized as follows. Our initial sample of six suspected lenticular galaxies with depleted cores, plus the data reduction, and the light profile extraction technique are discussed in Section \[data2\]. In Dullo & Graham (2012) we did not have a sufficient radial extent of these six galaxies’ light profiles to include a disk component. Here we are able to test if this may have slightly biased some of our previous measurements of the bulge parameters. Section \[Modl\] introduces the analytical models used to describe the light profiles of “core-Sérsic” lenticular galaxies, and Section \[Fita\] details our fitting analysis while in Section \[Cedef\] we describe the method for measuring the mass deficits of the core-Sérsic lenticular galaxies. Our interpretations of the central stellar mass deficits in the context of core-Sérsic lenticular galaxy formation scenarios are discussed in Section \[Dis\]. In Section \[Fr\] we discuss the formation of core-Sérsic lenticular galaxies, and in Section \[hz\] we compare the physical properties of their bulges with those of compact galaxies at $z= 1.5$ to 2. In Section \[6.1.2\] we discuss the role of galaxy environment. Section \[Con2\] summarizes our main conclusions. At the end of this paper are two appendices. The first provides notes on the six individual galaxies studied in this paper and the second provides a response to the criticism of Dullo & Graham (2012) by Lauer (2012) regarding the identification of partially depleted cores.
Data and photometry {#data2}
===================
Sample selection {#data}
----------------
We have targeted the six ‘core-Sérsic’ lenticular[^2] galaxies from the sample of 39 relatively bright, nearby, early-type galaxies analysed by Dullo & Graham (2012). This initial sample of 39 galaxies came from Lauer et al. (2005) who had claimed that they all have partially depleted cores. Using the core-Sérsic model rather than the Nuker model, Dullo & Graham (2012) subsequently revealed that seven of them did not have partially depleted cores relative to the inward extrapolation of their outer Sérsic profiles (see also \[Sec422\]). The six, suspected lenticular galaxies with depleted cores are listed in Table \[Tabb1\].
Imaging data
------------
High resolution [*Hubble Space Telescope (HST)*]{} optical images of these galaxies were retrieved from the public [*HST*]{} data archive. We only used images from broad-band filters. While the [*HST*]{} Advanced Camera for Survey (ACS; Ford et al. 1998) Wide Field Channel (WFC) F475W and F850LP images, from the Virgo Cluster Survey GO-9401 program (PI: P. Côté), are available for NGC 4382, for the remaining five galaxies (NGC 507, NGC 2300, NGC 3607, NGC 3706 and NGC 6849) we used the Wide Field Planetary Camera 2 (WFPC2; Holtzman et al. 1995) F555W images taken from the following programs: NGC 507, NGC 3706 and NGC 6849 from the GO-6587 program (PI: D. Richstone); NGC 2300 from the GO-6099 program (PI: S. Faber) and NGC 3607 from the GO-5999 program (PI: A. Phillips). For NGC 3607, we also used the near-infrared NICMOS/NIC2 F160W image observed in the GO-11219 program (PI: A. Capetti) to enable us to better avoid this galaxy’s inner dusty spiral structure. Global properties and observation details of all the sample galaxies are listed in Table \[Tabb1\].
The WFPC2 consists of 3 wide field cameras (WF2, WF3 and WF4) and a high resolution Planetary Camera (PC1); each has a CCD detector with 800$\times$800 pixels. The three wide field cameras have a 0$\arcsec$.1 per pixel spatial sampling. The smaller, high resolution planetary camera (PC1), where each galaxy’s center had been placed, has a plate scale of 0$\arcsec$.046 and a square 36$\arcsec$$\times$36$\arcsec$ field of view (FOV).
Having two CCDs cameras with 2048 $\times$ 4096 pixels, the ACS Wide Field Channel has a $0\arcsec.$049 pixel scale and covers a $202\arcsec$$\times$202$\arcsec$ rhomboidal area.
Combining the constituent CCDs of each camera, the light profiles from the WFPC2 and ACS observations probe a large range in radius, $R\ga$ 80$\arcsec$. For comparison, Lauer et al. (2005, and references therein) deconvolved all six sample galaxy images with the PSF and provided profiles out to a maximum of $10\arcsec$. The greater radial extent that we now have, from high quality CCD imaging, enables us to better sample and measure the disk light.
While our WFPC2/F555W (roughly Jonson-Cousins $V$-band) images match Lauer et al.’s. (2005) $V$-band images, for NGC 4382 the ACS/F475W (roughly SDSS $g$) and ACS/F850LP (roughly SDSS $z$) data are transformed to the $V$-band using $$~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ g-V=0.98~(g-z)-1.43,
\label{Eqq1}$$ which is acquired here from the least squares fit to the ($g-V$) and ($g-z$) data shown in Fig. \[Figg1\], see also Sirianni et al. (2005) and Kormendy et al. (2009). The zero points in the Vega magnitude systems, which are adopted here to calibrate the WFPC2 (Holtzman et al. 1995) and ACS (Sirianni et al. 2005) profiles, were taken from the STScI web site[^3].
![Photometric transformation from ACS $g$ and $z$-band magnitude systems into WFPC2 $V$-band magnitude for NGC 4382. We use our $g$ and $z$-band plus Lauer et al.’s (2005) $V$-band surface brightnesses of the galaxy at different radii to obtain the data points. The line is the least-squares fit to the data (Eqn. \[Eqq1\]). []{data-label="Figg1"}](phot_cal.ps)
[@llcccccc@]{} Galaxy&Type& $M_{V, bulge}$ & D &$\sigma$&Filter&Exp. Time\
&&(mag)&(Mpc)&(km s$^{-1}$)&&(s)\
(1)&(2)&(3)&(4)&(5)&(6)&(7)\
\
NGC 0507 &S0 & $-22.56$ &$63.7^{n}$ &306&F555W&1700\
NGC 2300 &S0 $$ & $-21.33$ & $25.7^{n}$&261&F555W&1520\
NGC 3607 &S0 $$ & $-21.55$ &$22.2^{t} $ &224&F555W&160\
&&&&&F160W&1151\
NGC 3706 &S0 $$ & $-22.08$ &$45.2^{n}$ & 270&F555W&1400\
NGC 4382 &S0 $$ & $-21.38$& $17.9 ^{t}$ &179&F475W&750\
&&&&&F850LP&1210\
NGC 6849 &SB0 $$ & $-22.51$ & $80.5^{n}$& 209&F555W&900\
Notes.—Col. (1) Galaxy name. Col. (2) Morphological type from RC3 (de Vaucoulers et al. 1991). Col. (3) Absolute *V*-band bulge magnitude (galaxy magnitude for NGC 3706 since we (ultimately) adopt an elliptical morphology, see Section 4.1) obtained using our bulge-to-disk (B/D) flux ratios and absolute $V$-band [*galaxy*]{} magnitudes from Lauer et al. (2007b). These magnitudes are corrected for Galactic extinction, inclination and internal dust attenuation (Driver et al. 2008, their Table 1 and Eqs. 1 and 2) and $(1+z)^{4}$ surface brightness dimming, and adjusted using the distance from col. (4). Sources: ($t$) Tonry et al. (2001) after reducing their distance moduli by 0.06 mag (Blakeslee et al. 2002); ($n$) from NED (3K CMB). Col. (5) Central velocity dispersion from HyperLeda[^4] (Paturel et al. 2003).
 
 
 
 
Data Reduction
--------------
The WFPC2, ACS and NICMOS images, retrieved from the Hubble Legacy Archive[^5] (HLA), were processed using the standard HLA reduction pipeline. The reduction steps include bias subtraction, geometric distortion correction, dark current subtraction and flat fielding using date-appropriate references: the WFPC2 (McMaster et al. 2008) and ACS (Pavlovsky et al. 2006) data and instrument handbooks provide detailed descriptions of these steps.
The automatic HLA reduction pipeline also subtracts the sky background values from the images. Contamination from a poor subtraction is a possibility which makes the automatic sky background estimation of the spatially extended galaxies slightly uncertain, it essentially affects the outermost parts (fainter regions) of such galaxies’ profiles. Having major-axis diameters of $\la$ 4$^{\prime}$ and minor-axis diameters of $\la3^{\prime}$ (using $\mu_{B}$=25 mag arcsec$^{-2}$ as a reference level, NED), NGC 507, NGC 2300, NGC 3706 and NGC 6849 are within the WFPC2 field of view, thus, they are less prone to the sky subtraction errors. NGC 3607 and NGC 4382, however, extend beyond the WFPC2 and ACS field of views, respectively. Ferrarese et al. (2006) used a combination of the ACS and ground-based data to better constrain the sky level around NGC 4382, this data was later re-modelled by Dullo & Graham (2012, their Fig. 7). We find here that our light profile, and fit parameters for this galaxy, match those in Dullo & Graham (2012), indicating a small or zero sky subtraction error by the pipeline. This gives us some confidence that the outermost profile of NGC 3607 is also correct.
Finally, the images were masked to avoid the gaps between individual CCD detectors, the partially missing quadrant of the WFPC2 images, and regions including bright foreground stars, background galaxies, chip defects and galaxy dust lanes.
Surface photometry {#Sur_phot}
------------------
The galaxy light profiles were extracted using the IRAF/STSDAS task [ ellipse]{} (Jedrzejewski 1987). We used the [ellipse]{} task to construct the best-fitting concentric elliptical isophotes to the galaxy image starting from an initial elliptical isophote defined by the first guess values of the isophote center (X,Y), ellipticity ($\epsilon$) and position angle (PA). We used median filtering, logarithmic spacing, and 3$\sigma$ clipping for flagging deviant sample points at each isophote. To extract the major-axis light profiles, for all galaxies, the isophote centre (X ,Y), $\epsilon$ and PA were set free to vary. For each galaxy we found that the isophote center was stable, i.e. within the small quoted error box.
The deviations of isophotes from perfect ellipses can be characterized well by higher order coefficients of the Fourier series expansion of the intensity (Jedrzejewski 1987). In particular, the coefficient of the cos $4\theta$ term, $B_{4}$, is found to be of great importance in describing these deviations. Negative B$_{4}$ values imply that the isophotes are “boxy", but, if B$_{4}$ is positive, the isophote will be identified as “disky". Disky isophotes are frequently due to the presence of embedded disks in less massive, fast rotating, dissipative (gas rich) galaxies (e.g., Carter 1978, 1987; Davies et al. 1983; Bender et al. 1988; Peletier et al. 1990; Jaffe et al. 1994; Faber et al. 1997). In contrast, dissipationless violent relaxation of stars are often invoked to explain the boxy isophotes of triaxial, pressure-supported massive galaxies (Nieto & Bender 1989), which usually also contain hot X-ray emitting gas (e.g., Cattaneo et al. 2009).
In Fig. \[Figg2\] we show the results of the [ellipse]{} fitting. As noted in Rest et al. (2001), the isophotal parameters derived from the [ ellipse]{} fits tend to be more uncertain in the very inner regions ($R\la
0.\arcsec3$); this feature is mainly due to the PSF and some contributions from the discrete sampling and subpixel interpolation of the IRAF fitting routine (Ravindranath et al. 2001). We note that while the disky/boxy isophotal deviations vary with radius in all of the six galaxies, NGC 507 and NGC 4382 have core regions which appear preferentially boxy within 1$\arcsec$ (Fig. \[Figg2\]). Nieto & Bender (1989) reported that the S0 galaxy NGC 2300 has boxy inner ($1\arcsec < R \la 20 \arcsec$) isophotes and disky ‘pointed’ outer ($20\arcsec < R < 50 \arcsec$) isophotes, in agreement with our result (Fig. 2). In constructing ‘composite’ light profiles for each galaxy, we combine the very inner ($R \la 1\arcsec$) Lauer et al. (2005) PSF-deconvolved, high resolution $V$-band light profile with our photometrically calibrated ($V$-band) profile of the PSF-unaffected region beyond $\sim$ $1\arcsec$. For all the six galaxies in our sample, we find an excellent agreement (an overlap) between our light profiles and those published by Lauer et al. (2005) over the $ 1\arcsec - 5\arcsec$ radial range.
Models For ‘core-Sérsic’ Lenticular galaxies {#Modl}
============================================
Given the two component (bulge/disk) nature of lenticular galaxies, we apply a bulge-to-disk photometric decomposition to the one-dimensional, major-axis surface brightness profiles of all the galaxies in our sample. When needed, a bar component is also included.
The radial intensity distribution of our lenticular galaxies’ disk component is modelled with an exponential function given by $$I_{disk}(R)=I_{0d} \exp~[-R/h],~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
\label{Eqq3}$$ where $I_{0d}$ and $h$ are the central intensity and scale length of the disk respectively.
We adopt the Ferrers (1877) function to describe the radial intensity distribution of the bar component, given by\
$I_{bar}(R)=I_{0bar}\left[1-(R/a_{bar})^{2}\right]^{n_{bar}+0.5},~~~~~~~~R< a_{bar},$
$$I_{bar}(R)=0,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ R> a_{bar},~~~~~
\label{Eqq3}$$
where $I_{0bar}$, $a_{bar}$ and $n_{bar}$ are the central intensity, major-axis length and shape parameter of the bar, respectively (cf. Laurikainen et al. 2010).
Since the work by Caon et al. (1993) and Andredakis, Peletier & Balcells (1995), several studies revealed that, in general, the Sérsic (1963) model describes the underlying light distributions of both elliptical galaxies and the bulges of disk galaxies exceedingly well over a large radial range. This model can be written as $$I(R) = I_{0} \exp \left[ - b_{n}
\left(\frac{R}{R_{e}}\right)^{1/n}\right],
\label{Eqq2}$$ where $ I_{0}=I(R=0)$ is the central intensity. The quantity $b_{n}\approx 2n- 1/3$, for $1\la n\la 10$ (e.g., Caon et al. 1993; Graham 2001) is a function of the Sérsic index $n$, and is defined in such a way to ensure that the half light radius, $R_{e}$, encloses half of the total luminosity. Reviewed in Graham & Driver (2005), the total luminosity of the Sérsic model within any radius $R$ is given by $$L_{T,Ser}(<R) = I_{e} R^{2}_{e} 2 \pi n \frac{e^{b_{n}}}{(b_{n})^{2n}} \gamma (2n,x),
\label{Eqq2a}$$ where $\gamma (2n,x)$ is the incomplete gamma function and $x= b_{n}(R/R_{e})^{1/n}$.
Systematic downward departures of the inner light profile relative to the inward extrapolation of the outer Sérsic model are known to exist in luminous galaxy/bulge light profiles. These are not exactly the same objects as “core” galaxies identified with the Nuker model (Lauer et al. 1995; Byun et al. 1996) or the double power-law model of Ferrarese et al. (1994). “Core-Sérsic” galaxies have partially-depleted cores relative to their outer Sérsic profile whereas “core” galaxies need not have any deficit but instead simply an inner power-law slope $\gamma < 0.3$. As detailed in Dullo & Graham (2012), the core-Sérsic model (Graham et al. 2003), a combination of an inner power-law and an outer Sérsic function, provides a good representation of the brightness profiles of bulges in disk galaxies with depleted cores. The model is defined as $$I(R) =I' \left[1+\left(\frac{R_{b}}{R}\right)^{\alpha}\right]^{\gamma /\alpha}
\exp \left[-b_{n}\left(\frac{R^{\alpha}+R^{\alpha}_{b}}{R_{e}^{\alpha}}
\right)^{1/(\alpha n)}\right],~~~~~
\label{Eqq4}$$ with $$I^{\prime} = I_{b}2^{-\gamma /\alpha} \exp
\left[b_{n} (2^{1/\alpha } R_{b}/R_{e})^{1/n}\right].~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
\label{Eqq5}$$ The term $I_{b}$ denotes the intensity at the core’s break radius $ R_{b}$, $\gamma$ is the slope of the inner power law, and $\alpha$ controls the sharpness of the transition between the inner power-law and the outer Sérsic profile. Both $R_{e}$ and $b_{n}$ have the same general meaning as in the Sérsic model.
[@llccccccccccccccc@]{} Galaxy&Type&$ \mu_{b, V} $ & $R _{b}$ &$R_{b}$ &$ \gamma$&$\alpha$&$n$&$R_{e}$&$R_{e}$&$\mu_{0d, V}$&$h$&$(B/T)_{Obs}$&$ (B/T)_{Cor}$&$i$\
&&&(arcsec)&(pc)&&&&(arcsec)&kpc&&(arcsec)&&&($^{\circ}$)\
(1)&(2)&(3)&(4)&(5)&(6)&(7)&(8)&(9)&(10)&(11)&(12)&(13)&(14)&(15)&\
\
NGC 0507 &S0 &16.38 & 0.33 & 102& $ 0.07$ &5&2.19&5.34&1.65&21.03& 27.69&0.32&0.43& 0\
NGC 2300 &S0 &16.61 & 0.53&70& $ 0.08$ &2&2.20&7.69&1.02&20.39&21.08&0.42&0.57&44\
NGC 3607 &S0&–&–&–&–&–&2.39&7.75&0.84&19.16&18.61&0.40&0.57&59\
NGC 3706$^{\dagger}$&E &14.16&0.11 &24& -0.02&10&6.36&42.08&9.18& – &–&–&–&53\
NGC 4382 &S0 &15.01 & 0.27 & 24 & 0.07 & 5& 2.65&11.14&0.99&19.50&35.07&0.28&0.40&39\
NGC 6849$^{\ddagger}$&SB0 &16.67& 0.18 & 69& 0.20 &5& 3.23&7.77&2.98 & 20.72&16.93&0.31&0.46&55\
Notes.—Structural parameters from fits to the $V$-band major-axis surface brightness profiles (Fig. \[Figg3\]). Col. (1) Galaxy name. Col. (2) Our adopted morphological classification. Col. (3)-(10) Best-fit bulge structural parameters from the core-Sérsic model, Eq. \[Eqq4\]. Col. (11)-(12) Best-fit disk structural parameters from the exponential model, Eq. \[Eqq3\]. Break surface brightness $\mu_{b,V}$ and disk central surface brightness $\mu_{0d,V}$ are in mag arcsec$^{-2}$. Col. (13) Expected V-band bulge-to-total (B/T)$_{Obs}$ flux ratios obtained using Graham & Driver (2005, their Eq. 19). These ratios are corrected for Galactic extinction, surface brightness dimming, internal dust attenuation and inclination (Driver et al. 2008, their Table 1 and Eqs. 1 and 2) and listed in Col. (14). Col. (15) Disk inclination angles ($i$) are derived using the galaxies’ major- and minor-axis diameters from NED. $\dagger$ We classify NGC 3706 as an elliptical galaxy based on our light profile analysis. $\ddagger$ The fit parameters for the bar component: $\mu _{0bar,V}$=21.63 mag arcsec$^{-2}$, $a_{bar}=29$$\arcsec$.04, and $n_{bar}=6.37$.
Fitting analysis {#Fita}
================
Fig. \[Figg3\] displays the best model fits to the major-axis surface brightness profiles of the 6 galaxies listed in Table \[Tabb1\]. We follow the iterative fitting technique of Dullo & Graham (2012), minimizing the root mean square (rms) residuals to determine the best fit parameters that match the data. It is important to note that these profiles now cover a large range in radius ($ \mbox{out to}~ R\ga80\arcsec$), giving both the core-Sérsic and the exponential models enough radial expanse to both quantify the curvature in the bulge profile (i.e. the Sérsic index) and define the disk scale length. Table \[Tabb2\] lists the fit parameters obtained from the adopted core-Sérsic plus exponential bulge+disk models. Apparent from Fig. \[Figg3\] is that the global light distribution of all the sample galaxies, except for NGC 3706 (E not S0) and NGC 6849 (barred), can be accurately represented by the core-Sérsic+exponential model with a small rms residuals $\la 0.05$ mag arcsec$^{-2}$. If a single core-Sérsic model is fit to the light profile of a disk galaxy (i.e. a two-component system comprised of a flattened disk and a triaxial bulge), this would result in parameters that do not describe the triaxial bulge component of the galaxy, effecting in particular the Sérsic index, and ultimately the mass deficit measurement as happened in Ferrarese et al. (2006, See also Meert et al. 2012). Although NGC 3706 is classified as a lenticular galaxy in the RC3, we find that its light profile is best fitted by a single core-Sérsic model, without an exponential disk component. This suggests that the galaxy may be an elliptical galaxy misclassified as an S0 in the RC3, consistent with the conclusion of Laurikainen et al. (2010). As for NGC 6849, the 3-component bulge-bar-disk light profile is well described by the core-Sérsic bulge+Ferrers bar+exponential disk decomposition model (see Fig.\[Figg3\] and Section \[Sec416\]).
While the $V$-band surface brightness profile of NGC 3607 is well described by the core-Sérsic bulge+exponential disk model, the 1$\arcsec$.31 core radius of this fit is suspiciously larger than the 0$\arcsec$.22 core radius reported by Richings et al. (2011) from their $H$-band profile analysis. The explanation is that a dusty nuclear spiral has caused a reduction to the inner $V$-band light profile. Our analysis of the PSF-affected $H$-band light profile (Fig. \[Figg3\]) gives a core radius of 0$\arcsec$.11, which is in fair agreement with the result found by Richings et al. (2011) but does not support a large core in this galaxy. Given that the core size we find with the PSF-affected $H$-band data is comparable to the seeing, coupled with the dusty spiral structure, we are unable to conclude if there is indeed any partially-depleted core in this galaxy, and as such we exclude it from our final analysis.
We have found that the bulge model parameters (Table \[Tabb2\]) generally agree well with those from Dullo & Graham (2012). For NGC 2300, the contribution of the disk light to the inner $15 \arcsec$ profile which we modelled in Dullo & Graham (2012) did however result in a break radius $R_{b}=0\arcsec.98$ which is slightly larger than the one from this work ($R_{b}=0\arcsec.53$). With the exception of this galaxy, the agreement between the break radii from these two studies is good, constrained to less than a 20% discrepancy. For each galaxy, we find that the $V$-band surface brightness at the break radius ($\mu_{b,V}$) given in Table 2 agrees with those presented in Dullo & Graham (2012) to within the range of error bar: there is $\sim 5\%$ discrepancy, which is well within the Dullo & Graham (2012) $\sim 10\%$ uncertainty range. We have also compared the inner power-law slopes ($\gamma$) from the two studies. We find that the new $\gamma$ values (Table 2) are consistent with those reported in Dullo & Graham (2012).
The five core-Sérsic lenticular galaxies (Table \[Tabb2\]) have bulge Sérsic indices $n\sim3$, while typically for core-Sérsic elliptical galaxies $n$ is greater than 3. This may be because, for a given magnitude, the bulges of disk galaxies appear to have lower Sérsic indices than elliptical galaxies of the same magnitude (Graham 2001, his Fig. 14). It may also be that the elliptical core-Sérsic galaxies from Dullo & Graham (2012) are brighter.
Central stellar mass deficit {#Cedef}
============================
The central stellar mass deficit ($M_{\rm def}$) of ‘core-Sérsic’ galaxies is predicted to be generated mainly via the three-body encounters of the core stars with the inspiraling black holes in a merger remnant (e.g., Ebisuzaki et al. 1991; Milosavljević & Merritt 2001; Merritt 2006). Graham (2004) measured this stellar mass deficit from the luminosity difference $L_{\rm
def}$ between the inward extrapolation of the outer Sérsic model and the (sharp-transition[^6]) core-Sérsic model. This approach was adopted in subsequent works by Ferrarese et al. (2006), Merritt (2006) and Hyde et al. (2008). We adopt a slightly different methodology to those studies by using a finite value for $\alpha$ in Eq. \[Eqq4\] and thus a smoother transition region between the inner power-law and the outer Sérsic profile of the core-Sérsic model. The total core-Sérsic model luminosity (Trujillo et al. 2004; their Eq. A19) is given by
$L_{T,cS}=2\pi I'n(R_{e}/b^{n})^{2}\int\limits_{b(R_{b}/R_{e})^{1/n}}^{+\infty}e^{-x}x^{n(\gamma+\alpha)-1}$
$$~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\times\left[x^{n\alpha}-(b^{n}R_{b}/R_{e})^{\alpha}\right]^{(2-\gamma-\alpha)/\alpha}dx,~~~~~~~
\label{Eqq6}$$
where all the parameters have the same meaning as in Eq. \[Eqq4\]. The difference in luminosity between the outer Sérsic model (Eq. \[Eqq2a\]) and the core-Sérsic model (Eq. \[Eqq6\]) is of course the central stellar flux deficit.
To convert the luminosity deficits into mass deficits, individual stellar mass-to-light ($M/L$) ratios were derived for each galaxy. To determine these ratios, we have made use of the available (preferentially nuclear) colours of the galaxies as well as the colour-age-metallicity-($M/L$) diagram from Graham & Spitler (2009; their Fig A1). As in Graham (2004), we have assumed that the inner regions of these galaxies have an evolved (old) single population of stars.
For NGC 2300, NGC 3607 and NGC 4382, the nuclear $V-I$ colours of 1.33, 1.36 and 1.11, taken from Lauer et al. (2005), correspond to stellar $M/L_{V}$ ratios of 5.0, 5.7 and 2.6, respectively. Using the HyperLeda database, NGC 507 and NGC 3706 have $V-I$ colours of 1.40 and 1.34, respectively, while NGC 6849 has $V-I$=1.03. From this, we obtain $M/L_{V}$ ratios of 5.5, 5.2, and 2.4 for NGC 507, NGC 3706 and NGC 6849, respectively (see Table \[Tabb3\]). These mass-to-light ratios were used to convert the stellar flux deficits into stellar mass deficits. These have been plotted in Fig. \[Figg4\] against each galaxy’s expected black hole mass as derived from the $M-\sigma$ relation (Graham et al. 2011; the lower half of their Table 2) based on the $\sigma$ values in Table \[Tabb1\].
![Central mass deficit $(M_{\rm def})$ versus black hole mass ($M_{BH}$) for ‘core-Sérsic’ galaxies listed in Table \[Tabb2\] and \[Tabb3\]. The only elliptical galaxy is circled. The $M$-$\sigma$ relation presented in Graham et al. (2011) was used for estimating the SMBH masses of the galaxies. A horizontal solid line connects the two predicted black hole masses of NGC 6849: i) assuming it is a barred galaxy (triangle) and ii) considering it as a non-barred galaxy (star). A representative error bar is shown at the bottom of the panel.[]{data-label="Figg4"}](Lent_deficit.ps)
As noted above, high-accuracy N-body simulations by Merritt (2006) revealed that the effect of multiple dissipationless mergers on core formation is cumulative, thus, the extent of core evacuation could reflect the amount of merging. He found that the total mass deficit after $N$ ‘dry’ major mergers is $\approx$ 0.5$NM_{\rm
BH}$, where $M_{\rm BH}$ is the final black hole mass. This result hinges on a key assumption that the central black hole would tidally disrupt infalling high-density satellites, thereby protecting any preexisting core (Faber et al. 1997; Boylan-Kolchin & Ma 2007).
Fig. \[Figg4\] shows that the mass deficits for the ‘core-Sérsic’ lenticular galaxies (plus one elliptical galaxy) listed in Table \[Tabb2\] are $ M_{\rm def}\sim
0.5-2$$M_{\rm BH}$, which translates to a few (1 to 4) ‘dry’ major merger events. For reference, measurements of close galaxy pairs in real data (i.e. not simulations) suggest that massive galaxies ($> 10^{10.5} M_{\odot}$) have experienced 0.5 to 2 major mergers since $z \sim 0.7$ to 1 (e.g., Bell et al.2004, 2006; Bluck et al. 2012; Man et al. 2012; Xu et al. 2012). Our figure is double this value, but it has no upper redshift constraint associated with it. The mean elliptical galaxy $M_{\rm def}/M_{\rm BH}$ mass ratio from Graham (2004) is $2.1\pm1.1$, while the mean ratio from Ferrarese et al. (2006) is $2.4\pm0.8$ after excluding the S0 galaxy NGC 4382 from their sample (as they did at the end of their Section 5.2). We used the $M_{\rm BH}$-$\sigma$ relation presented in Graham et al. (2011; the lower half of their Table 2) for estimating the SMBH masses of the five core-Sérsic galaxies shown in Table \[Tabb3\]. While this $M_{\rm BH}$-$\sigma$ relation was constructed by combining core-Sérsic and Sérsic galaxies, Graham & Scott (2012, their Table 3) have recently shown that core-Sérsic and Sérsic galaxies follow similar $M_{\rm BH}$-$\sigma$ relations. They additionally reported an $M_{\rm BH}$-$\sigma$ relation for their combined (core-Sérsic + Sérsic) galaxies which is consistent with the relation found by Graham et al. (2011). We find that, for all our core-Sérsic galaxies, the SMBH masses predicted using the Graham & Scott (2012) $M_{\rm BH}$-$\sigma$ relations which are defined by the core-Sérsic, Sérsic or core-Sérsic + Sérsic galaxies agree with those used in this study (Table 3) within the range of error bars. We make use of Eq. 4 from Graham et al. (2011) and the $\sigma$-values in Table \[Tabb1\] and assume a 10% uncertainty on $\sigma$ to estimate the $1\sigma$ uncertainty on each galaxy’s SMBH mass (Table \[Tabb3\]).
For NGC 4382, Kormendy & Bender (2009) reported a mass deficit of $M_{\rm
def}\sim 1.3\times 10^{9} M_{\sun}\approx 13 M_{BH}$ when using $M_{BH}=1\times10^{8} M_{\sun}$, while Gültekin et al. (2011) used Nuker model parameters and found a mass deficit of $M_{\rm def}\sim 5.9\times
10^{8}M_{\sun}\approx 45.6M_{\rm BH}$ when they assumed a very small black hole mass of $1.3 \times 10^{7} M_{\sun}$. Ferrarese et al. (2006, see their Fig. 20) noted that the large-scale stellar disk of NGC 4382, which was incorporated into their single Sérsic fit to this galaxy, might have biased their $\sim 10 M_{BH}$ mass deficit measurement. Indeed, their [*galaxy*]{} Sérsic index was $\approx 6$–7, while we have found that the bulge Sérsic index is less than 3. Our analysis of this bulge’s central stellar mass deficit yields $M_{\rm
def}\sim1.2\times10^{8}M_{\sun}\approx1.3M_{\rm BH}$ (using $M_{BH} = 9.55
\times 10^{7} M_{\sun}$), smaller than the results of Ferrarese et al.(2006), Kormendy et al. (2009) and Gütekin et al. (2011).
Previously, Milosavljević & Merritt (2001), Milosavljević et al. (2002), Ravindranath et al. (2002) and Lauer et al. (2007a) had used the Nuker model to measure mass deficits that are up to an order of magnitude larger than those obtained here. As detailed in Trujillo et al. (2004) and Dullo & Graham (2012), this discrepancy arises in part from the differences in the estimated core sizes from the two models. While the Nuker model break radii are up to 3 times larger than the core-Sérsic model break radii, due to the Nuker model fitting a power-law to each galaxy’s outer curved Sérsic profile (Graham et al. 2003), the core-Sérsic break radii agree with model-independent core sizes where the negative logarithmic slope of the light profile equals 0.5 (Dullo & Graham 2012).
More recently, Kormendy et al. (2009) fit Sérsic models to core-Sérsic galaxy light profiles and tried to quantify the core from a visual inspection, rather than using the core-Sésic model in an objective analysis. They report large break radii and mass deficits $M_{\rm def}\sim 10-20 M_{BH}$. In an effort to reconcile these large deficits, they speculated that they may be due to recoiled black holes, which might enhance the core depletion following their repetitive core passages (Boylan-Kolchin et al. 2004; Gaulandris & Merritt 2008); cf. also Postman et al. (2012) for a similar reasoning. If this mechanism always occurred, then the lower $M_{\rm def}/ M_{BH}$ ratios in Dullo & Graham (2012) for elliptical galaxies would suggest that the effective number of major mergers is less than one, i.e. only a minor merger is required. However given the near-linear relation between black hole mass and host spheroid mass, and luminosity, for core-Sérsic galaxies (Graham 2012; Graham & Scott 2012) this scenario is unlikely. At least for the elliptical core-Sérsic galaxies, which are the dominant population among the known core-Sérsic galaxies, this linear black hole-galaxy mass scaling relation readily arises from the self addition of comparable mass systems, not minor mergers.
[@llcccccc@]{} Galaxy&$M/L_{V}$&log ($M_{*}/M_{\sun}$)&$R_{e} $&log ($L_{def}/L_{\sun,V}$)&log ($M_{def}/M_{\sun}$)&log ($M_{BH}/M_{\sun}$)\
&&&(kpc)&&&&\
(1)&(2)&(3)&(4)&(5)&(6)&(7)\
\
NGC 0507 &5.5&11.70&1.65&8.34&9.08&9.22 $\pm$ 0.39\
NGC 2300 &5.0&11.16&1.02&7.81&8.51&8.86 $\pm$ 0.39\
NGC 3607 &5.7&11.31&0.84&–&–&–\
NGC 3706 &5.2&11.60&9.18&8.30&9.01&8.93 $\pm$ 0.39\
NGC 4382 &2.6&10.90&0.99&7.68&8.09&7.98 $\pm$ 0.38\
NGC 6849 &2.4&11.32&2.98&7.97&8.35&8.04 $\pm$ 0.43\
Notes.—Col. (1) Galaxy name. Col. (2) $V$-band stellar mass-to-light ($M/L$) ratio. Col. (3) Stellar mass of the bulge obtained using the bulge magnitude (Table \[Tabb1\]) and the stellar mass-to-light ($M/L$) ratio (col. 2) (for the elliptical galaxy NGC 3706 the contribution of the galaxy’s nuclear stellar ring has not been subtracted). Col. (4) Major-axis half-light radius of the bulge. Col. (5) Central luminosity deficit in terms of $V$-band solar luminosity. Col. (6) Central stellar mass deficit obtained using col. (2) and col. (5). Col. (7) SMBH mass predicted from the $M-\sigma$ relation presented in Graham et al. (2011). We use Eq. 4 from Graham et al. (2011) and the $\sigma$-values in Table \[Tabb1\] and a 10% uncertainty on $\sigma$ to estimate the error on SMBH mass. We adopt a barred morphology to estimate the mass of the black hole in NGC 6849.
Discussion {#Dis}
==========
Formation of core-Sérsic lenticular galaxies {#Fr}
--------------------------------------------
As noted above, the central stellar mass deficits for the ‘core-Sérsic’ lenticular galaxies are found to be $M_{\rm def}\sim0.5-2 M_{\rm BH}$ (Fig.\[Figg4\]). By comparing these mass deficits with the results of Merritt (2006), one would conclude that the bulges of core-Sérsic S0s have experienced the equivalent of a few ‘dry’ major merger events. Deviations from this rule may however exist. For example, substantial black hole recoiling events would lower this figure of a few, while ‘loss cone’ re-filling through wet mergers and the production of new stars would allow scope for an increased number of mergers. This latter scenario is unlikely given, in general, the red colours of the galaxies’ bulges. However, Carter et al. (2011) have found $FUV-NUV$ colour gradients in several core-Sérsic galaxies which seem to be inconsistent with the major, dry merger scenario detailed in Faber et al.(1997). Also, the globular cluster specific frequencies of some intermediate luminosity ellipticals are found to be systematically lower than the ones in bright, core-Sérsic elliptical galaxies (Harris & van den Bergh 1981; van den Bergh 1982). This may reflect that core galaxy formation may not involve dry merger events, because such mergers are thought to be inefficient at creating new globular clusters.
![Radial colour profiles for four of the five lenticular galaxies listed in Table \[Tabb2\]. Colour information is not available for NGC 507. The inner $R\la 1\arcsec$ profile of NGC 3607 is excluded due to possible dust contamination. For NGC 6849, the $B-R$ color profile is derived using the published surface brightness profiles presented in Reda et al. (2004). []{data-label="Figg5"}](LENTCLR.ps)
Although not (yet) popular, various studies have proposed alternative mechanisms for generating cores in luminous galaxies. For example, N-body simulations by Nipoti et al. (2006) revealed that disipationless collapses in preexisting dark matter haloes would naturally produce galaxies which resemble ellipticals galaxies with depleted cores. These galaxies may also exist at $ z = 1.5$ to $2$, however, it is unclear how these cores are protected against infalling high-density satellites in the absence of a central massive black hole. While the bulges of today’s S0s do not all possess partially depleted cores, this does not exclude today’s Sérsic bulges from having existed at $ z = 1.5$ to $2$. Indeed, as shown by MacArthur et al. (2009, and the references in Graham 2013) the bulk of most bulges’ stars are sufficiently old to have existed then.
Using numerical simulations, Goerdt et al. (2010) showed that the energy transferred from sinking massive objects can generate cores that are up to 3 kpc in sizes. Similarly, Martizzi et al. (2012a, see also Martizzi et al. 2012b) used 500 pc resolution simulations and concluded that the combined effects of AGN feedback and inspiraling massive black holes create cores in luminous elliptical galaxies that are up to 8 - 10 kpc in sizes. However, these overly large cores reported by Goerdt et al. (2010) and Martizzi et al. (2012a) are in general incompatible with the majority of $\la 0.5$ kpc cores observed in real galaxies (e.g., Trujillo et al. 2004; Richings et al. 2011; Dullo & Graham 2012).
One can envisage that a core in a core-Sérsic S0 galaxy may be created through the ‘dry’ intermediate-mass merger (with mass ratio 1:4 to 1:7) of an S0 galaxy with a smaller elliptical galaxy, such that the disk is not destroyed but the bulge grows while the black hole binary created during the merger ejects stars from the inner regions of the bulge. Eliche-Moral et al. (2012; see also Bekki 1998; Bournaud et al. 2005) has recently explored this merger scenario and concluded that ‘dry’ intermediate-mass mergers can give rise to remnants that are both photometrically and kinematically compatible with the observed S0s. It should, however, be noted that these studies did not explore the actual nuclear structure of the merger remnants. Another possibility may be minor disk galaxy mergers which result in a rotating, disky merger remnant (Burkert & Naab 2005; Jesseit et al. 2005). Core-Sérsic S0 galaxies might also or instead be assembled via an inside-out mechanism: an early major merger might create an elliptical galaxy with a depleted core, around which a disk is subsequently built up over time via ‘dry’ minor mergers and/or smooth cold gas accretion. The assumption here is that the accretion process is very gentle and slow, enabling the cold gas to assemble into a star-forming disk (e.g., Steinmentz & Navarro 2002; Birnboim & Dekel 2003; Kereš et al. 2005) and also preventing it from falling towards the centers of the bulges, which otherwise would fuel a central burst of star formation and replenish the depleted cores.
These later core-Sérsic galaxy formation scenarios, each involving merger events, may be in agreement with the properties of our high luminosity S0 bulges. This is in contrast to models that produce S0s by fading the disks of spiral galaxies through processes such as ram pressure stripping (e.g., Gunn & Gott 1972)—which is not to say that such processing does not additionally occur.
Bulges of today’s S0s versus compact high redshift galaxies {#hz}
-----------------------------------------------------------
Recent observations have revealed that the sizes of compact massive galaxies at redshift of $z\sim$ 1.5 to 2 (having effective radii $R_{e}\la$ 2 kpc) are up to a factor of $\sim 5$ smaller than the present day elliptical galaxies of comparable stellar mass (Daddi et al. 2005; Trujillo et al. 2006; Damjanov et al. 2009; Saracco et al. 2011; Szomoru et al. 2012, and references therein). While today’s elliptical galaxies are widely regarded as the descendants of these compact high redshift galaxies (e.g., Hopkins et al.2009), Graham (2013, his Fig. 1) showed that massive local disk galaxies can also be alternative candidates given the high stellar density and compactness of their bulges. Comparing the properties of our massive present day bulges with compact high redshift galaxies, we plot the size-mass (Fig. \[Figg6\]a) and size-(Sérsic index) (Fig. \[Figg6\]b) diagrams for a sample of 106 galaxies. 101 of these objects are compact massive quiescent galaxies at redshift $z=$ 0.2 to 2.7 taken from Damjanov et al. (2011, selected from their Table 2), while five are the bulges from local S0s (Table \[Tabb2\] and \[Tabb3\]). This figure clearly shows that the location of the bulges of our five core-Sérsic S0s coincides with that of the high-redshift compact galaxies in both the $R_e-M_{*}$ and $R_{e}-n$ diagrams.
This overlap suggests that the compact high redshift galaxies are the progenitors of (the bulges of) massive present day S0s (e.g., Dutton et al. 2012; Graham et al. 2013). Indeed, the inside-out growth mechanism described at the end of Section \[Fr\], which could drive the build up of the core-Sérsic S0s (Section \[6.1.2\]), would also eliminate the difficulties encountered in trying to explain the size evolution of these compact high redshift galaxies into much larger, modern day elliptical galaxies. Large elliptical galaxies already exist at $z \approx 1.5$ to 2 (e.g., Bruce et al. 2012). We further note that van der Wel. (2011, see also Chevance et al. 2012) wrote that the majority of compact high redshift galaxies have small undeveloped disks. In addition, Poggianti et al. (2012) found that 4.4% of their total low redshift galaxy population had sizes and mass densities comparable to the compact, massive high redshift galaxies, with 70% of these compact low redshift galaxies found to be S0s. Given the results in Graham (2013, his Fig. 1), a comparison of local S0 galaxy “bulge” sizes and densities, rather than the entire “galaxy” sizes and densities, should yield a higher percentage match. It seems plausible that minor mergers and cold gas accretion (e.g., Conselice et al. 2012), in a preferred plane due to known cosmological streaming/feeding paths, may transform some of the compact high redshift galaxies into modern S0s by the creation of a younger surrounding disk. This process eliminates the difficulties that arise when trying to evolve the compact high-$z$ galaxies into local elliptical galaxies, such as the shortage of satellites required to produce the necessary expansion via many minor mergers (Trujillo et al. 2012). It is also consistent with cosmological models (e.g., Steinmetz & Navarro 2002), and explains many properties of early-type galaxies.
The role of galaxy environment {#6.1.2}
------------------------------
Several studies have highlighted that environment plays a major role in the formation of S0 galaxies (e.g., Dressler 1980; Dressler et al. 1997; Couch et al. 1998; Fasano et al. 2000; Poggianti et al. 2009; Wilman et al. 2009; Just et al. 2010; Bekki & Couch 2011). Three of our five S0 galaxies (NGC 507, NGC 2300 and NGC 3607) reside in X-ray bright galaxy groups, while NGC 6849 is an isolated galaxy, and NGC 4382 is a member of the Virgo cluster.
NGC 6849, the isolated core-Sérsic lenticular galaxy, may have had its bulge built through an early violent ‘dry’ major merger, while subsequent late accretion of gas and stars built up its disk—the picture in Graham (2013), see also Conselice et al. (2012). This hierarchical inside-out growth scenario is supported by its radial colour profile plotted in Fig. \[Figg5\]. The $B-R$ colour gradient reveals that the galaxy becomes progressively bluer towards larger radii ($ \ga 10 \arcsec $) where the disk dominates. Arnold et al. (2011) proposed such a two phase assembly mechanism to explain the isolated field galaxy NGC 3115 (except for its dwarf companion) based on their analysis of its kinematics and metallicity. Reda et al. (2004) also found that mergers are a dominant formation path to forming some isolated early-type galaxies. In passing we note that van den Bergh (2009) alternatively suggested that disk gas ejection by AGN might be a dominant process that transforms isolated spirals galaxies into S0s. While by itself this process does not appear capable of generating a depleted stellar core in galaxies, it may have transformed some spiral galaxies into lenticular galaxies.
The ‘dry’ major merger scenario for the bulges of bright lenticular galaxies in groups may be naturally consistent with the observed morphology density relation for the galaxy groups. Studies have shown that galaxy-galaxy interaction and merging play an important role in transforming group spirals into S0s and giving the observed S0 fractions in groups (e.g., Postman & Geller1984; Helsdon & Ponman 2003; Just et al. 2010; Bekki & Couch 2011). Our three X-ray bright group galaxies are the brightest central galaxies from their respective groups. As pointed by Helsdon & Ponman (2003 and references therein) these central S0 galaxies are assumed to be the byproducts of an earlier merger activity in the collapsing group core plus some recent merger and accretion events. Interestingly, as shown in Fig. \[Figg5\], the outskirts of these galaxies (colour information was not available for NGC 507) are relatively bluer than their centers. This result further strengthens the view that bulges in luminous group S0s grow by mergers while their disks are gradually built and enhanced via latter gas accretion.
For NGC 4382, our fifth lenticular galaxy and the only cluster galaxy in our sample, our analysis of its brightness profile and thus the mass deficit (Figs. \[Figg3\] and \[Figg4\]) suggests a ‘dry’ merger event as a formation path. In contrast, processes such as ram pressure stripping (Gunn & Gott 1972; Quilis et al. 2000), galaxy harassment (Moore et al. 1996) and strangulation (Larson 1980; Bekki et al. 2002) are often noted as plausible formation mechanisms for cluster lenticular galaxies, rather than galaxy mergers, due to the high cluster velocity dispersion and high intracluster medium density. We do not deny these mechanisms, only that they alone cannot account for partially depleted cores. For example, Vollmer et al. (2008a, 2008b) present wonderful observational evidence of the ram pressure stripped Virgo spiral galaxies NGC 4501 and NGC 4522, while Merluzzi et al. (2012) describe in detail the stripping process of a galaxy in Abell 3558. The merger event in NGC 4382’s past may have occurred prior to it entering the cluster. Coupling N-body simulations with a semi-analytic formation model, Okamoto & Nagashima (2001) also reported that the fractions of cluster S0 galaxies produced by major mergers are significantly smaller than the observed fractions. In contrast, Bekki (1998) proposed unequal galaxy merging between two spirals as a dominant formation origin for cluster lenticular galaxies (see also Burkert & Naab 2005 and Jesseit et al. 2005). NGC 4382 is situated in the outskirts of the Virgo cluster, a location where mergers are likely to occur, and it displays stellar shells in its image (Schweizer & Seitzer 1992). These appear to suggest that NGC 4382 might have a merger related origin (although see Chung et al. 2009). The $g-z= 1.95$ bulge colour of NGC 4382 (Fig. \[Figg5\]) is however bluer than the typical $g-z= 1.56$ (AB mag) colour quoted for ellipticals (Fukugita et al. 1995). If the core in NGC 4382 was formed from the inspiral of supermassive black holes in a relatively gas-free merger event, then the progenitor stars which make the bulge were not old, suggestive of ongoing core formation in some lenticular galaxies rather than all being formed at redshifts beyond 1.5 to 2 prior to the subsequent accretion of a disk.
Conclusions {#Con2}
===========
We have used the IRAF [ellipse]{} task to derive the major-axis surface brightness profiles and isophotal parameters for six early-type galaxies observed with the high-resolution [*HST*]{} WFPC2 and ACS cameras. While one of these turned out to be an elliptical galaxy, which we modelled with a core-Sérsic profile, we have modeled the surface brightness profiles of the remaining five lenticular galaxies using a core-Sérsic model for the bulge plus an exponential model for the disk. This is the first time this has been done for disk galaxies with depleted cores. In our analysis, we have additionally accounted for the bar component in one of these disk galaxies by using the Ferrers (1877) function. Our primary conclusions are as follows:\
1. The core-Sérsic bulge plus exponential disk model gives an accurate description to core-Sérsic lenticular galaxy light profiles. The rms residual scatter of the fits are $\la 0.05$ mag arcsec$^{-2}$.
2\. The Sérsic index $n$ is $\sim3$ for the bulges of our core-Sérsic lenticular galaxies, whereas $n\ga3$ for the brighter core-Sérsic elliptical galaxies in Dullo & Graham (2012).
3\. The core ‘break radii’ range from 24 to 102 pc.
4\. We have measured central stellar mass deficits in four of the luminous “core-Sérsic” lenticular galaxies, finding $ M_{\rm def}\sim 0.5-2$ $M_{\rm BH}$, in agreement with previous core-Sérsic analysis of elliptical galaxies. (NGC 3607 was excluded because its dusty nuclear spiral compromises the recovery of its core parameters.)
5\. Our results tentatively suggest that, regardless of their environments, core-Sérsic lenticular galaxies could be assembled in two stages: an earlier violent ‘dry’ major merger process involving massive black holes, which forms the bulge component, followed by subsequent disk formation through minor mergers and/or very gentle cold gas accretion about a preferred plane. Dry intermediate-mass ratio mergers of S0s with smaller BH-hosting ellipticals could also account for the buildup of some core-Sérsic S0s.
6\. The location of the bulges of our five S0 galaxies, including the S0 NGC 3607 possibly with out a depleted core, in the mass-size and mass-(Sérsic index) diagram coincides with that of the compact early-type galaxies seen at redshift of $z\sim$ 0.2 to 2.7. This could be an indication that today’s massive bulges may be descendants of the compact high redshift early-type galaxies.
Acknowledgments
===============
This research was supported under the Australian Research Council’s funding scheme (DP110103509 and FT110100263). This research has made use of the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database (NED) which is operated by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, under contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. We are grateful to Juan P. Madrid for his help with IRAF.
Afanasiev, V. L., & Sil’chenko, O. K. 2007, Astron. Astrophys. Trans., 26, 311 Andredakis, Y. C., Peletier, R. F., & Balcells, M. 1995, MNRAS, 275, 874 Arnold, J. A., Romanowsky, A. J., Brodie, J. P., et al. 2011, ApJ, 736, L26 Barnes, J. E., Hernquist, L., 1992, ARA&A, 30, 705 Begelman, M. C., Blandford, R. D., & Rees, M. J.1980, Nature, 287, 307 Bell, E.F., Wolf C., Meisenheimer, K., et al. 2004, ApJ, 608, 752 Bell, E. F. et al., 2006, ApJ, 640, 241 Bekki, K. 1998, ApJL, 502, 133 Bekki, K., Couch, W. J.,& Shioya, Y. 2002, ApJ, 577, 651 Bekki, K., & Couch, W. J. 2011, MNRAS, 415, 1783 Bekki, K. & Graham, A. W. 2010, ApJ, 714, L313 Bender, R., Doebereiner, S., Moellenhoff C. 1988, A&AS, 74, 385 Bezanson, R., van Dokkum, P., & Franx M. 2012, ApJ, 760, 62 Blakeslee, J. P., Lucey, J. R., Tonry, J. L., Hudson, M. J., Narayanan, V. K., Harris, B. J., 2002, MNRAS, 330, 443 Birnboim, Y., Dekel, A. 2003, MNRAS, 345, 349 Bournaud, F., Jog, C. J., & Combes, F. 2005, A&A, 437, 69 Boylan-Kolchin, M., Ma C.-P., 2007, MNRAS, 374, 1227 Boylan-Kolchin, M., Ma C., Quataert, E., 2004, ApJ, 613, L37 Bluck, A. F. L., Conselice, C. J., Buitrago, F., Grützbauch, R., Hoyos C., Mortlock, A., Bauer, A. E., 2012, ApJ, 747, 34 Bruce, V. A., Dunlop, J. S., Cirasuolo, M., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 427, 1666 Burkert, A., & Naab, T. 2005, MNRAS, 363, 597 Byun, Y.-I., et al. 1996, AJ, 111, 1889 Caon N., Capaccioli M., D’Onofrio, M. 1993, MNRAS, 265, 1013 Cappellari, M. et al., 2007, MNRAS, 379, 418 Cappellari, M., McDermid, R. M., 2005, Class. Quantum Grav., 22, 347 Carter, D. 1978, MNRAS, 182, 797 Carter, D. 1987, ApJ, 312, 514 Carter, D., Pass S., Kennedy J., Karick A.M., Smith R.J. 2011, MNRAS, 414, 341 Cattaneo, A. et al., 2009, Nat, 460, 213 Chevance, M., Weijmans, A., Damjanov, I. et al., 2012, ApJ, 754, 24 Chung A., van Gorkom J. H., Kenney J. D. P., Crowl H., Vollmer B., 2009, AJ, 138, 1741 Conselice, C. J., et al, arXiv:1206.6995 Couch, W. J., Barger, A. J., Smail, I., Ellis, R. S., Sharples, R. M., 1998, ApJ, 430, 121 Cox, T. J., Jonsson, P., Primack, J. R., & Somerville, R. S. 2006, MNRAS, 373, 1013 Chung, A., van Gorkom, J. H., Kenney, J. D. P., Crowl, H., & Vollmer, B. 2009, AJ, 138, 1741 Daddi, E., Renzini, A., Pirzkal, N., et al. 2005, ApJ, 626, 680 Damjanov, I., Abraham, R. G., & Glazebrook, K. et al. 2011, ApJ, 739, L44 Damjanov, I., McCarthy, P. J., & Abraham, R. G. et al. 2009, ApJ, 695, 101 Davies, R.L., Efstathiou, G., Fall, S.M., Illing- worth, G., Schechter, P.L. 1983, ApJ, 266, 41 Desai, V., et al., 2007, ApJ, 660, 1151 de Souza, R. E., Gadotti, D. A., dos Anjos, S., 2004, ApJS, 153, 411 de Vaucouleurs, G., 1948, Ann. d’Astrophys., 11, 247 de Vaucouleurs, G., de Vaucouleurs A., Corwin H. G., Jr., et al. 1991, Third Reference Catalogue of Bright Galaxies (Berlin: Springer) Dhar, B. K., & Williams L. L. R., arXiv:1112.3120 Dressler, A., 1980, ApJ, 236, 351 Dressler, A., Oemler A., Couch W. J., Smail I., Ellis R. S., Barger A., Butcher H., Poggianti B. M., Sharples R. M., 1997, ApJ, 490, 577 Driver, S. P., Popescu, C. C., Tuffs, R. J., Graham, A. W., Liske, J., Baldry, I., 2008, ApJ, 678, L101 Dullo, B. T., & Graham, A. W., ApJ, 755, 163 Dutton, A. A., Treu, T., Brewer, B. J., et al. 2012, MNRAS, submitted, arXiv:1206.4310 Ebisuzaki, T., Makino, J., & Okumura, S. K. 1991, Nature, 354, 212 Eliche-Moral, M. C., Gonzale-Garcia, A. C., Aguerri, J. A., et al., arXiv:1209.0782 Emsellem, E., Cappellari, M., Krajnović, D., et al. 2007, MNRAS, 379, 401 Emsellem, E., Cappellari, M., Krajnović, D., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 414, 888 Emsellem, E., Cappellari, M., Peletier, R. F., et al. 2004, MNRAS, 352, 721 Faber, S. M., et al. 1997, AJ, 114, 1771 Fasano, G., Poggianti, B. M., Couch, W. J., Bettoni, D., Kjægaard, P., Moles, M., 2000, ApJ, 542, 673 Ferrarese, L., et al. 2006, ApJS, 164, 334 Ferrarese, L., Ford H., 2005, Space Sci. Rev., 116, 523 Ferrarese, L., van den Bosch, F. C., Ford, H. C., Jaffe, W., & O’Connell, R. W. 1994, AJ, 108, 1598 Ferrers, N.M. 1877, Quart. J. Pure Appl. Math., 14, 1 Forbes, D.A., Spitler, L.R., Strader, J., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 413, 2943 Ford, H. C., Bartko, F., Bely, P. Y., et al. 1998, Proc. SPIE, 3356, 234 Goerdt, T., Moore, B., Read, J. I., Stadel, J., 2010, ApJ, 725, 1707 Governato, F., Brook, C. B., Brooks, A. M., Mayer, L., Willman, B., Jonsson P., Stilp, A. M., Pope, L., Christensen, C., Wadsley, J., Quinn T., 2009, MNRAS, 398, 312 Graham, A. W., 2001, AJ, 121, 820 Graham, A. W., 2004, ApJ, 613, L33 Graham, A. W., 2007, MNRAS, 379, 711 Graham, A. W., 2012, ApJ, 746, 113 Graham, A. W., 2013, to appear in ’Planets, Stars and Stellar Systems’. Springer, Berlin , preprint (arXiv:1108.0997) Graham, A. W., Colless, M. M., Busarello, G., Zaggia, S., & Longo, G. 1998, A&AS, 133, 325 Graham, A. W., & Driver S.P. 2005, Publ. Astron. Soc. Australia, 22, 118 Graham, A. W., Erwin P., Trujillo I., & Asensio Ramos A. 2003, AJ, 125, 2951 Graham, A. W., & Guzmán, R. 2003, AJ, 125, 2936 Graham, A. W., Onken, C.A., Athanassoula, E., & Combes, F. 2011, MNRAS, 412, 2211 Graham, A. W., & Scott, N. 2013, ApJ, 764, 151 Graham, A. W., Spitler, L. R., 2009, MNRAS, 397, 2148 Graham, A. W., Trujillo, I., Caon, N., 2001, AJ, 122, 1707 Graham, A. W., & Worley, C.C., 2008, MNRAS, 388, 1708 Gualandris, A., Merritt, D., 2008, ApJ, 678, 780 Gualandris, A., & Merritt, D. 2012, ApJ, 744, 74 G[ü]{}ltekin, K., Richstone, D. O., Gebhardt, K., et al. 2009, ApJ, 695, 1577 G[ü]{}ltekin K., Richstone D. O., Gebhardt K., et al. 2011, ApJ, 741, 38 Gunn, J. E., Gott, J. R. III., 1972, ApJ, 176, 1 Gutiérrez, L., Erwin, P., Aladro, R., & Beckman, J. E. 2011, AJ, 142, 145 Harris, W.E., van den Bergh, S. 1981, AJ, 86, 1627 Helsdon, S. F., & Ponman, T. J. 2003, MNRAS, 339, L29 Holtzman, J. A., Burrows, C. J., Casertano, S., Hester, J. J., Trauger, J. T., Watson, A. M., Worthey, G., 1995, PASP, 107, 1065 Hopkins, P. F., Bundy, K., Murray, N., Quataert, E., Lauer, T. R., Ma C.-P., 2009, MNRAS, 398, 898 Hopkins, P. F., & Hernquist, L. 2010, MNRAS, 407, 447 Hubble, E. 1929, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 15, 168 Hubble, E.P. 1936, The Realm of the Nebulae, by E.P. Hubble, New Haven: Yale University Press Huchtmeier, W. K., 1994, A&A, 286, 389 Hyde, J. B., Bernardi M., Fritz A., Sheth R. K., Nichol R. C., 2008, MNRAS, 391, 1559 Jaffe, W., Ford H. C., O’Connell R. W., van den Bosch F. C., & Ferrarese L. 1994, AJ, 108, 1567 Jeans, J.H. 1928, Astronomy & Cosmogony, (Cam- bridge: Cambridge University Press), p.332 Jedrzejewski, R. I., 1987, MNRAS, 226, 747 Jesseit, R., Naab, T., & Burkert, A. 2005, MNRAS, 360, 1185 Just, D. W., Zaritsky D., Sand D. J., Desai V., & Rudnick G. 2010, ApJ, 711, 192 Kandrup, H. E., Sideris I. V., Terzić B., Bohn C. L., 2003, ApJ, 597, 111 Kauffmann, G., & Haehnelt, M. 2000, MNRAS, 311, 576 Kawata, D. & Mulchaey J. S. 2008, ApJl, 672, L103 Kereš, D., Katz, N., Weinberg, D. H., & Davé, R. 2005, MNRAS, 363, 2 Khochfar, S., Burkert, A., 2001, ApJ, 561, 517 Kim, T., Sheth, K., Hinz, J. L., et al. 2012, ApJ, 753, 43 Kormendy, J., & Bender, R. 2009, ApJ, 691, L142 Kormendy, J., Fisher, D.B., Cornell, M.E., Bender, R. 2009, ApJS, 182, 216 Krajnović, D., Cappellari, M., de Zeeuw, P. T., & Copin, Y. 2006, MNRAS, 366, 787 Kulkarni, G. & Loeb, A. 2012, MNRAS, 422, 1306 Larson, R. B., Tinsley, B. M., Caldwell, C. N., 1980, ApJ, 237, 692 Lauer, T. R. 2012, arXiv:1209.4357 Lauer, T. et al., 2002, AJ, 124, 1975 Lauer, T. R., Ajhar, E. A., Byun, Y.-I., et al. 1995, AJ, 110, 2622 Lauer, T. R., et al. 2005, AJ, 129, 2138 Lauer, T. R., et al., 2007a, ApJ, 662, 808 Lauer, T. R., et al., 2007b, ApJ, 664, 226 Laurikainen, E., Salo H., Buta R., Knapen J. H., & Comerón S. 2010, MNRAS, 405, 1089 Li, Z.-Y., Ho, L. C., Barth, A. J., & Peng, C. Y. 2011, ApJS, 197, 22 Longo, G., Zaggia, S. R., Busarello, G., & Richter, G. 1994, A&AS, 105, 433 MacArthur, L.A., González, J.J., Courteau, S. 2009, MNRAS, 395, 28
Magorrian, J., et al. 1998, AJ, 115, 2285 Man, A. W. S., Toft, S., Zirm, A. W., Wuyts, S., van der Wel, A., 2012, ApJ, 744, 85 Martizzi, D., Teyssier R., & Moore B. 2012a, MNRAS, 420, 2859 Martizzi, D., Teyssier R., & Moore B., 2012b, arXiv:1211.2648 Meert, A., Vikram, V., & Bernardi, M. 2012, arXiv:1211.6123 Merluzzi, P., Busarello, G., Dopita, M.A., et al. 2012, MNRAS, arXiv:1211.6532 Merritt, D., 2006, ApJ, 648, 976 Michard, R., & Marchal, J. 1993, A&AS, 98, 29 Milosavljević, M., & Merritt, D. 2001, ApJ, 563, 34 Milosavljević, M., Merritt, D., Rest A., & van den Bosch, F. C. 2002, MNRAS, 331, L51
Moore, B., Katz, N., Lake, G., Dressler, A., Oemler, A., 1996, Nature, 379, 613 Mulchaey, J. S., Davis, D. S., Mushotzky, R. F., & Burstein, D. 1993, ApJ, 404, L9 Nieto, J.-P., & Bender, R. 1989, A&A, 215, 266 Nipoti, C., Londrillo, P., Ciotti, L., 2006, MNRAS, 370, 681 Okamoto, T., Nagashima, M., 2001, ApJ, 547, 109 Paturel, G., Petit, C., Prugniel, P., Theureau, G., Rousseau, J., Brouty, M., Dubois P., Cambrésy, L., 2003, A&A, 412, 45 Peletier, R.F., Davies, R.L., Illingworth, G.D., Davis, L.E., Cawson, M. 1990, AJ, 100, 1091 Peirani, S., Kay, S., & Silk, J. 2008, A&A, 479, 123 Pichon, C., Pogosyan, D., Kimm, T., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 418, 2493 Pinkney, J., Gebhardt, K., Bender, R., et al. 2003, ApJ, 596, 903 Poggianti, B. M., et al., 2009, ApJL, 697, 137 Poggianti, B. M., et al., ApJ, arXiv:1211.1005 Postman, M., et al., 2012, ApJ, arXiv:1205.3839 Postman, M., & Geller, M. J. 1984, ApJ, 281, 95 Quilis, V., Moore, B., & Bower, R. 2000, Science, 288, 1617 Ravindranath, S., Ho, L. C., & Filippenko, A. V. 2002, ApJ, 566, 801 Ravindranath, S., Ho, L. C., Peng, C. Y., Filippenko, A. V., & Sargent, W. L. W. 2001. AJ, 122, 653 Reda, F. M., Forbes, D. A., Beasley, M. A., O’Sullivan, E. J., Goudfrooij, P., 2004, MNRAS, 354, 851 Rest, A., van den Bosch, F. C., Jaffe, W., Tran, H., Tsvetanov, Z., Ford, H. C., Davies, J., & Schafer, J. 2001, AJ, 121, 2431 Richings, A. J., Uttley, P., & Kr$\ddot{\textrm{o}}$ding, E., 2011, MNRAS, tmp, 759 Richstone, D., et al. 1998, Nature, 395, 14 Sales, L. V., Navarro, J. F., Theuns, T., Schaye, J., White, S. D. M., Frenk C. S., Crain, R. A., Dalla Vecchia, C., 2012, MNRAS, 423, 1544 Saracco, P., Longhetti, M., & Gargiulo, A., 2011, MNRAS, 412, 2707 Saraiva, M. F., Ferrari, F., Pastoriza, M. G., 1999, A&A, 350, 339 Schweizer, F., & Seitzer, P. 1992, AJ, 104, 1039 Sérsic, J. L. 1963, Boletín de la Asociación Argentina de Astronomía, 6, 41 Sesana, A., 2010, ApJ, 719, 851 Sil’chenko, O. K., Moiseev A. V., & Shulga A. P. 2010, AJ, 140, 1462 Sirianni, M., Jee, M. J., Benítez, N., et al. 2005, PASP, 117, 1049 Steinmetz, M., Navarro, J. F., 2002, New Astronomy, 7, 155 Szomoru, D., Franx, M., & van Dokkum, P. G. 2012, ApJ, 749, 121 Terashima, Y., Ho, L. C., & Ptak, A. F. 2000, ApJ, 539, 161 Tonry, J. L., et al., 2001, ApJ, 546, 681 Toomre, A., & Toomre, J. 1972, ApJ, 178, 623 Trujillo, I. 2012, arXiv:1211.3771 Trujillo, I., Erwin, P., Asensio Ramos, A., & Graham, A. W. 2004, AJ, 127, 1917 Trujillo, I., Feulner, G., Goranova, Y., et al. 2006, MNRAS, 373, L36 Turner, M. L., Côté, P., Ferrarese, L., et al., arXiv:1208.0338 van den Bergh, S., 2009, ApJ, 702, 1502 van den Bergh, S., 1982, PASP, 94, 459 van der Wel, A., Rix H.-W., & Wuyts S. et al. 2011, ApJ, 730, 38 Vollmer, B., Braine, J., Pappalardo, C., & Hily-Blant, P. 2008b, A&A, 491, 455 Vollmer, B., Soida, M., Chung, A., et al. 2008a, A&A, 483, 89 Wilman, D. J., Oemler, A., Mulchaey, J. S., McGee S. L., Balogh M. L., & Bower, R. G. 2009, ApJ, 692, 298 White, S. D. M., Rees, M. J., 1978, MNRAS, 183, 34 Xu, C. K., Zhao, Y., Scoville, N., et al. 2012, ApJ, 747, 85 Yu, Q., 2002, MNRAS, 331, 935
Appendix A {#App2}
==========
Notes on individual galaxies {#Sec42}
----------------------------
In this section we review several relevant features associated with each galaxy in our sample. We comment on the X-ray properties as this will be relevant to our later discussion about formation scenarios and environment.
### NGC 507
NGC 507 is the brightest galaxy in the nearby, poor NGC 507 group; it is also one of the brightest known X-ray early-type galaxies. Laurikainen et al. (2010) found evidence of a weak bar in their $K_{s}$-band image. However, they fitted a Sérsic bulge plus an exponential disk to their deep sub-arcsec resolution $K_{s}$-band data because the bar was too weak to be included in the fit. Our high-resolution [*HST*]{}/F555W surface brightness profile for this galaxy is well fit by the core-Sérsic bulge + exponential disk model with an rms residual of 0.027 mag arcsec$^{-2}$ (Fig. \[Figg3\]).
### NGC 2300
NGC 2300 belongs to the poor NGC 2300 group. Mulchaey et al. (1993) reported the presence of hot diffuse intragroup gas close to NGC 2300 using [ *ROSAT*]{}. Although several previous studies (e.g., Huchtmeier 1994, Sandage & Bedke 1994) have classified this galaxy as an elliptical, as shown in Fig. \[Figg3\], the luminosity profile is well fit by the core-Sérsic bulge + exponential disk model (see also Laurikainen et al. 2010 for their Sérsic + exponential fit to ground-based data that does not resolve the depleted core.)
### NGC 3607
NGC 3607 is an X-ray luminous (e.g., Terashima et al. 2000), bright lenticular galaxy (e.g., de Vaucouleurs et al. 1991; Afanasiev & Silchenko 2007; Laurikainen et al. 2010; Gutiérrez et al. 2011; although it is classified as an elliptical in G$\ddot{\mbox{u}}$ltekin et al. 2009) located in the Leo II group. It has a dust obscured central region as can be seen from the residual image in Appendix B, Fig. \[Figg7\]. We constructed an image model using the IRAF task [bmodel]{} and subtracted it from the raw [*V*]{}-band image to obtain this residual image. The effect of this dusty nuclear spiral can also be seen in the position angle, ellipticity and isophote shape parameter ($B_{4}$) profiles (Fig. \[Figg2\]). In addition to using this to guide the careful dust masking procedure, performed prior to running [ellipse]{} to obtain the $V$-band light profile beyond 1$\arcsec$, we have analysed the galaxy’s near-infrared [*HST*]{}/NICMOS F160W ([*H*]{}-band) image which is less affected by dust. As noted in Section 2, the inner ($R \la 1\arcsec$) [*V*]{}-band profile of this galaxy, taken from Lauer et al. (2005), is derived from a PSF-deconvolved image. Therefore, the apparent 1$\arcsec$.31 core of the [*V*]{}-band profile fit is most likely an artifact due to interference from the dusty nuclear spiral disk with the deconvolution routine (as noted already by Dullo & Graham 2012, and references therein).
### NGC 3706
In agreement with the ground-based work by Laurikainen et al. (2010), the analysis of NGC 3706’s [*HST*]{}/F555W light profile suggests that it is likely an elliptical galaxy rather than a lenticular galaxy. The unsharp-masked image (Appendix B, Fig. \[Figg7\]), the position angle twist, the disky and very flat (‘pointy’) nature of the isophotes from the [ellipse]{} fit in the region $R$= $0\arcsec .2-1\arcsec$.0 (Fig. \[Figg2\]) reveal the presence of an edge-on nuclear ring of stars in this galaxy (Lauer et al. 2002; Kandrup et al. 2003). We model the host galaxy light profile after excluding the region affected by this additional ring of star light (Fig. \[Figg3\]).
### NGC 4382
NGC 4382 is a peculiar, fast rotating galaxy (Emsellem et al. 2007) in the Virgo cluster which is classified as an S0 in the RC3. Based on the photometry and brightness profile analysis, but not the rotational evidence, Kormendy et al. (2009) reported an absence of a large-scale stellar disk in this galaxy, and identified the extra light at large radii to be a feature associated with a recent merger (although see Chung et al. 2009), hence, they classified the galaxy as E2. In contrast, Laurikainen et al. (2011) have classified the galaxy as an S0 based on the detection of dispersed spiral arm segments, although they remained uncertain about the exponential nature of the disk light distribution. In Fig. \[Figg3\], we show that the galaxy light profile is indeed well fit by the core-Sérsic bulge + exponential disk model with an rms residual of only 0.016 mag arcsec$^{-2}$. This galaxy has positive $B_{4}$ values, i.e. disky isophotes where $R > 1\arcsec$. We also note that we measure the galaxy’s bulge-to-disk (B/D) flux ratio to be $\sim$0.67 (B/T=0.40), revealing the existence of an appreciable fraction of the galaxy light in the large-scale disk. Dullo & Graham (2012, their Fig. 7) show how this large-scale disk results in a different “galaxy” Sérsic index, from the single-component fit in Ferrarese et al. (2006), compared to the “bulge” Sérsic index. Not fitting for the outer disk results in a ‘galaxy’ Sérsic index which is larger than the “bulge” Sérsic index and thus over-predicts the central mass deficit.
### NGC 6849 {#Sec416}
NGC 6849 is classified as an isolated, barred lenticular (SB0) galaxy in the RC3. It is also classified as an elliptical galaxy in the ground-based studies of Saraiva et al. (1999) and de Souza, Gadotti & dos Anjos (2004). In contrast to the findings of Saraiva et al. (1999), the F555W/[*HST*]{} unsharp-masking (Appendix B, Fig. \[Figg7\]) appears to suggest the presence of a bar in this galaxy. Fig. \[Figg2\] illustrates that the ellipticity of this galaxy increases towards larger radii, which makes it the flattest in our sample. As shown in Fig. \[Figg3\], the 3-component bulge-bar-disk luminosity profile is well fit by the the core-Sérsic bulge plus Ferrers bar plus exponential disk decomposition model with an rms residual of $\sim $0.04 mag arcsec$^{-2}$.
Comments on Dullo & Graham (2012) {#Sec422}
---------------------------------
Commenting on Dullo & Graham (2012), Lauer (2012) presented Sérsic model fits to the outer regions of composite light profiles (using the inner 10$\arcsec$ [*HST*]{} profiles from Lauer et al. 2005 combined with ground-based profiles out to $\sim$100$\arcsec$ taken from the literature) for three galaxies which Dullo & Graham (2012), and others, had shown not to possess depleted cores: NGC 1374, NGC 4473 and NGC 5576. Lauer’s (2012) fits suggested the presence of depleted cores relative to his outer Sérsic model. He therefore claimed that Dullo & Graham (2012) had misclassified these three galaxies as coreless Sérsic galaxies due to an incorrect application of the Sérsic model to radially limited 10$\arcsec$ light profiles taken from Lauer et al. (2005). However, there were already $\sim$100$\arcsec$ high-resolution [*HST*]{} profiles published for these galaxies that had been well fit using Sérsic models with no central light deficit (Turner et al. 2012, NGC 1374; Ferrearese et al. 2006 and Kormendy et al. 2009, NGC 4473; Trujillo et al. 2004, NGC 5576). Fig. \[Figg3L\] shows that the light profiles for these galaxies, covering a large radial extent, [*are*]{} described by the sum of two Sérsic profiles without any partially depleted core. The reason for these two-component models is detailed below. Basically, taking into account additional information, such as the presence of tidal material and/or kinematic substructure can help to identify the required components of a fit. In general, we recommend showing the residuals about one’s fitted model, as they can reveal if the large-scale curvature in the radial light distribution is well matched, and we advise against subjectively restricting the fitted radial range.
### NGC 1374
Turner et al. (2012) fit a PSF-convolved Sérsic model to this galaxy, with no evidence for a depleted core. In Dullo & Graham (2012) we revealed that there is actually an additional component at the center of this galaxy. In Fig. \[Figg3L\]a, we show our (PSF convolved) nuclear disk + Sérsic model fit to the light profile of NGC 1374 taken from Turner et al. (2012), see also the fit presented in Dullo & Graham (2012) to the inner $\sim 10 \arcsec$. Some small (in amplitude), large-scale residual is present in Fig. \[Figg3L\]a. The rotation curve in Graham et al. (1998, see also Longo et al. 1994) revealed that this galaxy rotates out to $40\arcsec$, suggesting the presence of an additional component which may be the cause of some of the residual structure about our exponential (for the nuclear disk) plus $n=4.3$ Sérsic (for the underlying host galaxy light) model.
### NGC 4473
Ferrarese et al. (2006) fit a PSF-convolved Sérsic model to NGC 4473, with no depleted core. Kormendy et al. (2009) identified a central light excess in this galaxy, above their adopted Sérsic ($n\approx 4$) fit, and they remarked that the extra light is due to a known counter-rotating embedded stellar disk (Emsellem et al. 2004; Cappellari & McDermid 2005; Cappellari et al. 2007). Fig. \[Figg3L\]b shows our convolved exponential disk + Sérsic bulge model for this galaxy’s light profile taken from Ferrarese et al. (2006). We fit an exponential $n=1$ function to the counter rotating disk, and find that a Sérsic $n\sim3$ model fits the underlying galaxy light. Furthermore, Pinkney et al. (2003) remarked that this galaxy has unusual parameters from their Nuker model fit. They found that it has i) the smallest $\alpha$ value of their sample (i.e. a broad transition region between the inner and outer Nuker model power-law profiles) and ii) a very steep $\beta$ value (the steepest from all the galaxies modelled by Byun et al. 1996). As warned in Graham et al. (2003), this is what one expects when fitting the Nuker model to what is actually a Sérsic profile with a low value of $n$ and no depleted core. Pinkney et al. (2003) additionally remarked that the absolute magnitude of this galaxy is consistent with the “power-law” galaxies, i.e. those without depleted cores.
### NGC 5576
Trujillo et al. (2004) modelled the deconvolved 100$\arcsec$ light profile of NGC 5576 with the Sérsic model, finding no depleted core. Kim et al. (2012, their Fig. 5) showed that NGC 5576 and the barred S0 NGC 5574 are an interacting pair (see also Tal et al. 2009) having a long tidal tail, which extends out to $60$ kpc in their 3.6 $\mu $m image. They showed the presence of tidal disturbances in the outskirts (from 1$\arcmin$ to $2\arcmin$) of NGC 5576 because of this interaction. In Fig. \[Figg3L\]c, we therefore fit a double Sérsic model to the light profile of NGC 5576 presented in Lauer (2012)[^7]. We find that the central galaxy light distribution is well fit with an inner $n \sim 3.5$ Sérsic model, and the extra light, which is likely to be due to the re-distribution of material from the minor to the major-axis as a result of the tidal interaction, is described by an outer $n \sim 1.2$ Sérsic model. Kim et al. (2012) also fit a double Sérsic model (an inner $n=3.45$ Sérsic model plus an outer $n=1.48$ Sérsic model) to their light profile which is sampled from $R= 11\arcsec.8$ to $247\arcsec.5$. In general agreement with this and the inner $n \sim 4.5$ Sérsic model fit presented in Trujillo et al. (2004), our $n \sim 3.5$ Sérsic fit to this galaxy’s inner light distribution (Fig. \[Figg3L\]c) not only shows the absence of a central luminosity deficit in this galaxy, but is also consistent with its magnitude $M_{V}= -21.11$ mag and velocity dispersion $\sigma=171$ km s$^{-1}$ (see Graham et al. 2001, their Fig. 13; Dullo & Graham 2012, their Fig. 14). This is in contrast to the single-component $n \sim 8$ Sérsic fit by Lauer (2012, their Fig 1).
We also note that, contrary to the claim by Lauer (2012), Dullo & Graham (2012, their section 4) explicitly noted that the spurious downward departure in the inner light profile of NGC 4486B (relative to the inward extrapolation of its outer Sérsic profile) is due to the presence of a double optical nucleus, rather than a typical depleted core. Coupled with NGC 4458, NGC 4478 and NGC 7213, we therefore have that seven of the 39 galaxies (i.e. $\sim$18%) classified as “core” galaxies according to the Nuker model analysis by Lauer et al. (2005), do not have central stellar deficits relative to their outer Sérsic profiles and are therefore not identified as “core-Sérsic” galaxies. Such ‘mismatches’ will be most prevalent among galaxy samples fainter than $M_{B} \approx -20.5$ mag that contain spheroids with low Sérsic indices and thus have relatively flat inner cores that are not depleted of stars.
The ATLAS 3D galaxy sample used by Lauer (2012) is dominated by early-type galaxies with magnitudes up to $\sim$3 mag fainter than $M_{B} = -21$ mag — many of which are two-component lenticular galaxies (Emsellem et al. 2011). As such, application of the Nuker model may identify many ‘cores’ ($\gamma < 0.3$) among these galaxies which do not actually possess partially-depleted cores relative to their spheroid’s outer Sérsic profile. The Nuker model classification may therefore substantially blur the actual connection between the dry merger scenario, as described by Faber et al. (1997), and the existence of depleted cores from coalescing black holes. We thus advocate the core-Sérsic model and point readers to additional important reasons for this that are discussed in Graham et al. (2003) and Dullo & Graham (2012).
Appendix B
==========
Fig. \[Figg7\] shows distinct features in NGC 3607 (left), NGC 3706 (middle) and NGC 6849 (right).
![Left: Residual image of NGC 3607 obtained by subtracting our symmetrical image model from the original [*V*]{}-band image of the galaxy observed using the [*HST*]{}/WFPC2 camera. A dust disk is seen in the central region of the galaxy, see the Appendix A text for a further description. Middle: [*HST*]{} WFPC2/F555W PC 15$\arcsec$$\times$$15\arcsec$ unsharp masked image of NGC 3706 showing an edge-on nuclear stellar ring (see Fig. \[Figg3\] and Lauer et al. 2002, their Figure 1). Right: [*HST*]{} WFPC2/F555W PC 15$\arcsec$$\times$15$\arcsec$ unsharp masked image of NGC 6849 showing an inner bar. For NGC 3607, north is in the direction of the arrow. North is up for NGC 3706 and NGC 6849.[]{data-label="Figg7"}](NLent3607.ps "fig:") ![Left: Residual image of NGC 3607 obtained by subtracting our symmetrical image model from the original [*V*]{}-band image of the galaxy observed using the [*HST*]{}/WFPC2 camera. A dust disk is seen in the central region of the galaxy, see the Appendix A text for a further description. Middle: [*HST*]{} WFPC2/F555W PC 15$\arcsec$$\times$$15\arcsec$ unsharp masked image of NGC 3706 showing an edge-on nuclear stellar ring (see Fig. \[Figg3\] and Lauer et al. 2002, their Figure 1). Right: [*HST*]{} WFPC2/F555W PC 15$\arcsec$$\times$15$\arcsec$ unsharp masked image of NGC 6849 showing an inner bar. For NGC 3607, north is in the direction of the arrow. North is up for NGC 3706 and NGC 6849.[]{data-label="Figg7"}](NLent3706.ps "fig:") ![Left: Residual image of NGC 3607 obtained by subtracting our symmetrical image model from the original [*V*]{}-band image of the galaxy observed using the [*HST*]{}/WFPC2 camera. A dust disk is seen in the central region of the galaxy, see the Appendix A text for a further description. Middle: [*HST*]{} WFPC2/F555W PC 15$\arcsec$$\times$$15\arcsec$ unsharp masked image of NGC 3706 showing an edge-on nuclear stellar ring (see Fig. \[Figg3\] and Lauer et al. 2002, their Figure 1). Right: [*HST*]{} WFPC2/F555W PC 15$\arcsec$$\times$15$\arcsec$ unsharp masked image of NGC 6849 showing an inner bar. For NGC 3607, north is in the direction of the arrow. North is up for NGC 3706 and NGC 6849.[]{data-label="Figg7"}](NLent6849.ps "fig:")
\[lastpage\]
[^1]: The outer flattened disk of a lenticular galaxy, if not accounted for, can effectively result in a single ‘galaxy’ Sérsic index which is larger than that of the triaxial bulge component (e.g., Meert et al. 2012). Use of this larger ‘galaxy’ Sérsic index can result in an inflated measurement of the bulge’s central mass deficit.
[^2]: The initial morphological classification was taken from the Third Reference Catalog, RC3, de Vaucouleurs et al. (1991).
[^3]: The ACS/WFC images used here are taken from observations before 2006.
[^4]: (http://leda.univ-lyon1.fr)
[^5]: http://hla.stsci.edu
[^6]: Trujillo et al. (2004) set the transition parameter $\alpha \rightarrow \infty$ to obtain the 5-parameter sharp-transition core-Sérsic function given by their Eqn. 5.
[^7]: Lauer (2012) noted that his ground-based profile for NGC 5576 was provided by Michard & Marcheal (1993), however this galaxy was not actually included by those authors.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We study analytical aspects of a generic $q$-deformation with $q$ real, by relating it with discrete scale invariance. We show how models of conformal quantum mechanics, in the strong coupling regime and after regularization, are also discrete scale invariant. We discuss the consequences of their distinctive spectra, characterized by functional behavior. The role of log-periodic behavior and $q$-periodic functions is examined, and we show how $q$-deformed zeta functions, characterized by complex poles, appear. As an application, we discuss one-loop effects in discretely self-similar space-times.'
address:
- |
Institut d’Estudis Espacials de Catalunya (IEEC), Campus UAB, Fac. Ciencies, Torre C5-Par-2a pl, E-08193 Bellaterra (Barcelona), Spain\
[email protected]
- |
The Open University, Applied Mathematics Department., Milton Keynes, MK7 6AA, UK\
[email protected]
author:
- Miguel Tierz
title: 'Quantum group symmetry and discrete scale invariance: Spectral aspects'
---
Introduction
============
The number of physical models that lead to a quantum mechanical spectrum with functional behavior is remarkable [@Camblong:2000ec]–[@LeClair:2002ux]. However, this is not a very well-known fact and indeed, most of the works that posses at least this common feature appear rather scattered in the literature. By functional behavior we mainly refer here to spectra with exponential (either exactly or exponential in the semiclassical region) growth. The usual models of ordinary quantum mechanics certainly seem to imply that only polynomial or algebraic behavior in the quantum numbers can be obtained.
This type of spectral behavior goes hand in hand with the presence of a quantum group symmetry. Indeed, in ordinary quantum mechanics, when $q$-deformed, the usual polynomial behavior of the spectrum jumps into an exponential-like behavior for the eigenvalues [@Macfarlane:dt; @Majid:kd]. Is possible to obtain this type of spectra within ordinary quantum mechanics ? The answer turns out to be positive, but for a rather particular type of models. More precisely, models of conformal quantum mechanics [@deAlfaro:1976je]. These are models that are characterized by a singular potential [@Case], like $V\left( r\right) =-\frac{\lambda }{r^{2}},$ for example. These models have been notoriously revisited in recent years [@Camblong:2000ec; @Camblong:2003mz]. Their interest partially relies on the fact that they are a good laboratory to test many quantum field theory features (like regularization and renormalization), but also due to its physical relevance in many different areas, as we shall see. Qualitatively, one may argue that the dimensionless [^1] parameter $\lambda $, is willing to play the role of the dimensionless $q$ (rather, $\log q)$ parameter$.$ Nevertheless, this is not possible since we do not have an energy scale, given by a more conventional dimensionful parameter. This parameter is given by the usual and necessary cutoff employed in the regularization (or appearing by dimensional transmutation [@Camblong:2003mz] for example). Then, this new parameter behaves like a usual parameter in ordinary quantum mechanics and then $\lambda $ is legitimated to act as an *honest* $q$ parameter. At any rate, the resulting spectrum: $$E_{n}=E_{0}\mathrm{e}^{-n\mu }, \label{exp}$$ with $E_{0}$ depending on the cutoff and $\mu $ depending on $\lambda $ is rather conclusive and certainly close to some typical $q$-deformed spectra [@Skorik:1993ce].
A feature of $q$ deformed models that we want to stress is their relationship with the concept of discrete-scale invariance [@Sor]. Discrete scale invariance (DSI) is a symmetry that is weaker than the well-known continuous scale invariance. In discrete scale invariance, we have scale invariance under a generic transformation $x\rightarrow \lambda x$ only for specific values of the parameter $\lambda $. In general, these values form an infinite but countable set that can be expressed as $\lambda
_{n}=\lambda ^{n}$, with $\lambda $ playing the role of a fundamental scaling ratio. Regarding $q$-deformed models, is not difficult to realize that they are DSI invariant with the parameter $q$ playing the role of $\lambda .$ In addition, since continuous scale invariance is equivalent to continuous translational invariance expressed on the logarithms of the variables [@Sor], then DSI can also be considered as translational invariance, but restricted to a discrete set. That is, only valid for translations of the fundamental unit $\log \lambda .$ This is essentially the well-known *lattice* structure associated to $q$-deformations (see [@Fichtmuller:1995dt] for example).
Already in the seventies, in nuclear physics work -more precisely, the Efimov effect [@Efimov]-, we find evidence of the physical relevance of a quantum mechanical spectrum with an exponential behavior. Also in recent work [@Glazek:1993rc], there is emphasis in a spectrum of the type $\left( \ref{exp}\right) ,$ and also its relationship with limit cycles in renormalization group flows [@Wilson:1970ag]-[@Morozov:2003ik] and under which conditions the spectrum is of pure geometric growth. Needless to say, discrete scale invariance might lead to any kind of functional behavior for the spectrum and another, closely related, possibility is: $$E_{n}=\frac{E_{0}}{\sinh \left( n\alpha \right) }, \label{sinh}$$ that also appears, for example, in [@LeClair:2002ux], and is probably somewhat closer to $q$-deformed models than $\left( \ref{exp}\right) $. As we shall see, this spectrum, with linear growth near the ground-state and exponential one for high-lying eigenvalues, presents some interesting features when compared to $\left( \ref{exp}\right) .$
The paper is organized as follows. In the next Section we discuss how quantum mechanical models with conformal symmetry posses, after regularization, common properties with $q$-deformed models. Then, in Section 3, we study some spectral functions -like the partition function or the density of states- associated with a purely exponential spectrum. We discuss the role of the complex poles and when these poles induce fractal behavior. Then, we proceed identically, but for a typical $q$-deformed spectrum. For this, we employ some mathematical works on $q$-deformed zeta functions, and we see that there is a considerably richer oscillatory behavior, due to an interesting meromorphic structure of the Mellin transforms. In the last Section, we study one-loop effects in discretely self-similar space-times, that both shows a physical application of $q$-deformed zeta functions and also exploits the connections between quantum group symmetries and discrete scale invariance. In the Conclusions, we present a brief summary and some avenues for future research are suggested.
Regularization in conformal quantum mechanics and quantum group symmetries
==========================================================================
As we have mentioned in the Introduction, quantum mechanical models with conformal symmetry, characterized by singular potentials, posses several rather special features. We shall mainly exemplify our discussion with the potential $V\left( r\right) =-\frac{\lambda }{r^{2}}.$ As already mentioned, the parameter $\lambda $ is, in contrast to ordinary quantum mechanics, adimensional, due to the concomitant symmetry with the kinetic term. Note that this leads to conformal symmetry. Actually, it is imposed by it.
In this model, big values of the parameter $\lambda $ are known to lead to the so-called strong coupling regime where regularization and renormalization are mandatory. This may be done in several ways, as has been discussed in detail [@Camblong:2000ec; @Camblong:2003mz]. In any case, either by the presence of a dimensional cutoff or by dimensional transmutation for example, one finally ends up with an additional dimensional parameter. This parameter gives an energy scale and the result is that it allows. There are many features of the model that puts into evidence the discrete scale invariance. Note that in $q$-deformations one typically begins with ordinary quantum mechanics, with a dimensional parameter (like $\omega $ in a harmonic oscillator), and then the generalization of the algebra is achieved with the introduction of an adimensional parameter $q.$ Roughly speaking, the final situation is the same but the steps are done in opposite order.
However, it must be stressed that while the introduction of a regularization parameter leads to an exponential spectrum $\left( \ref{exp}\right) ,$ a posterior renormalization [@CoonHol] eliminates the excited states and leaves only the ground state.$.$ However, since regularization of the singular and, eventually, non-physical part of the potential is a meaningful procedure in many physical applications and in any case, this type of spectra explicitly appears in physical problems, we shall be studying some of its consequences and how they lead to log-periodic behavior, the signature of discrete scale invariance.
Note also that the *intriguing* [@Camblong:2003mz] oscillatory behavior associated to this model in the strong-coupling regime, as exemplified through its wavefunction is again easily understood and even expected in terms of discrete scale invariance. For $r>a$ and energy $E<0$ [@Camblong:2003mz; @Case], $$\begin{aligned}
v^{(>)}(r)\!\! &=&A_{l,\nu }\,K_{i\Theta }(\kappa r) \label{eq:ISP_BS_wf_>}
\\
\!\! &\overset{(a<r\rightarrow 0)}{=}&\!\!-A_{l,\nu }\;\sqrt{\frac{\pi }{\Theta \sinh \left( \pi \Theta \right) }}\, \notag \\
&\times &\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\sin \left\{ \Theta \left[ \ln
\left( \frac{\kappa r}{2}\right) +\gamma \right] \right\} \!\left[ 1+O\left(
[\kappa r]^{2}\right) \right] \,, \label{eq:MacDonald_asymptotic}\end{aligned}$$ where $K_{i\Theta }(z)$ is the Macdonald function of imaginary order $i\Theta $, $\gamma $ is the Euler-Mascheroni constant, and $$\Theta =\sqrt{\lambda -(l+\nu )^{2}}\;, \label{eq:Theta_coupling}$$ while $\nu =d/2-1$, $\lambda =2mg/\hbar ^{2}$, and $\kappa ^{2}=-2mE/\hbar
^{2}$. In (\[eq:ISP\_BS\_wf\_>\])-(\[eq:MacDonald\_asymptotic\]) and thereafter, the reduced function $v(r)$ in $d$ dimensions is defined in terms of the separable solution $\Psi (\mathbf{r})\propto Y_{lm}(\mathbf{\Omega })\,v(r)/r^{\nu }$, with $Y_{lm}(\mathbf{\Omega })$ being the hyperspherical harmonics.
In the strong coupling regime for $\lambda \geq (l+\nu )^{2}$, (\[eq:MacDonald\_asymptotic\]) displays, near the origin, log-periodic oscillatory behavior. we would like to emphasize that while this is usually considered an *intriguing* property [@Camblong:2003mz], this type of behavior turns out to be the signature of discrete scale-invariance and, as we shall see in the next sections, is ever present in many physical quantities in this and related models. Again, in a comparison with $q$-deformed models (with $q$ real), notice that with the natural definition of a $q$-parameter $q=\mathrm{e}^{\frac{2\pi }{\Theta }},$ the wavefunction satisfies: $$v^{(>)}(qr)=v^{(>)}(r), \label{qper}$$ this $q$-periodic property, is actually rather ubiquitous in the context of $q$-deformations and $q$-calculus, as we shall see. In addition, it appears when studying other features associated to this model, like the presence of a limit cycle in renormalization group flows. Note that $\left( \ref{qper}\right) $ can also be considered as a particular case of self-similarity, and thus the connection with fractal behavior can be hinted as well.
Spectral behavior: log-periodic oscillations
============================================
In this Section, we shall study the statistical mechanics quantities associated to spectra such as $\left( \ref{exp}\right) $ and $\left( \ref
{sinh}\right) .$ Namely, partition functions and density of states. We shall study these spectral functions employing the well-known tool of zeta functions [@Elizalde:zk] (that is to say: an asymptotic study using Mellin transforms [@Flaj]). In this sense, we expect the approach to have some interest from a methodological point of view. In particular, it shows how easily the usual framework of the zeta functions employed in physics -mainly known as zeta regularization or heat kernel techniques [@Elizalde:zk; @Vassilevich:2003xt] - has to be enhanced already with relatively simple quantum mechanical models. Typically, the usual zeta functions are characterized by a rather constrained meromorphic structure. In contrast, the models here discussed easily develop an infinite number of complex poles in the Mellin transform of the spectral function. As we shall see, these complex poles are intimately related to fractal behavior [@long; @Sor]. Recall now that the usual framework employed in heat-kernel approaches is borrowed from the theory of pseudodifferential operators and Riemannian geometry. More precisely, in the theory of pseudodifferential operators ($\Psi $DO) the relation between the heat kernel and zeta functions is the following. Let $A$ a pseudodifferential operator ($\Psi $DO), fulfilling the conditions of existence of a heat kernel and a zeta function (see, e.g., [@Elizalde:zk]). Its corresponding heat kernel is given by (see [@Elizalde:zk], and references therein): $$K_{A}(t)=\mbox{Tr }e^{-tA}={\sum_{\lambda \in \mbox{Spec }A}}^{\prime
}e^{-t\lambda },$$ which converges for $t>0$, and where the prime means that the kernel of the operator has been projected out before computing the trace, and once again the corresponding zeta function: $$\zeta _{A}(s)=\frac{1}{\Gamma (s)}\mbox{Tr }\int_{0}^{\infty
}t^{s-1}\,e^{-tA}\,dt.$$ For $t\downarrow 0$, we have the following asymptotic expansion: $$K_{A}(t)\sim \alpha _{n}(A)+\sum_{n\neq j\geq 0}\alpha
_{j}(A)\,t^{-s_{j}}+\sum_{k\geq 1}\beta _{k}(A)\,t^{k}\ln t,\quad
t\downarrow 0,$$ being: $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha _{n}(A) &=&\zeta _{A}(0),\quad \alpha _{j}(A)=\Gamma (s_{j})\mbox{Res
}_{s=s_{j}}\zeta _{A}(s),\ \ \mbox{if }s_{j}\notin Z\ \mbox{or }s_{j}>0, \\
\alpha _{j}(A) &=&\frac{(-1)^{k}}{k!}\left[ \mbox{PP }\zeta _{A}(-k)+\left(
1+\frac{1}{2}+\cdots +\frac{1}{k}-\gamma \right) \ \mbox{Res }_{s=-k}\zeta
_{A}(s)\right] , \notag \\
\beta _{k}(A) &=&\frac{(-1)^{k+1}}{k!}\,\mbox{Res }_{s=-k}\zeta _{A}(s),
\notag\end{aligned}$$
Zeta functions with complex poles have already appeared in the literature. First, the problem of the study of vibrations in the presence of irregular boundaries or shapes has already been undertaken as a generalization of spectral problems with smooth geometries [@long]. On the other hand, in the study of combinatorial structures [@Flaj], Mellin transforms with complex poles are the most usual and natural object and, in particular, extremely simple functions in analytic number theory posses this property [@Flaj].
Regarding the appearance of poles with imaginary part $s^{*}=\sigma +it,$ we should only mention that they imply the presence of fluctuations of the type $x^{-s^{*}}=x^{-\sigma }\exp \left( it\log x\right) $ in the expansion of the original function. Very often, regularly spaced poles appear, leading to a Fourier series in $\log x$. The following (simplified) table gives an idea of the correspondence between the original function and the singularity structure of its associated Mellin transform [@Flaj]: $$\begin{tabular}{|c|c|}
\hline
$f^{*}\left( s\right) $ & $f\left( x\right) $ \\ \hline
Pole at $\xi $ & Term in asymptotic expansion $\approx x^{-\xi }$ \\ \hline
Multiple pole: $\frac{1}{\left( s-\xi \right) ^{k}}$ & Logarithmic factor: $\frac{\left( -1\right) ^{k}}{k!}x^{-\xi }\left( \log x\right) ^{k}$ \\ \hline
Complex pole: $\xi =\sigma +it$ & Fluctuations: $x^{-\xi }\exp \left( it\log
x\right) $ \\ \hline
\end{tabular}$$
Pure geometric growth
---------------------
Without losing generality, let us begin by showing the features of the spectrum $\lambda _{n}=2^{n}$. The associated partition function is: $$K(t)=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty }\mathrm{e}^{-2^{n}t}.$$ We can construct and associated zeta function as: $$\zeta \left( s\right) =\sum_{n=0}^{\infty }2^{-sn}=\frac{1}{1-2^{-s}},$$ it is a geometric series and has infinitely many (complex) poles: $$s_{k}=\frac{2i\pi k}{\log 2},\quad k=0,\pm 1,\pm 2,...$$ with residues $1/\log 2$. Since the corresponding Mellin transform is $\Gamma \left( s\right) \zeta \left( s\right) ,$we have a double pole at $0$, the infinite sequence of complex poles and the poles of the Gamma function at the negative integers. Then, the asymptotic expansion (see Appendix) is: $$K\left( t\right) _{t\rightarrow 0}\sim -\log _{2}\left( t\right) -\frac{\gamma }{\log 2}+\frac{1}{2}-Q\left( \log _{2}x\right) +\sum_{n=0}^{\infty }\frac{1}{1-2^{n}}\frac{\left( -t\right) ^{n}}{n!}. \label{asy}$$ Where $Q\left( \log _{2}x\right) $ is the contribution from the imaginary poles: $$Q\left( \log _{2}x\right) =\frac{1}{\log 2}\sum_{k\neq 0}\Gamma \left(
s_{k}\right) \exp \left( -2ik\pi \log _{2}x\right) ,$$ which is a fluctuating term of order $O(1)$. Then, we have found that the $t\rightarrow 0$ expansion for this system contains a term that is a Fourier series in $\log _{2}x,$ with coefficients of Gamma type. Note that these oscillations are logarithmic oscillations, typical in discrete-scale invariant models [@Sor]. Notice that $\left| \Gamma \left( \pm 2\pi
i/\log 2\right) \right| =0.545\cdot 10^{-6},$ and, in addition, $\Gamma
\left( s\right) $ has a strong decay while progressing through the imaginary line. More precisely, recall the complex version of Stirling’s formula [@Abra]: $$\left| \Gamma \left( \sigma +it\right) \right| \sim \sqrt{2\pi }\left|
t\right| ^{\sigma -1/2}\mathrm{e}^{-\pi \left| t\right| /2}.$$
Thus, the terms coming from higher poles in the imaginary axes are strongly damped. Then, the attentive reader may profitably wonder whether the fluctuations in our models imply that the resulting function is fractal [^2]. Actually, regarding $K\left( t\right) $ it turns out that the great damping in the amplitudes due to the Gamma function, as explained above, prevents this to be the case [@long]. Therefore, we are dealing with small fluctuations, with tiny *wobbles* [@Flaj].
This is not the case of the density of states: $$\rho \left( x\right) =\sum_{n=0}^{\infty }\delta \left( x-\lambda
_{n}\right) ,$$ since the Mellin transform of the density of states is given by $\zeta
\left( 1-s\right) $, and then the expansion for the density of states is: $$\rho \left( x\right) _{x\rightarrow \infty }\sim \frac{x^{-1}}{\log 2}\sum_{k=-\infty }^{\infty }\cos \left( 2k\pi \log _{2}x\right) .$$ Let us explore some other physically interesting spectral function to learn more about the role of the poles and its residues. In some contexts, $q$ deformations have proven useful in the study of disordered systems, where is interesting to understand the conductance, given by: $$\left\langle g\left( t\right) \right\rangle =\sum_{n=0}^{\infty }\frac{1}{1+\lambda _{n}/t},$$ with $\lambda _{n}$ have, in principle, a behavior of the type discussed in this Section. Once again, we can set $\lambda _{n}=2^{n}$ without losing generality, and compute the Mellin transform: $$g\left( s\right) =\int_{0}^{\infty }\left\langle g\left( t\right)
\right\rangle t^{s-1}dt=\frac{\pi }{\sin \pi \left( s-1\right) }\frac{1}{1-2^{s}},$$ and taking into account all the poles in the Mellin transform, we obtain: $$\left\langle g\left( t\right) \right\rangle _{t\rightarrow \infty }\sim \log
_{2}t+\frac{1}{2}+P\left( \log _{2}t\right) +\sum_{k=1}^{\infty }\frac{\left( -1\right) ^{k}}{1-2^{k}}t^{-k},$$ where $P\left( \log _{2}t\right) $ is the periodic function coming from the complex poles $s_{k}=\frac{2\pi ik}{\log 2}$: $$\begin{aligned}
P\left( \log _{2}t\right) &=&\frac{1}{\log 2}\sum_{k\in Z}\frac{\pi }{\sin
\pi \left( s_{k}-1\right) }\exp \left( -2ik\pi \log _{2}x\right) \\
&=&-\frac{2\pi }{\log 2}\sum_{k=1}^{\infty }\frac{\sin 2\pi k\log _{2}t}{\sinh \left( \frac{2\pi ^{2}k\log _{2}t}{\log 2}\right) }. \notag\end{aligned}$$
Once again, the important point is that the function $\frac{\pi }{\sin \pi
\left( s-1\right) }$ exhibits an exponential decrease along vertical lines. Then, the contribution of the periodic function is truly small. This can be readily appreciated from the $\sinh $ factor, that severely damps the contribution of higher poles. More precisely, the function satisfies $\left|
P\left( t\right) \right| \leq 7.8\cdot 10^{-12}.$ Nevertheless, it is plain that they can have a more considerable effect (for example, by decreasing the value of $q$, that we have set to $\frac{1}{2},$ just to give precise numerical values). In any case, it is interesting to point out that even such minute fluctuations have lead to discrepancies in analytic studies of algorithms [@Flaj].
$q$-deformed growth
-------------------
In the previous Section we have studied in detail the case of a pure geometric growth. Let us now pay attention to the very well-known case of a $q$-deformed spectrum. From a practical point of view, numbers are substituted by $q$-numbers: $$n\rightarrow \left[ n\right] _{q}=\frac{1-q^{n}}{1-q}.$$ Note that the resulting spectrum exhibits exponential growth for the high-level eigenvalues and linear growth for the low-lying eigenvalues: $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty }\left[ n\right] _{q}\left( q-1\right) &\sim &\mathrm{e}^{n\log q} \\
\lim_{n\rightarrow 0}\left[ n\right] _{q}\left( q-1\right) &\sim &n\log q.
\notag\end{aligned}$$ The effect of this spectrum -instead of a purely exponential one- in the meromorphic structure of the associated zeta function is not evident a priori.
Interestingly enough, it turns out that there already exist some few interesting works dealing with $q$ deformed zeta functions [@qzeta2; @Chered; @qzeta3]. Consider, for example, [@Chered]: $$\zeta _{q}\left( s\right) =\sum_{n=1}^{\infty }\frac{q^{sn}}{\left[ n\right]
_{q}^{s}}. \label{zeta1}$$ The meromorphic continuation to all $s$ can be easily obtained by application of the binomial expansion $\left( 1-q^{n}\right)
^{-s}=\sum_{r=0}^{\infty }\binom{s+r-1}{r}q^{nr}$ [@qzeta2]: $$\zeta _{q}\left( s\right) =\left( 1-q\right) ^{s}\sum_{r=0}^{\infty }\binom{s+r-1}{r}\frac{q^{s-1+r}}{1-q^{s-1+r}}.$$ Thus, the set of poles is $s_{k,n}=-k+\frac{2\pi in}{\log q}$ with $k=0,-1,-2,...$ and $n$ an integer. Hence, as expected, we are lead to complex poles and thus to logarithmic oscillations and, eventually, to fractal behavior as discussed previously. Nevertheless, in comparison with the previous Section, the singularity pattern is manifestly much richer. Since there are many possible $q$ deformations, it is worth to introduce, following [@qzeta3], a generic two-variable zeta function: $$f_{q}\left( s,t\right) =\sum_{n=1}^{\infty }\frac{q^{nt}}{\left[ n\right]
_{q}^{s}}\quad \text{with }\left( s,t\right) \in {\mathbb{C}}^{2},$$ and proceed identically. Namely, binomial expansion and change of the order of summation [@qzeta3]: $$f_{q}\left( s,t\right) =\left( 1-q\right) ^{s}\sum_{r=0}^{\infty }\binom{s+r-1}{r}\frac{q^{t+r}}{1-q^{t+r}}. \label{general}$$ In [@qzeta3], it is argued that $t=s-1$ provides the ”right” $q$-deformation of Riemann’s zeta function, instead of the case $t=s$ presented above and discussed in [@qzeta2]. Certainly, we are led to: $$f_{q}\left( s,s-1\right) =\left( 1-q\right) ^{s}\left( \frac{q^{s-1}}{1-q^{s-1}}+s\frac{q^{s}}{1-q^{s}}+\frac{s\left( s+1\right) }{2}\frac{q^{s+1}}{1-q^{s+1}}+...\right) ,$$ and consequently the poles are simple at $1+\frac{2\pi in}{\log q}$ with $n\in {\mathbb{Z}}$ and $j+\frac{2\pi ik}{\log q}$ with $j,k\in $ ${\mathbb{Z}}$ and $j\leq 0,k\neq 0.$
Therefore, in comparison with $\left( \ref{zeta1}\right) ,$ we avoid the poles at negative integer values and at the origin. In addition, the corresponding values at these points approach the known ones, when $q\rightarrow 1$. Furthermore, the convergence to $\zeta \left( s\right) $ when $q\rightarrow 1$ for any $s$ is obtained. This is also possible for $\left( \ref{zeta1}\right) $, but up to some terms in $q$ [@qzeta2]. With the previous information, it is straightforward now to study the asymptotic behavior of the associated partition function: $$K\left( t\right) =\sum_{n=1}^{\infty }q^{-n}\mathrm{e}^{-\frac{q^{n}}{\left[
n\right] _{q}}t},$$ $$\begin{aligned}
K\left( t\right) _{t\rightarrow 0} &\sim &\frac{\left( 1-q\right) }{t}\sum_{k=-\infty }^{\infty }\Gamma \left( 1+\frac{2\pi ik}{\log q}\right)
\cos \left( 2\pi k\frac{\log x}{\log q}\right) \\
&&+\sum_{n=0}^{\infty }\zeta _{q}\left( -n\right) \frac{\left( -t\right) ^{n}}{n!} \notag \\
&&+\sum_{j=0}^{\infty }\sum_{k\neq 0}t^{j}\Gamma \left( s_{j,k}\right)
\left( s_{j,k}\right) _{j}\left( 1-q\right) ^{s_{j,k}}\cos \left( 2\pi k\frac{\log x}{\log q}\right) . \notag\end{aligned}$$ As mentioned, the zeta values $\zeta _{q}\left( -n\right) $ are finite and its value well-known [@qzeta3]. The $s_{j,k}$ denote the poles and $\left( s_{j,k}\right) _{j}$ the Pochhammer symbol (also known as rising factorial) [@Abra].
However, as explained in the Introduction, we are interested in spectrum of the type $\lambda _{n}=\sinh \left( n\log q\right) $. This directs our interest to $\left( \ref{general}\right) $ with $t=s/2$. Thus: $$\begin{aligned}
\zeta _{q}\left( s\right) &=&\sum_{n=1}^{\infty }\frac{q^{ns/2}}{\left[
n\right] _{q}^{s}}=\left( \frac{q-1}{2}\right) ^{s}\sum_{n=1}^{\infty }\sinh
^{-s}\left( \frac{n\log q}{2}\right) \\
&=&\left( 1-q\right) ^{s}\sum_{r=0}^{\infty }\binom{s+r-1}{r}\frac{q^{s/2+r}}{1-q^{s/2+r}}. \notag\end{aligned}$$ This zeta function also posses many interesting theoretical properties. In particular, the mathematical relevance -in the theory of special functions and in harmonic analysis- of the transformation $x^{s}\rightarrow \sinh ^{s}x
$ is discussed in [@Chered]. Additionally, it actually appears in a natural way in physical applications. In random matrix models for example, a model with the usual Gaussian potential but with $\left( x_{i}-x_{j}\right)
^{2}\rightarrow \sinh ^{2}\left( (x_{i}-x_{j})/2\right) $ as a correlation factor, appears in Chern-Simons theory [@Marino:2002fk; @Tierz:2002jj].
The set of poles is $2a+\frac{2\pi ib}{\log q}$ with $a,b\in {\mathbb{Z}}$ and $a\leq 0.$ As usual, the set of poles allows to obtain the rich asymptotic behavior of the density of states or the partition function. In any case, note that the contribution of the additional poles is subleading against the rightmost line of complex poles (and in comparison with the purely geometric growth case).
QFT on a discretely self-similar spacetime: one-loop effects.
=============================================================
Now, we shall show how $q$-deformed zeta functions (and the corresponding heat kernels) and the above mentioned $q$-periodic functions, naturally appear in essentially the same way as ordinary zeta functions do in zeta regularization/heat-kernel studies [@Elizalde:zk; @Vassilevich:2003xt]. Namely, in the study of one-loop effects on a curved space-time background.
For this, we focus our attention on a certain type of space-times that appear in the study of critical phenomena in gravitational collapse . Indeed, from Choptuik’s groundbreaking work [@Choptuik:1992jv], much attention has been recently devoted to metrics with a discrete self-similarity [@Gundlach:2002sx; @Gundlach:2003pg]. A spacetime is discretely selfsimilar if there exists a discrete diffeomorphism $\Phi $ and a real constant $\Delta $ such that: $$\Phi ^{*}g_{ab}=\mathrm{e}^{-2\Delta }g_{ab},$$ where $\Phi ^{*}g_{ab}$ is the pull-back of $g_{ab}$ under the diffeomorphism $\Phi .$
Notice that, in contrast with the continuous case, this definition does not introduce an homothetic vector field $\xi .$ The parameter is essentially the analogous of $\log q$ in our discussion. In Schwarzchild-like coordinates, the spacetime line element reads: $$ds^{2}=-\alpha ^{2}\left( r,t\right) dt^{2}+a^{2}\left( r,t\right)
dr^{2}+r^{2}d\Omega ^{2}, \label{DSS}$$ where the coefficients satisfy the property: $$\alpha \left( \mathrm{e}^{\Delta }r,\mathrm{e}^{\Delta }t\right) =\alpha
\left( r,t\right) \text{ and }a\left( \mathrm{e}^{\Delta }r,\mathrm{e}^{\Delta }t\right) =a\left( r,t\right) , \label{DSS2}$$ the by-now familiar $q$-periodic property. In spite of the interest they have generated, these metrics are still much less studied than the usual continuously self-similar spacetimes, for example. Let us also briefly discuss the $q$-periodic property (\[DSS2\]).
On $q$-periodic functions
-------------------------
Recall that when we deal with a noncommutativity of the type $xy=qyx$ (Manin’s *quantum plane),* then ordinary derivatives are substituted by $q$-derivatives [@Majid:kd; @Eck]: $$\partial _{x}^{\left( q\right) }f\left( x;y;...\right) \equiv \frac{f\left(
qx;y;...\right) -f\left( x;y;...\right) }{\left( q-1\right) x}. \label{qder}$$ Notice how the $q$ derivative measures the rate of change with respect to a dilatation of the argument, instead of the translation of the usual derivative. Then, from the previous expression, it is manifest that a $q$-periodic function satisfies: $$\partial _{L}^{\left( q\right) }g\left( L\right) =0 \label{qperconst}$$ Actually, the unique solution to this equation is a $q$-periodic function and, of course, as in the classical case, a constant. Therefore, it can be said that a $q$-periodic function plays, at the level of $q$-calculus, the role of a constant in ordinary (commutative) calculus.
The connection with complex dimensions [@long; @Sor; @Flaj] can be easily obtained. We consider the Mellin transform of the $q$ periodic function: $$h(s)\equiv \int_{0}^{\infty }g\left( x\right) x^{s}dx.$$ Taking into account the following property of Mellin transforms (see [@Flaj] for example): $$\int_{0}^{\infty }g\left( qx\right) x^{s}dx=q^{-s}h(s),$$ and considering the $q$-periodic property $\left( \ref{qperiodic}\right) $: $$q^{-s}h(s)=h\left( s\right) \Rightarrow s_{k}=\frac{2\pi in}{\log q},\quad
n\in {\mathbb{Z}.}$$ Thus, the Mellin transform of a $q$ periodic function contains infinitely many complex poles. As we already know, this implies that the $q$ periodic function may be fractal. As we have already seen in the other sections, this depends on the precise form of the function itself. Namely, on the residue corresponding to the poles.
Equivalently, one may argue that any log-periodic term satisfy the restriction imposed by $\left( \ref{qperiodic}\right) $, so one can construct any suitable combination, such as: $$f\left( x\right) =\sum_{n=1}^{k}a_{n}\sin \left( 2\pi b_{n}\frac{\log x}{\log q}\right) ,$$ with rather generic coefficients $a_{n}$ and $b_{n}$ Nevertheless, we are still limiting the finest scale possible, since the sum stops at $n=k$ and thus the function is not a genuine fractal, albeit the oscillatory pattern is certainly much richer than a single log-periodic term. But we can consider a full Fourier series and take $k\rightarrow \infty $. Consider for example, $a_{n}=n^{-\gamma }$ with $\gamma >1;$ then: $$f\left( x\right) =\sum_{n=1}^{\infty }\frac{1}{n^{\gamma }}\sin \left( 2\pi n\frac{\log x}{\log q}\right) , \label{general2}$$ It is well-known that low enough values of $\gamma $ lead to fractal behavior. Therefore, both relatively simple log-periodic patterns that lead to smooth functions and much more fluctuating patterns leading to fractal functions (see Figures below) are $q$-periodic.
Another interesting aspect in the study of models characterized by a discrete scale invariance, is the appearance of a limit cycle in a renormalization group analysis. A limit cycle is a 1-parameter family of coupling constants that is closed under the RG flow. The necessary adimensional parameter corresponds to the angle $0<\theta <2\pi $ and the scale invariance is discrete. In the several models where a cyclic RG behavior has been found, it turns out that the couplings return to their initial values after a finite RG time $\lambda :$$$g\left( \mathrm{e}^{\lambda }L\right) =g\left( L\right) \label{qperiodic}$$ where $L$ is the RG length scale. Note that many other interesting physical quantities are also characterized by this $q$-periodic property [@LeClair:2002ux].
Needless to say, from a physical standpoint one would like, perhaps, to rule out the fractal case, since this implies the non-differentiability of $g\left( L\right) $. Further work to clarify this would be desirable, especially taking into account that one can construct intermediate cases, where the resulting function is neither smooth nor fractal, but begins to develop a countable set of singularities [@GluzSor].
Discretely self-similar space-time as a quantum group
-----------------------------------------------------
As we have just seen, discrete selfsimilarity leads to coefficients of the metric which are the $q$-periodic functions previously discussed. So, already at the classical level, the presence of the discrete self-similarity may imply a very low differentiability of the space-time. This may not necessarily jeopardize the validity of such an spacetime [@low].
This happens already at the level of the classical geometry, but what about one-loop effects ? Let us look at the heat kernel. To begin with, one can not directly apply the typical methods [@Elizalde:zk; @Vassilevich:2003xt]. Consider, the symbol of a Laplacian operator on a Riemannian manifold: $$a\left( x,\xi \right) ={-g^{ij}(x)\xi _{i}\xi _{j}+B^{i}(x)\xi _{i}+C(x).}$$
Then, as in [@Vassilevich:2003yz], a signal that the usual framework can not be applied is that the metric (\[DSS\])-(\[DSS2\]) leads to an oscillating symbol. The difference with [@Vassilevich:2003yz] is that in the present case the oscillatory behavior is log-periodic.
Now, it is manifest that the existence of the $\Delta $ parameter, the equivalent of $\log q$, will lead to functional behavior in the spectra of the Laplacian. For definiteness, let us briefly consider a very simple particular example. Consider the one-dimensional case: $$ds^{2}=g(x)dx^{2},$$ where $g(x)$ is of course $q$-periodic. Then, solving for the spectra of the Laplacian implies: $$g(x)\phi ^{\prime \prime }\left( x\right) =E_{n}\phi \left( x\right) ,$$ And the $q$-periodic property of $g(x)$ readily implies that $\phi \left(
qx\right) =q^{-2}\phi \left( x\right) .$ Thus, the self-similarity of the wavefunction is an automatic consequence. Note that this already implies self-similarity of the full heat-kernel $K(x,y,t,D)=\left\langle x\left|
\exp \left( -tD\right) \right| y\right\rangle $. Of course, such a wavefunction can now be expanded in a log-periodic Fourier series. However, it is simpler to notice that a function satisfying $\phi \left( qx\right)
=q^{-2}\phi \left( x\right) $ can also be given by: $$\phi \left( x\right) =\sum_{n=-\infty }^{\infty }\left( 1-\exp \left(
iq^{n}x\right) \right) q^{2n} \label{qosc}$$ Although we have written the complex wavefunction, it is clear that these are usual trigonometric oscillations with the only novelty that the frequencies of the oscillations are of the type $\omega _{n}=q^{n}$ . That is to say, with the geometric growth we have been discussing in this paper. This obviously translates into a geometric growth for the energy eigenvalues and thus, to a heat kernel and zeta functions of the type discussed in the previous Section.
Notice that all the previous discussions on the appearance of fractal behavior are now relevant as we already know that this novel behavior in the short-time asymptotics of the trace of the heat-kernel, is of very small amplitude. Recall that this expansion gives the large mass expansion of the effective action [@Vassilevich:2003xt].
Therefore, we have seen that, at a quantum level, discretely self-similar spacetimes are very much related to quantum groups [^3]. It seems appealing that the study of critical phenomena in gravitational collapse, that naturally leads to the discrete symmetry characterized by $\Delta ,$ might be related with quantum group symmetries. This is so because a quantum group symmetry is expected to be a key ingredient in quantum gravity [@Amelino-Camelia:2003xp] and, consequently, in black hole physics. Thus, it seems appealing that Choptuik’s result could be interpreted as a signature of a quantum group symmetry and thus, a full-fledged quantum gravity effect.
Conclusions and Outlook
=======================
We have focussed on analytical aspects of $q$-deformations with $q$ real. This has been done by simple comparison with discrete scale invariance [@Sor], a well-known topic in many statistical physics applications (although often appearing in a scattered fashion in the literature, in spite of reviews such as [@Sor]). We have seen that some models of conformal quantum mechanics, in the strong coupling regime an after regularization, also lead to the same behavior. In this sense, once this connection is realized, the properties in this regime are not intriguing but rather expected ones.
Incidentally, the tight connections between discrete scale invariance and fractal geometry puts into evidence the relationship between such models, $q$-deformations and fractal behavior. In addition, the functional behavior in the spectra, which is a consequence of the $q$-deformation or, more generically, of the presence of a discrete scale symmetry, naturally leads to associated spectral functions (such as zeta functions and trace of heat kernels) with interesting behavior. While such functions have appeared in mathematical literature, they have not been considered in zeta regularization [@Elizalde:zk; @Vassilevich:2003xt] and in this context, they show many interesting novel features. Mainly, a very rich meromorphic structure, which is of course consequence of the discrete scale invariance. This seems to be interesting, but the main reason is not one of just mathematical generality, as we have also shown that quantum field theory on discretely self-similar space-times exactly requires such an extended framework.
Precisely, regarding the discretely self-similar space-times, there seems to be several interesting open questions. On a mathematical level, it seems interesting to further study the low differentiability properties of some of the space-times included in the generic definition (\[DSS\])-(\[DSS2\]). This may be done along the lines of [@low] for example. From a more physical point of view, we hope to have shown that quantum field theory on these backgrounds is an interesting and rather unexplored problem. To begin with, there is the connection with quantum group symmetries and the possible meaning in quantum gravity, perhaps even also the comparison with developments on noncommutative field theory. If one is more interested in technical issues, we have already seen that in a heat-kernel/zeta functions approach, novel behavior appears, so a more careful study of this aspect may be worth as well, maybe in comparison with heat-kernels on noncommutative spaces [@Vassilevich:2003yz].
**Acknowledgments**
The author is grateful to Jean-Pierre Eckmann, Sebastian de Haro, Emilio Elizalde and Michel Lapidus for comments and discussions.
[99]{} H. E. Camblong, L. N. Epele, H. Fanchiotti and C. A. Garcia Canal, Phys. Rev. Lett. **85**, 1590 (2000) \[arXiv:hep-th/0003014\]; Annals Phys. **287**, 14 (2001) \[arXiv:hep-th/0003255\]; Annals Phys. **287**, 57 (2001) \[arXiv:hep-th/0003267\].
H. E. Camblong and C. R. Ordonez, Phys. Rev. D **68**, 125013 (2003) \[arXiv:hep-th/0303166\]. S. Skorik and V. Spiridonov, Lett. Math. Phys. **28**, 59 (1993) \[arXiv:hep-th/9304107\]; V. Spiridonov, Phys. Rev. A **52**, 1909 (1995) \[arXiv:quant-ph/9601030\]; I. Loutsenko and V. Spiridonov, \[arXiv:solv-int/9909022\]. E. Braaten and H. W. Hammer, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**91**]{}, 102002 (2003) \[arXiv:nucl-th/0303038\]. S. D. Glazek and K. G. Wilson, Phys. Rev. D **48**, 5863 (1993). Phys. Rev. Lett. **89**, 230401 (2002) \[arXiv:hep-th/0203088\]; \[arXiv:cond-mat/0303297\].
A. LeClair, J. M. Roman and G. Sierra, Phys. Rev. B **69**, 20505 (2004) \[arXiv:cond-mat/0211338\]; Nucl. Phys. **B** 675, 584 (2003) \[arXiv:hep-th/0301042\]; Nucl. Phys. B **700**, 407 (2004) \[arXiv:hep-th/0312141\]. A. J. Macfarlane, J. Phys. A **22**, 4581 (1989); L. C. Biedenharn, J. Phys. A **22**, L873 (1989). S. Majid, *Foundations Of Quantum Group Theory,* Cambridge, UK: Univ. Pr. (1995) 607 p V. de Alfaro, S. Fubini and G. Furlan, Nuovo Cim. A **34**, 569 (1976). K. M. Case, Phys. Rev. **80**, 797 (1950).
D. Sornette, Phys. Rept. **297,** 239 (1998). Expanded version in \[arXiv:cond-mat/9707012\]
M. Fichtmuller, A. Lorek and J. Wess, Z. Phys. C **71**, 533 (1996) \[arXiv:hep-th/9511106\]. V. Efimov, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. **12**, 589 (1971); Comments Nucl. Part. Phys. **19**, 271 (1990).
K. G. Wilson, Phys. Rev. D **3**, 1818 (1971). P. F. Bedaque, H. W. Hammer and U. van Kolck, Phys. Rev. Lett. **82**, 463 (1999) \[arXiv:nucl-th/9809025\]. E. Braaten and H. W. Hammer, Phys. Rev. A **67**, 042706 (2003) \[arXiv:cond-mat/0203421\]; Phys. Rev. Lett. **87**, 160407 (2001) \[arXiv:cond-mat/0103331\]. A. Morozov and A. J. Niemi, Nucl. Phys. B **666**, 311 (2003) \[arXiv:hep-th/0304178\]. S. A. Coon and B. R. Holstein, Am. J. Phys. **70**, 513 (2002) \[arXiv:quant-ph/0202091\]
E. Elizalde, *Ten Physical Applications Of Spectral Zeta Functions*, Lect. Notes Phys. **M35**, 1 (1995); K. Kirsten, *Spectral Functions In Mathematics And Physics*, Chapman&Hall/CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 2001. R. Sedgewick and P. Flajolet, *An introduction to the Analysis of Algorithms*, Addison-Wesley, 1996 D. V. Vassilevich, Phys.Rept. **388**, 279 (2003) \[arXiv:hep-th/0306138\]; A. A. Bytsenko, G. Cognola, L. Vanzo and S. Zerbini, Phys. Rept. **266**, 1 (1996) \[arXiv:hep-th/9505061\]. M. L. Lapidus and M. van Frankenhuysen, *Fractal Geometry and Number Theory (Complex dimensions of fractal strings and zeros of zeta functions)*, Research Monograph, Birkhäuser, Boston, 2000.
M. Abramowitz and I.A. Stegun (Eds.). *Handbook of Mathematical Functions with Formulas, Graphs, and Mathematical Tables, 9th printing.* New York: Dover, 1972.
K. Ueno and M. Nishizawa, *Quantum groups and zeta-functions*, Proceedings of the 30-th Karpatz Winter School ”Quantum Groups: Formalism and Applications” (1995), 115-126 (Polish Scientific Publishers PWN) \[arXiv:hep-th/9408143\] M. Kaneko, N. Kurokawa and M. Wakayama, Kyushu J. Math. 57 (2003) 175-192 \[arXiv:math.QA/0206171\]
I. Cherednik, Sel. math., New Ser. 7, 1-44 (2001) \[arXiv:math.QA/9804099\]
M. Marino, Commun. Math. Phys. [**253**]{}, 25 (2004) \[arXiv:hep-th/0207096\]. M. Tierz, Mod. Phys. Lett. A **19**, 1365 (2004) \[arXiv:hep-th/0212128\]. M. W. Choptuik, Phys. Rev. Lett. **70**, 9 (1993). C. Gundlach, Phys. Rept. **376**, 339 (2003) \[arXiv:gr-qc/0210101\]. C. Gundlach and J. M. Martin-Garcia, Phys. Rev. D **68**, 064019 (2003) \[arXiv:gr-qc/0306001\] J.P. Eckmann and A. Erzan, Phys. Rev. Lett. **78**, 3241 (1997).
S. Gluzman and D. Sornette, Phys. Rev. E 65, 036142 (2002)
C.J.S. Clarke, *The Analysis of Space-Time Singularities,* Cambridge University Press, 1993.
D. V. Vassilevich, Lett. Math. Phys. **67**, 185 (2004) \[arXiv:hep-th/0310144\]. G. Amelino-Camelia, L. Smolin and A. Starodubtsev, Class. Quant. Grav. **21**, 3095 (2004) \[arXiv:hep-th/0306134\].
Mellin transforms and zeta functions: complex poles
===================================================
To complement the information provided in the Introduction, we just quote here the theorem that is implicitly used in the computations of the asymptotic behavior of the spectral functions. We note in passing that not only a geometric growth of the spectral sequence $\left\{ \lambda
_{n}\right\} $ leads to complex poles. An arithmetic sequence with varying amplitudes (degeneracies) may exhibit the same behavior. That is, Dirichlet series such as: $$L(s)=\sum_{n}\frac{\upsilon _{2}\left( n\right) }{n^{-s}},$$ where $\upsilon _{2}\left( n\right) $ denotes the exponent of $2$ in the prime number decomposition of the integer $n,$ has complex poles [@Flaj]. The theorem is as follows.
Let $f(x)$ be continuous in $\left] 0,\infty \right[ $ with Mellin transform $f^{*}\left( s\right) $ having a non-empty fundamental strip $\left\langle
\alpha ,\beta \right\rangle $.
$\left( i\right) $ Assume that $f^{*}\left( s\right) $ admits a meromorphic continuation to the strip $\left\langle \gamma ,\beta \right\rangle $ with some $\gamma <\alpha $ with a finite number of poles there, and is analytic on $\Re \left( s\right) =\gamma .$
Assume also that there exists a real number $\eta \in \left( \alpha ,\beta
\right) $ such that
$$f^{*}\left( s\right) =O\left( \left| s\right| ^{-r}\right) \text{ with }r>1,$$
when $\left| s\right| \rightarrow \infty $ in $\gamma \leq $ $\Re \left(
s\right) \leq \eta .$ If $f^{*}\left( s\right) $ admits the singular expansion for $s\in $ $\left\langle \gamma ,\alpha \right\rangle $ $$f^{*}\left( s\right) \asymp \sum_{\left( \xi ,k\right) \in A}d_{\xi ,k}\frac{1}{\left( s-\xi \right) ^{k}},$$
then an asymptotic expansion of $f(x)$ at $0$ is $$f(x)=\sum_{\left( \xi ,k\right) \in A}d_{\xi ,k}\left( \frac{\left(
-1\right) ^{k-1}}{\left( k-1\right) !}x^{-\xi }\left( \log x\right)
^{k}\right) +O\left( x^{-\gamma }\right) .$$
There is also an analogous statement for an asymptotic expansion of $f(x)$ at $\infty .$ Proofs can be found in [@Flaj]. To conclude, we just want to point out that in many cases, $f^{*}\left( s\right) $ is meromorphic in a complete left or right half plane, and then a complete asymptotic expansion for $f^{*}\left( s\right) $ results. Such an expansion can be convergent or divergent. If divergent, the expansion is then only asymptotic. If convergent it may represent the function exactly. In general, we need a fast enough and uniform decrease of $f^{*}\left( s\right) $ along vertical lines. The example treated in Section $2$ for example, satisfies this property and then, the representation is exact. More details can be found in [@Flaj].
[^1]: Due to the concomitant symmetry of the potential, of degree $-2$, with the kinetic energy term.
[^2]: That is, continuous but differentiable nowhere.
[^3]: Recall that we can consider a quantum group as a manifold, and its spectral analysis is of the type here discussed [@qzeta2].
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Local and global properties of minimal solutions for the heat equation generated by the Dirichlet fractional Laplacian negatively perturbed by Hardy’s potentials on open subsets of $\R^d$ are analyzed. As a byproduct we obtain instantaneous blow-up of nonnegative solutions in the supercritical case.'
author:
- 'Ali BenAmor[^1] [^2]'
bibliography:
- 'biblio-HeatFDL.bib'
title: ' The heat equation for the Dirichlet fractional Laplacian with Hardy’s potentials: properties of minimal solutions and blow-up'
---
[**Key words**]{}: fractional Laplacian, heat equation, Dirichlet form.\
[**MSC2010**]{}: 35K05, 35B09, 35S11.
Introduction
============
In this paper, we discuss mainly two questions: 1. Local and global properties in space variable of nonnegative solutions of the heat equation related to Dirichlet fractional Laplacian on open subsets negatively perturbed by potentials of the type $\frac{c}{|x|^\alpha},\ c>0$ and\
2. Relying on the results obtained in 1. we shall prove complete instantaneous blow-up of nonnegative solutions for the same equation provided $c$ is bigger than some critical value $c^*$.\
To be more concrete, let $0<\alpha<\min(2,d)$ and ${\Omega}$ be an open subset ${\Omega}\subset\R^d$ containing zero. We designate by $L_0^{\Omega}:=(-\Delta)^{\frac{\alpha}{2}}|_\Omega$ the fractional Laplacian with zero Dirichlet condition on $\Omega^c$ (as explained in the next section). We consider the associated perturbed heat equation $$\begin{aligned}
\label{heat1}
\left\{\begin{gathered}
-\frac{\partial u}{\partial t}=L_0^{\Omega}u - \frac{c}{|x|^\alpha}u,
\quad \hbox{in } (0,T)\times\Omega,\\
u(t,\cdot)=0,\ on~~~\Omega^c,\ \forall\,0<t<T\leq\infty\\
u(0,x)= u_{0}(x),~~~{\rm a.e.\ in}\ \Omega,
\end{gathered}
\right.\end{aligned}$$ where $c>0$ and $u_{0}$ is a nonnegative Borel measurable square integrable function on ${\Omega}$. The meaning of a solution for the equation (\[heat1\]) will be explained in the next section.\
Regarding the first addressed question, in the paper [@benamor-kenzizi], the authors established existence of nonnegative exponentially bounded solutions on bounded Lipschitz domains provided $$\begin{aligned}
0<c\leq c^*:=\frac{2^\alpha\Gamma^2(\frac{d+\alpha}{4})}{ \Gamma^2(\frac{d-\alpha}{4})}.\end{aligned}$$ They also proved that for $c>c^*$ complete instantaneous blow up takes place, provided ${\Omega}$ is a bounded Lipschitz domain.\
Concerning properties of solutions only partial information are available in the literature. Precisely in [@benamor-JPA Corollary 5.1] the authors proved that for bounded $C^{1,1}$ domains then under some additional condition one has the following asymptotic behavior of nonnegative solutions $u(t,x)$ for large time, $$\begin{aligned}
u(t,x)\sim c_t |x|^{-\beta(c)}|y|^{-\beta(c)}\delta^{\alpha/2}(x)\delta^{\alpha/2}(y),\ a.e.
\label{asymp0}\end{aligned}$$ where $0<\beta(c)\leq \frac{d-\alpha}{2}$ and $\delta$ is the distance function to the complement of the domain.\
However, as long as we know, the second question is still open: It is not clear whether for $c>c^*$ and ${\Omega}$ unbounded any nonnegative solution blows up immediately and completely.\
In these notes we shall solve definitively both problems: Sharp local estimates with respect to the spatial variable, up to the boundary, of a special nonnegative solution (the minimal solution) of the heat equation will be established in the subcritical leading thereby to global sharp $L^p$ regularity property. We also prove complete instantaneous blow-up in the supercritical case for arbitrary domains, regardless boundedness and regularity of the boundary.\
Our strategy is described as follows: At first stage we show that in the subcritical case the underlying semigroups have heat kernels. Then we shall establish sharp estimates of the heat kernels near zero of the considered semigroups on bounded sets, which in turns will lead to sharp pointwise estimate of the minimal solution near zero of (\[heat1\]). The latter result are then exploited to prove the above mentioned properties and to enable us to extend the $L^2$-semigroups to semigroups on some weighted $L^1$-space, determining therefore the optimal class of initial data. The main ingredients at this stage are a transformation procedure by harmonic functions that will transform the forms related to the considered semigroups into Dirichlet forms together with the use of the celebrated improved Hardy–Sobolev inequality.\
Then the precise description of the pointwise behavior of the heat kernel on bounded sets will deserve among others to establish blow up on open sets.\
The inspiring point for us were the papers [@zuazua; @baras-goldstein; @cabre-martel] where the problem was addressed and solved for the Dirichlet Laplacian (i.e. $\alpha=2$). We shall record many resemblances between our results and those found in the latter cited papers though the substantial difference between the Laplacian and the fractional Laplacian.
Backgrounds
===========
From now on we fix an open subset $\Omega\subset\R^d$ containing zero and a real number $\alpha$ such that $0<\alpha<\min(2,d)$.\
The Lebesgue spaces $L^2(\R^d,dx)$, resp. $L^2(\Omega,dx)$ will be denoted by $L^2$, resp. $L^2(\Omega)$ and their respective norms will be denoted by $\|\cdot\|_{L^2}$, resp. $\|\cdot\|_{L^2({\Omega})}$ . We shall write $\int\cdots$ as a shorthand for $\int_{\R^d}\cdots$.\
The letters $C, C',c_t, \kappa_t$ will denote generic nonnegative finite constants which may vary in value from line to line.\
Consider the bilinear symmetric form $\calE$ defined in $L^2$ by $$\begin{aligned}
\calE(f,g)&=&\frac{1}{2}{\A} (d,\alpha)\int \int \frac{(f(x)-f(y))(g(x)-g(y))}
{|x-y|^{d+\alpha}}\,dxdy,\nonumber\\
D(\calE)&=&W^{\alpha/2,2}(\R^d)
:=\{f\in L^2\colon\,\calE[f]:=\calE(f,f)<\infty\},\,
\label{formula1}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
{\A}{(d,\alpha)}=\frac{\alpha\Gamma(\frac{d+\alpha}{2})}
{2^{1-\alpha}\pi^{d/2}\Gamma(1-\frac{\alpha}{2})}.
\label{analfa}\end{aligned}$$ Using Fourier transform $\hat f(\xi)=(2\pi)^{-d/2}\int e^{-ix\cdot\xi}f(x)\,dx$, a straightforward computation yields the following identity (see [@frank Lemma 3.1]) $$\begin{aligned}
\int |\xi|^\alpha|\hat f(\xi)|^2\,d\xi=\calE[f],\ \forall\,f\in W^{\alpha/2,2}(\R^d).
\label{form-fourier}\end{aligned}$$ It is well known that $\calE$ is a Dirichlet form, i.e.: it is densely defined bilinear symmetric and closed form moreover it holds, $$\begin{aligned}
\forall\,f\in{W^{\alpha/2,2}}(\R^d)\Rightarrow f_{0,1}:=(0\vee f )\wedge 1\in{W^{\alpha/2,2}}(\R^d)\ {\rm and}\ \calE[f_{0,1}]\leq\calE[f],\end{aligned}$$ Furthermore $\calE$ is regular: $C_c(\R^d)\cap {W^{\alpha/2,2}}(\R^d)$ is dense in both spaces $C_c(\R^d)$ and ${W^{\alpha/2,2}}(\R^d)$.\
The form $\calE$ is related (via Kato representation theorem) to the selfadjoint operator, commonly named the fractional Laplacian on $\R^d$, and which we shall denote by $L_0:=(-\Delta)^{\alpha/2}$. We note that the domain of $L_0$ is the fractional Sobolev space $W^{\alpha,2}(\R^d)$. We quote that the following Hardy’s inequality holds true $$\begin{aligned}
\int \frac{f^2(x)}{|x|^\alpha}\,dx\leq \frac{1}{c^*}\calE[f],\ \forall\,f\in W^{\alpha/2,2}(\R^d).
\label{hardy-global}\end{aligned}$$ Furthermore $1/{c^*}$ is the best constant in the latter inequality.\
It is also known that $\calE$ induces a set-function called ’capacity’. We shall say that a property holds quasi-everywhere (q.e. for short if it holds true up to a set having zero capacity).\
For aspects related to Dirichlet forms we refer the reader to [@fukushima-book].\
Set $L_0^{\Omega}:=(-\Delta)^{\alpha/2}|_{\Omega}$, the operator which Dirichlet form in $L^2(\overline{\Omega},dx)$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
D(\calE_{\Omega})&=&W_0^{\alpha/2,2}({\Omega})\colon=\{f\in W^{\alpha/2,2}(\R^d)\colon\, f=0 ~~~q. e.~on~{\Omega}^c\}\nonumber\\
\calE_{\Omega}(f,g)&=&\calE(f,g)\nonumber\\
&=&\frac{1}{2}\A{(d,\alpha)}\int_{\Omega}\int_{\Omega}\frac{(f(x)-f(y))(g(x)-g(y))}{|x-y|^{d+\alpha}}\,dx\,dy
+\int_{\Omega}f(x)g(x)\kappa_{\Omega}(x)\,dx,$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\kappa_{\Omega}(x):=\A(d,\alpha)\int_{{\Omega}^c}\frac{1}{|x-y|^{d+\alpha}}\,dy.\end{aligned}$$ For every $t\geq 0$ we designate by $e^{-tL_0^{\Omega}}$ the operator semigroup related to $L_0^{\Omega}$. In the case ${\Omega}=\R^d$ we omit the superscript ${\Omega}$ in the notations.\
It is a known fact (see [@bogdan-book]) that $e^{-tL_0^{\Omega}},\ t>0$ has a kernel (the heat kernel) $p_t^{L_0^{\Omega}}(x,y)$ which is symmetric jointly continuous and $p_t^{L_0^{\Omega}}(x,y)>0,\ \forall\,x,y\in{\Omega}$.\
Let us introduce the notion of solution for problem (\[heat1\]).
Let $V\in L^1_{loc}({\Omega})$ be nonnegative, $u_0\in L^2({\Omega})$ be nonnegative as well and $0<T\leq\infty$. We say that a Borel measurable function $u:[0,T)\times\R^d\to\R$ is a solution of the heat equation $$\begin{aligned}
\label{heat2}
\left\{\begin{gathered}
-\frac{\partial u}{\partial t}=L_0^{\Omega}u - Vu,
\quad \hbox{in } (0,T)\times\Omega,\\
u(t,\cdot)=0,\ \ on~~~\Omega^c,\ \forall\,0<t<T\leq\infty\\
u(0,\cdot)= u_{0},~~~{\rm for}\ \in \Omega,
\end{gathered}
\right.\end{aligned}$$ if
1. $u\in\calL_{loc}^2\big([0,T), L_{loc}^2({\Omega})\big)$, where $\calL^2$ is the Lebesgue space of square integrable functions.
2. $u\in L^{1}_{loc}\big((0,T)\times {\Omega},dt\otimes V\,dx\big)$.
3. For every $t>0$, $u(t,\cdot)= 0,\ a.e.$ on ${\Omega}^c$.
4. For every $0\leq t< T$ and every Borel function $\phi:[0,T)\times\R^d$ such that $supp\,\phi\subset [0,T)\times{\Omega}$, $\phi,\ \frac{\partial \phi}{\partial t}\in L^2((0,T)\times{\Omega})$, $\phi(t,\cdot)\in D(L_0)$ and $$\int_0^t\int_{\Omega}u(s,x)L_0\psi(s,x)\,ds\,dx<\infty$$ the following identity holds true $$\begin{aligned}
\int \big((u\phi)(t,x)-u_0(x)\phi(0,x)\big)\,dx &+&\int_{0}^{t}\int
u(s,x)(-\phi_{s}(s,x)+L_0^{\Omega}\phi(s,x))\,dx\,ds\nonumber\\
&=&\int_{0}^{t}\int u(s,x)\phi(s,x)V(x)\,dx\,ds.
\label{variational}\end{aligned}$$
For every $c>0$ we denote by $V_c$ the Hardy potential $$V_c(x)=\frac{c}{|x|^\alpha},\ x\neq 0.$$ In [@benamor-kenzizi] it is proved that for bounded ${\Omega}$ and for $0<c\leq c^*$ equation (\[heat1\]) has a nonnegative solution, whereas for $c>c^*$ and ${\Omega}$ a bounded Lipschitz domain then no nonnegative solutions occur.\
In the next section we shall be concerned with properties of a special nonnegative solution which is called [*minimal solution*]{} or [*semigroup solution*]{} in the subcritical, i.e. $0<c<c^*$ and in the critical cases, i.e. $c=c^*$. The connotation minimal solution comes from the following observation ( proved in [@benamor-kenzizi] for bounded domains and in Lemma \[domination\] for general domains and in [@keller-lenz] in a different context): If $u_k$ is the semigroup solution for the heat equation with potential $V_c\wedge k,\ k\in\N$ and if $u$ is any nonnegative solution of (\[heat1\]) then $u_\infty:=\lim_{k\to\infty}u_k$ is a nonnegative solution of (\[heat1\]) and $u_\infty\leq u\ a.e.$.\
We shall name $u_\infty$ the minimal nonnegative solution and shall denote it by $u$.\
Let $0<c< c^*$. We denote by $\calE_{\Omega}^{V_c}$ the quadratic form defined by $$\begin{aligned}
D(\calE_{\Omega}^{V_c} )={W_0^{\alpha/2,2}(\Omega)},\ \calE_{\Omega}^{V_c}[f] = \calE_{\Omega}[f] - \int_{\Omega}f^2(x)V_c(x)\,dx.\end{aligned}$$ Whereas for $c=c^*$, we set $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{\calE_{\Omega}}^{V_{c^*}}\colon\, D(\dot{\calE_{\Omega}}^{V_{c^*}} )={W_0^{\alpha/2,2}(\Omega)},\ \dot{\calE_{\Omega}}^{V_{c^*}}[f] = \calE_{\Omega}[f] - \int_{\Omega}f^2(x)V_{c^*}(x)\,dx.\end{aligned}$$ As the closability of $\dot{\calE_{\Omega}}^{V_{c^*}}$ in $L^2({\Omega})$ is not obvious we shall perform a method that enables us to prove in a unified manner the closedness of $\calE_{\Omega}^{V_c}$ as well as the closability of $\dot{\calE_{\Omega}}^{V_{c^*}}$ in $L^2({\Omega})$.\
To that end we recall some known facts concerning harmonic functions of $L_0 -\frac{c}{|x|^\alpha}$.\
We know from [@benamor-JPA Lemma 2.2] that for every $0<c\leq c^*$ there is a unique $\beta=\beta(c)\in(0,\frac{d-\alpha}{2}]$ such that $w_c(x):=|x|^{-\beta(c)},\ x\neq 0$ solves the equation $$\begin{aligned}
&&(-\Delta)^{\alpha/2}w-c|x|^{-\alpha}w=0\ {\rm in\ the\ sense\ of\ distributions}.
\label{harmonic1}\end{aligned}$$ That is $$\begin{aligned}
< \hat w,|\xi|^{\alpha}\hat\varphi>-c<|x|^{-\alpha}w,\varphi>=0\ \forall\,\varphi\in{\cal S}.\end{aligned}$$ Furthermore for $\beta_*:=\frac{d-\alpha}{2}$, we have $c=c^*$, i.e., $w_{c^*}(x)=|x|^{-\frac{d-\alpha}{2}},\ x\neq 0$.\
Next we fix definitively $c\in (0,c^*]$ .\
For $0<c<c_*$ let $Q^c$ be the $w_c$-transform of $\calE_{\Omega}^{V_c}$, and for $c=c_*$ let $Q^{c_*}$ be the $w_{c^*}$-transform of $\dot\calE_{\Omega}^{V_c}$ i.e., the quadratic forms defined in $L^2({\Omega},w_c^2dx)$ and in $L^2({\Omega},w_{c^*}^2dx)$ respectively by: $$\begin{aligned}
D(Q^c):=\{f\colon\,w_cf\in{W_0^{\alpha/2,2}(\Omega)}\}\subset L^2({\Omega},w_c^2dx),\ Q^c[f]=\calE_{\Omega}^{V_c}[w_cf],\ \forall\,f\in\,D(Q^c).\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
D(Q^{c_*}):=\{f\colon\,w_{c^*}f\in{W_0^{\alpha/2,2}(\Omega)}\}\subset L^2({\Omega},w_{c^*}^2dx),\ Q^{c_*}[f]=\dot\calE_{\Omega}^{V_c}[w_{c^*}f],\ \forall\,f\in\,D(Q^c).\end{aligned}$$
For $0<c<c^*$ the form $Q^c$ is a regular Dirichlet form whereas for $c=c^*$ the form $Q^{c^*}$ is closable and its closure is a regular Dirichlet form as well. It follows in particular that $\calE_{\Omega}^{V_c}$ is closed and $\dot\calE_{\Omega}^{V_{c^*}}$ is closable in $L^2({\Omega})$.\
In both cases, it holds $$\begin{aligned}
Q^c[f]=\frac{\A(d,\alpha)}{2}\int\int \frac{(f(x)-f(y))^2}{|x-y|^{d+\alpha}} w_c(x)w_c(y)\,dxdy,\ \forall\,wf\in{W_0^{\alpha/2,2}(\Omega)}.
\label{ID}\end{aligned}$$ \[closability\]
The proof of formula (\[ID\]) follows the lines of the proof of [@benamor-JPA Lemma 3.1], where bounded ${\Omega}$ is considered so we omit it.\
To prove regularity it suffices to prove that $C_c^\infty({\Omega})\subset D(Q^c)$. The latter claim is in turns equivalent to the following two conditions (see [@fukushima-book Example 1.2.1]): for every compact set $K$ and every open set ${\Omega}_1$ with $K\subset{\Omega}_1\subset{\Omega}$ one should have $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{K\times K}|x-y|^{2-d-\alpha}w_c(x)w_c(y)\,dx\,dy<\infty,\
\int_{K}\int_{{\Omega}\setminus{\Omega}_1}|x-y|^{-d-\alpha}w_c(x)w_c(y)\,dx\,dy<\infty.\end{aligned}$$ The first part of the latter conditions was already proved for bounded sets in [@benamor-JPA Lemma 3.1]. Let us prove the finiteness of the second integral.\
Case1: $0\in K$. Then $0\not\in{\Omega}\setminus{\Omega}_1$. Thus $\sup_{y\in{\Omega}\setminus{\Omega}_1}w_{c}(y)<\infty$. On the other hand we have $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{{\Omega}\setminus{\Omega}_1}|x-y|^{-d-\alpha}\,dy\leq \int_{\{|x-y|>\epsilon\}}|x-y|^{-d-\alpha}\,dy\leq C<\infty.\end{aligned}$$ Hence the second integral is finite.\
Case2: $0\in{\Omega}_1\setminus K$. Then $\sup_{x\in K}w_{c}(x)<\infty, \sup_{y\in{\Omega}\setminus{\Omega}_1}w_{c}(y)<\infty$ and once again the second integral is finite.\
Case3: $0\in{\Omega}\setminus {\Omega}_1$. Then $\sup_{x\in K}w_{c}(x)<\infty$. Thus if we choose an open ball $B_\epsilon$ centered at $0$ such that $B\subset{\Omega}\setminus{\Omega}_1$ we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{K}\int_{{\Omega}\setminus{\Omega}_1}|x-y|^{-d-\alpha}w_{c}(x)w_{c}(y)\,dx\,dy
&=&\int_{K}\int_{B}|x-y|^{-d-\alpha}w_{c}(x)w_{c}(y)\,dx\,dy\nonumber\\
& + & \int_{K}\int_{{\Omega}\setminus({\Omega}_1\cup B)}|x-y|^{-d-\alpha}w_{c}(x)w_{c}(y)\,dx\,dy\nonumber\\
&\leq & C_1 + C_2\int_{K}\int_{B^c}|x-y|^{-d-\alpha}\,dx\,dy<\infty.\end{aligned}$$ We turn our attention now to prove the rest of the lemma.\
Let $0<c<c^*$. Utilizing Hardy’s inequality we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
(1-\frac{c}{c^*})\calE_{\Omega}[f]\leq \calE_{\Omega}^{V_c}\leq\calE_{\Omega}[f],\ \forall\,f\in{W_0^{\alpha/2,2}(\Omega)},\end{aligned}$$ from which the closedness of $\calE_{\Omega}^{V_c}$ follows, as well as the closedness of $Q^c$. On the other hand it is obvious that the normal contraction acts on $D(Q^c)$ and hence $Q^c$ is a Dirichlet form.\
For the critical case formula (\[ID\]) indicates that $Q^{c^*}$ is Markovian and closable, by means of Fubini theorem. Thus, according to [@fukushima-book Theorem 3.1.1] its closure is a Dirichlet form.
The form $\dot\calE_{\Omega}^{V_{c^*}}$ is not closed. Indeed if it were the case, then for every ball $B$ centered in $0$ and $B\subset{\Omega}$, the form $\dot\calE_B^{V_{c^*}}$ would be closed as well. However, it was proved in [@benamor-JPA Remark 4.1] that the ground state of $\dot\calE_B^{V_{c^*}}$ is not in the space $W_0^{\alpha/2,2}(B)$ leading to a contradiction.
Henceforth, we denote by $\calE_{\Omega}^{V_{c^*}}$ the closure of $\dot\calE_{\Omega}^{V_{c^*}}$, by $L_{V_c}^{\Omega}$ the selfadjoint operator associated to $\calE_{\Omega}^{V_{c}}$ and by $e^{-tL_{V_c}^{\Omega}},\ t\geq 0$ the related semigroup.\
We designate by $L^{w_c}$ the operator associated to $Q^c$ in the weighted Lebesgue space $L^2({\Omega},w_c^2dx)$ and $T_t^{w_c},\ t\geq 0$ its semigroup. Then $$\begin{aligned}
L^{w_c}=w_c^{-1}L_{V_c}^{\Omega}w_c\ {\rm and}\ T_t^{w_c}=w_c^{-1}e^{-tL_{V_c}^{\Omega}}w_c,\ t\geq 0.
\end{aligned}$$ The next proposition explains why are minimal solutions also semigroup solutions.
For every $0<c\leq c^*$, the minimal solution is given by $u(t):=e^{-tL_{V_c}^{\Omega}}u_0,\ t\geq 0$. Thus $u(t)\in D(L_{V_c}^{\Omega}),\ t>0$, $u\in C([0,\infty,L^2({\Omega}))\cap C^1((0,\infty,L^2({\Omega}))$ furthermore it fulfills Duhamel’s formula $$\begin{aligned}
u(t,x)&=&e^{-tL_0^{\Omega}}u_0(x)+\int_0^t\int_{{\Omega}} p_{t-s}^{L_0^{\Omega}}(x,y)u(s,y)V(y)\,dy\,ds,\ \forall\,t>0,\ a.e. x\in{\Omega}.
\label{Duhamel}\end{aligned}$$ \[sg-Sol\]
Let $(h_k)_k$ be the sequence of closed quadratic forms in $L^2({\Omega})$ defined by $$h_k:=\calE_{\Omega}- V_c\wedge k,$$ and $(H_k)_k$ be the related selfadjoint operators. Then $(h_k)_k$ is uniformly lower semibounded and $h_k\downarrow \calE_{\Omega}^{V_c}$ in the subcritical case, whereas $h_k\downarrow \dot\calE_{\Omega}^{V_{c^*}}$ in the critical case. As both $\calE_{\Omega}^{V_c},\ \dot\calE_{\Omega}^{V_{c^*}}$ are closable, we conclude by [@kato Theorem 3.11] that $(H_k)$ converges in the strong resolvent sense to $L_{V_c}^{\Omega}$ for every $0<c\leq c^*$. Hence $e^{-tH_k}$ converges strongly to $e^{-tL_{V_c}^{\Omega}}$ and then the monotone sequence $u_k:=e^{-tH_k}u_0$ converges to $e^{-tL_{V_c}^{\Omega}}u_0$ which is nothing else but the minimal solution.\
The remaining claims of the proposition follow from the standard theory of semigroups.
As one interest is properties of minimal solutions and since these are given in term of semigroups one should analyze these semigroups. Here is a first result in this direction.
For every $t>0$ the semigroup $e^{-tL_{\Omega}^{V_c}},\ t>0$ has a measurable nonnegative symmetric absolutely continuous kernel, $p_{t}^{L_{V_c}^{\Omega}}$, in the sense that for every $v\in L^2({\Omega})$ it holds, $$\begin{aligned}
e^{-tL_{\Omega}^{V_c}}v =\int_{\Omega}p_{t}^{L_{V_c}^{\Omega}}(\cdot,y)v(y)\,dy,\ a.e.\ x,y\in{\Omega},\ \forall\,t>0.
\label{f0}\end{aligned}$$
We shall call $p_{t}^{L_{V_c}^{\Omega}}$ the heat kernel of $e^{-tL_{\Omega}^{V_c}}$.
Owing to the known fact that $e^{-tL_0^{\Omega}},\ t>0$ has a nonnegative heat kernel together with the fact that $V_c\wedge k$ is bounded we deduce that $e^{-tH_k}$ has a nonnegative heat kernel as well, which we denote by $P_{t,k}$. As the $u_k(t)=e^{-tH_k}$ are monotone increasing we achieve that the sequence $(P_{t,k})_k$ is monotone increasing as well. Set $$\begin{aligned}
p_{t}^{L_{V_c}^{\Omega}}(x,y):=\lim_{k\to\infty}P_{t,k}(x,y),\ \forall\,t>0,\ a.e.\ x,y\in{\Omega}.\end{aligned}$$ Then $p_{t}^{L_{V_c}^{\Omega}}$ has all the first properties mentioned in the proposition.\
Let $u_0\in L^2({\Omega})$ be nonnegative. Then by monotone convergence theorem, together with the latter proposition we get $$\begin{aligned}
e^{-tL_{\Omega}^{V_c}}u_0&=&\lim_{k\to\infty}u_k(t)=\lim_{k\to\infty}e^{-tH_k}u_0
=\lim_{k\to\infty}\int_{\Omega}P_{t,k}(\cdot,y)u_0(y)\,dy\nonumber\\
&=&\int_{\Omega}p_{t}^{L_{V_c}^{\Omega}}(\cdot,y)u_0(y)\,dy,\ a.e.\ x,y\in{\Omega},\ \forall\,t>0.\end{aligned}$$ For an arbitrary $v\in L^2({\Omega})$ formula (\[f0\]) follows from the last step by decomposing $v$ into its positive and negative parts.
Heat kernel estimates, local and global behavior of the minimal solution in space variable
==========================================================================================
Along this section we assume that ${\Omega}$ is bounded.\
The study of behavior for solutions of evolution equations is often a delicate problem. To overcome the difficulties we shall make use of the pseudo-ground state transformation for forms $\calE_{\Omega}^{V_c}$ performed in Lemma \[closability\] together with an improved Sobolev inequality. This transformation has the considerable effect to mutate forms $\calE_{\Omega}^{V_c}$ to Dirichlet forms and to mutate $e^{-tL_{V_c}^{\Omega}}$ to Markovian ultracontractive semigroup on some weighted Lebesgue space. The analysis of the transformed operators will then lead us to get satisfactory results concerning estimating their kernel and hence the properties of minimal solutions.\
As a first step we proceed to prove that Sobolev inequality holds for the $w_c$-transform of the form $\calE_{\Omega}^{V_c}$. As a byproduct we obtain that the semigroup of the transformed from is ultracontractive and then very interesting estimates for the heat kernel are derived.
1. Let $0<c<c^*$ and $p=\frac{d}{d-\alpha}$. Then the following Sobolev inequality holds true $$\begin{aligned}
\parallel f^2\parallel_{ {L^p}(w_c^2dx)}\leq AQ^{c}[f],\ \forall\,f\in D(Q^c).
\label{w-sob}\end{aligned}$$
2. For $c=c^*$ let $1<p<\frac{d}{d-\alpha}$. Then the following Sobolev inequality holds true $$\begin{aligned}
\parallel f^2\parallel_{ {L^p}(w_{c^*}^2dx)}\leq AQ^{c^*}[f],\ \forall\,f\in D(Q^{c^*}).
\label{w-sob2}\end{aligned}$$
3. For every $t>0$, the operator $T_t^{w_c}$ is ultracontractive.
4. For every $0<c<c^*$, there is a finite constant $C>0$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
0<p_t^{L_{V_c}^{\Omega}}(x,y)\leq \frac{C}{t^{\frac{d}{\alpha}}} w_c(x)w_c(y),\ a.e.\ {on}\ {\Omega}\times{\Omega},\ \forall\,t>0.
\label{UppBound}\end{aligned}$$
5. For $c=c^*$, there is a finite constant $C>0$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
0<p_t^{L_{V_{c^*}}^{\Omega}}(x,y)\leq \frac{C}{t^{\frac{p}{p-1}}} w_{c^*}(x)w_{c^*}(y),\ a.e.\ {on}\ {\Omega}\times{\Omega},\ \forall\,t>0.
\label{UppBound2}\end{aligned}$$
\[UC\]
1\) and 2): Let $0<c<c^*$. From Hardy’s inequality we derive $$\begin{aligned}
(1-\frac{c}{c^*})\calE_{\Omega}[f]\leq\calE_{\Omega}^{V_c}[f],\ \forall\,f\in{W_0^{\alpha/2,2}(\Omega)}.\end{aligned}$$ Now we use the known fact that ${W_0^{\alpha/2,2}(\Omega)}$ embeds continuously into $L^{\frac{2d}{d-\alpha}}$, to obtain the following Sobolev’s inequality $$\begin{aligned}
(\int_{\Omega}|f|^{\frac{2d}{d-\alpha}}\,dx\big)^{\frac{d-\alpha}{d}}\leq C\calE_{\Omega}^{V_c}[f],\ \forall\,f\in{W_0^{\alpha/2,2}(\Omega)}.\end{aligned}$$ An application of Hölder’s inequality together with Lemma \[closability\] and the fact that ${\Omega}$ is bounded, yield then inequality (\[w-sob\]).\
Towards proving Sobolev’s inequality in the critical case one uses the improved Hardy–Sobolev inequality, due to Frank–Lieb–Seiringer \[Theorem 2.3\]: For every $1\leq p<\frac{d}{d-{\alpha}}$ there is a constant $S_{d,{\alpha}}({\Omega})$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
(\int |f|^{2p}\,dx)^{1/p}\leq S_{d,{\alpha}}({\Omega})\big(\calE_{\Omega}[f]-c^*\int_{\Omega}\frac{f^2(x)}{|x|^\alpha}\,dx\big),\ \forall\,f\in{W_0^{\alpha/2,2}(\Omega)},
\label{ISI}\end{aligned}$$ and the rest of the proof runs as before.\
3): As $Q^c$ is a Dirichlet form, by the standard theory of Markovain semigroups, it is known (see [@davies-book p.75]) that Sobolev inequality implies ultracontractivity of $T_t^{w_c}$ together with the bound $$\begin{aligned}
\|T_t^{w_c}\|_{L^2({\Omega},w_c^2dx),L^\infty({\Omega})}\leq\frac{c}{t^{d/\alpha}},\ t>0.\end{aligned}$$ Now ultracontractivity in turns implies that the semigroup $e^{-tL^{w_c}}$ has a nonnegative symmetric (heat) kernel, which we denote by $q_t$ and the latter estimate yields in turns by [@davies-book p.59]) that $q_t$ fulfills the upper bound $$\begin{aligned}
0\leq q_t(x,y)\leq \frac{c}{t^{d/\alpha}},\ a.e.,\ \forall\,t>0.\end{aligned}$$ On the other hand we have $q_t(x,y)=\frac{p_t^{L_{V_c}^{\Omega}}(x,y)}{w_c(x)w_c(y)},\ a.e.$, yielding the upper bounds (\[UppBound\]) and (\[UppBound2\]).\
The proof of 4. is similar to the latter one so we omit it.
We turn our attention at this stage to give a lower bound for the heat kernel.
For every $0<c\leq c^*$, every compact subset $K\subset{\Omega}$ and every $t>0$, there is a finite constant $\kappa_t=\kappa_t(K)>0$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
p_t^{L_{V_c}^{\Omega}}(x,y)\geq \kappa_tw_c(x)w_c(y),\ a.e.\ {on}\ K\times K,\ \forall\,t>0.
\label{LowBound}\end{aligned}$$
Let us first recall that we have already proved that $p_t^{L_{V_c}^{\Omega}}>0,\ a.e.\forall\,t>0$. This observation together with the relationship between $p_t^{L_{V_c}^{\Omega}}$ and $q_t$ yield $q_t>0,\ a.e.,\ \forall\,t>0$.\
From the upper bounds (\[UppBound\])-(\[UppBound2\]), we infer that $T_t^{w_c}$ is a Hilbert–Schmidt operator and then for almost every $z$ we have $q_t(\cdot,z)\in L^2(w_c^2dx)$. Thus we write $$\begin{aligned}
q_t(\cdot,z)=e^{-\frac{t}{2}L^{w_c}}q_{t/2}(\cdot,z),\end{aligned}$$ to conclude that $q_t(\cdot,z)\in D(Q^c)$. Since every element from the domain of a Dirichlet form has a quasi-continuous representative, we may and shall assume that $q_t(\cdot,z)$ is quasi-continuous and then $q_t(\cdot,z)>0\ q.e.$. Owing to [@benamor-forum Lemma 2.2] we obtain that for every compact $K\subset{\Omega}$, every $s>0$ there is a constant $C_{K,s}(z)>0$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
q_s(x,z)>C_{K,s}(z),\ {\rm for}\ q.e.\ x\in K.\end{aligned}$$ By the quasi-continuity of $q_t(z,\cdot)$ we obtain similarly $$\begin{aligned}
q_s(z,y)>C_{K,s}'(z)>0,\ {\rm for}\ q.e.\ y\in K.\end{aligned}$$ Both lower bounds hold $a.e.$ as well. Hence for $a.e.$ $x,y\in K$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
q_t(x,y)=\int_{\Omega}q_{t/2}(x,z)q_{t/2}(z,y)w_c^{2}(z)\,dz\geq\kappa_t:=
\int_K C_{K,t/2}(z)C_{K,t/2}'(z)w_c^{2}(z)\,dz>0.\end{aligned}$$ Finally having in mind $q_t(x,y)=\frac{p_t^{L_{V_c}^{\Omega}}(x,y)}{w_c(x)w_c(y)},\ a.e.$, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
p_t^{L_{V_c}^{\Omega}}(x,y)\geq\kappa_t w_c(x)w_c(y),\ \forall\,t>0, a.e.\ x,y\in K.\end{aligned}$$
[Along the lines of the latter proof we have demonstrated that $p_t^{L_{V_c}^{\Omega}}$ is quasi-continuous in each variable $x,y$. On the other hand we know from the potential theory of Dirichlet forms that a property which holds true a.e. for a quasi-continuous function it should hold q.e. as well. Thus the lower bound (\[LowBound\]) is satisfied q.e. Thus we achieve the on-diagonal lower bound $$\begin{aligned}
p_t^{L_{V_c}^{\Omega}}(x,x)\geq \kappa_tw_c^2(x),\ q.e.\ {on}\ K\ \forall\,t>0.
\label{LowBoundDiag}\end{aligned}$$ ]{}
We are now in position to describe the exact spatial behavior of the minimal solution of equation (\[heat1\]), especially near $0$.
1. For every $t>0$ there is a constant $c_t>0$ such that, $$\begin{aligned}
u(t,x)\leq c_tw_c(x),\ a.e.\ on\ {\Omega}.
\label{UB}\end{aligned}$$ It follows in particular that $u(t)$ is bounded away from zero.
2. For every $t>0$, there are finite constants $c_t,\ c'_t>0$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
c'_tw_c(x)\leq u(t,x)\leq c_tw_c(x),\ a.e.\ {\rm near}\ 0.
\label{Sharpo}\end{aligned}$$
Hence $u(t)$ has a standing singularity at $0$. \[SharpLoc\]
The upper bound (\[UB\]) follows from Theorem \[UC\]-4). Let us now prove the lower bound.\
Let $K$ be a compact subset of ${\Omega}$ containing $0$ such that Lebesgue measure of the set $\{x\in K\colon\,u_0(x)>0\}$ is nonnegative.\
Let $\kappa_t$ be as in (\[LowBound\]), then $$\begin{aligned}
u(t,x)&=&\int_{\Omega}p_t^{L_{V_c}^{\Omega}}(x,y)u_0(y)\,dy\geq\int_K p_t^{L_{V_c}^{\Omega}}(x,y)u_0(y)\,dy\geq
\kappa_t w_c(x)\int_K w_c(y)u_0(y)\,dy\nonumber\\
&&\geq c_t'w_c(x),\ a.e.\ on\ K,\end{aligned}$$ with $c_t'>0$, which was to be proved.
The local sharp estimate (\[Sharpo\]) leads us to a sharp global regularity property of the solution, expressing thereby the smoothing effect of the semigroup $e^{-tL_{V_c}^{\Omega}}$.
1. The solution $u(t)$ lies in the space $L^p({\Omega}),\ p\geq 1$ if and only if $1\leq p< \frac{d}{\beta}$.
2. The semigroup $e^{-tL_{V_c}^{\Omega}}$ maps continuously $L^2({\Omega})$ into $L^p({\Omega})$ for every $2\leq p< \frac{d}{\beta}$.
3. The operator $e^{-tL_{V_c}^{\Omega}}: L^q({\Omega})\to L^p({\Omega})$ is smoothing for every $\frac{d}{d-\beta}<q<p<\frac{d}{\beta}$.
4. The operator $L_{V_c}^{\Omega}$ has compact resolvent. Set $(\varphi_k^{L_{V_c}})_k$ its eigenfunctions. Then $(\varphi_k^{L_{V_c}})_k\subset L^p({\Omega})$ for every $p< \frac{d}{\beta}$.
The first assertion is a straightforward consequence of Theorem (\[SharpLoc\]).\
2): Let $u_0\in L^2({\Omega})$ and $p$ as described in the assertion. Thanks to the upper bounds (\[UppBound\])-(\[UppBound2\]) a straightforward computation leads to $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{\Omega}e^{-tL_{V_c}^{\Omega}}|u_0(x)|^p\,dx\leq c_t(\int_{\Omega}w_c|u_0|\,dx)^p\int_{\Omega}w_c^p\,dx\leq C(\int_{\Omega}u_0^2\,dx)^{p/2}.\end{aligned}$$ 3): Follows from Riesz-Thorin interpolation theorem.\
4): We have already observed that $e^{-tL_{V_c}^{\Omega}}$ is a Hilbert–Schmidt operator and hence $L_{V_c}^{\Omega}$ has compact resolvent. The claim about eigenfunctions follows from assertion 2.
The already established upper estimate for the heat kernel enables one to extend the semigroup to a larger class of initial data.
1. The semigroup $e^{-tL_{V_c}^{\Omega}},\ t>0$ extends to a bounded linear semigroup from $L^1({\Omega},w_cdx)$ into $L^2({\Omega})$.
2. The semigroup $e^{-tL_{V_c}^{\Omega}},\ t>0$ extends to a bounded linear semigroup from $L^p({\Omega},w_cdx)$ into $L^p({\Omega})$ for every $1\leq p<\infty$.
3. The semigroup $e^{-tL_{V_c}^{\Omega}},\ t>0$ extends to a bounded linear semigroup from $L^p({\Omega},w_cdx)$ into $L^p({\Omega},w_cdx)$ for every $1\leq p<d/3$.
Having estimate (\[UppBound\]) in hands, a straightforward computation yields $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{\Omega}(e^{-tL_{V_c}}u_0)^2\,dx\leq c_t\int_{\Omega}w_c^2\,dx\cdot\big(\int_{\Omega}|u_0|w_c\,dy\big)^2,\ \forall\,t>0,\end{aligned}$$ Similarly, using Hölder’s inequality we achieve $$\begin{aligned}
|e^{-tL_{V_c}}u_0(x)|^p\leq \int_{\Omega}p_t(x,y)\,dy\int_{\Omega}p_t(x,y)|u_0|^p\,dx
\leq c_tw_c^2(x)\int_{\Omega}w_c(y)\,dy\int |u_0|^pw_c\,dx.\end{aligned}$$ Hence $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{\Omega}|e^{-tL_{V_c}}u_0(x)|^p\,dx
\leq c_t\int_{\Omega}w_c^2(x)\,dx\int_{\Omega}w_c(y)\,dy\int |u_0|^pw_c\,dx.\end{aligned}$$ Assertion 3. can be proved in a same way.
Blow-up of nonnegative solutions on open sets in the supercritical case
=======================================================================
In this section we shall make use of the lower bound for the heat kernel as well as for nonnegative solutions in the critical case on bounded open sets, which we established in the last section, to show that for $c>c^*$ any nonnegative solution of the heat equation (\[heat1\]) on arbitrary open sets containing zero blows up completely and instantaneously. This result accomplishes the corresponding one for bounded sets with Lipschitz boundary so that to get a full picture concerning existence and nonexistence of nonnegative solutions for Dirichlet fractional Laplacian with Hardy potentials.\
However, the idea of the proof deviates from the one developed in [@benamor-kenzizi]. Whereas for bounded domains with Lipschitz the main tool towards proving blowup relies, among others, on the boundary behavior of the ground state of $L_0^{\Omega}$ (which disappears in general for unbounded domains), our actual proof relies on the sofar established lower bounds for $p_t^{L_{V_{c^*}}^{\Omega}}$ and for nonnegative solutions for balls.\
Henceforth we fix an open unbounded set ${\Omega}\subset\R^d$ containing zero and $c>0$.\
Let $V\in L^1({\Omega},dx)$ be a nonnegative potential. We set $W_k:=V\wedge k$ and $(P_k)$ the heat equation corresponding to the Dirichlet fractional Laplacian perturbed by $-W_k$ instead of $-V$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{heat-app}
(P_k)\colon\left\{\begin{gathered}
-\frac{\partial u}{\partial t}=L_0^{\Omega}u - W_k u,\quad \hbox{in } (0,T)\times{\Omega},\\
u(t,\cdot)=0,\ on~~~\Omega^c,\ \forall\,0<t<T\leq\infty\\
u(0,x)= u_{0}(x),~~~{\rm for}\ a.e.\ x\in \R^d,
\end{gathered}
\right.\end{aligned}$$ Denote by $L_k$ the selfadjoint operator associated to the closed quadratic form $\calE_{\Omega}-W_k$ and $u_k(t):=e^{-tL_k}u_0,\ t\geq 0$ the nonnegative semigroup solution of problem $(P_k)$. Then $u_k$ satisfies Duhamel’s formula: $$\begin{aligned}
u_k(t,x)&=&e^{-tL_0^{\Omega}}u_0(x)+\int_0^t\int_{\Omega}p_{t-s}^{L_0^{\Omega}}(x,y)u_k(s,x)V_k(y)\,dy\,ds,\ \forall\,t>0,
\label{duhamel}\end{aligned}$$ Let us list the properties of the sequence $(u_k)$ and establish existence of the minimal solution.
- The sequence $(u_k)$ is increasing.
- If $u$ is any nonnegative solution of problem (\[heat2\]) solution then $u_k\leq u,\ \forall\,k$. Moreover $u_\infty:=\lim_{k\to\infty}u_k$ is a nonnegative solution of problem (\[heat2\]) as well.
\[domination\]
Though the proof runs as the one corresponding to the case of bounded domains (see [@benamor-kenzizi]), we shall reproduce it for the convenience of the reader.
i\) By Duhamel’s formula, one has $$\begin{aligned}
u_{k+1}(t)-u_k(t)&=&e^{-tL_{k+1}^{\Omega}}u_0-e^{-tL_{k}^{\Omega}}u_0=
\int_0^te^{-(t-s)L_{k}^{\Omega}}e^{-sL_{k+1}^{\Omega}}(u_0W_{k+1}-u_0W_k)(s)\,ds\nonumber\\
&\geq& 0.\end{aligned}$$ ii) Let $u$ be as stated in the lemma, $0<t<T$ be fixed and $\phi\in C_c^\infty\big([0,t)\times{\Omega}\big)$ be positive. From the definition of a solution we infer $$\begin{aligned}
\int_0^t \int (u_k(s)-u(s))(-\phi_s(s)+L_0^{\Omega}\phi(s)-W_k\phi(s))\,ds\,dx&=&\int _0^t \int u\phi(W_k-V)\,ds\,dx\nonumber\\
&\leq& 0.
\label{negative1}\end{aligned}$$ Let $\psi\in C_c^\infty\big((0,t)\times{\Omega}\big) $ be nonnegative and consider the parabolic problem: find a positive test function $\phi$ solving the equation $$\begin{aligned}
-\frac{\partial\phi}{\partial s} = -L_0^{\Omega}\phi + V_k\phi +\psi\ {\rm in}\ (0,t)\times{\Omega},\ \phi(t,\cdot)=0.
\label{S1}\end{aligned}$$ Then the latter problem has a positive solution which is given by (see [@kato Theorem 1.27, p.493]) $$\begin{aligned}
\phi(s)= \int_0^{t-s} e^{-(t-s-\xi) (L_0^{\Omega}-V_k)}\psi(t-\xi)\,d\xi,\ 0\leq s\leq t,\ \phi(s)=0,\ \forall\,s>t,\end{aligned}$$ Plugging into equation (\[negative1\]) yields $$\begin{aligned}
\int_0^t \int_{\Omega}(u_k-u)\psi\,ds\,dx\leq 0,\ \forall\, 0\leq\psi\in C_c^\infty\big((0,t)\times{\Omega}\big).\end{aligned}$$ As $t$ is arbitrary we obtain $u_k\leq u$.\
Let us prove that $u_\infty$ is a nonnegative solution.\
By the first step of (ii) we have $0<{{u_{\infty}}}\leq u, a.e.$ and therefore $${{u_{\infty}}}\in \calL_{loc}^2\big([0,T),L_{loc}^2(\Omega)\big)\cap
L^1_{loc}\big([0,T)\times\Omega,dt\otimes V\,dx\big).$$ Being solution of the heat equation $(P_k)$, the $u_k$’s satisfy: for every $0\leq t<T$, every $\phi\in C_{c}^{\infty}\big([0,T)\times{\Omega}\big)$ such that $\int_0^t\int u_\infty |L_0^{\Omega}\phi|\,ds\,dx<\infty$, $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{\Omega}\big((u_k\phi)(t,x)-u_0(x)\phi(0,x)\big)\,dx +\int_{0}^{t}\int_{\Omega}u_k(s,x)\big(-\phi_{s}(s,x)+L_0^{\Omega}\phi(s,x)\big)\,dx\,ds\nonumber\\
=\int_{0}^{t}\int_{\Omega}u_k(s,x)\phi(s,x)W_k(x)\,dx\,ds.\end{aligned}$$ By dominated convergence theorem we conclude that ${{u_{\infty}}}$ satisfies equation (\[variational\]) as well, which ends the proof.
We have sofar collected enough material to announce the main theorem of this section.
Assume that $c>c*$. Then the heat equation (\[heat1\]) has no nonnegative solutions.
Assume that a nonnegative solution $u$ exists. Relying on Lemma \[domination\], we may and shall suppose that $u=u_\infty$. Thus $u$ satisfies Duhamel’s formula as well. Put $c'=c-c^*>0$, then $$\begin{aligned}
u(t,x) = e^{-tL_{V_{c^*}}^{\Omega}}u_0(x) +c'\int_0^t\int_{{\Omega}} p_{t-s}^{L_{V_{c^*}}^{\Omega}}(x,y)u(s,y)|y|^{-\alpha}\,ds\,dy.
\label{Rep}\end{aligned}$$ Let $B$ be an open ball centered at $0$ such that $B\subset{\Omega}$ and $u_0\not\equiv 0$ on $B$. Owing to the fact that $p_t^{L_{V_{c^*}}^{\Omega}}\geq p_t^{L_{V_{c^*}}^B}$, the latter identity together with the lower bound from (\[LowBound\]) for $p_t^{L_{V_{c^*}}^B}$ lead to $$\begin{aligned}
u(t,x)\geq e^{-tL_{V_{c^*}}^B}u_0(x)\geq e^{-tL_{V_{c^*}}^B}u_0(x)\geq c_tw_{c^*},\ a.e.\ {\rm on}\ B':=\frac{1}{2}B.\end{aligned}$$ Using formula (\[Rep\]), once again we obtain the following lower bound near $0$
$$\begin{aligned}
u(t,x) &\geq& c'\int_0^t c_s\int_{B} p_{t-s}^{L_{V_{c^*}}^B}(x,y)w_{c^*}(y)|y|^{-\alpha}\,ds\,dy\nonumber\\
&&\geq c'w_{c^*}(x)\int_0^t c'_s\int_{B'} w_{c^*}^2(y)|y|^{-\alpha}\,ds\,dy.\end{aligned}$$
However, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{B'} w_{c^*}^2(y)|y|^{-\alpha}\,dy=\infty,\end{aligned}$$ and the solution blows up, which finishes the proof.
[Finally we emphasize that our method still works if one considers potentials of the form $V=1_B V_c + V'$ where $B$ is an open ball around zero and $V'\in L^\infty({\Omega})$. ]{}
[^1]: corresponding author
[^2]: Department of Mathematics, Faculty of Sciences of Gabès. Uni.Gabès, Tunisia. E-mail: [email protected]
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
We study optical and X-ray properties of the ultraluminous IRAS galaxy 10026+4347. This galaxy is a narrow-line QSO with very strong FeII emission. Three optical spectra were taken over two years. The full widths at half maximum (FWHMs) of the emission lines are constant whereas the third spectrum seems to show a continuum change. Intermediate-band photometry also shows a small (0.1 mag) but significant decrease in flux. HST WFPC2 images suggest that this object is a post-merger galaxy. The source is X-ray luminous ($L_X \approx
10^{45} {\rm erg~s^{-1}}$) with a very soft X-ray spectrum (photon index $\approx \xindex$). The X-ray luminosity exhibits variabilities of a factor of $\sim 8$ over four years and a factor of two within two days. During these X-ray flux changes, the X-ray spectral shapes are consistent with no variation. All the optical and X-ray properties resemble those of narrow-line Seyfert 1 galaxies (NLS1), except that the FWHM of $\Hbeta$ is about 2500 $\kms$, larger than that for most NLS1s. We discuss the implications of our results on models of NLS1s.
author:
- 'X.-Y. Xia, S. Mao, H. Wu, Z. Zheng, Th. Boller$^{5}$, Z.-G. Deng, Z.-L Zou'
date: 'Received ......, 1998; Accepted ......, 1998'
title: Ultraluminous IRAS galaxy 10026+4347
---
Introduction
============
One of the most spectacular results of the IRAS satellite survey was the discovery of a population of ultraluminous IRAS galaxies (ULIGs, see Sanders & Mirabel 1996 for a review). Most ULIGs are strong interacting and/or merging galaxies; some of them are possible post-merger galaxies (e.g., Wu et al. 1998). Analysis of the spectral properties of ULIGs reveals that about 10% of ULIGs are Seyfert 1 galaxies (including QSOs) (Lawrence et al. 1998; Wu et al. 1998). These infrared-selected Seyfert 1 galaxies have different properties from the optically-selected Seyfert 1s (Lipari 1994). For example, most of IRAS Seyfert 1s are strong or extremely strong optical FeII emitters and vice versa (Lawrence et al. 1997). Most infrared-selected Seyfert 1s have relatively low soft X-ray luminosities, very low $L_X/L_{\rm IR}$ ratios when compared with optically-selected ones. The differences between the optically-selected and infrared-selected Seyfert 1s are not yet fully understood.
There is a related class of the so-called narrow line Seyfert 1 galaxies (hereafter NLS1, Osterbrock & Pogge 1985). These galaxies are defined by their optical emission line properties. They have narrow hydrogen Balmer lines with typical full width at half maximum (FWHM) $\approx$ 500-2000 $\kms$. The ratio of \[OIII\]$\lambda$5007/H$\beta$ is less than 3 and most of them have strong FeII emissions. NLS1s also show systematically steeper slopes in their soft X-ray continuum than normal Seyfert 1s. Some NLS1s exhibit rapid X-ray variabilities as well (Boller et al. 1996).
In this paper, we study the ultraluminous IRAS galaxy 10026+4347, a narrow-line QSO selected from the QDOT redshift survey. We show that this source is an unusual object: it has some common characteristics with NLS1s, such as a very soft X-ray spectrum, strong FeII emissions and rapid time variabilities. On the other hand, it has a larger FWHM ($\sim
2500 \kms$) in the H$\beta$ line than most NLS1s. The optical and X-ray properties of this source are presented in §2 and 3. In section 4, we discuss the nature of this object. Throughout this paper we use a Hubble constant of $H_0=50~\kms~{\rm Mpc}^{-1}$ and $\Omega_0=1$.
Photometric and Spectroscopic Properties
========================================
IRAS 10026+4347 (RA=10:05:43.5, DEC=43:32:33.2 in J2000) is a narrow-line QSO discovered in the QDOT redshift survey with infrared luminosity $L_{IR} = 1.77\times 10^{12} L_\odot$ (Rowan-Robinson et al. 1990). This galaxy has a redshift of $z=0.179$ (as determined from our spectra shown in Fig. 2). At this redshift, $1^{''}$ corresponds to 4.6 kpc. 600s exposure images were obtained with intermediate-band filters using the 60cm/90cm Schmidt telescope equipped with a 2048x2048 CCD at the Beijing Astronomical Observatory (BAO). The galaxy appears to be a point source on these images. HST snapshot images (Fig. 1) obtained on May 1, 1997, however, clearly shows two faint close companions within $10^{''}$ of the galaxy; these two objects are very probably physically associated with . In addition, there are also a number of faint objects within a projected distance of 300 kpc of . It is however unclear whether these objects are physically related to or just foreground or background objects. It is also possible that is a post-merger galaxy at the center of a group of galaxies because the picture resembles the JHK images of some low redshift quasars (Hutchings & Neff 1997). To test this possibility, we analyze the surface brightness profile for using the HST snapshot image. We find that is well described by the de Vaucouleurs ($r^{1/4}$) profile out to 10 kpc (Zheng et al. 1998), similar to other elliptical-like ULIGs such as Arp 220 and NGC 6240. The surface profile of thus suggests that it is a post-merger galaxy. The apparent B and R magnitudes for this source are about 16.2 and 16.1, respectively, from the USNO-A1.0 catalog (Monet 1996). With $B-R=0.1$, this galaxy is one of the bluest active galaxies selected from ULIGs. The absolute magnitudes can be calculated as $M_B=-24.0$ and $M_R=-24.1$. The optical luminosity of this object therefore falls into the regime of quasars.
The optical spectrum for this object was first obtained during the QDOT redshift survey. It is clear from the low dispersion spectrum that is a strong FeII emitter. We observed this object (with higher resolution) again on Nov. 17, 1996, Jan. 7, 1997 and May 26, 1998 using a Zeiss universal spectrograph mounted on the 2.16m telescope at the Xinglong Station of BAO. A Tektronix 1024$\times$1024 CCD was used giving a wavelength coverage of 3500Å to 6200Å with a grating of 100Å/mm (for Nov. 1996) and of 3500Å to 8100Å with a grating of 200Å/mm (for Jan. 1997 and May 1998). The spectral resolutions are 4.7Å and 9.3Å (2 pixels), respectively. Wavelength calibration was carried out using an Fe-He-Ar lamp; the resulting wavelength accuracy is better than 1Å. KPNO standard stars were observed to perform flux calibrations. The three spectra are shown in Fig. 2. The absolute flux errors for the first two spectra are about 5% whereas that for the last spectrum is larger, around 15%, since it was taken on a non-photometric night. The first two spectra almost overlap with each other while the third spectrum seems to have a lower amplitude and a flatter continuum particularly at the blue end ($\lambda < 4500$Å). This amplitude decrease is supported by two runs of photometric observations in three intermediate-bands conducted on the 60/90cm Schmidt telescope on Feb. 21-22 and April 24-25 1998. These three filters are centered on 5270Å, 5795Å and 6660Å, with width 340Å, 310Å and 480Å (cf. Fig. 2; see Fan et al. 1996 for details). The (relative) photometry is calibrated using many stars within the field. and has an accuracy of about 0.03 mag. The results indicate that there is a gradual 0.1 magnitude drop during these runs in all three filters. Since our spectroscopic observations indicate the emission lines are fairly stable (see below), the changes are therefore from the continuum. Hence, both the photometric and spectroscopic observations strongly suggest that there was a small but real continuum variability.
In addition to the continuum, we have also measured the line fluxes. The measured values $\FeII(37,38)\lambda4750$, H$\alpha$, and $\Hbeta$ emission lines and the FWHM for $\Hbeta$ and the flux ratio of $\Hbeta$ to FeII are listed in table 1. The FWHM of $\Hbeta$ is about 2500 $\kms$, broader than the typical values ($500-2000~ \kms$) for NLS1s. The observed $\FeII\lambda4750/\Hbeta$ is about 2, and since the blend of FeII $\lambda$4750 accounts for about 25% of the total optical FeII emission (Collin-Souffrin et al. 1986), we infer that the ratio of [*total*]{} optical FeII to $\Hbeta$ is about 8. Therefore, IRAS 10026+4347 qualifies as a very strong FeII emitter. As can be seen from Table 1, that there is no statistically significant line variability during the three observations.
0.11cm
-------- --------------- -------------- -------------- --------------- ---------------
Date FeII $\Hbeta$ H$\alpha$ FWHM FeII/$\Hbeta$
961117 $6.6 \pm 0.4$ $3.3\pm 0.2$ — $2545\pm 60$ 2.0
970107 $6.6 \pm 0.4$ $3.4\pm 0.2$ $7.8\pm 0.4$ $2426\pm 100$ 1.94
980526 $6.4 \pm 0.4$ $3.3\pm 0.2$ $7.3\pm 0.3$ $2638\pm 100$ 1.94
-------- --------------- -------------- -------------- --------------- ---------------
: Spectroscopic Properties of IRAS 10026+4347. All fluxes are in units of $10^{-14} {\rm erg~cm^{-2} s^{-1}}$. The FeII line refers to the transition (37, 38) and is at $\lambda=4750$ Å. The [*total*]{} FeII to H$\beta$ ratio is roughly a factor of 4 higher. The H$\beta$ FWHMs are in units of ${\rm km ~s^{-1}}$.
Soft X-ray Properties
=====================
There are three data sets of ROSAT observation for IRAS 10026+4347 in the ROSAT archive: the source was first detected in the ROSAT All Sky Survey (RASS, Trümper 1983; Bade et al. 1995) and later observed using ROSAT PSPC in May 1994 and ROSAT HRI in Nov. 1995. We have reduced the X-ray data using the EXSAS software at MPE (Zimmermann et al. 1992). Table 2 lists the exposure time, count rate, flux and the X-ray luminosity. Note that the flux and luminosity are model-dependent, and we have used a power-law fit in deriving these quantities (see below).
0.11cm
--------- --------- ---------- ------------------ ------ -------------
Instru. date exp. (s) count rate flux $L_{\rm X}$
RASS 1990 508 $0.668\pm 0.039$ 2.28 2.4
PSPC 5/1994 949 $0.085\pm 0.073$ 0.29 0.31
HRI 11/1995 4711 $0.052\pm 0.019$ 0.80 0.84
--------- --------- ---------- ------------------ ------ -------------
: Properties of IRAS 10026+4347 in the soft X-ray band (0.1-2.4 keV). All fluxes are in units of $10^{-11} {\rm erg~cm^{-2} s^{-1}}$ and luminosities (last column) are in units of $10^{45} {\rm erg~
s^{-1}}$. Note that the fluxes and luminosities are derived from a power-law fit to the spectrum.
From table 2 it is obvious that the source varied during the three observations: the count rate in RASS is about 8 times larger than the PSPC observation conducted after 4 years. We also performed time variability test using the RASS data. We bin the data in an interval of 4000s. Notice that the ROSAT wobbling is on the scale of $\sim 400$s, and so has no effect on our variability test. We find that the count rates exhibit about a factor of two variability within two days. An examination of the HRI data indicates similar behaviors. So IRAS 10026+4347 is a variable object in the soft X-ray on both short and long time scales.
We analyze the soft X-ray spectrum using the RASS data since it has higher photon number counts than that of the later PSPC observation. Fig. 3 shows the spectrum together with a power-law fit. The photon index is found to be $3.2\pm 0.5$. This value is steeper than the average slope of 2.5 for most AGNs, but is in the range of NLS1s (Boller et al. 1996). The spectral shape from the PSPC observation is uncertain (due to limited number of photons), but is in agreement with that found from the RASS data. The data is therefore consistent with no soft X-ray spectral variations while the flux has varied by a factor of $\sim 8$.
Discussion
==========
It is clear from optical and soft X-ray observations that is (like most ULIGs) a merging galaxy with extremely strong FeII emission; in the X-ray, its luminosity is comparable to normal Seyfert 1 galaxies or QSOs and has steep X-ray continuum slope and large soft X-ray variability. In addition, it exhibits optical continuum variability. These optical spectral and photometric variabilities are not unusual for normal Seyfert 1 galaxies (e.g., NGC5548, NGC4151). IRAS 10026+4347 seems remarkably similar to another ultraluminous IRAS galaxy RX J0947.0+4721 (Molthagen et al. 1998). Both sources are X-ray bright with luminosities of $10^{45} {\rm erg~s^{-1}}$ and steep soft photon index (4.2 for RX J0947.0+4721). Both objects show large variations in the X-ray count rate while the soft X-ray spectrum remains stable. In the optical, these two sources have quasar level luminosity ($M_B=-24.7$ for RX J0947.0+4721) and strong FeII emissions. However, these objects do have a notable difference: RX J0947.0+4721 has very narrow Balmer lines (FWHM $\approx 1370\pm 170~ \kms$). The similarity between the properties of with RX J0947.0+4721, and more generally with the NLS1 class, is striking despite of their differences in the $\Hbeta$ FWHM. This strongly suggests that NLS1, narrow-line QSOs, normal Seyfert 1 galaxies and normal QSOs form a continuum in their properties such as $\Hbeta$ FWHM (cf. Boller et al. 1996).
Many models have been suggested to explain the puzzling characters of NLS1s (see Boller et al. 1996 and references therein). A promising suggestion is that NLS1s are supermassive analogues of galactic black hole candidates in a high supersoft state; in this state, the source is accreting close to the Eddington limit. The resulting X-ray spectrum has a steep slope and is relatively stable (Pounds et al. 1995; Comastri et al. 1998; Puchnarewicz et al. 1998; Wang et al. 1998). The intense soft X-ray flux may prevent the formation of broad-line clouds close to the central source (see Guilbert, Fabian & McCray 1983; White, Fabian & Mushotzky 1984). This scenario is particularly attractive for merging galaxies such as (cf. Fig. 1). Numerical simulations (e.g., Lin et al. 1988; Mihos & Hernquist 1996) show that large amount of gas flows into the central regions of merging galaxies, which can presumably fuel the black hole at the Eddington accretion rate. The merging process may also induce intense star formations; the resulting supernovae may enrich metals including iron in the surrounding gas. The intense FeII emissions can therefore also be explained. The optical and X-ray properties of are broadly consistent with this picture. Clearly more quantitative modelling is needed to see whether this picture can explain the intense variations seen in NLS1s such as 13224-3809 and PHL 1092, which are also very luminous or ultraluminous IRAS galaxies (Boller et al. 1996).
Galaxies like are the best laboratory for studying the emission line region in AGNs. With their rapid X-ray variability, simultaneous optical and X-ray reverberation mapping (e.g., Krolik et al. 1991; Peterson et al. 1998) of NLS1s will provide valuable information on the differences between the emission mechanisms of NLS1s and the general population of Seyfert 1 and 2 galaxies.
We thank Prof. J. Trümper and Prof. L.Z. Fang for stimulating the project of identification of ULIGs with RASS during which the object was discovered. We thank Drs. F. Meyers and T. Wang for discussions and Thomas Erben for reducing the HST WFPC2 images. We are also indebted to the BATC group members of BAO, especially to Dr. Jin Zhu, for performing the photometric observations of . This project was partially supported by the NSF of China and NSFC-DSF exchange program.
Bade N., Fink H. H., Engels D., et al., 1995, A&AS 110, 469 Boller Th., Brandt W.N., Fink H., 1996, A&A 305, 53 Collin-Souffrin S., Dumont S., Joly M., Pequignot D., 1986, A&A 166,27. Comastri A., et al. 1998, A&A 331, 31 Fan X.H., et al. 1996, AJ 112, 628 Guilbert P.W., Fabian A.C., McCray R., 1983, MNRAS 266, 466 Hutchings J.B. Neff, S.G., 1997, AJ 113, 550. Krolik J. H., Horne K., Kallman T. R., et al., 1991, ApJ 371, 541 Lawrence A., Elvis M., Wilkes B. J., McHardy I., Brandt N., 1997, MNRAS 285, 879 Lawrence A., et al., 1998, in preparation Lin D.N.C., Pringle J.E., Rees, M.J., 1988, ApJ 328, 103 Lipari S., 1994, ApJ 436,102 Mihos J.C., Hernquist L., 1996, ApJ 464, 641 Molthagen K., Bade N., Wendker H.J., 1998, A&A 331, 925 Osterbrock D.E., Pogge R., 1985, ApJ 297, 166 Peterson B. M., Wanders I., Horne K., et al., 1998, PASP 110, 660 Pounds K. A., Done C., Osborne J.P., 1995, MNRAS 277, 5P Puchnarewicz E. M., Mason K. O., Siemiginowska A., 1998, MNRAS 293, 52 Rowan-Robinson M., Lawrence A., Saunders W., et al., 1990, MNRAS 247, 1 Sanders D.B., Mirabel I.F., 1996, ARA&A 34, 749 Sanders D.B., et al., 1988, ApJ 325, 74 Trümper J., 1983, Adv. Space Res. 4, 241 Wang T., Otani C., Cappi M., Leighly K. M., Brinkmann W., Matsuoka M., 1998, MNRAS 293, 397 White N., Fabian A.C., Mushotzky R.F., 1984, A&A 133, L9 Wu H., Zou Z.L., Xia X.Y., Deng Z.G. 1998, A&AS 132, 181 Zheng Z. et al., 1998, in preparation Zimmermann H.U., Belloni T., Izzo C., Kahabka P., Schwentker O., 1992, MPE Report, p. 48
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We develop a Distributed Event-Triggered Stochastic GRAdient Descent (DETSGRAD) algorithm for solving non-convex optimization problems typically encountered in distributed deep learning. We propose a novel communication triggering mechanism that would allow the networked agents to update their model parameters aperiodically and provide sufficient conditions on the algorithm step-sizes that guarantee the asymptotic mean-square convergence. The algorithm is applied to a distributed supervised-learning problem, in which a set of networked agents collaboratively train their individual neural networks to recognize handwritten digits in images, while aperiodically sharing the model parameters with their one-hop neighbors. Results indicate that all agents report similar performance that is also comparable to the performance of a centrally trained neural network, while the event-triggered communication provides significant reduction in inter-agent communication. Results also show that the proposed algorithm allows the individual agents to recognize the digits even though the training data corresponding to all the digits are not locally available to each agent.'
author:
- |
Jemin George^1^, Prudhvi Gurram^1,\ 2^\
^1^CCDC Army Research Laboratory\
Adelphi, MD 20783\
[email protected]\
^2^Booz Allen Hamilton\
McLean, VA 22102\
gurram\[email protected]
bibliography:
- 'Biblio.bib'
---
Conclusion {#sec:conclusion}
==========
This paper presented the development of a distributed stochastic gradient descent algorithm with event-triggered communication mechanism for solving non-convex optimization problems. We presented a novel communication triggering mechanism, which allowed the agents to decidedly reduce the communication overhead by communicating only when the local model has significantly changed from previously communicated model. We presented the sufficient conditions on algorithm step-sizes to guarantee asymptotic mean-square convergence of the proposed algorithm to a critical point and provided the convergence rate of the proposed algorithm. We applied the developed algorithm to a distributed supervised-learning problem, in which a set of 10 networked agents collaboratively train their individual neural nets to recognize handwritten digits in images. Results indicate that regardless of how the data are distributed, the agents are able to train their neural network and the distributedly trained networks are able to yield similar performance to that of a centrally trained network. Numerical results also show that the proposed event-triggered communication mechanism significantly reduced the inter-agent communication wile yielding similar performance to that of a distributedly trained network with constant communication.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We consider an ensemble of globally coupled phase oscillators whose interaction is transmitted at finite speed. This introduces time delays, which make the spatial coordinates relevant in spite of the infinite range of the interaction. We show that one-dimensional arrays synchronize in an asymptotic state where all the oscillators have the same frequency, whereas their phases are distributed in spatial structures that –in the case of periodic boundaries– can propagate, much as in coupled systems with local interactions.'
address: |
Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas\
Centro Atómico Bariloche and Instituto Balseiro, 8400 Bariloche, Argentina
author:
- 'Damián H. Zanette'
title: |
Structures and propagation in globally coupled systems\
with time delays
---
Introduction
============
Standard models for studying collective complex behavior in natural systems consist typically of ensembles of interacting dynamical elements [@Mikh]. Such kind of models has proven to be extremely versatile in the mathematical description, both analytical and numerical, of a wide variety of phenomena within the scopes of physics, biology, and other branches of science [@KK]. According to the range of the involved interactions, these models can be divided into two well distinct classes. Local interactions –which are paradigmatically represented in reaction-diffusion systems [@Mikh]– give rise to macroscopic evolution in which space variables play a relevant role, such as spatial structures and propagation phenomena. On the other hand, with global interactions –where the coupling range is of the order of, or larger than, the system size– space becomes irrelevant and collective behavior is observed to develop in time, typically, in the form of synchronization [@Kur].
An essential model of globally coupled elements is given by a set of $N$ identical oscillators described, in the so-called phase approximation, by phase variables $\phi_i(t)$ ($i=1,\dots,N$). Their evolution is governed by the equations $$\dot \phi_i = \omega+\frac{\epsilon}{N}
\sum_{j=1}^N \sin (\phi_j-\phi_i).$$ It is known that, for any value of the coupling intensity $\epsilon$, all the elements converge to a single orbit whose frequency $\omega$ coincides with that of an individual oscillator [@Kur]. In this case, $\epsilon^{-1}$ measures the time required to reach such synchronized state.
In this note we present results on a generalization of the above model, where time delays are introduced. The effect of time delays in synchronization phenomena has already been considered for two-oscillator systems, both periodic [@peri] and chaotic [@chao]. Ensembles with local interactions [@loc] and globally interacting inhomogeneous systems have also been studied [@2000]. None of these contributions make however explicit reference to the relevant case where interactions are global but their propagation occurs at a finite velocity $v$. This situation, which naturally introduces time delays, provides a realistic description of highly connected systems where the time scales associated with individual evolution and with mutual signal transmission are comparable. Instances of such systems are neural and informatic networks [@net], and biological populations with relatively slow communication media –such as sound [@biol]. Our main result is that, since a finite signal velocity makes spatial variables relevant even when interactions are global, globally coupled ensembles with time delays exhibit typical features of systems driven by local interactions, in particular, structure formation and propagation.
The model and its solution for short delays
===========================================
We consider an ensemble of $N$ identical oscillators in the phase approximation, governed by the equations $$\label{ens}
\dot \phi_i(t) = \omega+{\epsilon \over N}
\sum_{j=1}^N \sin [\phi_j (t-\tau_{ij})-\phi_i(t)],$$ where $\tau_{ij}=d_{ij}/v$ is the time required for the signal to travel from element $j$ to element $i$ at velocity $v$, and $d_{ij}$ is the distance between $i$ and $j$. Note that coupling is still global, since its intensity $\epsilon$ does not depend on the distance between elements. However, the relative position of the oscillators becomes now relevant through time delays.
The full specification of our system requires to fix the topology and the metric properties of the ensemble, by fixing the values $d_{ij}$ for all $i,j=1, \dots ,N$. Moreover, initial conditions for $\phi_i$ must be provided. In the case of delay equations like (\[ens\]), it is necessary to specify the evolution of $\phi_i$ at times prior to $t=0$ up to a time $T_i=-\max \{\tau_{ij} \}_j$ [@delay]. In the following we shall assume that for $t<0$ the oscillators evolve independently from each other at their proper frequency $\omega$ and with random relative phases. Namely, for $t<0$ we have $\phi_i(t)=\omega t+\phi_i(0)$, where $\phi_i(0)$ is chosen at random from a uniform distribution in $[-\pi,\pi)$. At $t=0$ coupling in switched on, so that we formally have a time-dependent coupling intensity $\epsilon(t)= \epsilon \theta(t)$, where $\theta$ is the Heaviside step function.
Through extensive numerical calculations for a variety of topologies, ranging from one-dimensional arrays to tree (ultrametric) structures, we have found that the system evolves to a state where all the oscillators have the same frequency. On the other hand, in contrast with the case without time delays [@Kur], their phases can be different. This asymptotic state corresponds thus to a situation of frequency synchronization. The long-time evolution of each oscillator can then be written as $\phi_i(t)=\Omega t+\psi_i$, where in general $\psi_i\neq \psi_j$ for $i\neq j$. The fact that these phases are different could have been expected for topologies where not all the elements are equivalent –for instance, when boundaries are present. As we show later, however, such states are also found in homogeneous topologies. In this case, they are associated with propagating structures.
In general, the synchronization frequency is different from the proper frequency of each oscillator, $\Omega \neq \omega$. According to (\[ens\]), the synchronization frequency satisfies $$\label{Omega}
\Omega = \omega-{\epsilon\over N}\sum_{j=1}^N \sin(\Omega \tau_{ij}-
\psi_j+\psi_i).$$ Note that the sums $S_i=\sum_j \sin(\Omega\tau_{ij}-\psi_j+\psi_i)$ are in general different for each $i$. However, their numerical value must coincide if the synchronization frequency is to be well defined. For a given value of $\Omega$, this constraint provides $N-1$ independent equations for the phases $\psi_i$: $$\label{s=s}
S_1=S_2=\dots =S_N.$$ Since phases are defined up to an additive constant we can choose for instance $\psi_1=0$, and solve these equations for $\psi_2,\dots
\psi_N$. Then, $\Omega$ can be found self-consistently from (\[Omega\]). For large values of $N$, and due to the involved nonlinearities, this results to be a quite hard numerical problem.
An approximate solution can however been found in the case of short delays, i.e. close to the situation where the system is also synchronized in phase, $\psi_i=\psi_j$ for all $i,j$. Assuming that $|\Omega \tau_{ij}-\psi_j+\psi_i| \ll 1$, we can write $$S_i\approx \sum_j (\Omega\tau_{ij}-\psi_j+\psi_i)=
N\Omega\langle \tau_i \rangle-\sum_j\psi_j +N\psi_i,$$ where $\langle \tau_i\rangle=N^{-1}\sum_j \tau_{ij}$ is the average of the time delays associated with element $i$. Taking into account Eq. (\[s=s\]), we get $$\label{appr}
\psi_i\approx \Psi-\Omega\langle \tau_i\rangle.$$ where $\Psi$ is a constant, independent of $i$, that can be chosen arbitrarily. This result indicates that, in this short-delay limit, oscillators with small average delays are relatively ahead in the evolution, as their phases are larger. This is plausibly due to the fact that, in average, they receive the information on the system state before other elements with larger values of $\langle \tau_i
\rangle$, which are thus relatively retarded. Note moreover that in a homogeneous topology all the elements are equivalent, so that $\langle
\tau_i\rangle$ is the same for all oscillators. In this case, the system is also synchronized in phase.
Within the approximation of short delays, the synchronization frequency is given by $$\Omega \approx \frac{\omega}{1+\epsilon\langle\langle\tau
\rangle\rangle},$$ where $\langle \langle \tau\rangle\rangle =N^{-1} \sum_i\langle \tau_i
\rangle$ is the overall average delay. It therefore results that $\Omega$ is smaller than the proper frequency of each oscillator.
One-dimensional arrays
======================
In this note, we specifically focus the attention on the case of one-dimensional arrays. Two different topologies are considered, namely, with periodic boundary conditions –where all the elements are equivalent– and with free boundaries –where the neighborhood of each element depends on its distance to the center of the array. For periodic boundary conditions, which we consider first, the distance between two elements is not univoquely defined, since it can be measured around the ring in both directions. We fix $d_{ij}$ by taking the minimum of these values, namely, $d_{ij}= \min \{
|i-j|,N-|i-j|\}$. The delay time is thus $\tau_{ij}= \tau_0 \min \{
|i-j|,N-|i-j|\}$, where $\tau_0$ is the time required for the signal to travel between nearest neighbors.
In equations (\[ens\]), the proper frequency $\omega$ can be used to define time units so that, without loss of generality, we fix $\omega=1$. Moreover, our numerical simulations are restricted to the case $\epsilon=1$. As a matter of fact, we have found that other coupling intensities do not produce qualitatively different results. Note that this would not be the case if the oscillators had chaotic individual dynamics. In such situation, the value of $\epsilon$ is expected to control the existence of synchronized states.
We have solved numerically equations (\[ens\]) for ensembles of $N=10^2$ to $10^4$ oscillators with a standard finite-difference scheme. For small values of $\tau_0$ we find that the above described random-phase initial conditions evolve to a state of synchronized frequency where the phases of all oscillators coincide, $\psi_i=\psi_j$ for all $i$, $j$. This fully synchronized state is completely analogous to that of globally coupled identical oscillators without time delays, and corresponds to the approximate solution (\[appr\]) for the present homogeneous topology. In this case, (\[Omega\]) becomes an autonomous equation for $\Omega$. The sum in the right-hand side can in fact be explicitly evaluated –though its expression depends on $N$ being even or odd– and the synchronization frequency can be found numerically by standard methods. In general, this equation admits several solutions. For the values of $\tau_0$ where the state of phase synchronization is encountered, however, there is only one possible value of $\Omega$.
At $\tau_0 \approx 5 N^{-1}$ a qualitative change occurs. Above this critical value, the asymptotic synchronized state is not characterized by a homogeneous phase anymore. Instead, the phase varies linearly along the system, in such a way that a phase difference $\Delta \psi=
\pm 2\pi$ accumulates in a whole turn around. The sign of $\Delta
\psi$ is defined by the initial condition. Symmetry considerations, in fact, indicate that both signs will be found with equal probability over the set of initial conditions that lead to this kind of asymptotic state. The individual phases are given by $\psi_i=\psi_0+
i\delta \psi$, with $\delta\psi= \pm 2\pi/N$ and $\psi_0$ an arbitrary constant. Due to the time evolution of $\phi_i(t)=\Omega t+i\delta
\psi +\psi_0$ a structure propagates around the system at velocity $V_1=-\Omega/\delta \psi$.
Similar qualitative changes are found at larger values of $\tau_0$. For $\tau_0 \approx 11N^{-1},16N^{-1}, \dots$, the asymptotic states modify their phase structure in such a way that the phase difference around the whole system, $m\Delta \psi=\pm 2\pi m$ with $m=2,3,\dots$, increases progressively. The corresponding individual evolution is $\phi_i(t)= \Omega t+im\delta \psi+\psi_0$, which defines a propagation velocity $V_m=-\Omega/m\delta \psi$. The synchronization frequency is given by $$\label{Omegam}
\Omega = \omega-{\epsilon\over N}\sum_j \sin [\Omega \tau_0
\min \{ |i-j|,N-|i-j| \} +(i-j) m \delta \psi].$$ For $m=0$ this reduces to the case of full synchronization found for small $\tau_0$. Figure \[f1\] shows the solutions of equation (\[Omegam\]) for various values of $m$, and $N=100$. Bolder curves indicate the intervals where each mode has been observed in the numerical calculations with random-phase initial conditions. Note the zones where more than one solution exist for $m=0$ and $m=1$.
Are the transitions observed at the above quoted values of $\tau_0$ actual bifurcations, associated with changes in the stability of the asymptotic states? In view of the difficulty of dealing with the linear stability problem for a many-dimensional system with time delays such as (\[ens\]) [@delay], we choose to answer this question by numerical means. For a given value of $\tau_0$ we calculate the frequency $\Omega$ of a given mode $m$ from equation (\[Omegam\]) and generate an initial condition which corresponds to that mode added with a certain –typically random– small perturbation. Then, we run the evolution and study the asymptotic behavior. This has been carried out for $m=0,\dots,3$ at several values of $\tau_0$ in ($0,0.2$), for a 100-oscillator ensemble. In almost all cases, it has been found that for sufficiently small perturbations the considered states are stable for any value of $\tau_0$. The only exceptions seem to be the states whose frequencies are multiple solutions of equation (\[Omegam\]), since in this case the only stable state correspond to the smallest frequency.
The observed transitions are therefore not related to stability changes in the propagation modes. Rather, several modes coexist and the system is multistable. The specific asymptotic state is thus selected by the initial condition. The fact that from the random-phase initial conditions considered previously the system evolves to a well defined synchronous mode, whose order $m$ grows with $\tau_0$, suggests that the attraction basins of the various solutions could considerably vary in size as $\tau_0$ changes. Indeed, from a probabilistic viewpoint, most initial conditions are of the random-phase type. Initial conditions that, for a given value of $\tau_0$, do not evolve to the mode marked with a bold line in Fig. \[f1\] should be considered probabilistically rare.
We consider now the case of a one-dimensional array with free boundaries. Here, the distance between elements can be defined in the standard form, $d_{ij}=|i-j|$, so that the time delays are $\tau_{ij}
= \tau_0 |i-j|$. In this topology sites are not equivalent. Delays for elements near the center of the array are in average lower than for elements towards the boundaries. As a consequence, no homogeneous stable states are expected for the coupled ensemble. Numerical results show that, in fact, in the asymptotic evolution all the oscillators have the same frequency, given by $$\label{Omega2}
\Omega = \omega-{\epsilon\over N}\sum_j \sin (\Omega \tau_0
|i-j| -\psi_j+\psi_i),$$ but $\psi_i \neq \psi_j$ if $i\neq j$ for any nearest-neighbor time delay $\tau_0$. Unexpectedly, however, the associated spatial structures not always preserve the topological symmetry of the system, as shown in the following.
Our numerical calculations for the case of free boundaries correspond to a 100-oscillator ensemble with the random-phase initial conditions described above. For small values of $\tau_0$ we find a symmetric asymptotic pattern, $\psi_i = \psi_{N/2-i}$, where the central elements have larger phases than near the boundaries (Fig. \[f2\] for $\tau=0.02$). This structure corresponds to the approximate solution (\[appr\]) which, for this topology, predicts a parabolic phase profile with a maximum at the center of the array. Beyond a critical value $\tau_0 \approx 0.025$ random-phase initial conditions are instead attracted towards an asymmetric structure, where the phase varies in $|\psi_N-\psi_1|\approx \pi$ from one end to the other, and attains a maximum in between. Figure \[f2\] shows such structure for $\tau_0 = 0.05$. In average, of course, half of the realizations produce the symmetric counterpart of this asymptotic state. The situation changes again at $\tau_0\approx 0.06$. Beyond this point, stationary structures are again symmetric, as shown in Fig. \[f2\] for $\tau_0=0.1$. They result however to be more complicated than for small $\tau_0$, with inflection points at $i\approx N/4$ and a much flatter maximum. A new critical point occurs at $\tau_0 \approx 0.11$, where phase structures become asymmetric once more (see Fig. \[f2\], for $\tau_0 =0.12$). The phase variation between the ends is similar to that observed for smaller $\tau_0$ but the intermediate geometry is considerably more complex.
An analytical or semi-analytical study of these structures –including their existence and stability properties– requires considering the consistency problem discussed in connection with Eq. (\[Omega\]). Fixing $\psi_1=0$, the $N-1$ equations for $\psi_i$ ($i=2,\dots,N$) read here $$\label{S}
\sum_j \sin (\Omega \tau_0 |i-j|-\psi_j+\psi_i)=
\sum_j \sin[ \Omega \tau_0 (j-1)-\psi_j].$$ This problem will be discussed in detail in a separate publication [@forth]. Let us stress for the moment that, though the appearance of spatial structures was to be expected in an inhomogeneous system as the present one-dimensional array with free boundaries, these patterns are found to exhibit an unexpected richness upon variation of $\tau_0$ –including, in particular, symmetry breaking.
Summary and discussion
======================
We have found that an ensemble of identical globally coupled oscillators with finite interaction velocity, which gives origin to time delays, evolves to an asymptotic state where all the oscillators have the same frequency but different phases. Generally, the synchronization frequency differs from the proper frequency of individual oscillators, so that the dynamics of each element in the collective asymptotic motion does not coincide with its individual (uncoupled) dynamics. Phases, in turn, are distributed according to spatial patterns with nontrivial topological and dynamical properties. Specifically, in a one-dimensional periodic array several asymptotic states coexist, corresponding to propagation modes with different velocities. In a bounded one-dimensional array we have observed stationary phase structures whose symmetry properties depend on the size of time delays. These features, which are reminiscent of the behavior of reaction-diffusion systems with local interactions, point out sharp differences with the collective motion of coupled oscillators without time delays.
It is natural to ask whether any structure similar to those described above is observed in other, more complex topologies. To advance an answer to this question, we have performed a preliminary analysis of a two-dimensional array of $20\times 20$ elements with periodic boundary conditions. In this case, each element can be labeled by two indices, $i_x$ and $i_y$, according to its Cartesian coordinates in the lattice. For algorithmic convenience we have defined the distance between elements as $d_{ij} = ||i-j||_1= \min\{ |i_x-j_x|,
L-|i_x-j_x|\} +\min\{ |i_y-j_y|, L-|i_y-j_y|\}$, with $L=20$ in our case. As above, the delay time is $\tau_{ij}=\tau_0 d_{ij}$. In complete agreement with the one-dimensional analog, we have here found that for small $\tau_0$ the system synchronizes both in frequency and phase. Beyond a critical value $\tau_0 \approx 0.025$, instead, propagating phase patterns are observed. Figure \[f3\] shows the simplest of these patterns, corresponding to the propagation mode with $m_x=m_y=1$.
Work in progress is being devoted to the detailed characterization of the phase structures described in this note, as well as those that could arise in other topologies. The next step will be to study the effects of the present kind of time delays in ensembles formed by chaotic oscillators, where coupling competes as a stabilizing mechanism against the inherently unstable dynamics of individual elements.
Acknowledgment {#acknowledgment .unnumbered}
==============
This work was partially carried out at the Abdus Salam International Centre for Theoretical Physics. The author wishes to thank the Centre for hospitality.
[9]{}
A. S. Mikhailov, [*Foundations of Synergetics I*]{} (Springer, Berlin, 1990).
K. Kaneko, [*Theory and Applications of Coupled Map Lattices*]{} (Wiley, Chichester, 1993).
Y. Kuramoto, [*Chemical Oscillations, Waves, and Turbulence*]{} (Springer, New York, 1984).
H. G. Schuster and P. Wagner, Prog. Theor. Phys. [**81**]{} (1989) 939; E. M. Izhikevich, Phys. Rev. E [**58**]{} (1998) 905.
R. He, P. G. Vaidya, Phys. Rev. E [**59**]{} (1999) 4048.
E. Niebur, H. G. Schuster, and D. M. Kammen, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**67**]{} (1991) 2753; S. Kim, S. H. Park, C. S. Ryu, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**79**]{} (1997) 2911.
M. Y. Choi, H. J. Kim, and D. Kim. Phys. Rev. E [**61**]{}, 371 (2000).
G. M. Shepherd, [*Neurobiology*]{} (Oxford University Press, New York, 1983); J. Foss, A. Longtin, B. Mensour, and J. Milton, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**76**]{} (1996) 708; L. Kleinrock, [*Communication Nets: Stochastic Message Flow and Delay*]{} (Dover, New York, 1964).
N. MacDonald, [*Biological Delay Systems: Linear Stability Theory*]{} (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1989); S. H. Strogatz and I. Stewart, Sci. Am. [**269**]{} (1993) 102.
S. N. Busenberg, M. Martelli, and K. L. Cooke, [*Delay Differential Equations and Dynamical Systems*]{} (Springer, Berlin, 1991).
P. P. Oliva and D. H. Zanette (unpublished).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'The cavitation threshold of polydimethylsiloxane (silicone) oils was studied using the planar impact of flyer plates to generate large transient negative pressures within the liquids. The plate-impact experiments used a 64-mm-bore gas-gun to launch thin sabot-supported flyer plates onto liquid capsule targets in which a thin Mylar diaphragm formed a free surface at the back of the sample. The shock wave driven into the target capsule by the flyer impact placed the silicone oil in tension upon reflection from the rear free surface, eventually causing the sample to cavitate. The spall strength, or critical tension which cavitates the liquid, was determined by monitoring the free-surface velocity using a photonic Doppler velocimetry system. This study explored the effect of viscosity and loading strain rate on a system of three silicone oils having vastly different viscosities (), but otherwise similar properties. The spall strength was found to remain constant over the ranges of strain rate and viscosities probed in this work. A comparison of the experimental results to models for the cavitation threshold of liquids suggested that homogeneous nucleation of bubbles was the dominant mechanism for tension relief at the onset of cavitation.'
author:
- Justin Huneault
- Andrew Higgins
bibliography:
- 'bibliography.bib'
title: 'Shock-wave-induced cavitation of silicone oils'
---
INTRODUCTION
============
Liquids can be made to support significant tension despite the fact that they are in a non-equilibrium state at pressures below their vapor pressure. [@Trevena1987] Tension in the liquid is relieved through the nucleation and growth of vapor cavities in a process known as cavitation. Surface tension creates an energy barrier which must be overcome for cavitation bubbles growth to occur [@Fisher1948], thus allowing liquids to exist in a metastable state of tension equivalent to that of a superheated fluid. Cavitation bubbles typically form from heterogeneous nucleation sites, including free bubbles and bubbles attached to impurities within the liquid or at container walls. [@Kedrinskii2005] However, for sufficiently pure liquids or in cases where tension is applied to the liquid on a sufficiently short timescale, cavitation bubbles may nucleate from random molecular fluctuations in a process of homogeneous nucleation. [@Fisher1948; @Zeldovich1992; @Carlson1975; @Utkin2010]
The reflection of a shock wave from a free surface can momentarily place a liquid in a state of tension due to the interaction of the resulting reflected expansion front with an expansion front behind the shock. This highly dynamic phenomenon causes the liquid to be stretched until sufficient tension is reached to cause rupture through the formation and growth of bubbles. The reflection of a pressure pulse from a free surface has been used extensively to study the behavior of liquids in tension [@Bull1956; @Erlich1971; @Carlson1975; @Trevena1987; @Utkin2010], and plays an important role in a number of physical processes, including underwater explosions [@Kolsky1949; @Cole1948; @Kedrinskii2005], the fracture of kidney stones using shock wave lithotripsy [@Zhu2002], and the formation of jet-like instabilities during the explosively driven dispersal of liquids. [@Milne2017] Shock-wave-induced cavitation is also of interest for a recently proposed Magnetized Target Fusion concept in which a spherically imploding shock wave is used to collapse a liquid metal cavity onto a plasma target in order to reach fusion conditions. [@Laberge2008; @Laberge2009; @Suponitsky2014; @Suponitsky2017]
Bull [@Bull1956] was the first to develop an experimental apparatus that used pressure wave reflection from a free surface to measure the maximum tension in the liquid prior to cavitation. In these *bullet-piston* experiments, an impact-driven pressure pulse is fed into a long vertical column of liquid with a free surface in contact with a gas atmosphere near the top. [@Bull1956] The incident pressure pulse reflects from the free surface as an expansion front that generates significant transient tension in the liquid. Pressure sensors mounted along the liquid column measure the incident pressure pulse that moves up the column as well as the peak tension in the liquid caused by the reflected tensile pulse. [@Trevena1987] To access even greater loading rates, Erlich et al. [@Erlich1971] pioneered the use of spall experiments, which had previously been used to study the dynamic fracture of solids, to study cavitating liquids. In these experiments a planar shock wave is driven into a target liquid, typically using the impact of a flyer plate, and allowed to reflect from a free surface at the rear of the sample. As will be described in Section \[PIexperiments\], the maximum tension within the liquid can be inferred by observing the time evolution of the free-surface velocity. [@Antoun2003] Such experiments determine the critical tension at which the liquid begins to fail in tension under the loading conditions of the experiment, a value typically referred to as *spall strength*. In spall tests, the loading dynamics ensure that cavitation originates within the bulk liquid, rather than at the walls of the container, which means that the maximum tension is a true measurement of the limit of cohesion of the liquid. [@Utkin2010]
A number of studies have looked at the effect of viscosity and strain rate on the cavitation threshold of liquids. Using a bullet-piston type experiment, Bull [@Bull1956] found an empirical power law relationship ($P_\mathrm{s}\sim \eta^{0.2}$) between dynamic viscosity ($\eta$) and the tension at the onset of cavitation ($P_\mathrm{s}$) for an assortment of liquids spanning four orders of magnitude in viscosity. The observed increase in the cavitation threshold with increasing viscosity was attributed to a larger resistance to viscous growth of voids. [@Bull1956] Couzens and Trevena [@Couzens1974] studied the relationship between spall strength and viscosity for silicone oils over a range of three orders of magnitude using bullet-piston experiments and found a similar, albeit less sensitive relationship between cavitation threshold and viscosity ($P_\mathrm{s}\sim \eta^{0.06}$). A comparison of critical tension measurements for glycerol obtained from the bullet-piston experiments of Bull [@Bull1956b] and the spall experiments of Erlich et al. [@Erlich1971], shows that the critical tension was seen to increase from approximately at bullet-piston strain rates ($\dot{\epsilon}\approx$) to at spall experiment strain rates ($\dot{\epsilon}\approx$). Grady developed an energy-based spall strength model involving the viscous growth of pre-existing bubbles in a liquid [@Grady1988], and showed relatively good agreement with the data of Erlich et al. and Bull, indicating that the observed increase in cavitation threshold with increasing strain rate may be attributed to the greater viscous dissipation as the deformation rate is increased.
In contrast to the results quoted above, which indicated that the cavitation threshold of liquids may be determined by a heterogeneous nucleation mechanism, previous studies performed at high strain rates ($\dot{\epsilon}>$) have shown evidence that the spall strength of liquids is determined primarily by a homogenous cavitation mechanism. Carlson and Levine [@Carlson1975] used an electron beam to determine the spall strength of glycerol over a wide range of temperatures (491 to 623 K), where the viscosity changes by five orders of magnitude. The experiments showed a factor of eight decrease in spall strength as temperature was increased. [@Carlson1975] Utkin and Sosikov [@Utkin2010] used flyer-driven spall experiments to compare the effect of varying strain rate on the spall strength of liquids having vastly different viscosities: glycerol, hexane, methanol, and water. They observed that the spall strength in hexane, methanol, and water was nearly independent of strain rate over a range of approximately [@Utkin2010], which was attributed to the weak dependence of the cavitation threshold on the loading rate according to homogeneous nucleation theory. [@Fisher1948; @Zeldovich1992] In contrast, the spall strength of the glycerol samples was seen to increase by a factor of 2.5 over a variation in strain rate of . Both Carlson [@Carlson1975] and Utkin [@Utkin2010] used models to show that the observed variation in the spall strength of glycerol with temperature and strain rate can be attributed to the fact that the loading rates in the experiments were on the same timescale as the relaxation time needed to reach the steady-state homogeneous void nucleation rate, rather than being caused by a heterogeneous viscous void growth mechanism. They claimed that for nearly pure liquids placed in tension at sufficiently high strain rates, the dominant mechanism which relieves tension and determines the spall strength of the liquid is the homogeneous nucleation of bubbles. [@Carlson1975; @Utkin2010] From the theoretical work of Fisher [@Fisher1948] and Zeldovich [@Zeldovich1992], the critical tension required to cavitate a liquid should be strongly affected by its surface tension, but only weakly related to its viscosity or the loading rate of the experiment, provided that the relaxation time needed to reach the steady-state void nucleation rate is much smaller than the loading rate. [@Carlson1975]
This paper, which builds upon the results of a previously reported preliminary study [@Huneault2018], will examine the effect of viscosity and strain rate on the spall strength of a set of silicone oils which have vastly different viscosities, but otherwise similar material properties. The experiments will focus on observing the relationship between the measured spall strength and the liquid properties or loading characteristics. The results will be compared to existing models for the limiting tension of liquids, in order to offer insight into the mechanism of cavitation nucleation.
MATERIALS AND METHODS {#mandm}
=====================
Materials
---------
This study will examine the spall behavior of a set of three polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) silicone oils, sourced from Clearco Products Co., with dynamic viscosities ($\eta$) that span over two orders of magnitude, but otherwise similar material properties (density ($\rho$), speed of sound ($c_0$), surface tension ($\sigma$), and bulk modulus ($K$)). The relevant material properties for the three fluids can be seen in Tab. \[table1\], where the oils have been identified by their nominal kinematic viscosity in Stokes (St). As can be seen from the molecular weight ($M$) values in Tab. \[table1\], the difference in viscosity between the oils is due to a variation in the average length of the polymer chains, which affects the resistance of the fluid to shear. [@Patterson1998]
-------------- --------------- -------- ---------- ------- ---------- ------ -----
$\eta$ $\rho_0$ $c_0$ $\sigma$ $K$ $M$
Silicone Oil Product No. () () () () () ()
0.5 St PSF-50cSt 960 1004 0.97
10 St PSF-1,000cSt 971 1004 0.98
300 St PSF-30,000cSt 976 1004 0.98
-------------- --------------- -------- ---------- ------- ---------- ------ -----
A series of steady-state rheometry measurements were taken in order to verify the viscosity of the silicone oils presented in Tab. \[table1\] and determine their shear rate sensitivity. The measurements were taken using an Anton Paar MCR 502 rotational rheometer with a concentric cylinder arrangement, which was able to achieve shear rates of for the low and intermediate-viscosity oils and for the high-viscosity oil. Figure \[fig:steadystateviscositytest\] shows the measured dynamic viscosity of the silicone oils as a function of the shear rate. The zero-shear-rate viscosity of the fluids agreed with the manufacturer provided values presented in Tab. \[table1\]. All three oils had a constant viscosity at low shear rates, which was seen to transition to a shear thinning behavior at higher shear rates for the intermediate and high-viscosity oils. The measured zero-shear-rate viscosity ($\eta_0$) and critical shear rate ($\dot{\gamma}_c$) for the onset of shear thinning are presented in Tab. \[tab:table2\].
![Steady-state measurements of viscosity as a function of shear rate for the silicone oils used in this study.[]{data-label="fig:steadystateviscositytest"}](steadystateviscositytest.pdf){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
------------ ---------- ------------------
$\eta_0$ $\dot{\gamma}_c$
() ()
0.5 St oil
10 St oil
300 St oil -
------------ ---------- ------------------
: Steady-state measurements of silicone oil viscosity as a function of strain rate.[]{data-label="tab:table2"}
The shear thinning behavior discussed above has been observed previously in PDMS oils. [@Barlow1964; @Ghannam1998; @Carre2006; @Vazquez2017] These oils are known to behave as Newtonian fluids at low shear rates, then begin to show shear thinning behavior at a critical shear rate which increases with decreasing zero-shear-rate viscosity. [@Ghannam1998; @Carre2006; @Vazquez2017] The onset of shear thinning indicates that at these deformation rates, the viscoelastic properties of the PDMS oils, which result from interactions of the polymer molecules, begin to affect the flow. The high strain rates encountered in the experiments presented in this study ($\approx 10^4\, \mathrm{s}^{-1}$), will result in a very dynamic cavitation process with large bubble growth rates that are likely to induce viscoelastic material behavior.
Plate-impact experiments {#PIexperiments}
------------------------
In this study, the planar impact of flyer plates onto liquid samples was used to determine the spall threshold of the PDMS oils. Poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA) or aluminum (Al 6061) flyer plates, held by a sabot, were launched from a 64 mm-bore single-stage gas gun, and impacted the liquid target assembly. A magnet was embedded in the sabot in order to monitor the impact velocity of the flyer plate using a series of magnetic coil gauges located at the end of the projectile launch tube. The front face of the target assembly consisted of a 3-mm-thick Polycarbonate driver plate which transmitted the shock wave into the test liquid upon impact. The liquid was contained within an aluminum ring which had fill ports through which the liquid was injected via Luer-Lok fittings. Prior to being injected in the capsule, the oils were degassed under vacuum (approximately 100 Pa) until free bubbles no longer appeared. The rear surface of the liquid was held in place by a 51-$\upmu$m-thick aluminized polyester sheet (Mylar), which formed a free surface through which the incident shock wave reflected to place the sample in tension. Although there was a slight impedance mismatch between the liquid sample and the Mylar, the short acoustic travel time across the film (on the order of ) ensured the film had no significant effect on the dynamics of the experiment. The rearmost portion of the target assembly held the collimating optical probe used to track the velocity of the Mylar surface. A sealed air gap between the Mylar surface and the probe allowed the liquid and Mylar to move freely during the experiment, which lasts on the order of . The dimensions of the target assembly were chosen such that waves caused by the interaction of the impact-driven shock wave with the boundaries of the liquid did not reach the central axis in time to interfere with the spall measurement, thus ensuring that the strain remained uniaxial. The target assembly was fastened in a manner which ensured that the Mylar sheet was taut and free of wrinkles and was mounted onto a flange on the end of the gas gun launch tube in order to ensure a planar impact. Face-seal o-rings and stopcock valves were used to seal the target assembly, which allowed the target chamber to be evacuated to a 200 Pa Helium atmosphere before the shot, while maintaining a 1 atm environment within the target assembly. A labelled schematic of the projectile and target assembly is shown in Fig. \[fig:targetassembly\](a), while a labeled picture of the target assembly mounted onto the gas gun can be seen in Fig. \[fig:targetassembly\](b).
{width="1.6\columnwidth"}
Plate-impact experiments rely on measuring the time evolution of the free-surface velocity to determine the spall strength of the material being studied. [@Antoun2003] The use of aluminized Mylar, which is reflective to infrared radiation, allowed the free-surface velocity to be monitored by a photonic Doppler velocimetry (PDV) system. [@Strand2006] PDV measures surface velocity by observing the variation in beat frequency between a laser beam reflected off a moving surface and a reference beam. The system has a trade-off between time resolution and velocity accuracy, due to the fact that the beat frequency is obtained by performing a sliding window fast Fourier transform (FFT). [@Dolan2010] A window sample size of 2000 to 3000 samples was used during the sliding FFT analysis, resulting in an estimated velocity uncertainty of 2 m/s and a time resolution of approximately 10 ns. Figure \[fig:samplespectrogram\], shows a typical spectrogram produced by performing a sliding window FFT on the PDV data, where the high intensity contours represent the velocity of the free surface. The extracted velocity–time curve for the experiment is also shown in black. It should be noted that previously reported experiments [@Huneault2018] related to this study used significantly thinner aluminized Mylar diaphragms (). The diaphragms had a lower reflectivity and a tendency to wrinkle which affected the PDV return signal, sometimes leading to noisy data or lost experiments. Increasing the Mylar thickness to improved the quality and consistency of the velocimetry data, and was not seen to affect the spall strength measurements.
![Typical spectrogram obtained from performing a sliding window FFT on the PDV data. The black curve is the evolution in the free-surface velocity as a function of time, which is obtained from the analysis.[]{data-label="fig:samplespectrogram"}](samplespectrogram.pdf){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
Analysis methods {#analysis}
----------------
This section will outline the methods used to analyze the free-surface velocity of the target liquid in order to determine the maximum pressure in the liquid prior to unloading, the rate at which tension increases in the liquid prior to cavitation, and the maximum tension in the liquid (i.e., spall strength). A schematic of the wave diagram for the plate-impact experiment is shown in Fig. \[fig:wavediagram\](a). Initially, the impact drives a shock wave into both the driver plate and the flyer plate. The shock in the driver is transmitted into the liquid sample, while the shock in the relatively thin flyer plate rapidly reflects from its free surface as an expansion front, which is then transmitted into the driver and liquid. Nonlinearity allows the head of the expansion front from the flyer free surface to overtake the shock wave for sufficiently long travel distances. The thickness of the flyer plate and target capsule in these experiments have been chosen such that the shock is unsupported by the time it reaches the free surface (i.e., the shock is directly followed by an expansion front). The shock in the liquid reflects from the rear free surface as an expansion front. The two expansion fronts then interact with each other and generate a rapidly increasing tension in the liquid, which is eventually relieved by cavitation at a critical tension which corresponds to the spall strength of the liquid. The resulting increase in pressure caused by cavitation forms a compressive wave, known as a *spall pulse*, which travels towards the rear free surface.
{width="1.6\columnwidth"}
The process described above is illustrated in the pressure–particle velocity plot in Fig. \[fig:wavediagram\](b), while a representative example of the time evolution of the liquid free-surface velocity is shown in Fig. \[fig:freesurfacevelocityschematic\], where the main features of the signal have been labeled. The arrival of the shock wave increases the pressure and particle velocity in the liquid to state (1), which transitions to state (2) as the reflected expansion front relieves the pressure and doubles the particle velocity. On the free-surface velocity trace, the shock wave manifests itself as a sharp increase in pressure, with the peak velocity ($u_\mathrm{max}$) corresponding to state (2). As can be seen in Fig. \[fig:freesurfacevelocityschematic\], wave reverberations in the Mylar sheet cause a slight delay in reaching the peak velocity behind the shock. The interaction of both expansion fronts further reduces the pressure into the tensile region (state (2)-(3)), which manifests itself on the free-surface velocity trace as a nearly linear decrease in velocity. This velocity pullback signal has a slope which is proportional to the rate at which tension develops in the sample. The state of maximum tension ($P_\mathrm{s}$, state (3)), corresponds to the point where tension is relieved by cavitation in the liquid, while state (4) corresponds to the minimum free-surface velocity ($u_\mathrm{min}$) observed in Fig. \[fig:freesurfacevelocityschematic\], which occurs at the arrival of the cavitation-induced spall pulse.
![Labeled schematic of the evolution in the silicone oil target free-surface velocity as a function of time for a plate-impact experiment.[]{data-label="fig:freesurfacevelocityschematic"}](freesurfacevelocityschematic.pdf){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
From Fig. \[fig:wavediagram\](a), it can be seen that cavitation is expected to initiate at the intersection of the tail of the rear free-surface expansion front (line (2)-(3)) with the forward-moving characteristic where the critical tension is first reached (line (3)-(4)-(5)). Therefore, in the acoustic approximation, the spall strength can be evaluated from the velocity pullback ($\Delta u_\mathrm{fs}=u_\mathrm{max}- u_\mathrm{min}$) recorded on the free surface-velocity trace using the following expression [@Antoun2003]
$$\label{eq:1}
P_\mathrm{s} =\frac{1}{2}\rho_0c_0\Delta u_\mathrm{fs},$$
where $\rho_0$ and $c_0$ are the ambient density and speed of sound of the liquid. Similarly, the strain rate is inferred by fitting a linear slope to the free-surface velocity pullback signal ($\dot{u}_\mathrm{fs}$) [@Sheng2009]
$$\label{eq:2}
\dot{\epsilon}=\frac{-\dot{u}_\mathrm{fs}}{2c_0}.$$
It is also of interest to estimate the maximum pressure experienced by the liquid target as it is shock compressed prior to unloading. The particle velocity behind the shock wave ($u_\mathrm{p}$) can be estimated from the maximum free-surface velocity during shock-up using the following relation [@Walsh1955]
$$\label{eq:3}
u_ {\mathrm{p}}\approx \frac{1}{2}u_ {\mathrm{max}}.$$
From the conservation of mass and momentum across a shock wave, the post-shock pressure ($P_\mathrm{h}$) can be expressed as
$$\label{eq:4}
P_ {\mathrm{h}}=\rho_ {\mathrm{0}}U_ {\mathrm{s}}u_ {\mathrm{p}},$$
where $U_\mathrm{s}$ is the shock velocity. It is well known that most materials exhibit a linear relationship between shock velocity and particle velocity, known as the $U_ \mathrm{s}-u_ \mathrm{p}$ Hugoniot. [@Cooper2002] Although this empirical relationship has not been determined for PDMS oils, it is possible to estimate the shock velocity from the ambient speed of sound of the liquid using the so-called *universal Hugoniot* relationship proposed by Woolfolk et al. [@Woolfolk1973]
$$\label{eq:5}
U_ {\mathrm{s}}=1.37c_0-0.37c_0\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{-2u_\mathrm{p}}{c_0}\right)+1.62u_ \mathrm{p}.$$
It has been shown that this relationship agrees well with a wide variety of liquids as long as the post-shock pressure remains below the bulk modulus of the liquid [@Garrett2006], which is the case in this study.
RESULTS
=======
The test parameters, including the target liquid thickness ($w_\mathrm{l}$), the flyer plate thickness ($w_\mathrm{f}$), and the flyer plate impact velocity ($v_\mathrm{i}$), as well as the resulting maximum particle velocity ($u_\mathrm{max}$) at the free surface, calculated post-shock pressure ($P_\mathrm{h}$), pullback velocity ($\Delta u_\mathrm{fs}$), strain rate ($\dot{\epsilon}$), and measured spall strength ($P_\mathrm{s}$) for 21 plate-impact experiments performed on the PDMS oils are presented in Tab. \[tab:table3\]. The free-surface velocity profiles for the experiments are presented in Fig. \[fig:freesurfacevelocities\], where the curves have been arbitrarily shifted on the time axis in order to display them on the same plot. A spall event, identified by an arrow in Fig. \[fig:freesurfacevelocities\], was recorded for each test. As expected, an increase in the impact velocity resulted in greater shock pressures and peak free surface velocities. Similarly, experiments with aluminum flyers generated greater shock pressures than those with PMMA flyers at equivalent impact velocities due to the difference in the shock impedances of the materials. In general, greater impact velocities also led to greater strain rates.
------ -------- ------------------ ---------- ---------------- ---------------- ------------------ ---------------- ------------------------ ------------------ ----------------
Shot Target $w_{\mathrm{l}}$ Flyer $w_\mathrm{f}$ $v_\mathrm{i}$ $u_\mathrm{max}$ $P_\mathrm{h}$ $\Delta u_\mathrm{fs}$ $\dot{\epsilon}$ $P_\mathrm{s}$
No. Liquid (mm) Material (mm) () () () () ($10^4$) ()
1 0.5 St 13 Al 6061 4.8 124 203 120 54 1.1 26
2 0.5 St 14 PMMA 1.6 445 265 166 53 2.4 25
3 0.5 St 9 PMMA 1.6 628 439 314 39 3.7 19
4 0.5 St 17 Al 6061 6.3 395 540 413 57 2.4 27
5 0.5 St 13 Al 6061 4.8 402 574 450 48 3.0 23
6 0.5 St 9 Al 6061 4.1 387 598 475 46 2.3 22
7 0.5 St 17 Al 6061 6.3 592 705 596 47 0.6 23
8 0.5 St 17 Al 6061 6.3 581 731 627 48 3.2 23
9 0.5 St 14 Al 6061 4.6 545 741 639 39 3.2 19
10 0.5 St 9 Al 6061 4.1 550 800 713 39 4.1 19
11 0.5 St 9 Al 6061 4.1 573 842 767 49 4.1 24
12 10 St 13 Al 6061 4.8 120 191 114 44 1.1 22
13 10 St 9 PMMA 1.6 622 432 311 48 4.4 23
14 10 St 14 Al 6061 4.6 545 710 609 43 3.4 21
15 10 St 17 Al 6061 6.3 570 760 671 48 3.8 23
16 10 St 9 Al 6061 4.1 564 826 754 49 4.1 24
17 300 St 13 Al 6061 4.8 123 199 119 49 1.0 24
18 300 St 14 PMMA 1.6 442 274 176 45 2.6 22
19 300 St 9 PMMA 1.6 605 417 297 49 4.5 24
20 300 St 17 Al 6061 6.3 379 531 409 47 2.4 23
21 300 St 13 Al 6061 4.8 572 796 716 44 4.4 21
------ -------- ------------------ ---------- ---------------- ---------------- ------------------ ---------------- ------------------------ ------------------ ----------------
{width="1.6\columnwidth"}
The measured spall strength for the plate-impact experiments is plotted as a function of strain rate ($\dot{\epsilon}$) in Fig. \[fig:spallvsstrainrate\] for the three types of PDMS oils. Also included in Fig. \[fig:spallvsstrainrate\] are curves based on homogeneous and heterogeneous nucleation models described in Section \[theory\]. The experimental data does not show a strain rate dependency for either of the three silicone oils. The measured spall strength is also plotted as a function of the shock pressure ($P_\mathrm{h}$) in Fig. \[fig:spallvspressure\]. As can be seen, the measured spall strength is unaffected by the wide variation in shock pressure. In Fig. \[fig:spallvsviscosity\], the measured spall strength is plotted as a function of the zero-shear-rate viscosity for the three PDMS oils. Curves based on homogeneous and heterogeneous cavitation models described in Section \[theory\] are also shown, as well as the data and correlations between critical tension and viscosity obtained from bullet-piston experiments of Bull [@Bull1956] and Couzens and Trevena. [@Couzens1974] A second set of power-law correlations based on the results of Bull [@Bull1956] and Couzens and Trevena [@Couzens1974] ($P_\mathrm{s}\sim \eta^{0.2}$ and $P_\mathrm{s}\sim \eta^{0.06}$, respectively) are also plotted such that they intercept the average spall strength value of at , which corresponds to the viscosity of the 10 St oil. As can be seen, the measured spall strength in this work showed no clear correlation with the viscosity of the oils. The average spall strength was 22.7 MPa for the 0.5 St silicone oil, 22.6 MPa for the 10 St oil, and 22.8 MPa for the 300 St oil.
![Spall strength as a function of strain rate for the plate-impact experiments. Also shown is the expected sensitivity of spall strength to strain rate based on homogeneous and heterogeneous cavitation models.[]{data-label="fig:spallvsstrainrate"}](spallvsstrainrate.pdf){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
![Spall strength as a function of shock pressure for the plate-impact experiments.[]{data-label="fig:spallvspressure"}](spallvspressure.pdf){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
![Measured spall strength from the plate-impact experiments as a function of the zero-shear-rate viscosity ($\eta_0$) of the PDMS oils. Also shown is the expected sensitivity of spall strength to viscosity based on homogeneous and heterogeneous cavitation models, and previously published data and viscosity correlations from Bull [@Bull1956] and Couzens and Trevena. [@Couzens1974][]{data-label="fig:spallvsviscosity"}](spallvsviscosity.pdf){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
CAVITATION MODELS {#theory}
=================
The spall strength obtained from plate-impact experiments on liquid targets is a measure of the critical tension required to induce cavitation bubble growth. A liquid in tension is in a metastable state, where bubble nucleation and growth, the mechanism by which tension is relieved, is stabilized by the surface energy required to grow these voids. Bubbles in a liquid in tension ($P$) must be larger than a certain critical radius ($R_\mathrm{c}=2\sigma / P$), before it is energetically favorable for them to grow. The vapor pressure inside the bubble has been neglected in the critical radius expression above due to its small contribution compared to $P$, which is on the order of in this work. $R_\mathrm{c}$ corresponds to the radius at which the work of formation of the bubble is maximum ($W_\mathrm{max}$). As was discussed in Section \[introduction\], the cavitation bubbles which grow to relieve tension in the liquid may originate from pre-existing flaws, such as free bubbles or bubbles attached to contaminant particles, but bubbles may also nucleate from random molecular fluctuations in a homogeneous cavitation process. A further consideration in spall experiments is that tension is applied on a timescale which can be comparable to the rate of cavitation bubble growth. This can allow the liquid to remain in a state of tension despite the growth of bubbles if their density or growth rate is insufficient to relieve the tension that is accumulating in the sample. [@Utkin1997; @Utkin2006] The rate of void growth in a spalling material is typically characterized by the damage rate ($\dot{V}_\mathrm{v}$), which is a measure of the time rate of change of the specific volume of voids in the target material. For plate-impact experiments, it has been shown that the damage rate must exceed the strain rate by a factor of four or greater ($\dot{V}_\mathrm{v}>4\dot{\epsilon}/\rho_0$) in order to relieve tension in the sample and form the spall pulse on the free-surface velocity signal. [@Antoun2003] The spall strength of a liquid may therefore be affected by its physical properties, the distribution of pre-existing flaws, and the rate of loading. This section will present models which can be used to predict the spall strength and its dependence on strain rate and viscosity for both homogeneous and heterogeneous cavitation nucleation.
Homogeneous nucleation {#homogeneous}
----------------------
In a homogenous nucleation process, random molecular fluctuations allow bubbles to overcome the energy barrier created by surface tension in order to reach the critical radius and continue to grow. According to the theory of nucleation, the rate at which bubbles of a critical radius form is proportional to $\mathrm{exp}(-W_\mathrm{max}/kT)$, where $k$ is the Boltzmann constant, and $T$ is the temperature. [@Fisher1948; @Zeldovich1992; @Carlson1975] The work of formation needed to reach the critical radius therefore provides a barrier to cavitation and stabilizes the liquid phase. Following the approach of Fisher [@Fisher1948] and Zeldovich [@Zeldovich1992], an expression can be obtained which expresses the volumetric rate of formation of critical bubbles as a function of the tension in the fluid [@Bogach2000],
$$\label{eq:6}
J=\frac{N_0\sigma}{\eta}\left(\frac{\sigma}{kT}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{-16\pi \sigma^3}{3P^2kT}\right),$$
where $N_0$ is the number of molecules per unit volume. As noted by Fisher and Zeldovich, Eq. \[eq:6\] can be used to determine the critical tension ($P=P_\mathrm{s}$) for cavitation by substituting a reasonable value for the nucleation rate ($J$). Indeed, Fisher [@Fisher1948] showed that varying the nucleation rate over a range of to only changes the value of critical tension obtained in the calculation by a factor of 1.58. The exponential factor is the dominant term in Eq. \[eq:6\], and it should therefore be expected that the critical tension is relatively insensitive to the viscosity of the fluid or the rate at which tension is applied. Bogach and Utkin [@Bogach2000] noted that from Eq. \[eq:6\], the relationship between the critical tension and strain rate should follow the empirical expression below
$$\label{eq:7}
P_\mathrm{s}\approx \frac{A}{\left[\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{B}{\dot{\epsilon}}\right)\right]^{\frac{1}{2}}},$$
where $A$ and $B$ are constants. Model curves based on the homogeneous nucleation theory presented above have been included in Fig. \[fig:spallvsstrainrate\] (Eq. \[eq:7\], $A$ = , $B$ = ) and Fig. \[fig:spallvsviscosity\] (Eq. \[eq:6\], $J$ = ). As can be seen, according to the steady-state homogeneous nucleation theory presented above, the spall strength should be expected to marginally increase with increasing strain rate and viscosity.
Heterogeneous nucleation {#heterogeneous}
------------------------
Any real fluid will contain a number of heterogeneities from which cavitation can nucleate. [@Kedrinskii2005] A cavitation process dominated by the growth of pre-existing bubbles should be expected to be strongly influenced by the dynamics of the bubbles. The time dependent evolution in the radius ($R$) of a single bubble in an effectively infinite liquid is described by the Rayleigh-Plesset equation. [@Plesset1977] Below is the Rayleigh-Plesset equation for a Newtonian fluid where the liquid is under a far-field tension ($P$) and the internal bubble pressure and mass diffusion across the bubble interface are negligible
$$\label{eq:8}
R\ddot{R}+\frac{3}{2}(\dot{R})^2+\frac{4\eta}{\rho_0R}\dot{R}+\frac{2\sigma}{\rho R}=\frac{P}{\rho_0}.$$
It has been noted that for the case of a system subjected to a large sudden increase in tension, such as that in a spall experiment, the initial normalized growth rate of a bubble that is significantly larger than the critical radius can be expressed as the following [@Bull1956; @Erlich1971; @Bogach2000]
$$\label{eq:9}
\frac{\dot{R}}{R}=\frac{P}{4\eta}.$$
The volumetric growth rate of a single bubble ($\dot{V}_\mathrm{b}$), can then be expressed by the simple expression below [@Bogach2000]
$$\label{eq:10}
\dot{V}_\mathrm{b}=\frac{\pi R^3P}{\eta}.$$
From Eq. \[eq:10\], it can be seen that heterogeneous cavitation bubble growth should be expected to strongly depend on the viscosity of the fluid. Obtaining an estimate of the spall strength from the approach described above poses a number of challenges, notably determining the distribution of pre-existing bubbles, and considering the effect of neighboring bubbles in a multi-bubble system.
Grady [@Grady1988] proposed a unique approach to estimating the spall strength of dynamically stretched materials, based upon the criteria that the onset of fracture should be expected to occur when it is energetically favorable for the material to break apart. More precisely, failure in a dynamically stretched liquid is assumed to occur when the stored energy (elastic and kinetic) in the stretching liquid is equal to the viscous dissipation and surface energy produced in the fracture (cavitation) process. [@Grady1988] Inherently, this approach assumes that the material is favorably disposed to fracture, which for a liquid means that there are pre-existing bubbles from which cavitation can nucleate. [@Grady1988] The following expression, which relates the spall strength to the strain rate for the experiment ($\dot{\epsilon}$) and the surface tension ($\sigma$), viscosity ($\eta$), and speed of sound ($c_0$) of the liquid, can be obtained from the energy based approach [@Grady1988]
$$\label{eq:11}
P_\mathrm{s}^3-2\eta \rho c_0^2\dot{\epsilon} P_\mathrm{s}-6\rho^2c_0^3\sigma\dot{\epsilon}=0.$$
The second and third term of Eq. \[eq:11\] are the viscous dissipation and surface energy contributions, respectively. As can be seen, the viscous dissipation term is more sensitive to strain rate that the surface energy term ($P_\mathrm{s}\sim \eta^{1/2}$ versus $P_\mathrm{s}\sim \eta^{1/3}$), which means that as the strain rate is increased, the spall strength transitions from being dominated by the contribution of surface energy to that of viscous dissipation. A transition strain rate ($\dot{\epsilon}_\mathrm{t}$), can be defined as the rate at which the viscous and surface energy are equal [@Grady1988]
$$\label{eq:12}
\dot{\epsilon}_\mathrm{t}=\frac{9}{2}\frac{\rho\sigma^2}{\eta^3}.$$
The transition strain rate corresponds to , , and for the low, intermediate, and high-viscosity silicone oils, respectively. For the strain rates encountered in experiments ($\dot{\epsilon}\approx$), the oils, particularly the intermediate and high-viscosity samples, can be considered to be in the viscous dissipation dominated regime, where the spall strength can be expressed as
$$\label{eq:13}
P_\mathrm{s}=(2\eta\rho c_0^2\dot{\epsilon})^{\frac{1}{2}}.$$
In this regime, the spall strength is seen to have a strong dependence on both strain rate and viscosity ($P_\mathrm{s}\sim \dot{\epsilon}^{1/2}$, $P_\mathrm{s}\sim \eta^{1/2}$). The dependence of spall strength on strain rate based on the viscous limit of the Grady heterogeneous nucleation model is shown in Fig. \[fig:spallvsstrainrate\], while the relationship between the spall strength and the viscosity of the silicone oils predicted by Eq. \[eq:11\] is shown in Fig. \[fig:spallvsviscosity\]. As can be seen, the heterogeneous nucleation theory presented above predicts a significant variation in spall strength with increasing strain rate and viscosity.
DISCUSSION
==========
The spall strength values reported in Section \[results\] are comparable to measurements reported in previous plate-impact studies performed on similar liquids, where the critical tension was also found to be on the order of . [@Erlich1971; @Carlson1975; @Bogach2000; @Utkin2010] The spall strength of the three PDMS oils remained relatively constant over the range of strain rates and shock pressures probed in this work. As can be seen in Fig. \[fig:spallvsstrainrate\], the low sensitivity to strain rate is consistent with the homogeneous cavitation model but does not agree with the heterogeneous cavitation model of Eq. \[eq:11\]. Utkin and Sosikov [@Utkin2010] noted a similar lack of strain rate dependence in plate-impact experiments performed with a range of liquids including water, methanol, and hexane, which was attributed to homogeneous cavitation nucleation. The absence of a correlation between spall strength and shock pressure further suggests that pre-existing bubbles do not play an important role in determining the critical tension at which the oils cavitate for the conditions probed in this work. The significant variation in shock pressure would be expected to affect the size of the voids due to their collapse prior to tensile loading. The results also showed that the spall strength of the PDMS oils was unaffected by their zero-shear-rate viscosity, with all three oils having an equivalent average spall strength. A comparison of the plate-impact data with the model curves for $P_\mathrm{s}$ as a function of viscosity in Fig. \[fig:spallvsviscosity\], shows that the insensitivity of the spall strength to viscosity is captured by the homogeneous cavitation model, whereas the heterogeneous cavitation model suggests that the variation in the viscosity of the silicone oils should result in an order of magnitude increase in spall strength. The agreement between the spall strength measurements and Eq. \[eq:6\], which has no free parameters, again suggests that the dominant cavitation mechanism in these experiments is homogeneous nucleation of bubbles via molecular fluctuations.
The relationship between spall strength and viscosity observed in this work does not agree with previously published results from bullet-piston experiments [@Bull1956; @Couzens1974], where a power-law correlation was seen between viscosity and critical tension. Indeed, Couzens and Trevena [@Couzens1974] studied a similar system of silicone oils with nominal kinematic viscosities ranging from 0.01 St to 10 St and observed a power law dependence between the critical tension and viscosity ($P_\mathrm{s}\sim\eta^{0.06}$). It is interesting to note that the critical tension measured during plate-impact experiments is typically an order of magnitude greater than values obtained using bullet-piston experiments. This can be seen in Tab. \[tab:table4\], where the measured critical tensions obtained from bullet-piston and plate-impact experiments are compared for a number of liquids. This comparison indicates that the critical tension which induces cavitation increases significantly as the strain rate is increased from in the bullet-piston studies [@Grady1988] to for plate-impact experiments. However, the results presented in this paper show that a sensitivity to loading rate is no longer observed at the strain rates encountered in plate-impact experiments. The lack of correlation between viscosity, strain rate, and spall strength observed in the results presented in this paper indicates a possible transition in the mechanism of cavitation nucleation as the rate at which tension is applied is increased from (bullet-piston) to (plate-impact).
------------------ -------------------------------- -------------------------------
Liquid $P_\mathrm{s}$ (Bullet-Piston) $P_\mathrm{s}$ (Plate-Impact)
() ()
PDMS oil (10 St) 2.3 [@Couzens1974] 21-24$\footnotemark[1]$
Water 0.9-1.5 [@Couzens1969] 32 [@Huneault2018]
1.8 [@Bull1956b] 22.5-46.0 [@Bogach2000]
Glycerol 6.3 [@Bull1956b] 22-24 [@Erlich1971]
57-142 [@Utkin2003]
------------------ -------------------------------- -------------------------------
: Comparison of critical tension measurements from bullet-piston and plate-impact experiments.[]{data-label="tab:table4"}
The mechanisms of spall failure in liquids bears resemblance to ductile spall failure in solids, which also proceeds via a mechanism of void nucleation, growth, and coalescence. [@Grady1988] In metals, failure sites are known to nucleate at grain boundaries, inclusions, and second phase particles. [@Curran1987; @Antoun2003] Experiments performed on single crystal samples show a significant increase in spall strength [@Razorenov2006; @Razorenov2007] due to the fact that failure sites must now nucleate within the lattice at sub-microscopic heterogeneities such as dislocation pileups. [@Antoun2003; @Curran1987] As the strain rate is increased, the spall strength of polycrystalline materials can approach that of single crystals due to the fact that the loading pulse length approaches the scale of the distribution of favorable nucleation sites. [@Antoun2003; @Wilkerson2016] This behavior is indicative of a transition from energy-limited spall, where there are a large number of failure nucleation sites that allow the sample to fail when it is energetically favorable, to that of flaw-limited spall, where significant elastic energy can be stored within the body before failure sites nucleate. [@Grady1988b] The concept of energy and flaw-limited spall in solids is directly analogous to the concepts of homogeneous and heterogeneous cavitation nucleation in liquids. The comparison of the results from this work and similar studies to those performed at lower strain rates in bullet-piston experiments suggests a transition from energy-limited spall (heterogeneous nucleation) to flaw-limited spall (homogeneous nucleation) as strain rate is increased. It is important to note that this work has focused on the maximum tension supported by the liquid at the onset of cavitation, which represents a small portion of the shock induced cavitation process. A shock wave reflecting from a liquid free surface can produce large cavitation particle clouds and a series of spall layers which break up into a bubbly spray. [@Kolsky1949; @Kedrinskii2005] These processes, which occur on much longer timescales than those considered in this work (tens of microseconds to milliseconds), should be expected to be influenced by heterogeneities in the fluid [@Kedrinskii2005], regardless of the strain rate at the onset of cavitation.
The heterogeneous cavitation theory presented in Section \[heterogeneous\] and the discussion above were based on the assumption that the viscosity of the oils during cavitation bubble growth could be adequately represented by the zero-shear-rate viscosity. As was discussed in Section \[materials\], the bubble growth rates required to relieve the tension during plate-impact experiments are likely to induce non-Newtonian behavior in the PDMS fluids, particularly for the intermediate and high-viscosity oils. At shear rates above the critical shear rate ($\dot{\gamma}_\mathrm{c}$), PDMS oils behave as a pseudo-plastic material: their viscosity is shear-rate dependent and they have a resistance to shear deformation (non-zero shear modulus). [@Chhabra2010] While the elasticity of the oils during high strain rate deformation should be expected to increase resistance to bubble growth [@Warnez2015], the opposite is true of their shear thinning properties, which reduce the apparent viscosity of the fluid. The viscous resistance to bubble growth arises from the extensional flow field as the fluid near the bubble is displaced. [@Pearson1977] In a viscoelastic material, the Newtonian relationship between extensional and shear viscosity ($\eta_\mathrm{E}(\dot{\epsilon})=3\eta(\dot{\gamma})$) is no longer applicable and the ratio between the two values can be much greater than three. [@Jones1987] Although data on the extensional shear rate dependence of PDMS oils is limited, published results of capillary rheometry experiments showed a decay from as $\dot{\epsilon}$ was increased from for a 10 St oil, and a decay from for a 50 St oil over the same range of strain rates. [@Day2008; @Williams2010] These results indicate that the high strain rates studied in this work likely affected the viscosity of the high-viscosity silicone oil and reduced the overall difference in the viscosity of the three oils. Nonetheless, it seems reasonable to assume that even at the strain rates experienced in plate-impact experiments () there remains a large difference (approximately two orders of magnitude) in the viscosity and resulting resistance to void growth of the three oils considered in this work.
CONCLUSION
==========
The mechanism by which cavitation nucleates in systems where rupture of the liquid is induced by shock or pressure waves is of significant scientific and engineering interest. The spall strength of three PDMS oils having vastly different viscosities was evaluated over a range of loading conditions using plate-impact experiments. The results showed that the spall strength was unaffected by the variation in the viscosity of the oils or the rate at which tension was applied. These findings were shown to be consistent with a homogeneous cavitation model where the principal mechanism for tension relief is the formation of voids via random molecular fluctuations. The results suggest that cavitation originating from heterogeneities (pre-existing bubbles) does not have a significant effect on the spall strength of the PDMS oils for the conditions probed in this work. Comparison with previously published data obtained using bullet-piston experiments, where the loading rates were two orders of magnitude less than those presented in this work, suggests a transition from homogeneous to heterogeneous cavitation nucleation as the strain rate is increased to that of plate-impact experiments.
The authors would like to thank Jihane Kamil for her help in developing the experiment, Charles Dubois and Asher Bechimol from the Department of Chemical Engineering at École Polytechnique de Montréal for their assistance with the rheometry measurements, Hansen Liu, Zhuo Fan Bao, and Hin Fung Ng for their help in performing experiments, and David Plant and Victoria Suponitsky for their guidance with the experiments. This work was supported by General Fusion and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) under Collaborative Research and Development Grant 477617-14.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We develop a theory of electron-photon interaction for helical edge channels in two-dimensional topological insulators based on zinc-blende-type quantum wells. It is shown that the lack of space inversion symmetry in such structures enables the electro-dipole optical transitions between the spin branches of the topological edge states. Further, we demonstrate the linear and circular dichroism associated with the edge states and the generation of edge photocurrents controlled by radiation polarization.'
author:
- 'M.V.Durnev'
- 'S.A.Tarasenko'
title: 'Optical properties of helical edge channels in zinc-blende-type topological insulators: Selection rules, circular and linear dichroism, circular and linear photocurrents'
---
Introduction
============
The study of conducting edge channels with spin-momentum locking which are inherent to two-dimensional electron systems with non-trivial topology is one of the central topics in the physics of topological insulators (TIs) [@Bernevig2006; @Konig2007; @Knez2011]. Much effort is being invested now into the study of transport properties of edge channels such as local and non-local conductivity [@Roth2009; @Gusev2011; @Ma2015; @Tikhonov2015], injection of carriers from edge states into magnetic materials or superconductors [@Hart2014; @Kononov2015], and the mechanisms of backscattering [@Tanaka2011; @Lunde2012; @Altshuler2013; @Vayrynen2014; @Entin2015; @Kurilovich2017]. Optical studies of helical edge channels, although being challenging, are also in high demand since they can provide insight into the spin structure of the edge states and details of electron-photon interaction. It was experimentally demonstrated recently that the photoionization of edge channels by polarized terahertz radiation is asymmetric in $\bm k$-space and is accompanied by the emergence of edge photocurrents [@Dantscher2017]. It was also proposed theoretically that radiation with the photon energy smaller than the bulk gap can induce direct optical transitions between the “spin-up” and “spin-down” branches of the helical channel and excite a photocurrent circulating around the sample edges [@Dora2012; @Artemenko2013]. Previous research of the inter-branch optical transitions was phenomenological and based on a centro-symmetric model of TIs which allows only (weak) magneto-dipole coupling of the “spin-up” and “spin-down” states by the magnetic field of the radiation [@Dora2012; @Artemenko2013]. However, the practical realization of two-dimensional TIs is II-VI (HgTe/CdHgTe) or III-V (InAs/GaSb) zinc-blend-type structures with the natural lack of the space inversion center in the crystal lattice [@Konig2007; @Knez2011]. In particular, in the most studied TIs based on HgTe/CdHgTe quantum wells (QWs), the strong natural interface inversion asymmetry leads to the mixing of the “spin-up” and “spin-down” states at the QW interfaces [@Tarasenko2015]. The mixing considerably modifies the energy spectrum of ”bulk” states as well as the structure and magnetic properties of helical edge channels [@Durnev2016].
Here, we describe the optical properties of helical edge channels in zinc-blend-type two-dimensional TIs. We show that, in such systems, direct optical transitions between the “spin-up” and “spin-down” branches of the edge-state dispersion occur not only in the magneto-dipole approximation but also in the much stronger electro-dipole mechanism of the electron-photon-interaction. Moreover, the probability of the absorption of circularly polarized photons is asymmetric in $\bm k$-space which leads to the circular photogalvanic effect where the transfer of the photon angular momenta to the electrons drives a direct electric current, see Fig. \[fig:fig2\]. The interference of the electro-dipole and the magneto-dipole mechanisms of the photon absorption for circularly polarized radiation is constructive or destructive depending on the photon helicity, which leads to the circular dichroism. For linearly polarized radiation, the interference gives rise to an asymmetry of the optical transitions in $\bm k$-space and to a linear photocurrent. In this case, the photocurrent direction depends on the edge crystallographic orientation and the radiation polarization vector.
![\[fig:fig2\] (a) Sketch of electron dispersion in a two-dimensional topological insulator. The “spin-up” and “spin-down” branches of the edge-state dispersion are shown by red and blue curves, respectively, $k$ is the wave vector along the edge. Optical transitions between the spin branches induced by polarized radiation occur at $k$ and $-k$ at different rates, which leads to a direct electric current in the edge channel. (b) Edge photocurrents excited by normally incident circularly polarized radiation flow in the opposite directions for the right-handed and left-handed polarizations. ](PGE_scheme.pdf){width="0.95\linewidth"}
The paper is organized as follows. In Sec. \[Sec2\], we present a symmetry consideration and develop a microscopic theory of the electron-photon interaction for helical edge states in zinc-blend-type TIs. In the framework of the extended Bernevig-Hughes-Zhang model with the interface terms included we calculate the matrix elements of the electric dipole and magnetic dipole operators for HgTe/CdHgTe-based TIs. In Sec. \[Sec3\], we consider the optical transitions between the “spin-up” and “spin-down” branches of the edge-state dispersion and develop a theory of the linear and circular dicroisms. Section \[Sec4\] is devoted to the theory of the edge photocurrents excited by circularly and linearly polarized radiation.
Electron-photon interaction in helical channels {#Sec2}
===============================================
Edge states. General symmetry analysis {#edge-symmetry}
--------------------------------------
We consider a two-dimensional topological insulator based on zinc-blende-type QW. The structure supports a pair of conducting helical edge states in the (topologically non-trivial) gap of the QW, see Fig. \[fig:fig2\]. The edge states are characterized by the wave vector $k_y$ directed along the edge and the pseudospin index $s = \pm 1/2$ enumerating the branches. We use the coordinate frame ($xyz$), where the $x$ axis is in the QW plane, perpendicular to the edge and is pointing inside the sample, $y$ is parallel to the edge, and $z$ is the QW growth axis. At small $k_y$, the dispersion of the edge states is linear: ${\varepsilon}_{k_y \pm 1/2} = \pm \hbar v_0 k_y$, where $v_0$ is the velocity. The states $|k_y , s\rangle$ and $|-k_y , -s\rangle$ are related by time reversal symmetry and, therefore, have the same energy (Kramers degeneracy). We take the corresponding wave functions $\psi_{k_y s}$ to satisfy the relation $$\label{T-symmetry}
{\cal T} \psi_{k_y s} = - 2s \, \psi_{-k_y -s} \,,$$ where ${\cal T}$ is the operator of time reversal. The operator ${\cal T}$ commutes with the Hamiltonian, satisfies ${\cal T}{\cal T} = -1$, and can be presented in the form ${\cal T} = U_{t} K$, where $U_{t}$ is a unitary operator, i.e., $U_{t}^\dag = U_{t}^{-1}$, and $K$ is the operator of complex conjugation.
Additional information about the edge states can be obtained from the spatial symmetry of the structure. The point-group symmetry of an infinite (001)-grown QW with a symmetric heteropotential is $D_{2d}$. This point group takes into account the lack of a space inversion center in the QW due to the bulk inversion asymmetry of the host crystal and the inversion asymmetry at QW interfaces [@Durnev2016]. Introduction of an edge lowers the spatial symmetry of the system. For an arbitrary orientation of the edge with respect to crystallographic axes, the point-group symmetry reduces to the trivial group $C_1$ with no non-trivial symmetry elements. However, for two particular classes of the structures with the edges directed along $\langle$100$\rangle$ and $\langle$110$\rangle$ axes, which are commonly studied, the point-group symmetry is higher and contains non-trivial elements. Figure \[fig:fig1\] illustrates the crystal structures of (001)-grown HgTe/CdTe QWs with the edges along these high-symmetry directions.
![\[fig:fig1\] Side view of HgTe/CdTe quantum wells with the edge along (a) \[010\] and (b) \[110\] axes. The structures are described by the $C_2$ and $C_s$ point groups, respectively. The corresponding symmetry elements, the rotation axis $C_2$ (a) and the mirror plane $\sigma_v$ (b), are shown by the red arrow and the gray plane. ](figure_edges.pdf){width="47.00000%"}
The QW structure with the edge parallel to \[010\] (or similar direction) is described by the $C_2$ point group with the two-fold rotation axis $C_2 \parallel [100]$ at the center of the QW, see Fig. \[fig:fig1\]a. The corresponding operator of rotation by the angle $\pi$ about the $x$ axis ${\cal R}$ commutes with the Hamiltonian and relates the states $|k_y , s\rangle$ and $|-k_y , -s\rangle$. The rotation operator also satisfies ${\cal R}{\cal R} = -1$ and ${\cal R}^\dag = {\cal R}^{-1}$. By a proper choice of the phase of the wave functions we made them to satisfy the relation $$\label{R-rotation}
{\cal R} \psi_{k_y s} = -i \psi_{-k_y -s} \,$$ and, in particular, ${\cal R} \psi_{0 \pm 1/2} = -i \psi_{0 \mp 1/2}$. The latter relation corresponds to the usual transformation rule of spinors under the rotation by $\pi$ about the $x$ axis. It follows that the Pauli matrix $\sigma_x$ acting in the pseudo-spin space with the basis functions $\psi_{0 +1/2}$ and $\psi_{0 -1/2}$ is invariant under the rotation (belongs to the $\Gamma_1$ irreducible representation of the $C_2$ group) whereas the the Pauli matrices $\sigma_y$ and $\sigma_z$ change their sign under the rotation (belong to the $\Gamma_2$ irreducible representation) [@koster63]. All components of the polar and axial vectors in the $C_2$ group also transform according to either $\Gamma_1$ or $\Gamma_2$ representations, which is summarized in Tab. \[tab1\].
The (001)-grown QW structure (also with an asymmetric confinement potential) with the edge parallel to \[110\] is described by the $C_{s}$ point group which contains the mirror plane $\sigma_v \parallel (110)$, see Fig. \[fig:fig1\]b. The operator of reflection in the $(xz)$ plane $\tilde{{\cal R}}$ commutes with the Hamiltonian and satisfies $\tilde{{\cal R}}\tilde{{\cal R}} = 1$ and $\tilde{{\cal R}}^\dag = \tilde{{\cal R}}^{-1}$. The wave functions $\psi_{k_y s}$ can be chosen in the way that $$\label{R-reflection}
\tilde{{\cal R}} \psi_{k_y s} = 2 i s \, \psi_{-k_y -s} \,.$$ This equation at $k_y =0$ corresponds to the usual transformation rule of spinors under the reflection in the $(xz)$ plane. In this case, the Pauli matrix $\sigma_y$ acting in the pseudo-spin space with the basis functions $\psi_{0 +1/2}$ and $\psi_{0 -1/2}$ transforms according to the $\Gamma_1$ irreducible representation of the $C_s$ group whereas the Pauli matrices $\sigma_x$ and $\sigma_z$ transform according to the $\Gamma_2$ irreducible representation [@koster63]. The classification of the polar and axial vector components according to the representations they transform by is summarized in Tab. \[tab1\].
------------ -------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------
rep basis functions basis functions
C$_2$ ($x \parallel [100]$, $y \parallel [010]$) C$_s$ ($x \parallel [1\bar{1}0]$, $y \parallel [1 1 0]$)
$\Gamma_1$ $x$, $B_x$, $\sigma_x$ $x$, $z$, $B_y$, $\sigma_y$
$\Gamma_2$ $y$, $z$, $B_y$, $B_z$, $\sigma_y$, $\sigma_z$ $y$, $B_x$, $B_z$, $\sigma_x$, $\sigma_z$
------------ -------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------
: \[tab1\] Irreducible representations and basis functions constructed from the components of the polar $\bm r = (x,y,z)$ and axial $\bm B = (B_x, B_y, B_z)$ vectors and the Pauli matrices for the $C_2$ and $C_s$ point groups.
Let us now construct the effective Hamiltonian of edge states at small $k_y$ using the method of invariants [@birpikus]. From the requirement that the Hamiltonian is invariant with respect to all symmetry operations and time reversion follows that, to the first order in $k_y$, the Hamiltonian can contain terms $\sigma_z k_y$ and $\sigma_y k_y$ in the structure of the $C_2$ point group and the terms $\sigma_z k_y$ and $\sigma_x k_y$ in the structure of the $C_s$ point group. However, by a unitary transformation we can convert the effective Hamiltonian to the form $\propto \sigma_z k_y$ removing other $k_y$-linear terms. Indeed, the basis $(\psi_{0 +1/2}, \psi_{0 -1/2})$ is not fully determined yet. Any pair of the functions of the form $(\alpha \psi_{0 +1/2} + \beta \psi_{0 -1/2}, \, \alpha^* \psi_{0 -1/2} - \beta^* \psi_{0 +1/2})$ also satisfies Eq. together with Eq. \[or together with Eq. \] provided $|\alpha|^2+|\beta|^2 = 1$ and $\alpha$ is real and $\beta$ is imaginary (or both $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are real). By a proper choice of the wave function basis we can exclude the term $\sigma_y k_y$ (or $\sigma_x k_y$) from the Hamiltonian. Then, the effective Hamiltonian of edge states up to the third order in $k_y$ reads $$\label{eq:H0}
\mathcal H_{\rm edge} = a \sigma_z k_y + b k_y^2 + \sum_{\alpha=x,y,z} c_{\alpha} \sigma_{\alpha} k_y^3 \:,$$ where $a =\hbar v_0$, $b$ and $c_{\alpha}$ are real parameters; $c_x$ ($c_y$) is zero in the structure of the $C_2$ ($C_s$) point group.
Electro-dipole interaction
--------------------------
The Hamiltonian of electron-photon interaction can be also constructed using the method of invariants. In the electro-dipole approximation, the Hamiltonian of electron-photon interaction has the form $$\label{eq:Ham_ed}
\mathcal H_{\rm edge}^{(\bm E)} = -\bm d \cdot \bm E \,,$$ where $\bm E$ is the electric field of the electromagnetic wave and $\bm d$ is the electric dipole operator. Using Tab. \[tab1\] and the time reversal symmetry one can construct $\bm d$ in the ($\psi_{0 +1/2}, \psi_{0 -1/2}$) basis. At $k_y=0$, the time reversal symmetry does not allow any terms coupling the states with $s =\pm 1/2$. At $k_y \neq 0$, such a coupling is possible and the vector $\bm d$ to the first order in $k_y$ has the form $$\label{d_C2}
\bm d = \left(
\begin{array}{c}
D_{xy} \sigma_y + D_{xz} \sigma_z \\ D_{yx} \sigma_x \\ D_{zx} \sigma_x
\end{array}
\right) \times k_y$$ in the structure of the $C_2$ group and the form $$\label{d_Cs}
\bm d = \left(
\begin{array}{c}
D_{xx} \sigma_x + D_{xz} \sigma_z \\ D_{yy} \sigma_y \\ D_{zx} \sigma_x + D_{zz} \sigma_z
\end{array}
\right) \times k_y$$ in the structure of the $C_s$ group. Here, $D_{\alpha\beta}$ are real linearly independent parameters. In a structure with an arbitrarily oriented edge, there are no symmetry restrictions and any component of the vector $\bm d$ can contain terms with any Pauli matrix. The terms proportional to $\sigma_z k_y$ describe the electric-field-induced change in the edge-state velocity while other terms lead to optical transitions between the spin branches.
We emphasize that the electro-dipole optical transitions induced by the radiation polarized in the interface plane are possible only due to the low symmetry of the QW. Indeed, in the model of a QW with symmetric confinement potential and made of isotropic material [@Teppe2018], the point-group symmetry of this QW structure with an edge would be $C_{2v}$, which has both vertical and horizontal mirror planes and a two-fold rotation axis. In such a system, there are no terms in the dipole components $d_x$ and $d_y$ that couple the edge states with $\pm 1/2$ and, therefore, no optical transitions by the in-plane-polarized radiation occur in the electro-dipole mechanism. Note, that the same $C_{2v}$ point group describes (110)-oriented symmetrically-grown zinc-blende-type QW structures with the edge parallel to $[1\bar{1}0]$. Thus, the electro-dipole transitions are forbidden by symmetry in such structures as well.
The probability of the direct optical transitions between the edge states $\psi_{k_y s}$ and $\psi_{k_y -s}$ in the electro-dipole approximation is determined by the matrix elements of the operator $\bm d$. Instead of calculating the matrix elements of $\bm d$ it is more convenient sometimes to calculate the matrix elements of the velocity operator $\bm v$ which are related by $\bm v_{s\, -s} = {\mathrm{i}}(\omega_{s \, -s}/e) \bm d_{s \, -s}$, where $\omega_{s \, -s} = ({\varepsilon}_{k_y s} - {\varepsilon}_{k_y -s})/\hbar$ and $e$ is the electron charge. It follows from Eqs. and that, at small $k_y$, the inter-branch matrix elements of the velocity operator are quadratic in $k_y$ and given by $$\label{v_C2}
\bm v_{s \, -s} = \left(
\begin{array}{c}
D_{xy} \\ 2{\mathrm{i}}s D_{yx} \\ 2 {\mathrm{i}}s D_{zx}
\end{array}
\right) \times \frac{2 v_0 k_y^2}{e}$$ in the structure of the $C_2$ group and $$\label{v_Cs}
\bm v_{s \, -s} = \left(
\begin{array}{c}
2{\mathrm{i}}s D_{xx} \\ D_{yy} \\ 2 {\mathrm{i}}s D_{zx}
\end{array}
\right) \times \frac{2 v_0 k_y^2}{e}$$ in the structure of the $C_s$ group.
The matrix elements and satisfy the general relation $$\label{Tsym}
\bm v_{s \, -s} (k_y) = \bm v_{-s \, s}^*(-k_y) \:$$ which is imposed by time reversal symmetry and valid for edges of any orientation and arbitrary $k_y$. This relation follows from Eq. and ${\cal T} \bm v = - \bm v {\cal T}$ which yield $\langle \psi_{k_y s} |\bm v | \psi_{k_y s'} \rangle =\langle 2s {\cal T} \psi_{-k_y -s} |\bm v | 2s' {\cal T}\psi_{-k_y -s'} \rangle = - 4 ss' \langle {\cal T}\psi_{-k_y -s} | {\cal T} \bm v \psi_{-k_y -s'} \rangle = - 4ss' \langle \psi_{-k_y -s} | \bm v | \psi_{-k_y -s'} \rangle^*$. Since $\bm v$ is an Hermitian operator, Eq. yields $\bm v_{s \, -s} (k_y) = \bm v_{s \, -s}(-k_y)$, i.e., the inter-branch matrix elements of the velocity operator are even in $k_y$.
The matrix elements of the velocity operator in the $C_2$ group, Eq. , additionally satisfy the relations $v_{s \, -s}^{(x)} (k_y) = v_{-s \, s}^{(x)} (-k_y)$ and $v_{s \, -s}^{(y,z)} (k_y) = - v_{-s \, s}^{(y,z)}(-k_y)$ imposed by the two-fold rotation axis, see Eq. . Combining them with Eq. we obtain that in the $C_2$ group $$\label{vC2_props}
v_{s \, -s}^{(x)} {\rm \; are \; real} \:,\:\: v_{s \, -s}^{(y,z)} {\rm \; are \; imaginary} \:.$$
Similarly, the matrix elements of the velocity operator in the $C_s$ group, Eq. , satisfy the relations $v_{s \, -s}^{(x,z)}(k_y) = - v_{-s \, s}^{(x,z)} (-k_y)$ and $v_{s \, -s}^{(y)} (k_y) = v_{-s \, s}^{(y)} (-k_y)$ imposed by the mirror plane, see Eq. . Combining them with Eq. we conclude that in the $C_s$ group $$\label{vCs_props}
v_{s \, -s}^{(x,z)} {\rm \; are \; imaginary} \:,\:\: v_{s \, -s}^{(y)} {\rm \; are \; real} \:.$$
Magneto-dipole interaction
--------------------------
The optical transitions between the spin branches can also occur due to the interaction of carriers with the magnetic field $\bm B$ of the incident electromagnetic wave. The Hamiltonian of the magneto-dipole interaction in the ($\psi_{0 +1/2}, \psi_{0 -1/2}$) basis is the Zeeman Hamiltonian $$\label{eq:Ham_md}
\mathcal H_{\rm edge}^{(\bm B)} = - \bm{\mu} \cdot \bm{B} = \frac{\mu_B}{2} \sum \limits_{\alpha, \beta = x,y,z} g_{\alpha \beta} \sigma_\alpha B_\beta\:,$$ where $\bm{\mu}$ is the magnetic dipole operator, $g_{\alpha \beta}$ are the components of the $g$-factor tensor and $\mu_B$ is the Bohr magneton. Symmetry analysis (see Tab. \[tab1\]) shows that the non-zero components of the $g$-factor tensor are $g_{xx}$, $g_{yy}$, $g_{zz}$, $g_{yz}$, and $g_{zy}$ in the structure of the $C_2$ group and $g_{xx}$, $g_{yy}$, $g_{zz}$, $g_{xz}$, and $g_{zx}$ in the structure of the $C_s$ group. This is in agreement with the results of microscopic calculations of Ref. . For a structure with an arbitrarily oriented edge, all the components of the $g$-factor tensor can be non-zero.
Microscopic description {#Sec_micdescription}
-----------------------
In this section we present the microscopic calculations of the matrix elements of the electric dipole operator $\bm{d}$ phenomenologically introduced in Eqs. and . We consider TIs based on HgTe/CdHgTe QWs of the close-to-critical thickness. In such structures, the topological states are formed from the electron-like $|E1,\pm 1/2 \rangle$ and heavy-hole $|H1, \pm 3/2 \rangle$ subbands [@Bernevig2006]. In the basis $|E1,+ 1/2 \rangle$, $|H1, + 3/2 \rangle$, $|E1,- 1/2 \rangle$, and $|H1, - 3/2 \rangle$, the electron states in the QW of the D$_{2d}$ symmetry are described by the effective 4$\times$4 Hamiltonian, which takes into account the lack of the space inversion center in the QW [@Durnev2016],
$$\label{eq:H_bulk}
\mathcal H_0(k_x,k_y) =
\left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
\delta_0 - ({\mathcal B}+{\mathcal D})k^2 & {\rm i} {\mathcal A}k_+ & 0 & {\rm i} \gamma {\mathrm{e}}^{-2{\mathrm{i}}\theta} \\
-{\rm i} {\mathcal A}k_- & - \delta_0 + ({\mathcal B}-{\mathcal D})k^2 & {\rm i} \gamma {\mathrm{e}}^{-2{\mathrm{i}}\theta} & 0\\
0 & -{\rm i} \gamma {\mathrm{e}}^{2{\mathrm{i}}\theta} & \delta_0 - ({\mathcal B}+{\mathcal D})k^2 & - {\rm i} {\mathcal A}k_- \\
-{\rm i} \gamma {\mathrm{e}}^{2{\mathrm{i}}\theta} & 0 & {\rm i} {\mathcal A}k_+ & - \delta_0 + ({\mathcal B}-{\mathcal D})k^2
\end{array}
\right) \: .$$
Here, $\bm k = (k_x, k_y)$ is the in-plane electron wave vector, $k = |\bm k|$, $k_\pm = k_x \pm {\mathrm{i}}k_y$, ${\mathcal A}$, ${\mathcal B}$, ${\mathcal D}$, $\gamma$, and [$\delta_0$]{} are the real-valued band-structure parameters. In particular, the parameter $\delta_0$ describes the band gap and defines whether the system is in the trivial ($\delta_0 >0$ at ${\mathcal B}< 0$) or non-trivial ($\delta_0 < 0$ at ${\mathcal B}< 0$) topological phase [@Bernevig2006]. The lack of the inversion center is taken into account by the parameter $\gamma$ which is microscopically determined by the strength of the mixing of the $|E1\rangle$ and $|H1\rangle$ states at the QW interfaces [@Tarasenko2015]. To allow the consideration of the structures with an arbitrary edge orientation, the Hamiltonian is written in the coordinate frame ($xy$) rotated by the angle $\theta$ with respect to the crystallographic frame $([100], [010])$.
To calculate the wave functions of the edge states we consider a semi-infinite structure ($x \geq 0$) and solve the Schrödinger equation $\mathcal H_0 (- {\mathrm{i}}\partial/\partial x, k_y) \psi_{k_ys} = {\varepsilon}_{k_ys} \psi_{k_ys}$ with the boundary conditions $\psi_{k_y s}(x=0,y) = 0$ and $\psi_{k_ys}(x \rightarrow + \infty,y) \rightarrow 0$. The four-component wave functions $\psi_{k_ys}$ can be presented in the form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:wfs_general}
\psi_{k_y +1/2} &=& \frac{e^{{\mathrm{i}}k_y y}}{\sqrt{L}} \left(
\begin{array}{c}
a(x) \\
-b(x) \\
-{\mathrm{i}}c(x) {\mathrm{e}}^{2 {\mathrm{i}}\theta} \\
-{\mathrm{i}}d(x) {\mathrm{e}}^{2 {\mathrm{i}}\theta}
\end{array}
\right) ,\:\:\: \nonumber\\
\psi_{k_y-1/2} &=& \frac{e^{{\mathrm{i}}k_y y}}{\sqrt{L}} \left(
\begin{array}{c}
-{\mathrm{i}}c(x) {\mathrm{e}}^{-2 {\mathrm{i}}\theta} \\
{\mathrm{i}}d(x) {\mathrm{e}}^{-2 {\mathrm{i}}\theta} \\
a(x) \\
b(x)
\end{array}
\right) ,\end{aligned}$$ where $a(x)$, $b(x)$, $c(x)$, and $d(x)$ are real functions, which also depend on $k_y^2$, and $L$ is the normalization length.
The wave functions $\psi_{k_y +1/2}$ and $\psi_{k_y -1/2}$ given by Eqs. are related to each other by the time reversal operator $\cal T$, see Eq. , because ${\cal T}|E1, \pm 1/2\rangle = \mp |E1, \mp 1/2\rangle$ and ${\cal T}|H1, \pm 3/2\rangle = \pm |H1, \mp 3/2\rangle$. Moreover, for high-symmetry edge directions, the functions $\psi_{k_y +1/2}$ and $\psi_{k_y -1/2}$ are transformed according to the rules introduced in Sec. \[edge-symmetry\]. In particular, for the structures with the edge parallel to $\langle 010 \rangle$ ($\theta = \pi n/2$ with integer $n$), the wave functions are additionally related by the rotation operator $\cal R$, see Eq. , because ${\cal R}|E1, \pm 1/2\rangle = - {\mathrm{i}}|E1, \mp 1/2\rangle$ and ${\cal R}|H1, \pm 3/2\rangle = {\mathrm{i}}|H1, \mp 3/2\rangle$. For the structures with the edge parallel to $\langle 110 \rangle$ ($\theta = \pi/4 + \pi n/2$), the wave functions are related by the reflection operator $\tilde{\cal R}$, see Eq. , because $\tilde{{\cal R}}|E1, \pm 1/2\rangle = \pm {\mathrm{i}}|E1, \mp 1/2\rangle$ and $\tilde{{\cal R}}|H1, \pm 3/2\rangle = \mp {\mathrm{i}}|H1, \mp 3/2\rangle$.
The envelope functions $a(x)$, $b(x)$, $c(x)$, and $d(x)$ have to be calculated numerically. For the specific case of electron-hole symmetry, which corresponds to ${\mathcal D}= 0$ in the Hamiltonian , the functions satisfy the relations $a(x) = b(x)$ and $c(x) = d(x)$.
The inter-branch matrix elements $v_{s -s}^{(x)}$ and $v_{s -s}^{(y)}$ of the velocity operator $$\label{eq:vel_def}
{\bm v} = \frac{1}{\hbar} \frac{\partial \mathcal H_0}{\partial \bm k} \:$$ can be directly calculated using the Hamiltonian and the wave functions . This procedure gives $$\begin{aligned}
\label{uxuy}
v_{s-s}^{(x)} = u_{1} {\mathrm{e}}^{-4is \theta} \:,\;\; v_{s-s}^{(y)} = 2{\mathrm{i}}s u_{2} \, {\mathrm{e}}^{-4is \theta} \:,\end{aligned}$$ where $u_{1}$ and $u_{2}$ are real quantities. Recalling the relation $\bm v_{s\, -s} = {\mathrm{i}}(\omega_{s \, -s}/e) \bm d_{s \, -s}$ we conclude that, within this microscopic model, the inter-branch optical transitions in the electric dipole approximation are described by the dipole operator components which, at small $k_y$, read $$\begin{aligned}
\label{dxdy}
d_x &=& (\sigma_y \cos 2\theta - \sigma_x \sin 2\theta) D_{1} k_y \:, \nonumber \\
d_y &=& (\sigma_x \cos 2\theta + \sigma_y \sin 2\theta) D_{2} k_y \:, \end{aligned}$$ where $D_{1} = e u_{1} / | k_y \omega_{s \, -s}|$ and $D_{2} = e u_{2} / |k_y \omega_{s \, -s}|$ are independent of $k_y$. Equations are written for the edge of arbitrary orientation. At $\theta = \pi n/2$, they correspond to Eq. with $D_{xy}=(-1)^n D_{1}$ and $D_{yx} = (-1)^n D_{2}$. At $\theta = \pi/4 + \pi n/2$, they correspond to Eq. with $D_{xx}=(-1)^{n+1} D_{1}$ and $D_{yy} = (-1)^n D_{2}$.
The Zeeman Hamiltonian for the D$_{2d}$ QW in an in-plane magnetic field in the same basis of the states as used for the Hamiltonian has the form [@Durnev2016] $$\label{eq:H_Binplane}
\mathcal H_{Z} =
\frac{\mu_B}{2} \left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
0 & 0 & g_e^\parallel B_- & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & g_h^\parallel {\mathrm{e}}^{-4 {\mathrm{i}}\theta} B_+ \\
g_e^\parallel B_+ & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & g_h^\parallel {\mathrm{e}}^{4 {\mathrm{i}}\theta} B_- & 0 & 0
\end{array}
\right) \:,$$ where $g_e^\parallel$ and $g_h^\parallel$ are the in-plane $g$-factors of the $|E1 \rangle$ and $|H1 \rangle$ subbands, which stem from the bare electron $g$-factor and the interaction with remote electron and hole subbands, and $B_{\pm} = B_x \pm i B_y$. By projecting the Zeeman Hamiltonian onto the wave functions we obtain the dependence of the edge-electron $g$-factor tensor on the edge orientation
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{g_all}
g_{xx} &=& g_{1} \cos^2 2\theta + g_{2} \sin^2 2\theta\:, \nonumber \\
g_{yy} &=& g_{1} \sin^2 2\theta + g_{2} \cos^2 2\theta\:, \nonumber \\
g_{xy} &=& g_{yx} = \frac12 \left( g_{1} - g_{2} \right) \sin 4 \theta\:,\end{aligned}$$
where $g_{1}$ and $g_{2}$ are two independent $g$-factors. Analytical expressions for $g_{1}$ and $g_{2}$ via the band structure parameters are derived in Ref. for the case of electron-hole symmetry, ${\mathcal D}= 0$, and $k_y = 0$.
![\[fig:fig3\] Matrix elements of the velocity operator $u_1$ and $u_2$, see Eq. , between the “spin-up” and “spin-down” branches of the edge-state spectrum as a function of the electron wave vector along the edge $k_y$ calculated for the HgTe/CdHgTe QW structure.](velocities.pdf){width="45.00000%"}
To evaluate the parameters $D_{1,2}$ and $g_{1,2}$ for realistic HgTe/CdHgTe QWs we numerically solve the Schrödinger equation with the Hamiltonian , calculate the wave functions of the edge states, the inter-branch matrix elements of the velocity operator, and the effective $g$-factors. We use the following set of band-structure parameters: ${\mathcal A}= 3.6$ eV$\cdot$Å, ${\mathcal B}= -68$ eV$\cdot$Å$^2$, ${\mathcal D}= -51$ eV$\cdot$Å$^2$ \[\], $\gamma = 5$ meV \[\], and $\delta = -10$ meV, which corresponds to the topological gap of about $20$ meV. Figure \[fig:fig3\] shows the calculated dependences of the inter-branch matrix elements of the velocity operator $u_1$ and $u_2$, see Eq. , on the wave vector $k_y$. At small $k_y$, the dependences are parabolic, which is in agreement with the phenomenological Eq. . At large $k_y$, the dependences $u_1(k_y)$ and $u_2(k_y)$ deviate from the quadratic power due to high-order terms neglected in Eq. . The fitting of the dependences at small $k_y$ yields $|D_1/e| \approx 7\times10^{-13}$ cm$^2$ and $|D_2 /e| \approx 1.4\times10^{-12}$ cm$^{2}$. Our numerical calculations also give $v_0 \approx 2.7\times10^7$ cm/s for the edge-state velocity and $|g_{1}| \approx 2.6$ and $|g_{2}| \approx 2$ for the effective $g$-factors.
Particle-hole and chiral symmetries
-----------------------------------
In addition to time reversal symmetry and the constraints imposed by spatial symmetry, the effective Hamiltonian may possess the particle-hole symmetry [@Schnyder2008]. In this case, there is a charge conjugation operator $\mathcal C$ which anti-commutes with the Hamiltonian and can be presented in the form $\mathcal C = U_c K$, where $U_c$ is a unitary operator and $K$ is the operator of complex conjugation. The operator $\mathcal C$ relates the states $|{\varepsilon}, k_y, s \rangle$ and $|-{\varepsilon}, -k_y, s \rangle$ implying that ${\varepsilon}_{k_y,s} = - {\varepsilon}_{-k_y,s}$.
If both $\mathcal T$- and $\mathcal C$-symmetries are present, then the Hamiltonian also possesses the chiral (also called sublattice) symmetry. The corresponding operator $\mathcal S = \mathcal C \mathcal T^{-1}$ anti-commutes with the Hamiltonian and satisfies $\mathcal S^\dag = \mathcal S^{-1}$ and $\mathcal S \mathcal S = 1$. The operator $\mathcal S$ relates the states $|{\varepsilon}, k_y, s \rangle$ and $|-{\varepsilon}, k_y, -s \rangle$. Its action on the edge state wave functions can be presented as $$\label{P-symmetry}
\mathcal S \psi_{{\varepsilon}k_y s} = {\mathrm{e}}^{2 {\mathrm{i}}\alpha s} \psi_{-{\varepsilon}k_y -s}\:,$$ where $\alpha$ is a real parameter which may depend on $k_y$. If $\mathcal T$ and $\mathcal S$ are the only symmetries present in the system, $\alpha$ may be set to zero by a proper choice of the wave function phase. However, if there are additional spatial symmetries and the wave function phase is already fixed, see Eq. or Eq. , $\alpha$ is non-zero.
Equation together with $\mathcal S \bm v = - \bm v \mathcal S$ implies that the inter-branch matrix elements of the velocity operator satisfy the relation $$\label{v_P_props}
\bm v_{s-s}(k_y) = - {\mathrm{e}}^{-4{\mathrm{i}}\alpha s} \bm v^*_{s -s}(k_y) \:,$$ because ${\left \langle \psi_{k_y s} \left| \bm v \right| \psi_{k_y -s} \right \rangle} = {\mathrm{e}}^{-4{\mathrm{i}}\alpha s} {\left \langle \mathcal S \psi_{k_y -s} \left| \bm v \right| \mathcal S \psi_{k_y s} \right \rangle} =
- {\mathrm{e}}^{-4{\mathrm{i}}\alpha s} {\left \langle \psi_{k_y -s} \left| \bm v \right| \psi_{k_y s} \right \rangle}$. It follows from Eq. that the ratio $v_{s -s}^{(x)}(k_y)/v_{s -s}^{(y)}(k_y)$ is a real value. Therefore, for circularly polarized radiation the probability of the optical transitions in the electro-dipole approximation is independent of the photon helicity sign and the circular (photon helicity dependent) photogalvanic effect is absent. Moreover, for linearly polarized radiation the absorption occurs only for the radiation polarized along the in-plane direction $\bm n$ determined by $n_x/n_y = v_{s -s}^{(x)}(k_y)/v_{s -s}^{(y)}(k_y)$ while the orthogonally polarized radiation is not absorbed. Due to time reversal symmetry, see Eq. , the optical transitions induced by linearly polarized radiation at the wave vectors $k_y$ and $-k_y$ have the same selection rules and the same probability.
The conclusions above are general and do not depend on the particular structure of edge states (as far as the boundary potential preserves $\mathcal T$- and $\mathcal{S}$-symmetries). In fact, they are also valid for systems of any dimension for the optical transitions between the states $|{\varepsilon}, \bm k, s\rangle$ and $|-{\varepsilon}, \bm k,-s\rangle$ related by chiral symmetry. Moreover, the same conclusions can be drawn for the optical transitions in the magneto-dipole approximation if the effective Zeeman Hamiltonian of the electron-photon interaction preserves $\mathcal S$-symmetry.
For the edges of particular crystallographic orientations, additional restrictions on the matrix elements of the velocity operator are imposed by spatial symmetry, see the relations and for the structures of the $C_2$ and $C_s$ point groups, respectively. Combining these relations with Eq. we conclude that, in both cases, one of the matrix elements, either $v_{s-s}^{(x)}$ or $v_{s-s}^{(y)}$, vanishes.
The effective Hamiltonian possesses the particle-hole symmetry at ${\mathcal D}= 0$. The corresponding unitary matrix $U_c$ of the charge conjugation operator $\mathcal C$ reads $$\label{eq:Umatrix}
U_c = \left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
0 & {\mathrm{e}}^{-2{\mathrm{i}}\theta} & 0 & 0 \\
{\mathrm{e}}^{-2{\mathrm{i}}\theta} & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & {\mathrm{e}}^{2{\mathrm{i}}\theta}\\
0 & 0 & {\mathrm{e}}^{2{\mathrm{i}}\theta} & 0
\end{array}
\right)\:.$$ Since $U_c^T = U_c$ and hence $\mathcal C \mathcal C = 1$, the system under study belongs to the DIII symmetry class [@Schnyder2008].
The matrix $\mathcal S = U_c U_t^{-1}$, which satisfies $\mathcal S \mathcal H_0 + \mathcal H_0 \mathcal S = 0$ at ${\mathcal D}= 0$, has the form $$\label{eq:Smatrix}
\mathcal S = \left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
0 & 0 & 0 & {\mathrm{e}}^{-2{\mathrm{i}}\theta} \\
0 & 0 & -{\mathrm{e}}^{-2{\mathrm{i}}\theta} & 0 \\
0 & -{\mathrm{e}}^{2{\mathrm{i}}\theta} & 0 & 0\\
{\mathrm{e}}^{2{\mathrm{i}}\theta} & 0 & 0 & 0
\end{array}
\right)\:.$$ It relates the wave functions by $\mathcal S \psi_{k_y s} = {\mathrm{e}}^{4 {\mathrm{i}}\theta s} \psi_{k_y -s}$, so that $\alpha = 2\theta$ in Eqs. and . Since $v_{s-s}^{(x)} = u_x {\mathrm{e}}^{-4is \theta}$ and $v_{s-s}^{(y)} = 2{\mathrm{i}}s u_y {\mathrm{e}}^{-4is \theta}$, it follows from Eq. that $v_{s-s}^{(x)} = 0$ for any orientation of the edge. Hence, in the framework of the effective Hamiltonian , the electro-dipole transitions for the radiation polarized perpendicular to the edge are forbidden at ${\mathcal D}= 0$.
In real semiconductor structures, particle-hole symmetry is broken and both matrix elements $v_{s-s}^{(x)}$ and $v_{s-s}^{(y)}$ are non-zero. Therefore, the optical transitions between the spin branches of the helical channel are allowed for radiation polarized along the edge and perpendicular to the edge. Moreover, the phase shift of $\pm \pi/2$ between $v_{s-s}^{(x)}$ and $v_{s-s}^{(y)}$, see Eq. \[or between the matrix elements of the electric dipole components $d_x$ and $d_y$, see Eq. \], means that the transitions are sensitive to the degree and the sign of circular polarization.
Optical transitions. Linear and circular dichroisms {#Sec3}
===================================================
Consider now that the topological insulator is illuminated by radiation of certain frequency and polarization which induces direct optical transitions between the spin branches of the helical edge channel. With the account for both the electro-dipole and the magneto-dipole mechanisms of electron-photon interaction, the optical transitions $|k_y, -s\rangle \rightarrow |k_y, s\rangle$ are described by the matrix elements $$M_{s\, -s} (k_y)= - \bm{d}_{s\, -s} \cdot \bm{E}_0 - \bm{\mu}_{s\, -s} \cdot \bm{B}_0 \,,$$ where $\bm{d}_{s\, -s}$ and $\bm{\mu}_{s\, -s}$ are the matrix elements of the electric dipole and magnetic dipole operators, respectively, $\bm{E}_0$ and $\bm{B}_0$ are the amplitudes of the electric and magnetic fields of the radiation related by $\bm{B}_0 = n_{\omega} \, \bm{o} \times \bm{E}_0$, $n_{\omega}$ is the refractive index of the medium, and $\bm{o}$ is the unit vector along the radiation propagation direction $\pm z$.
It follows from Eqs. and that, at small $k_y$, the matrix elements are given by $$\begin{aligned}
M_{\pm 1/2 \, \mp 1/2}(k_y) = \pm {\mathrm{i}}{\mathrm{e}}^{\mp 2{\mathrm{i}}\theta} (D_1 E_{0x} \pm {\mathrm{i}}D_2 E_{0y}) k_y \hspace{1.2cm} \\
+ \frac{\mu_B}{2} \left[ \frac{g_1 + g_2}{2} (B_{0x} \mp {\mathrm{i}}B_{0y}) + \frac{g_1 - g_2}{2} {\mathrm{e}}^{\mp 4 {\mathrm{i}}\theta}(B_{0x} \pm {\mathrm{i}}B_{0y}) \right] \:. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ The values $|M_{+1/2 \, - 1/2}(k_y)|^2$ and $|M_{-1/2 \, + 1/2}(-k_y)|^2$, which determine the probabilities of the optical transitions at $k_y$ and $-k_y$, respectively, see Fig. \[fig:fig2\], can be decomposed into the symmetric and asymmetric parts as follows $$|M|_{\rm sym/asym}^2 = \frac{|M_{+1/2 \, - 1/2}(k_y)|^2 \pm |M_{-1/2 \, + 1/2}(-k_y)|^2}{2} .$$ Straightforward calculations give $$\begin{aligned}
\label{M2_sym}
|M|_{\rm sym}^2 &=& ( D_1^2 |e_x|^2 + D_2^2 |e_y|^2 ) E_0^2 k_y^2 \\
&-& \frac{D_1 g_1 - D_2 g_2}{2} |k_y| \mu_B n_{\omega} \cos 2\theta \, E_0^2 P_{circ} \,, \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{M2_asym}
|M|_{\rm asym}^2 &=& - D_1 D_2 E_0^2 k_y^2 \, {\rm sign}k_y \, P_{circ} o_z \\
&-& \frac{D_1 g_2 - D_2 g_1}{2} k_y \mu_B n_{\omega} \cos 2\theta \, E_0^2 o_z \nonumber \\
&-& \frac{D_1 g_2 + D_2 g_1}{2}k_y \mu_B n_{\omega} \cos 2\theta \, E_0^2 (|e_x|^2 - |e_y|^2) o_z \nonumber \\
&-& \frac{D_1 g_2 + D_2 g_1}{2} k_y \mu_B n_{\omega} \sin 2\theta \, E_0^2 (e_x e_y^* + e_y e_x^* ) o_z \nonumber \,,\end{aligned}$$ where $\bm{e} = \bm{E}_0/E_0$ is the (complex) unit vector of the radiation polarization and $P_{circ} = {\mathrm{i}}(e_x e_y^* - e_y e_x^*) o_z$ is the radiation helicity. In Eqs. and we keep the terms originating from the electro-dipole interaction and from the interference of the electro-dipole and magneto-dipole interactions. The terms stemming solely from the magneto-dipole interaction are small and neglected.
The absorption width of the edge channel is defined by $$w = W/ I \,,$$ where $W$ is the energy absorbed per unit time per unit length of the edge channel, $$\begin{aligned}
W &=& 4\pi \omega \sum_{k_y > 0} |M|_{\rm sym}^2 [f({\varepsilon}_{k_y, -1/2})-f({\varepsilon}_{k_y, +1/2})] \nonumber \\
&\times& \delta({\varepsilon}_{k_y +1/2} - {\varepsilon}_{k_y -1/2} - \hbar \omega) \,,\end{aligned}$$ $f({\varepsilon})$ is the Fermi-Dirac distribution function, and $I = c n_{\omega} E_0^2 /(2\pi)$ is the radiation intensity.
The calculation of the absorption width for the probability of the optical transtions given by Eq. and the linear dispersion ${\varepsilon}_{k_y \pm1/2} = \pm \hbar v_0 k_y$ yields $$\begin{aligned}
w &=& \frac{\pi \omega^3 \Delta f }{2c n_{\omega} \hbar v_0^3} \left( D_1^2 |e_x|^2 + D_2^2 |e_y|^2 \right) \\
&-& \frac{\pi \mu_B \omega^2 \Delta f }{2c \hbar v_0^2} (D_1 g_1 - D_2 g_2) \cos 2\theta P_{circ} \,, \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $\Delta f = f(-\hbar\omega/2) - f(\hbar\omega/2)$.
We conclude that the edge of a topological insulator based on a zinc-blend-type crystal exhibits linear and circular dichroisms while the bulk material does not. For linearly polarized radiation, the absorption depends on the orientation of the polarization vector $\bm e$. The ratio of the absorption widths for the radiation polarized along the edge ($\bm e \parallel y$) and perpendicular to the edge ($\bm e \parallel x$) is given by $(D_2/D_1)^2$ which is estimated as $4$ for HgTe/CdHgTe-based structures. For circularly polarized radiation, the absorption contains a contribution sensitive to the photon helicity $P_{circ}$, i.e., the absorption is different for right-handed and left-handed circularly polarized photons. Here, the effect stems from the interference of the electro-dipole and magneto-dipole mechanisms of the photon absorption. In accordance with the general theory of the circular dichroism, the effect is absent in systems with mirror planes, which is realized in our structure if $\theta = \pi/4 + \pi n/2$. Interestingly, for a structure with any other $\theta$, the circular dichroism occurs and has the same sign for the opposite edges of the structure.
Spin polarization and Edge photocurrents {#Sec4}
========================================
The illumination of a topological insulator leads also to a spin polarization of electrons and a direct electric current in the edge channel since the optical transitions $|-k_y, +1/2\rangle \rightarrow |-k_y, -1/2\rangle$ and $|k_y, -1/2\rangle \rightarrow |k_y, +1/2\rangle$ occur at different rates that is described by $|M|_{\rm asym}^2$, see Eq. . The mechanism of the current generation is illustrated in Fig. \[fig:fig2\].
In the relaxation time approximation, the photocurrent is given by [@Ganichev2003] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:jy}
j_y &=& \frac{4 \pi e}{\hbar} \sum_{k_y > 0} [\tau_p ({\varepsilon}_{k_y +1/2}) v_{k_y +1/2} - \tau_p ({\varepsilon}_{k_y -1/2}) v_{k_y -1/2} ] \nonumber \\
&\times& |M|_{\rm asym}^2 [f({\varepsilon}_{k_y, -1/2})-f({\varepsilon}_{k_y, +1/2})] \nonumber \\
&\times& \delta({\varepsilon}_{k_y +1/2} - {\varepsilon}_{k_y -1/2} - \hbar \omega) \,,\end{aligned}$$ where $v_{k_y s} = (1/\hbar) d {\varepsilon}_{k_y s} / d k_y$ is the intra-branch velocity and $\tau_p$ is the relaxation time of electrons in the edge channel which is determined by spin-flip processes. It is known that in real HgTe/CdHgTe structures, the topological protection against spin-flip scattering is violated and ballistic transport is observed only in $\mu$m-scale devices [@Roth2009; @Dantscher2017].
Taking into account that ${\varepsilon}_{k_y \pm 1/2} = \pm \hbar v_0 k_y$ at small $k_y$ and calculating the sum over $k_y$ in Eq. we obtain $$\label{eq:j2}
j_y = \frac{2e \bar{\tau}_p}{\hbar^2} |M(\omega/2v_0)|_{\rm asym}^2 \Delta f \,,$$ where $\bar{\tau}_p = [\tau_p(\hbar\omega/2) + \tau_p(-\hbar\omega/2)]$.
The photocurrent sensitive to the photon helicity emerges in the electro-dipole approximation. The substitution of the first line in Eq. for $|M|_{\rm asym}^2$ in Eq. yields $$\label{j_circ_final}
j_y^{({\rm circ})} = - \frac{4e \bar{\tau}_p v_0 w_0}{\hbar \omega} \frac{D_1 D_2}{D_1^2 + D_2^2} I P_{circ} o_z \:,$$ where $w_0$ is the absorption width of the edge channel for circularly polarized radiation calculated in the electro-dipole approximation, $$w_0 = \frac{\pi \omega^3 (D_1^2 + D_2^2) \Delta f}{4 c n_{\omega} \hbar v_0^3} \:.$$ Equation describes the circular photogalvanic effect [@Ganichev2003; @Wittmann2010; @Ivchenko_book; @SturmanFridkin] in helical edge channels. The photocurrent is proportional to the degree of circular polarization and is reversed by switching the sign of the photon helicity. We note, that the magneto-dipole transitions also give a contribution to the circular photocurrent [@Dora2012; @Artemenko2013]. However, this contribution is a few orders of magnitude smaller than the contribution of the electro-dipole transitions.
For linearly polarized radiation, the spin polarization of electrons and the corresponding electric current emerge due to the interference of the electro-dipole and magneto-dipole transitions, see the second, third, and forth lines in Eq. . This photocurrent has the form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{j_lin_final}
j_y^{({\rm lin})} = \left[A + B \left( \left| e_x \right|^2 - \left| e_y \right|^2 \right)\right] \cos 2\theta \, I o_z \nonumber \\
+ B ( e_x e_y^* + e_y e_x^* ) \sin 2\theta \, I o_z \:,\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Q}
A &=& - \frac{4e \bar{\tau}_p v_0^2 \, w_0 n_{\omega}}{\hbar \omega^2} \frac{\mu_B (D_1 g_2 - D_2 g_1)}{D_1^2 + D_2^2} \:, \nonumber \\
B &=& - \frac{4e \bar{\tau}_p v_0^2 \, w_0 n_{\omega}}{\hbar \omega^2} \frac{\mu_B (D_1 g_2 + D_2 g_1)}{D_1^2 + D_2^2} \:. \end{aligned}$$ The linear photocurrent depends on the orientation of the edge with respect to the crystallographic axes and the radiation polarization plane with respect to the edge. It may also appear when the sample is excited by unpolarized radiation. The linear photocurrent originates from the action of both ac electric and magnetic fields of the radiation upon electrons and belongs to the class of ac Hall effects [@Barlow1954; @Perel1973; @Karch2010] or, more generally, to the class of photoelectric effects caused by light pressure (photon drag). In our case, the photocurrent flows in a direction perpendicular to the photon wave vector.
Figure \[fig:fig4\] shows the amplitudes of the circular and linear edge photocurrents in a HgTe/CdHgTe topological insulator as a function of the photon energy $\hbar\omega$. The dependences are calculated for zero temperature, the Fermi level lying at the Dirac point, and the relaxation time $\bar{\tau}_p = 20$ ps estimated from the experiments [@Dantscher2017]. Solid curves present the results based on numerical calculations of the matrix elements of the electron-photon interaction. Dashed curves show the low-energy analytical results plotted after Eqs. and . For the radiation intensity 1 W/cm$^2$, the photon energy $2$ meV and the momentum relaxation time presented above, we expect the circular photogalvanic current of a few pA and the linear photon drag current of a ten fA.
![\[fig:fig4\] Amplitudes of the circular and linear edge photocurrents as a function of the incident photon energy. The dependences are calculated for the parameters of HgTe/CdHgTe-based two-dimensional topological insulators presented in Sec. \[Sec\_micdescription\], the momentum relaxation time $\bar{\tau}_p = 20$ ps, the refractive index $n_{\omega} = 3$, and the radiation intensity $I=1$ W/cm$^2$. The linear photocurrent is calculated for $\theta = 0$ and $\bm e \parallel y$. Solid curves show the results of numerical calculations, dashed curves are plotted after analytical Eqs. and . ](currents.pdf){width="45.00000%"}
Summary
=======
To summarize, we have theoretically investigated optical properties of helical edge channels in two-dimensional topological insulators based on zinc-blende quantum wells and edge photocurrents, which occur under illumination of edge channels. We have shown that the lack of space inversion symmetry in the zinc-blende-type quantum wells results in the electro-dipole optical transitions between the “spin-up” and “spin-down” branches of the helical channels. Using general symmetry arguments we have analyzed polarization dependence of these transitions for the structures with different edge orientations. Based on the extended Bernevig-Hughes-Zhang Hamiltonian we have performed the microscopic calculations of the inter-branch electric dipole matrix elements for HgTe/CdHgTe topological insulators. It has been shown that the asymmetry of electro-dipole optical transitions in $k$-space results in generation of circular edge photogalvanic current, which direction is controlled by the helicity of the incident photons. The photocurrent amplitude of this current is a few orders of magnitude larger than of the one expected from the magneto-dipole mechanism of optical transitions. From the general symmetry analysis we have shown that the circular edge photocurrent is absent in the structures, where the electron spectrum possesses particle-hole symmetry. It is also established that the interference of the electro-dipole and magneto-dipole mechanisms of inter-branch optical transitions results, under illumination with linearly polarized radiation, in the generation of linear edge photocurrent. Its direction and amplitude are controlled by the crystallographic orientation of the edge and the orientation of the polarization vector with respect to the edge. The interference of the electro-dipole and magneto-dipole optical transitions gives rise to the circular dichroism of the helical edge channels.
This work was supported by the Russian Science Foundation (project 17-12-01265). M.V.D. also acknowledges the financial support from the RFBR (project No.16-32-60175).
[99]{} B. A. Bernevig, T. L. Hughes, and S.-C. Zhang, Quantum spin Hall Effect and topological phase transition in HgTe quantum wells, Science **314**, 1757 (2006).
M. König, S. Wiedmann, C. Brüne, A. Roth, H. Buhmann, L. W. Molenkamp, X.-L. Qi, and S.-C. Zhang, Quantum spin Hall insulator state in HgTe quantum wells, Science **318**, 766 (2007).
I. Knez, R.-R. Du, and G. Sullivan, Evidence for helical edge modes in inverted InAs/GaSb quantum wells, Phys. Rev. Lett. **107**, 136603 (2011).
A. Roth, C. Brüne, H. Buhmann, L. W. Molenkamp, J. Maciejko, X.-L. Qi, and S.-C. Zhang, Nonlocal transport in the quantum spin Hall state, Science **325**, 294 (2009).
G. M. Gusev, Z. D. Kvon, O. A. Shegai, N. N. Mikhailov, S. A. Dvoretsky, and J. C. Portal, Transport in disordered two-dimensional topological insulators, Phys. Rev. B **84**, 121302(R) (2011).
E. Y. Ma, M. R. Calvo, J. Wang, B. Lian, M. Mühlbauer, C. Brüne, Y.-T. Cui, K. Lai, W. Kundhikanjana, Y. Yang, M. Baenninger, M. König, C. Ames, H. Buhmann, P. Leubner, L. W. Molenkamp, S.-C. Zhang, D. Goldhaber-Gordon, M. A. Kelly, and Z.-X. Shen, Unexpected edge conduction in mercury telluride quantum wells under broken time-reversal symmetry, Nat. Comm. [**6**]{}, 7252 (2015).
E. S. Tikhonov, D. V. Shovkun, V. S. Khrapai, Z. D. Kvon, N. N. Mikhailov, and S. A. Dvoretsky, Shot noise of the edge transport in the inverted band HgTe quantum wells, JETP Lett. **101**, 708 (2015).
S. Hart, H. Ren, T. Wagner, P. Leubner, M. Mühlbauer, C. Brüne, H. Buhmann, L. W. Molenkamp, and A. Yacoby, Induced superconductivity in the quantum spin Hall edge, Nat. Phys. **10**, 638 (2014).
A. Kononov, S. V. Egorov, Z. D. Kvon, N. N. Mikhailov, S. A. Dvoretsky, and E. V. Deviatov, Evidence on the macroscopic length scale spin coherence for the edge currents in a narrow HgTe quantum well, JETP Letters **101**, 814 (2015).
Y. Tanaka, A. Furusaki, and K. A. Matveev, Conductance of a helical edge liquid coupled to a magnetic impurity, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**106**]{}, 236402 (2011).
A. M. Lunde and G. Platero, Helical edge states coupled to a spin bath: Current-induced magnetization, Phys. Rev. B [**86**]{}, 035112 (2012).
B.L. Altshuler, I.L. Aleiner, and V.I. Yudson, Localization at the edge of a 2D topological insulator by Kondo impurities with random anisotropies, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**111**]{}, 086401 (2013).
J. I. Väyrynen, M. Goldstein, Yu. Gefen, and L. I. Glazman, Resistance of helical edges formed in a semiconductor heterostructure, Phys. Rev. B [**90**]{}, 115309 (2014).
M. V. Entin and L. I. Magarill, Localization of edge electrons in a 2D topological insulator strip, JETP Lett. [**100**]{}, 566 (2015).
P. D. Kurilovich, V. D. Kurilovich, I. S. Burmistrov, and M. Goldstein, Helical edge transport in the presence of a magnetic impurity, JETP Lett. [**106**]{}, 593 (2017).
K.-M. Dantscher, D. A. Kozlov, M. T. Scherr, S. Gebert, J. Bärenfänger, M. V. Durnev, S. A. Tarasenko, V. V. Bel’kov, N. N. Mikhailov, S. A. Dvoretsky, Z. D. Kvon, J. Ziegler, D. Weiss, and S. D. Ganichev. Photogalvanic probing of helical edge channels in two-dimensional HgTe topological insulators, Phys. Rev. B **95**, 201103 (2017).
B. Dóra, J. Cayssol, F. Simon, and R. Moessner. Optically Engineering the Topological Properties of a Spin Hall Insulator, Phys. Rev. Lett. **108**, 056602 (2012).
S. N. Artemenko and V. O. Kaladzhyan. Photogalvanic effects in topological insulators, JETP Letters **97**, 82 (2013).
S. A. Tarasenko, M. V. Durnev, M. O. Nestoklon, E. L. Ivchenko, J.-W. Luo, and A. Zunger, Split Dirac cones in HgTe/CdTe quantum wells due to symmetry-enforced level anticrossing at interfaces, Phys. Rev. B **91**, 081302 (2015).
M. V. Durnev and S. A. Tarasenko. Magnetic field effects on edge and bulk states in topological insulators based on HgTe/CdHgTe quantum wells with strong natural interface inversion asymmetry, Phys. Rev. B **93**, 075434 (2016).
G. F. Koster, R. G. Wheeler, J. O. Dimmock, and H. Statz. *Properties of Thirty-Two Point Groups* (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1963).
G. L. Bir and G. E. Pikus. *Symmetry and Strain-Induced Effects in Semiconductors* (Wiley, New York, 1974).
S. S. Krishtopenko and F. Teppe. Realistic picture of helical edge states in HgTe quantum wells, Phys. Rev. B **97**, 165408 (2018).
M. König, H. Buhmann, L. W. Molenkamp, T. Hughes, C.-X. Liu, X.-L. Qi, and S.-C. Zhang, The quantum spin Hall effect: Theory and experiment, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. **77**, 031007 (2008).
A. P. Schnyder, S. Ryu, A. Furusaki, and A. W. W. Ludwig. Classification of topological insulators and superconductors in three spatial dimensions, Phys. Rev. B **78**, 195125 (2008).
S. D. Ganichev, V. V. Bel’kov, P. Schneider, E. L. Ivchenko, S. A. Tarasenko, W. Wegscheider, D. Weiss, D. Schuh, E. V. Beregulin, and W. Prettl, Resonant inversion of the circular photogalvanic effect in n-doped quantum wells, Phys. Rev. B [**68**]{}, 035319 (2003).
B. Wittmann, S. N. Danilov, V. V. Bel’kov, S. A. Tarasenko, E. G. Novik, H. Buhmann, C. Brüne, L. W. Molenkamp, Z. D. Kvon, N. N. Mikhailov, S. A. Dvoretsky, N. Q. Vinh, A. F. G. van der Meer, B. Murdin, and S. D. Ganichev, Circular photogalvanic effect in HgTe/CdHgTe quantum well structures, Semicond. Sci. Technol. [**25**]{}, 095005 (2010).
E. L. Ivchenko, [*Optical Spectroscopy of Semiconductor Nanostructures*]{} (Harrow, UK: Alpha Science Int., 2005).
B. I. Sturman and V. M. Fridkin, [*The Photovoltaic and Photorefractive Effects in Non-Centrosymmetric Materials*]{} (NY: Gordon and Breach, 1992).
H. M. Barlow, Application of the Hall effect in a semiconductor to the measurement of power in an electromagnetic field, Nature (London) [**173**]{}, 41 (1954).
V. I. Perel’ and Ya. M. Pinskii, Constant current in conducting media due to a high-frequency electromagnetic field, Sov. Phys. Solid State [**15**]{}, 688 (1973).
J. Karch, J. Karch, P. Olbrich, M. Schmalzbauer, C. Zoth, C. Brinsteiner, M. Fehrenbacher, U. Wurstbauer, M.M. Glazov, S.A. Tarasenko, E.L. Ivchenko, D. Weiss, J. Eroms, R. Yakimova, S. Lara-Avila, S. Kubatkin, and S.D. Ganichev, Dynamic Hall effect driven by circularly polarized light in a graphene layer, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**105**]{}, 227402 (2010).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
The electronic structure of SrBi$_2$Ta$_2$O$_9$ is investigated from first-principles, within the local density approximation, using the full-potential linearized augmented plane wave (LAPW) method. The results show that, besides the large Ta(5d)-O(2p) hybridization which is a common feature of the ferroelectric perovskites, there is an important hybridization between bismuth and oxygen states. The underlying static potential for the ferroelectric distortion and the primary source for ferroelectricity is investigated by a lattice-dynamics study using the frozen-phonon approach.\
\
address:
- |
Instituto de Física Rosario, Universidad Nacional de Rosario,\
27 de Febrero 210 Bis, 2000 Rosario, Argentina
- 'IFLYSIB, Grupo de F’[i]{}sica del S’[o]{}lido, C.C.565, La Plata (1900), Argentina'
- 'Institut für Theoretische Physik, Universität Graz, Universitätsplatz 5, A-8010 Graz, Austria'
- 'Institute of Physics and Astronomy, Aarhus University, DK-8000 Aarhus C, Denmark'
author:
- 'M.G.Stachiotti'
- 'C.O.Rodriguez'
- 'C.Ambrosch-Draxl'
- 'N.E.Christensen'
title: ' **Electronic structure and ferroelectricity in SrBi$_{\bf 2}$Ta$_{\bf 2}$O$_{\bf 9}$**'
---
24 truecm -2.5 truecm
Introduction
============
Ferroelectric materials can display a wide range of dielectric, ferroelectric, piezoelectric, electrostrictive and pyroelectric properties. The potential utilization of these properties in a new generation of devices has motivated intensive studies. For example, the high dielectric permittivities of perovskite-type materials, like Sr$_x$Ba$_{1-x}$TiO$_3$, can be advantageously used in dynamic random access memories (DRAM), while the large values of switchable remanent polarization of ferroelectric materials are suitable for non-volatile ferroelectric random access memories (NVFRAM) [@scott89; @scott95; @auc98; @scott98].
The most popular ferroelectric materials for nonvolatile memory applications are PbZr$_x$Ti$_{1-x}$O$_3$ (PZT), because they have a high Curie temperature and large remanent polarization. However, these materials have serious fatigue degradation problems which can be solved by the modification of the electrode. An alternative approach to control the fatigue problem in ferroelectric capacitors is to use other ferroelectric materials. In recent years, SrBi$_2$Ta$_2$O$_9$ (SBT) has emerged as an important candidate for non-volatile ferroelectric memories [@des95; @ara95]. It exhibits many desirable properties in order to be considered as an important component of the memory devices under development: almost no fatigue after 10$^{12}$ switching cycles, good retention characteristics, low switching fields and low leakage currents.
Bismuth-containing layered perovskites have been found to be ferroelectric by Smolenskii, Isupov and Agranovskaya [@smo61]. These materials belong to the family of Aurivillius compounds with a general formula (Bi$_2$O$_2$)$^{2+}$ (A$_{m-1}$B$_m$O$_{3m+1})^{2-}$, consisting of $m$ perovskite units sandwiched between bismuth oxide layers [@aur49] (here A and B are the two types of cations that enter the perovskite unit).
It is well known that the Aurivillius composition SrBi$_2$Ta$_2$O$_9$ (SBT) has ferroelectric behavior at room temperature. Its crystal structure was investigated by Rae and co-workers [@rae92]. The room-temperature structure is orthorhombic (space group A2$_1$am) and the primitive cell contains 28 atoms. The lattice parameters of the conventional unit cell are $a=5.531 \AA$, $b=5.534 \AA$ and $c=24.984 \AA$. As a result, its electrical properties are expected to exhibit a high degree of anisotropy. For instance, it was observed that the ferroelectricity along the $c$ axis is absent or very low [@des96], with $a$ being the polar axis. More recently, this property was confirmed at the submiscropic level by piezoresponse scanning force microscopy [@pig99].
The complex crystal structure of SBT can be described in terms of relatively small perturbations from a high-symmetry body-centered tetragonal structure (space group symmetry I4/mmm, $a = b \approx \frac{5.53}{2^{1/2}} = 3.91 \AA$), which contains only one formula unit per primitive cell (as in other orthorhombic structures, the $a$ and $b$ axes are rotated by 45$^o$ with respect to the tetragonal case).
Although the orthorhombic symmetry is responsible for the ferroelectricity in SBT, the parent tetragonal structure shown in Figure 1 provides a convenient simplification for visualizing and dealing with the complex SBT structure. As a matter of fact, most bismuth layer compounds have been reported to be pseudotetragonal, with tetragonal symmetry above the Curie point and orthorhombic symmetry below it (for SBT the Curie temperature is 608K ). So the parent tetragonal structure of SBT could be related to the crystal structure of its paraelectric phase. Two main distortions from the tetragonal prototype structure lead to the orthorhombic structure. First, the ions displace along the orthorhombic $a$ axis (\[110\] axis of the tetragonal structure). Second, the TaO$_6$ octahedra rotate around the $a$ and $c$ axes. The first factor is directly responsible for the observed macroscopic spontaneous polarization along the $a$ direction.
In spite of its technological importance, theoretical studies on SBT are limited due to the complexity of its crystal structure. The band structure of SBT was initially calculated by Robertson et al. using the tight-binding method [@rob96], where a highly simplified orbital basis set was used to reproduce the main features of the bonding. They used an orthogonal basis of O p, Ta d, and Bi s and p orbitals, and no orbitals on the Sr. The interaction parameters were found by transferring them from established band structures of other compounds. Their results show that both the valence and conduction band extrema are composed of states localized mainly on the Bi-O layer. It was argued that the Bi$_2$O$_2$ layer dominates the electronic response (band gap, effective masses, etc.), while the ferroelectric response largely originates from the SrTa$_2$O$_7$ perovskite blocks.
Several other speculations have been made about the origin of ferroelectricity in SBT and related compounds. Among them are the central role of Sr$^{+2}$ ion diplacements [@lui94], the off-center position of Ta$^{+5}$ ion relative to its octahedron of surrounding oxygens [@new73], and the movement of the Ta-O plane relative to the Bi-O plane [@rae92].
More recently, the difference between the electronic structures SrBi$_2$Ta$_2$O$_9$ and SrBi$_2$Nb$_2$O$_9$ (SBN) was investigated using the discrete variational X-$\alpha$ cluster method [@miu98]. The results indicate that the difference in the remanent polarizations in SBT and SBN is due to the different displacements of Ta and Nb at the B sites of a pseudo-perovskite layer, and not due to differences in the displacement of the other ions. However, one cannot expect high-accuracy results for relaxations and electronic states in crystalline materials from cluster methods. Thus there is a need for the application of highly precise self-consistent band structure methods.
In this work we present a first-principles study of the electronic structure and ferroelectric instability in SBT. The calculations were performed within the local density approximation to density functional theory, using the full-potential linearized augmented plane-wave method.
Method
======
The calculations presented in this work were performed using the full-potential linearized augmented plane-wave method (LAPW) method (see, e.g. Ref. [@sin94]) with the addition of local-orbital basis functions [@sin91] as implemented in the WIEN97 code [@wien97]. Exchange and correlation effects were treated within the local density approximation (LDA), using the parametrization by Perdew and Wang [@per92].
The muffin-tin sphere radii $R_i$ = 2.0, 1.8, 2.3 and 1.5 a.u. were used for Sr, Ta, Bi and O, respectively. The value of the parameter $RK_{max}$, which controls the size of the basis set for the wavefunctions, was chosen to be 7.3 for all the calculations. This resulted in well converged basis sets consisting of approximately 2500 LAPW functions. For the Sr-4$s$ and 4$p$, Ta-5$s$, 5$p$ and 4$f$, Bi-6$s$ and 5$d$, and O-2$s$ states local orbitals were chosen in addition. Integrations in reciprocal space were performed using the tetrahedron method. We used a 6$\times$6$\times$6 mesh which represents 28 k-points in the irreducible wedge for the body-centered tetragonal structure. Convergence tests indicate that only small changes result from going to a denser k-mesh or to a larger value of $RK_{max}$.
Results and discussion
======================
Electronic structure
--------------------
The electronic structure of SBT is calculated for the tetragonal parent structure. We use the experimental lattice constants $a = 3.91$ Å and $c = 24.984$ Å. Since the internal parameters of this structure have not been determined experimentally, we evaluated the equilibrium positions of the atoms using a damped Newton dynamics method. (The final force on each atom was less than $\approx$ 1 mRy/a.u.) The equilibrium coordinates are listed in Table I.
The band structure of the optimized geometry is shown in Figure 2 along several high-symmetry lines in the Brillouin zone. Roughly speaking, the two bands centered at $\approx -10$ eV are derived from Bi 6s orbitals while the manifold of 27 valence bands are derived mainly from O 2p orbitals. We found that the fundamental band gap is indirect, since the valence band maximun lies at $X$ while the conduction band minimun is the Brillouin zone center $\Gamma$. As is typical in LDA calculations for semiconductors, the band gap is underestimated. The experimental band gap obtained from UV-absorbance measurements is 4.2$\pm$0.2 eV [@har97], which is twice as large than our theoretical value of $\approx $ 2 eV. It is interesting to note that, in disagreement with our results, an indirect ($\Gamma$-M) band gap was obtained by the tight-binding calculation [@rob96], which indicates important differences in the details of the dispersion.
The total density of states between -35 and 5 eV is shown in Figure 3 illustrating the energy position of the semicore states. The calculated total DOS is in reasonable agreement with XPS data, which show a valence band width of $\approx$ 7 eV and a peak centered $\approx$ 10 eV below the valence band maximum (Bi 6s band) [@har97].
Although the valence band presents mainly O 2p character, there is a quite strong hybridization with Bi and Ta states, as is evident from the sphere-projected density of states (DOS) shown in Figure 4. Examination of the DOS reveals that there is substantial O 2p character in the conduction bands, rising from zero at the conduction band minimun with increasing energy. Conversely, there are strong Ta and Bi contributions to the valence band. The Ta 5d contribution is zero at the valence band maximun but rises strongly with decreasing binding energy, reflecting the Ta 5d-O 2p covalency (as it is common in ABO$_3$ perovskites). The Bi contribution has both s-like (mainly in the upper part of the valence band) and p-like (mainly in the lower part) character. These contributions arise from a strong hybridization between O(2,3) 2p valence band states with Bi 6s (fully occupied) and Bi 6p (conduction) bands. A detalied examination of the band characters reveals that the valence band maximun and the conduction band minimun are not mainly localized in the Bi-O(3) layer, as was obtained by the tight-binding calculation [@rob96]. In fact, in our case the valence band maximun at X is primarily of O(1,4) 2p character.
We finally show in Figure 5 the valence charge density map of SBT in two high symmetry planes, where the Ta-O and Bi-O “covalent bonds” can be seen.
Ferroelectric instability
-------------------------
The main features of SBT described so far resembles the electronic structure of PbTiO$_3$. In this material, besides the large Ti 3d-O 2p hybridization, there is an important hybridization between Pb 6s and O 2p states; and this covalent bond plays a central role in the stabilization of the tetragonal ferroelectric structure of PbTiO$_3$ [@coh92].
The presence of quite strong Ta-O and Bi-O hybridizations in SBT opens fundamental questions about the origin of its ferroelectricity: What is the underlying static potential for the ferroelectric distortion? Which is the primary source for ferroelectricity? We investigate these questions by a lattice dynamics study using the frozen-phonon approach.
To search for the presence of a possible lattice instability of the tetragonal structure, we determined the phonon frequencies and eigenvectors of the infrared-active $E_{\mu}$ modes, which are polarized perpendicular to the $c$ axis. To this end, we calculated atomic forces for several small displacements ($\sim 0.01$ [Å]{}) consistent with the symmetry of the mode. From the force as a function of displacement, the dynamical matrix was constructed and diagonalized. The calculated frequencies and eigenvectors are listed in Table II.
While experimental studies were carried out on infrared-active (IR) phonons in orthorhombic SBT, using reflectivity and transmission measurements [@mor98], there is no experimental determination of IR phonon frequencies for the tetragonal structure to directly compare with. The remarkable fact of our calculation is, however, the presence of one unstable phonon mode. Roughly speaking, this mode mainly involves movements of the Bi atoms with respect to rest of the lattice. Actually, its displacement pattern is (0.085, 0.114, -0.206, 0.325, 0.549, 0.053, 0.224, 0.182), showing large displacements of the TaO$_6$ perovskite-like blocks relative to Bi atoms. This displacement vector is obtained from the eigenvector by dividing each component by the square root of the corresponding atomic mass and then normalizing to unity. So, the polarity of the mode can be described as a vibration of the TaO$_6$ perovskite-like block relative to Bi, with an additional contribution arising from the movement of Ta relative to its surrounding oxygens. Rae et al. [@rae92] argued that the polarity of orthorhombic SBT can be quite well described as a movement of Ta, O(4) and O(5) relative to Bi and O(3) of the BiO$_2$ layer with and additional movement of Ta relative to O(4) and O(5). Although the displacement pattern of the unstable mode is not directly related with the atomic positions of the orthorhombic phase, both pictures show some consistence. It is worth to mention that, from a detailed analysis of the calculated force constants, the lattice instability primarily arises from the attractive Bi-O(2) interaction.
The resulting in-phase movement of the Ta atoms with respect to their oxygen octahedra (obtained from the eigenvector of the ferroelectric mode), could be the explanation of the low remanent polarization observed in SBT. However, this situation could be different for the case of SBN, considering the different structural behavior of KNbO$_3$ and KTaO$_3$. While KNbO$_3$ has a series of ferroelectric phase transitions, KTaO$_3$ remains cubic down to low temperatures. Furthermore, it was emphasized by Singh [@sin96], that the absence of ferroelectricity in KTaO$_3$ is due to the extreme sensitivy of the soft-mode to the covalency and the slight chemical differences of Nb and Ta, particularly the higher d binding energy of Nb. This point will be clarified in the future by a corresponding investigation on SBN.
Finally, the total energy is evaluated as a function of the relative displacement of Bi with respect to O(2) corresponding to the unstable mode. The results are shown in Figure 6 which depicts the energy per formula unit for displacement patterns along the \[100\] and \[110\] direction, respectively. Ferroelectric instabilities with energy gains of $\approx$ 4 mRy/cell and 6 mRy/cell for the \[100\] and \[110\] directions are observed. Although the ferroelectric mode mainly involves displacements of the Bi atoms with respect to rest of the lattice, a \[110\] displacement of the Bi sublattice alone does not produce a lattice instability (see Figure 6). This indicates that Bi has not a tendency to go off-center in the tetragonal phase, and the energy wells presented in the figure are indeed associated to the specific pattern of atomic displacements of the ferroelectric mode.
As already mentioned, the bonding of these materials stems from the transition metal-oxygen hybridization. As can be seen from Figure 7, the whole spectrum of eigenvalues gets modified in an intricate way upon the complex distortion that gives rise to the instability. The two main effects are an increase in the band gap and a decrease of the separation between the Bi-s states and the valence band. When the distortion sets in, spectral weight from the lower part of the conduction band gets reduced and transfered to higher energies. This is more pronounced in the Bi contribution to the DOS than in that of Ta. In the valence region, the DOS gets reduced at the top and increased at the bottom. Here, the effect on the Ta contribution is stronger. So, both covalent bonds seem to play an important role. It is worth to mention however that the energetics shown in Figure 6 finally comes from a very delicate balance between several contributions: covalent, Coulomb and repulsive ionic interactions.
The \[110\] displacement results in a deeper total energy minimun, which is consistent with the fact that the low temperature ferroelectric state of SBT has orthorhombic symmetry. The existence of a saddle point in the \[100\] direction on the total energy surface could indicate that the phase transition in SBT is not as simple as considered until now. In order to discuss this point it is useful to remark some aspects of the dynamical mechanism leading to the sequence of phase transitions in ABO$_3$ perovskites. Theses crystals have been considered for a long time as displacive-type ferroelectrics. The main evidence for this behavior has been the existence of a $\Gamma$-TO soft mode which has been observed in many perovskites [@coc60; @sco74]. However, there is experimental [@fon84; @vog86; @fon88; @sok88; @fre97] as well as theoretical [@pos93; @sep97; @sta98] evidence that the sucessive phase transitions in KNbO$_3$, and BaTiO$_3$, have pronounced order-disorder features, and that they are quite well described in the framework of the eight-site model. According to this order-disorder approach, the total energy surface has a maximum for the cubic perovskite structure, eight degenerate minima for the \[111\] soft mode amplitude displacements, and saddle points for the \[100\] and \[110\] displacements. In the cubic phase, the eight minima are occupied with equal probability, where this symmetry is broken as the temperature is lowered: Four sites are occupied in the tetragonal phase, two sites in the orthorhombic phase, and finally, only one site is occupied in the rhombohedral structure. In this way, the relaxation process which displays a critical slowing down when T$_c$ is approached in the different phases is interpreted to be the driving mechanism of the phase transitions.
The lattice instability related to the ferroelectric phase transition of SBT was recently studied by Raman scattering in the temperature range between 293K and 958K [@koj98]. The lowest frequency mode of 29 cm$^{-1}$ at room temperature showed remarkable temperature variations towards T$_c$. While its frequency decreases markedly, the damping factor increases rapidly below T$_c$. This fact may suggest that the nature of the phase transition shows a crossing over from displacive to order-disorder type in the neighbourhood of T$_c$. As in KNbO$_3$, it was also found, that the extrapolated frequency is still finite at T$_c$, where this relatively large value may originate not only from the first order phase transition, but also due to the coupling between the soft mode and the strain.
If this coupling between soft mode and strain is strong enough, the energetics shown in Figure 6 would give rise to the presence of an intermediate phase in SBT, leading to the following phase transition sequence: paraelectric (tetragonal) $\rightarrow$ ferroelectric (net polarization along the \[100\] direction $\rightarrow$ ferroelectric (orthorhombic, net polarization along the \[110\] direction). As in the eight-site model, the four energy minima would be occupied with equal probability in the high-temperature paraelectric phase, two sites would be occupied in the intermediate phase (with a net polarization along the \[100\] direction), and finally, one site would be occupied in the orthorhombic phase.
Recently, an anomaly at T=520K was observed in specific heat measurements of SBT films [@ono99]. For Bi-rich Sr$_{0.8}$Bi$_{2.2}$Ta$_2$O$_9$ two anomalies were found at 620K and 410K, with corresponding changes in the X-ray diffraction pattern suggesting structural changes. The introduction of a small amount of excess Bi improved significantly the ferroelectric properties of SBT (the spontaneous polarization is two times larger and the Curie temperature shift to 670K from 608K [@tak98]). These results also suggest that the phase transition in SBT is not as simple as considered until now. More detailed examinations of crystal symmetry and dielectric measurements on single crystals are necessary for clarifying the nature of ferroelectricity in the SBT family compounds.
M.G.S. thanks CONICET, CIUNR and FONCyT for support. CAD acknowledges support from the Austrian Science Fund, project P13430-PHY.
M.C.Scott and C.A. Paz de Araujo, Science [**246**]{}, 1400 (1989). J.F.Scott, Physics World 46, February (1995). O.Auciello, J.F.Scott and R.Ramesh, Physics Today [**51(7)**]{}, 22 (1998). J.F.Scott,Ferroelectric Reviews [**1**]{}, 1 (1998). S.B.Desu and D.P.Vijay, Mater. Sci. and Engin [**B32**]{}, 75 (1995). C.A.Paz de Araujo, J.D.Cuchiaro, L.D.McMillan, M.C.Scott and J.F.Scott, Nature [**374**]{}, 627 (1995). G.A.Smolenskii, V.A.Isupov and A.I.Aganoskaya, Sov. Phys.-Solid State [**3**]{}, 651 (1961). B.Aurivillius, Ark. Kemmi [**1**]{}, 463 (1949). A.D.Rae, J.G.Thompson and R.L.Withers, Acta Cryst. [**B48**]{}, 418 (1992). S.B.Desu, D.P.Vijay and B.He, Appl. Phys. Lett. [**69**]{}, 1719 (1996). A.Pignolet, K. Satyalakshmi, M.Alexe, N.Zakharov, C. Harnagea, S.Senz, D. Hesse and U. Gösele, 11${th}$ International Symposium on Integrated Ferroelectrics, March 7-9, 1999, Colorado Springs, CO, USA. J.Robertson, W.Chen, W.L.Warren and C.D.Gutleben , Appl. Phys. Lett. [**69**]{}, 1704 (1996). J.Lui, G.Zou, H.Yang and Q.Cui, Solid State Comm.[**90**]{}, 365 (1994). R.E.Newnham, R.W.Wolfe, R.S.Horsey, F.A.Diaz-Colon and M.I.Kay, Mater. Res. Bull. [**8**]{}, 1183 (1973). K.Miura and M.Takana, Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. [**37**]{}, 606 (1998).
D.J.Singh, Planewaves, [*Pseudopotentials and the LAPW Method*]{}, Kluwer Academic Press, Boston, 1994. D.J.Singh, Phys. Rev. B [**43**]{}, 6388 (1991).
P. Blaha, K. Schwarz, and J. Luitz, [*[WIEN97]{}, A Full Potential Linearized Augmented Plane Wave Package for Calculating Crystal Properties*]{}, Karlheinz Schwarz, Techn. Universität Wien, Austria, 1999, ISBN 3-9501031-0-4. J.P.Perdew and Y.Wang, Phys. Rev. B [**45**]{}, 13244 (1992).
A.J.Hartmann, R.N.Lamb, J.F.Scott and C.D.Gutleben, Integ. Ferrolec. [**18**]{}, 101 (1997). R.E.Cohen, Nature [**358**]{}, 136 (1992). M.P.Moret, R.Zallen, R.E.Newnham, P.C.Joshi and S.B.Desu, Phys. Rev. B [**57**]{}, 5715 (1998). D.J.Singh, Phys. Rev. B [**53**]{}, 176 (1996). W.Cochram, Adv. Phys. [**9**]{}, 387 (1960). J.F.Scott, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**46**]{}, 83 (1974). M.D.Fontana, G.Métrat, J.Servoin and F.Gervais, J.Phys.C [**16**]{}, 483 (1984). H.Vogt, M.D.Fontana, G.E.Kugel and P.Günter, Phys. Rev. B [**34**]{}, 410 (1986). M.D.Fontana, G.Ridah, G.E.Kugel and C.Carabatos-Nedelec, J. Phys. C [**21**]{}, 5853 (1988). J.P.Sokoloff, L.L.Chase and D.Rytz, Phys. Rev. B [**38**]{}, 597 (1988). A.I.Frenkel, F.M.Wang, S.Kelly, R.Ingalls, D.Haskel, E.A.Stern and Y.Yacoby, Phys. Rev. B [**56**]{}, 10869 (1997). A.Postnikov, T.Neumann, G.Borstel and M.Methfessel, Phys.Rev.B [**48**]{}, 5910 (1993). M.Sepliarsky, M.G.Stachiotti and R.L.Migoni, Phys. Rev. B [**56**]{}, 566 (1997). M.G.Stachiotti, M.Sepliarsky, R.L.Migoni and C.O.Rodriguez, in [*First-Principles Calculations for Ferroelectrics*]{}, edited by R.E.Cohen, AIP Conf.Proc. No.436 (AIP, Woodbury, 1998), p. 274. S.Kojima, J.Phys.: Condens. Matter [**10**]{}, L327 (1998). A. Onodera, K. Yoshio, C.C. Myint, M.Tanaka, K. Hironaka and S. Kojima, 9$^{th}$ European Meeting on Ferroelectricity, July 12-16, 1999, Prague, Czech Republic. K. Takemura, T. Noguchi, T. Hase and Y. Miyasaka, Appl. Phys. Lett. [**73**]{}, 1649 (1998).
[**[Figure Captions]{}**]{}
[**Figure 1**]{}:\
Tetragonal structure of SrBi$_2$Ta$_2$O$_9$. Only atoms between $\frac{1}{4}c$ and $\frac{3}{4}c$ are shown.\
\
[**Figure 2**]{}:\
Band structure of SrBi$_2$Ta$_2$O$_9$ along several high-symmetry lines in the Brillouin zone.\
\
[**Figure 3**]{}:\
Total density of states for SrBi$_2$Ta$_2$O$_9$, between -35 and 5 eV, showing the energy position of the semicore states.\
\
[**Figure 4**]{}:\
Total and site-projected electronic densities of states for the valence and conduction bands of SrBi$_2$Ta$_2$O$_9$.\
\
[**Figure 5**]{}:\
Valence charge density plot in the (100) and (110) planes of SrBi$_2$Ta$_2$O$_9$. The scale is from 0 to 0.2 electrons per bohr$^3$ and the contour interval is 0.01 electrons/bohr$^3$.\
\
[**Figure 6**]{}:\
Energy as a function of the distortion along the \[110\] ($\bullet$) and \[100\] ($\Box$) directions corresponding to the unstable mode. The normal coordinate is represented by a motion of Bi relative to O(2). The energies are with respect to that of the perfect tetragonal structure. The energy as a function of the \[110\]-displacement of the Bi sublattice is also shown ($\triangle$).\
\
[**Figure 7**]{}:\
Comparison of the partial density of states for Ta and Bi in the tetragonal structure, with (full line) and without (dotted line) displacements of the ions, according to the displacement pattern of the unstable-mode along the \[110\] direction.
\[table1\]
atom X Y Z
------ ----------- ----------- ---------------
Sr 0.0 0.0 0.0
Ta 0.5 0.5 $\pm$ 0.08468
Bi 0.0 0.0 $\pm$ 0.20124
O(1) 0.5 0.5 0.0
O(2) 0.5 0.5 $\pm$ 0.16033
O(3) 0.0 (0.5) 0.5 (0.0) 0.25
O(4) 0.0 0.5 $\pm$ 0.07602
O(5) 0.5 0.0 $\pm$ 0.07602
: Equilibrium atomic coordinates in lattice constant units (a=3.91$\AA$ and c=24.984 $\AA$).
\[table2\]
------------- -------- ------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- --------
$\omega$
(cm$^{-1})$ Sr Ta+ Bi+ O1 O2 + O3+ O4+ O5+
495 0.036 0.052 0.001 0.432 0.033 -0.001 -0.617 0.148
247 -0.051 0.064 0.053 -0.754 0.324 -0.205 -0.212 0.125
215 -0.032 0.053 -0.117 -0.360 -0.122 0.621 -0.113 0.073
113 -0.786 0.395 -0.026 0.019 -0.120 -0.066 -0.019 -0.122
100 0.147 0.037 0.031 0.010 0.239 0.108 -0.129 -0.634
73 0.502 0.301 -0.191 -0.232 -0.403 -0.199 -0.088 -0.103
i54 0.130 0.251 -0.489 0.213 0.360 0.035 0.147 0.120
------------- -------- ------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- --------
: Frequencies $\omega$ and eigenvectors of the $E_{\mu}$ modes, which are polarized perpendicular to the $c$ axis.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
author:
- |
Alex Buchel\
*Department of Applied Mathematics\
*University of Western Ontario\
*London, Ontario N6A 5B7, Canada\
*Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics\
*Waterloo, Ontario N2J 2W9, Canada*****
date: January 2008
title: '**Shear viscosity of boost invariant plasma at finite coupling**'
---
‘=11
draftcontrol
[255=255 by 60 255 by-60255 by]{}
makepapertitle
=1 3em to 3cm 3em
1.5em
.5em
--------
author
--------
1.5em [bstract]{}
1.5em date
pubnum \#1[ pubnum[\#1]{}]{}
bstract \#1[ bstract[ ]{} ]{}
PS. @paper[mkbothgobbletwo =1 oddfoot[to -to ]{} oddfoot[to ]{} evenfootoddfoot ]{}
version\#1
=1
version \#1[=1 @false currentlabel @label[\#1]{} \[\#1\] ]{} @bibitembibitem @lbibitemlbibitem =1 bibitem\#1[ @bibitem[\#1]{}@@label[\#1]{}]{} lbibitem\[\#1\]\#2[ @lbibitem\[\#1\][\#2]{}@@label[\#2]{}]{} @@label\#1[ @lab @inlabel labels ]{}
Introduction
============
Recent work by Janik and collaborators [@j1; @j2; @j3] (see also [@j15]) opened a possibility to study non-stationary/non-equilibrium processed in gauge theories using their dual string theory formulation [@m1; @m2]. In fact, one might try to use gauge theory/string theory correspondence to [*define*]{} non-equilibrium Quantum Field Theory dynamics[^1]. For example: in principle, one can use AdS/CFT correspondence to extend Muller-Israel-Stewart theory of dissipative relativistic hydrodynamics [@m; @is] to arbitrary order in deviation from the equilibrium.
Even though the framework proposed in [@j1] can not be consistently implemented within a supergravity approximation of the string theory dual to $\caln=4$ supersymmetric Yang-Mills (SYM) plasma in the Bjorken flow [@bj] (see [@bbhj]), if correctly reproduces the equilibrium and near-equilibrium properties of the $\caln=4$ SYM plasma obtained from the equilibrium correlation functions, , the equilibrium equation of state [@ads1], its shear viscosity at infinite ’t Hooft coupling [@u2], and its relaxation time[^2] [@sl]. Furthermore, this agreement appears to be unaffected by the subtleties associated with the breakdown of the supergravity approximation. Given substantial potential of the Janik’s framework[^3], we believe it is important to further explore its regime of validity.
As we already mentioned, the shear viscosity of the $\caln=4$ plasma at infinite coupling is a robust prediction within Janik’s framework [@j2]. In this paper we compute finite t’ Hooft coupling corrections (corresponding to string theory $\a'$ corrections in the dual formulation) to the $\caln=4$ plasma. Since physically equivalent results extracted from the equilibrium correlation functions are already available [@sh1; @sh2], our analysis provides a test of the framework [@j1] beyond the supergravity approximation. We find that the finite coupling corrections to the shear viscosity of the $\caln=4$ plasma extracted from the string theory dual to its Bjorken flow disagrees with the equilibrium correlation function computations.
The paper is organized as follows. In the next section we review the results of [@sh1; @sh2], the dual string theory model within which such computation were performed, and emphasize the self-consistency of the obtained results[^4]. We further summarize our new results for shear viscosity at finite ’t Hooft coupling. In section 3 we describe our string theory computational framework introduced in [@bal]. The analysis are incredibly complicated and thus we focus on explaining the consistency checks on our analysis (fortunately, there are lots of such consistency checks). In section 4 we summarize equations of motion describing $\a'$ correction to the supergravity background dual to late-time Bjorken flow of the $\caln=4$ plasma. We also present analytic solutions to these equations. In section 5 we map the results of the string theory computation to the near-equilibrium Muller-Israel-Stewart (MIS) theory and extract the leading correction to the SYM plasma shear viscosity. We conclude in section 6. Appendix contains some technical details; further computation details are available from the author upon request.
Shear viscosity of the $\caln=4$ SYM plasma at finite ’t Hooft coupling
========================================================================
Consider $\caln=4$ $SU(n_c)$ SYM plasma in the (’t Hooft) large-$n_c$ limit: we take the Yang-Mills coupling $g_{YM}^2\to 0$ and $n_c\to \infty$ in such a way that the ’t Hooft coupling $\l$, $$\l=g_{YM}^2 n_c\,,
\eqlabel{ldef}$$ remains finite. We are interested in the transport properties of the plasma at strong coupling, , $\lambda\gg 1$. In this limit the useful description of the $\caln=4$ plasma is in terms of holographically dual background of near-extremal black 3-brane geometry in the supergravity approximation of the type IIb string theory. The supergravity approximation is exact at $\l=\infty$, in which case one finds [@u2; @pol1; @pol2] the speed of sound $c_s$, the shear viscosity $\eta$, and the bulk viscosity $\xi$ correspondingly $$c_s=\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\,,\qquad \eta=\frac{\pi}{8} n_c^2 T^3\,,\qquad \xi=0\,.
\eqlabel{n4res}$$ In the supergravity approximation the entropy density $s$ is $$s=\frac{\pi^2}{2}n_c^2 T^3\,,$$ leading to the viscosity-to-entropy ratio $$\frac{\eta}{s}=\frac{1}{4\pi}\,.
\eqlabel{etas}$$
In a hydrodynamic approximation to near-equilibrium dynamics of hot gauge theory plasma there are several distinct ways to extract the transport coefficients . First [@u2], the shear viscosity can be computed from the two-point correlation function of the stress-energy tensor at zero spatial momentum via the Kubo formula $$\eta=\lim_{\w\to 0} \frac{1}{2\w}\int dtd\bar{x}\ e^{i\w t}\langle\left[T_{xy}(x),\ T_{xy}(0)\right]\rangle\,.
\eqlabel{kubo}$$ Second [@pol1], diffusive channel two-point retarded correlation function of the stress energy tensor, for example, $$\begin{split}
G_{tx,tx}(\w,q)=-i \int dt d\bar{x} e^{-i\w t+i q z}\theta(t)
\langle\left[T_{tx}(x),\ T_{tx}(0)\right]\rangle
\propto \frac{1}{i\w-\cald q^2}\,,
\end{split}
\eqlabel{shearchan}$$ have a pole at $$\w=-i \cald q^2\,,
\eqlabel{diffpole}$$ where the shear diffusion constant $\cald$ is $$\cald=\frac{\eta}{s T}\,.
\eqlabel{ddef}$$ Finally, all the transport coefficients can be read off from the dispersion relation of a pole in the sound wave channel two-point retarded correlation function of the stress energy tensor, for example, $$\begin{split}
G_{tt,tt}(\w,q)=-i \int dt d\bar{x} e^{-i\w t+i q z}\theta(t) \langle\left[T_{tt}(x),\ T_{tt}(0)\right]\rangle\,,
\end{split}
\eqlabel{soundchan}$$ as $$\w(q)=c_s q -i\ \frac{2q^2}{3 T }\ \frac{\eta}{s}\ \left(1+\frac{3\zeta}{4\eta}\right) \,.
\eqlabel{sounddisp}$$ In [@sh1], using the Kubo formula, the finite ’t Hooft coupling correction to the ratio was computed. Such corrections were further extracted from the two-point retarded correlation functions and in [@sh2]. Much like as for the infinite ’t Hooft coupling, all three approaches led to the same result: $$\frac{\eta}{s}=\frac{1}{4\pi}\left(1+\frac{135}{8}\ \zeta(3)\ \l^{-3/2}+\cdots\right)\,.
\eqlabel{etacor}$$
The computation leading to were performed in the supergravity approximation to type IIb string theory including the leading $\a'$ correction $$I= \frac{1}{ 16\pi G_{10}} \int d^{10} x \sqrt {-g}
\ \bigg[ R - {\frac 12} (\partial \phi)^2 - \frac{1}{4 \cdot 5!} (F_5)^2 +...+
\ \gamma \ e^{- {\frac 3 2} \phi} W + ...\bigg] \ ,
\eqlabel{aaa}$$ where $$\ \ \ \ \ \
\gamma= { \frac 18} \zeta(3)(\alpha')^3 \ ,$$ corresponding to $$\gamma= { \frac 18} \zeta(3)\ \l^{-3/2}
\eqlabel{ggauge}$$ in terms of the SYM ’t Hooft coupling $\l$, and $$W = C^{hmnk} C_{pmnq} C_{h}^{\ rsp} C^{q}_{\ rsk}
+ {\frac 12} C^{hkmn} C_{pqmn} C_h^{\ rsp} C^{q}_{\ rsk}\ .
\label{rrrr}$$ A somewhat uncontrollable approximation[^5] used in [@sh1; @sh2] (and earlier in [@gkt] ) was an assumption that in a chosen scheme , the self-dual $F_5$ form does not receive order $(\a')^3$ corrections. Though the agreement of the shear viscosity extracted from different boundary correlation functions at order $\calo(\ga)$ computationally appears to be rather dramatic[^6], a recent work [@met] suggests that such an agreement is automatically encoded in any gravitational model, perhaps similar to the way the thermodynamic relation between the energy ($\cale$), free energy ($\calf$) and the entropy densities $\calf=\cale- T s$ is encoded in the horizon geometries [@abk].
In [@j2] the ratio of the shear viscosity to the entropy density at infinite ’t Hoof coupling was computed for the Bjorken flow of the $\caln=4$ SYM plasma, and the result was found to agree with . In this paper we compute leading order finite ’t Hooft coupling correction to $\eta/s$ for the $\caln=4$ plasma in the Bjorken flow. We use string theory effective action , which is expected to reproduce obtained from the equilibrium correlation function computations. Unfortunately, we report here a disagreement with : $$\frac{\eta}{s}\bigg|_{Bjorken\ flow}=\frac{1}{4\pi}\left(1+\frac{120}{8}\ \zeta(3)\ \l^{-3/2}+\cdots\right)\,.
\eqlabel{floweta}$$
In principle, analysis are very straightforward: we compute $\a'$ corrections to the gravitational background dual to boost invariant Bjorken expansion on the boundary; as in [@j2], we fix some of the parameters[^7] of the $\a'$ corrected geometry by requiring nonsingularity of the string theory background to order $\calo(\t^{-4/3})$ in the late proper time expansion; we use $\a'$ corrected holographic renormalization (see [@bal]) to evaluate the energy density of the expanding $\caln=4$ plasma; as in [@bbhj] we interpret the string theory computation in the framework of the Muller-Israel-Stewart theory of dissipative relativistic hydrodynamics[^8].
Given the computational complexity of the analysis and the disagreement we claim to exist between equilibrium correlation function computation and the Bjorken flow computation of the plasma shear viscosity at finite ’t Hooft coupling, the remainder of the paper focuses on explaining the consistency checks we performed.
Computational framework
=======================
The most difficult step in the analysis is to obtain $\a'$-corrected supergravity equations governing the SYM Bjorken flow at finite ’t Hooft coupling. As in [@bal], we first derive effective action for the warp factors of the gravitation background, and then determine $\a'$-corrected equations of motion. As explained in [@bbhj], choosing a Bjorken frame, fixes reparametrization of a radial and a proper time coordinates, which leads to two first order differential constraints (at each order in the late proper time expansion) on the warp factors. Not only these constraints are important consistency checks on the obtained system of equations, but they are also crucial to pick up correct solutions[^9]. If one naively obtains effective action for the warp factors, the constraints are lost. We explain how to properly derive effective action, so that the reparametrization constraints are kept. As in the supergravity approximation, the $\a'$ corrected constraints will provide vital consistency checks.
Supergravity approximation: effective action, constraints and the solution
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The supergravity background holographically dual to a Bjorken flow of the $\caln=4$ plasma takes form [@j1; @bbhj] $$\eqlabel{10dimM}
\begin{split}
d\tilde{s}_{10}^{2}\:&=\:\tilde{g}_{MN}d\xi^{M}d\xi^{N}\:=\\
&=\:e^{-2 \a(\t,z)}g_{\mu\nu}(x)dx^{\mu}dx^{\nu}+
e^{6/5\a(\t,z)}\left(dS^{5}\right)^{2}\,,
\end{split}$$ where $(dS^{5})^{2}$ is the line element for a $5$-dimensional sphere with unit radius, and $$\eqlabel{5dimM}
\begin{split}
ds^{2}\:&=\:g_{\mu\nu}dx^{\mu}dx^{\nu}\:=\:\\
&=\frac{1}{z^{2}}
\left[
-e^{2a(\tau,z)}d\tau^{2}+e^{2b(\tau,z)}\tau^{2}dy^{2}+
e^{2c(\tau,z)}dx_{\perp}^{2}
\right]+
\frac{dz^{2}}{z^{2}}\,,
\end{split}$$ where $dx_{\perp}^{2}\equiv dx_1^2+dx_2^2$. The $5$-form $F_{5}$ takes form[^10] $$\eqlabel{5form}
F_{5}\:=\:\mathcal{F}_{5}+\star\mathcal{F}_{5}\,,\qquad
\mathcal{F}_{5}\:=\:-4\ \omega_{S^{5}}\,,$$ where $\omega_{S^{5}}$ is the 5-sphere volume form. Moreover, the dilaton is $\phi=\phi(\t,z)$.
Notice that choosing the five-dimensional metric as in fixes the $(\t,z)$ repa-rametrization invariance so that $$g_{zz}=\frac{1}{z^2}\,,\qquad g_{\t z}=0\,.
\eqlabel{gauge}$$ Substituting the ansatz - into type IIb supergravity action[^11] ( the $\ga=0$ approximation of ) one obtains naive effective action for the scalars $\{a,b,c,\a,\phi\}$: $$S_{eff,naive}\biggl[a(\t,z),b(\t,z),c(\t,z),\a(\t,z),\phi(\t,z)\biggr]=I\bigg|_{\ga=0}\,.
\eqlabel{snaive}$$ Clearly, from one obtains only five second order PDE’s, instead of seven, as in [@bbhj]. The reason that is happening is because the reparametrization constraints are imposed directly on the action, instead on the equations of motion.
In order the keep constraints within the effective action approach we deform the five dimensional metric as follows $$\eqlabel{5dimMd}
\begin{split}
ds^{2}\:&=\:g_{\mu\nu}dx^{\mu}dx^{\nu}\:=\:\\
&=\frac{1}{z^{2}}
\left[
-e^{2a(\tau,z)}d\tau^{2}+e^{2b(\tau,z)}\tau^{2}dy^{2}+
e^{2c(\tau,z)}dx_{\perp}^{2}
\right]+h(\t,z)d\t dz+
\left(1+g(\t,z)\right)\frac{dz^{2}}{z^{2}}\,.
\end{split}$$ Constraints now correspond to $$h(\t,z)\equiv0\,,\qquad g(\t,z)\equiv 0\,.
\eqlabel{gaugen}$$ Next, we evaluate the supergravity action on , $$S_{eff}\biggl[a,b,c,\a,\phi\ ;\ h,g\biggr]=I\bigg|_{\ga=0}\,.
\eqlabel{seff}$$ While it is important to maintain full nonlinear contributions for the “physical“ scalars $\{a,b,c,\a,\phi\}$ in $S_{eff}$, it is sufficient to evaluate to linear order in $\{h,g\}$. The equations of motion derived from $S_{eff}$, followed by fixing the reparametrization invariance as in $$\begin{split}
&0=\frac{\dd S_{eff}}{\dd a(\t,z)}\bigg|_{h(\t,z)=g(\t,z)=0}\,,\ 0=\frac{\dd S_{eff}}{\dd b(\t,z)}\bigg|_{h(\t,z)=g(\t,z)=0}\,,
\ 0=\frac{\dd S_{eff}}{\dd c(\t,z)}\bigg|_{h(\t,z)=g(\t,z)=0}\,,\\
&0=\frac{\dd S_{eff}}{\dd \a(\t,z)}\bigg|_{h(\t,z)=g(\t,z)=0}\,,\ 0=\frac{\dd S_{eff}}{\dd \phi(\t,z)}\bigg|_{h(\t,z)=g(\t,z)=0}\,,\\
&0=\frac{\dd S_{eff}}{\dd h(\t,z)}\bigg|_{h(\t,z)=g(\t,z)=0}\,,\qquad 0=\frac{\dd S_{eff}}{\dd g(\t,z)}\bigg|_{h(\t,z)=g(\t,z)=0}\,,
\end{split}
\eqlabel{eom}$$ are precisely equivalent to the full set of equations derived in [@bbhj] (see eq. (3.12)-(3.18)).
Equations are solved as a series expansion in the late proper time $\t\to \infty$, but exactly in the scaling variable [@j1] $$v\equiv \frac{z}{\t^{1/3}}\,.
\eqlabel{vv}$$ We find it useful (especially when we generalize our effective action approach to the full action ) to rewrite $S_{eff}$ as a functional of $$\{a(\t,v),\ b(\t,v),\ c(\t,v),\ \a(\t,v),\ \phi(\t,v),\ h(\t,v),\ g(\t,v)\}\,,$$ , fields depending on the scaling variable . When we do this, it is important to note the modification of the effective action measure $$dt dz\cdots\ \to\ t^{1/3}dt dv\cdots \,.$$
Solving in the scaling variable $v$ and with the boundary conditions $$\biggl\{
a(\t,v), b(\t,v),c(\t,v),\a(\t,v),\phi(\t,v)
\biggr\}\bigg|_{v\to 0}=0\,,
\eqlabel{bc}$$ we find [@j1; @j2] $$\begin{split}
&a(\tau,v) = a_{0}(v) + \frac{1}{\tau^{2/3}} a_{1}(v) + \frac{1}{\tau^{4/3}} a_{2}(v) + \calo(\t^{-2})\,,\\
&b(\tau,v) = b_{0}(v) + \frac{1}{\tau^{2/3}} b_{1}(v) + \frac{1}{\tau^{4/3}} b_{2}(v) +\calo(\t^{-2})\,,\\
&c(\tau,v) = c_{0}(v) + \frac{1}{\tau^{2/3}} c_{1}(v) + \frac{1}{\tau^{4/3}} c_{2}(v) +\calo(\t^{-2})\,,\\
&\a(\t,v)=\calo(\t^{-2})\,,\qquad \phi(\t,v)=\calo(\t^{-2})\,,
\end{split}
\eqlabel{expansion1}$$ with $$\begin{split}
a_0=\frac 12 \ln\frac{\left(1-v^4/3\right)^2}{1+v^4/3}\,,\qquad b_0=c_0=\frac 12 \ln\left(1+v^4/3\right)\,,
\end{split}
\eqlabel{order0}$$ $$\begin{split}
&a_1=\he\ \frac{\left(9-v^4\right)v^4}{9-v^8}\,,\qquad c_1=-\he\ \frac{v^4}{3+v^4}-\frac{\he}{2}\ \ln\frac{3-v^4}{3+v^4}\,, \\
&b_1=-3\he\ \frac{v^4}{3+v^4}-2 c_1\,,
\end{split}
\eqlabel{order1}$$ $$\begin{split}
a_2=&\frac{(9+5v^4)v^2}{12(9-v^8)} -C \frac{(9+v^4)v^4}{72(9-v^8)} +
\he^2 \frac{(-1053-171v^4+9v^8+7v^{12})v^4}{6(9-v^8)^2}\\
&+
\frac{1}{8\sqrt{3}} \ln \frac{\sqrt{3}-v^2}{\sqrt{3}+v^2}-
\frac{3}{4} \he^2 \ln \frac{3-v^4}{3+v^4}\,, \\
c_2 =& -\frac{\pi^2}{288\sqrt{3}} +\frac{v^2(9+v^4)}{12(9-v^8)} +C
\frac{v^4}{72(3+v^4)} -\he^2 \frac{(-9+54v^4+7v^8)v^4}{6(3+v^4)(9-v^8)}\\
& +
\frac{1}{8\sqrt{3}} \ln \frac{\sqrt{3}-v^2}{\sqrt{3}+v^2}+\frac{1}{72} (C+66\he^2) \ln \frac{3-v^4}{3+v^4}\\
&+
\frac{1}{24\sqrt{3}} \left( \ln \frac{\sqrt{3}-v^2}{\sqrt{3}+v^2}
\ln\frac{(\sqrt{3}-v^2)(\sqrt{3}+v^2)^3}{4(3+v^4)^2} -{\rm li}_2 \left(-
\frac{(\sqrt{3}-v^2)^2}{(\sqrt{3}+v^2)^2} \right)\right)\,,\\
b_2 =& -2 c_2+\frac{v^2}{4(3+v^4)} +C\frac{v^4}{24(3+v^4)} +\he^2
\frac{(39+7v^4)v^4}{2(3+v^4)^2} +
\frac{1}{8\sqrt{3}} \ln \frac{\sqrt{3}-v^2}{\sqrt{3}+v^2}\\
&+
\frac{3}{4} \he^2 \ln \frac{3-v^4}{3+v^4}\,,
\end{split}
\eqlabel{order2}$$ for arbitrary parameters $\{\he,C\}$.
Beyond the supergravity approximation
-------------------------------------
To go beyond the supergravity approximation we deform proper late time expansion for the physical fields as $$\begin{split}
&a(\tau,v) = \biggl(a_{0}(v)+\ga \ha_0(\t,v)\biggr) + \frac{1}{\tau^{2/3}}\biggl(a_{1}(v)+\ga \ha_1(\t,v)\biggr) + \frac{1}{\tau^{4/3}}
\biggl(a_{2}(v)+\ga \ha_2(\t,v)\biggr)\,,\\
&b(\tau,v) = \biggl(b_{0}(v)+\ga \hb_0(\t,v)\biggr) + \frac{1}{\tau^{2/3}}\biggl(b_{1}(v)+\ga \hb_1(\t,v)\biggr) + \frac{1}{\tau^{4/3}}
\biggl(b_{2}(v)+\ga \hb_2(\t,v)\biggr)\,,\\
&c(\tau,v) = \biggl(c_{0}(v)+\ga \hc_0(\t,v)\biggr) + \frac{1}{\tau^{2/3}}\biggl(c_{1}(v)+\ga \hc_1(\t,v)\biggr) + \frac{1}{\tau^{4/3}}
\biggl(c_{2}(v)+\ga \hc_2(\t,v)\biggr)\,,\\
&\a(\tau,v) = \ga \hal_0(\t,v) + \frac{1}{\tau^{2/3}}\ \ga \hal_1(\t,v) + \frac{1}{\tau^{4/3}}
\ga \hal_2(\t,v)\,,\\
&\phi(\tau,v) = \ga \hp_0(\t,v) + \frac{1}{\tau^{2/3}}\ \ga \hp_1(\t,v) + \frac{1}{\tau^{4/3}}
\ga \hp_2(\t,v)\,,
\end{split}
\eqlabel{defform}$$ where we assumed that as $\l\to \infty$ $$\begin{split}
&\ha_i(\l\t,v)\to \ha_i(\t,v)\,,\ \hb_i(\l\t,v)\to \hb_i(\t,v)\,,\ \hc_i(\l\t,v)\to \hc_i(\t,v)\,,\\
&\hal_i(\l\t,v)\to \hal_i(\t,v)\,,\
\hp_i(\l\t,v)\to \hp_i(\t,v)\,,\qquad i=0,1,2\,.
\end{split}
\eqlabel{scaling}$$ Substituting into we can obtain effective action for $$\{\ha_i,\hb_i,\hc_i,\hal_i,\hp_i\}\,.
\eqlabel{dfields}$$ We need to expand the supergravity part of to quadratic order in the fields , while it is sufficient to evaluate the $\ga e^{-3/2 \phi} W$ term in to linear order in . As explained in the previous section, in order to obtain reparametrization constraints we further need to evaluate the whole action to linear order in $\{h,g\}$. Resulting effective action can be organized as follows $$\begin{split}
&S_{eff}^\ga\biggl[\ha_i,\hb_i,\hc_i,\hal_i,\hp_i;h,g;\he,C\biggr]=\int
d\t\int dv\ \call_{eff}^{\ga}\biggl[\ha_i,\hb_i,\hc_i,\hal_i,\hp_i;h,g;\he,C\biggr]\,,\\
&\call_{eff}^\ga=\biggl\{\ga^2 \call^{-1/3}_{[2]}+\ga \call^{-1/3}_{[1]}\biggr\} +\biggl\{\ga^2 \call^{-3/3}_{[2]}+\ga \call^{-3/3}_{[1]}\biggr\}
+\biggl\{\ga^2 \call^{-5/3}_{[2]}+\ga \call^{-5/3}_{[1]}\biggr\}\,,
\end{split}
\eqlabel{orders}$$ where, given , the superscript in $\call$ indicates the leading scaling behaviour as $\t\to \infty$, , $$\call^q=\calo\left(\t^q\right)\,.
\eqlabel{calls}$$ Notice that we suppressed explicit dependence on $\{\he,C\}$ in the decomposition of $\call_{eff}^\ga$.
In the rest of this subsection we present further decomposition of $\call^q$, and explain the structure of the consistency checks on the example of the equation of motion for $\ha_2$.
In the following expressions all $\call$’s do not scale as $\t\to \infty$ — the explicit scaling dependence is factored out. A superscript indicates whether a term comes from the supergravity part of , or from the $\calo(\ga)$-correction in ; the subscripts indicate order of fields on which a lagrangian term depends. For example, the subscript in $\call_{(2,1)}$ implies that $\call_{(2,1)}$ is strictly bilinear in order order-2 and order-1 fields: $$\call_{(2,1)}=\call_{(2,1)}\biggl[\left(\ha_2,\hb_2,\hc_2,\hal_2,\hp_2\right),\left(\ha_1,\hb_1,\hc_1,\hal_1,\hp_1\right)\biggr]\,,$$ while the subscript in $\call_{(1,1)}$ implies that such a term is strictly quadratic in order-1 fields $$\call_{(1,1)}=\call_{(1,1)}\biggl[\left(\ha_1,\hb_1,\hc_1,\hal_1,\hp_1\right),\left(\ha_1,\hb_1,\hc_1,\hal_1,\hp_1\right)\biggr]\,.$$ A single subscript indicates the order of fields on which the corresponding lagrangian term depends linearly. Finally, no subscript indicates that the lagrangian terms are independent of , but are linear in either $h$ or $g$. Notice that lagrangian terms with a single subscript coming from the supergravity part of are necessarily linear[^12] in either $h$ or $g$. The latter implies that reparametrization constraints at leading order in $\ga$ appear as $\calo(\ga)$, and thus in the lagrangian terms which are either bilinear or quadratic in the fields we can set $h=g=0$. For the same reason we can set $h=g=0$ in the lagrangian terms of order $\calo(\ga^2)$ coming from the $\calo(\ga)$-correction in .
### Order-0
We find $$\begin{split}
&\call_{[2]}^{-1/3}=\frac{1}{\t^{1/3}}\ \biggl(\ ^{[-1/3]}\call_{(0,0)}^{SUGRA}+\ ^{[-1/3]}\call_{(0)}^{W}\biggr)\,,\\
&\call_{[1]}^{-1/3}=\frac{1}{\t^{1/3}}\ \biggl(\ ^{[-1/3]}\call_{(0)}^{SUGRA}+\ ^{[-1/3]}\call^{W}\biggr)\,.
\end{split}
\eqlabel{02}$$
### Order-1
We find $$\begin{split}
\call_{[2]}^{-3/3}=&\frac{1}{\t}\ \biggl(\ ^{[-3/3]}\call_{(0,1)}^{SUGRA}+\ ^{[-3/3]}\call_{(1)}^{W}\biggr)\\
&+\frac{1}{\t^{5/3}}\ \biggl(\ ^{[-5/3]}\call_{(0,1)}^{SUGRA}+\ ^{[-5/3]}\call_{(1,1)}^{SUGRA}+\ ^{[-5/3]}\call_{(1)}^{W}\biggr)\,,
\end{split}
\eqlabel{12}$$ $$\begin{split}
\call_{[1]}^{-3/3}=\frac{1}{\t}\ \biggl(\ ^{[-3/3]}\call_{(0)}^{SUGRA}+\ ^{[-3/3]}\call_{(1)}^{SUGRA}+\ ^{[-3/3]}\call^{W}\biggr)\,.
\end{split}
\eqlabel{11}$$
### Order-2
We find $$\begin{split}
\call_{[2]}^{-5/3}=&\frac{1}{\t^{5/3}}\ \biggl(\ ^{[-5/3]}\call_{(0,2)}^{SUGRA}+\ ^{[-5/3]}\call_{(2)}^{W}\biggr)\\
&+\frac{1}{\t^{7/3}}\ \biggl(\ ^{[-7/3]}\call_{(0,2)}^{SUGRA}+\ ^{[-7/3]}\call_{(1,2)}^{SUGRA}+\ ^{[-7/3]}\call_{(2)}^{W}\biggr)\\
&+\frac{1}{\t^{9/3}}\ \biggl(\ ^{[-9/3]}\call_{(0,2)}^{SUGRA}+\ ^{[-9/3]}\call_{(1,2)}^{SUGRA}+\ ^{[-9/3]}\call_{(2,2)}^{SUGRA}+\ ^{[-9/3]}\call_{(2)}^{W}\biggr)\,,
\end{split}
\eqlabel{22}$$ $$\begin{split}
\call_{[1]}^{-5/3}=\frac{1}{\t^{5/3}}\ \biggl(\ ^{[-5/3]}\call_{(0)}^{SUGRA}+\ ^{[-5/3]}\call_{(1)}^{SUGRA}+\ ^{[-5/3]}\call_{(2)}^{SUGRA}
+\ ^{[-5/3]}\call^{W}\biggr)\,.
\end{split}
\eqlabel{21}$$
### Equations of motion for $\ha_2$ and consistency check on lower order solution
Consider a variation $$EOM[\ha_2]\equiv \biggl\{\frac{\dd}{\dd \ha_2(\t,v)}\ \int dt\int dv\ \call_{eff}^\ga\biggr\}\bigg|_{h=g=0}\,.
\eqlabel{vara2}$$ Given , , we have[^13] $$\begin{split}
EOM[\ha_2]=&\frac{1}{\t^{5/3}}\biggl(\ ^{[-5/3]}\cali_{(0)}+\ ^{[-5/3]}\cali\biggr)\\
&+\frac{1}{\t^{7/3}}\ \biggl(\ ^{[-7/3]} \cali_{(0)}+\ ^{[-7/3]} \cali_{(1)}+\ ^{[-7/3]} \cali\biggr)\\
&+\frac{1}{\t^{9/3}}\ \biggl(\ ^{[-9/3]} \cali_{(0)}+\ ^{[-9/3]} \cali_{(1)}+\ ^{[-9/3]} \cali_{(2)}+\ ^{[-9/3]} \cali\biggr)\,,
\end{split}
\eqlabel{valr}$$ with obvious notations. For example: $$\frac{1}{\t^{7/3}}\ ^{[-7/3]} \cali_{(0)}=\frac{\dd}{\dd \ha_2(\t,v)}\ \int dt\int dv\ \biggl\{
\frac{1}{\t^{7/3}}\ \ ^{[-7/3]}\call_{(0,2)}^{SUGRA}\biggr\}\,.$$ Thus, a single variation not only will produce the equation of motion for $\ha_2$, namely $$0=\ ^{[-9/3]} \cali_{(0)}+\ ^{[-9/3]} \cali_{(1)}+\ ^{[-9/3]} \cali_{(2)}+\ ^{[-9/3]} \cali\,,
\eqlabel{eomha2t}$$ but also would produce a consistency tests on the order-0 and order-1 solutions: $$\begin{split}
0=&\ ^{[-5/3]}\cali_{(0)}+\ ^{[-5/3]}\cali\,,\\
0=&\ ^{[-7/3]} \cali_{(0)}+\ ^{[-7/3]} \cali_{(1)}+\ ^{[-7/3]} \cali\,,
\end{split}
\eqlabel{2tests}$$ correspondingly. It is easy to understand the origin of consistency constraints : a field deformation at order-2 can be considered as a variation of a field deformation at order-0 or order-1; thus, once equations of motion at lower orders are solved, such variations must vanish.
Altogether, there are 10 consistency constraints when deriving equations for order-2 field deformations, and 5 consistency constraints when deriving equations for order-1 field deformations. We explicitly verified that all such constraints are satisfied.
Equations of motion and solutions for
======================================
We obtain equations of motion (including the constraints) at each order $i=0,1,2$ for as explained in the previous section. It is important that in deriving these equations of motion a field is assumed to depend both on $\{\t,v\}$. Once the equations of motion are computed, we can assume $$\{\ha_i,\hb_i,\hc_i,\hal_i,\hp_i\}(\t,v)\equiv \{\ha_i,\hb_i,\hc_i,\hal_i,\hp_i\}(v)\,.$$ All the equations must be solved with the boundary conditions $$\biggl\{\ha_i(v),\hb_i(v),\hc_i(v),\hal_i(v),\hp_i(v)\biggr\}\bigg|_{v\to 0}=0\,.
\eqlabel{bbcc}$$
Order-0
-------
To leading order we find the following system of equations $$\begin{split}
0=&\hc_0''+\frac 12 \hb_0''+\frac{5 v^4-9}{(3+v^4) v} \hc_0'+ \frac{5 v^4-9}{2(3+v^4) v} \hb_0'
+\frac{933120 (4 v^8-33 v^4+36) v^{10}}{(3+v^4)^8}\,,
\end{split}
\eqlabel{eom01}$$ $$\begin{split}
0=&\hc_0''+\frac 12 \ha_0''+\frac{5 v^4+9}{2(v^4-3) v} \ha_0'+\frac{5 v^8+27}{v (v^8-9)} \hc_0-\frac{311040 v^{10} (4 v^8-45 v^4+36)}{(3+v^4)^8}\,,
\end{split}
\eqlabel{eom02}$$ $$\begin{split}
0=&\hc_0''+\ha_0''+\hb_0''+\frac{5 v^4+9}{(v^4-3) v} \ha_0'+\frac{5 v^8+27}{v (v^8-9)} \hb_0'
+\frac{5 v^8+27}{v (v^8-9)} \hc_0'\\
&-\frac{622080 v^{10} (4 v^8-45 v^4+36)}{(3+v^4)^8}\,,
\end{split}
\eqlabel{eom03}$$ $$\begin{split}
0=&\hc_0''+\frac 12 \hb_0''+\frac{3 (v^8-10 v^4-3)}{v (v^8-9)} \hc_0'-\frac{3 (5 v^4-3)}{v (v^8-9)} \hb_0'-\frac{3(v^4-3)}{2(3+v^4) v} \ha_0'\\
&
+\frac{3732480 v^{10} (v^4-3)^2}{(3+v^4)^8}\,,
\end{split}
\eqlabel{eom04}$$ $$\begin{split}
0=&\hc_0'+\frac 12 \hb_0'+\frac{(v^4-3)^2}{2(v^4+2 v^2+3) (v^4-2 v^2+3)} \ha_0'\\
&-\frac{2799360 (v^4-3) v^{15}}{(v^4-2 v^2+3) (v^4+2 v^2+3) (3+v^4)^7}\,,
\end{split}
\eqlabel{eom05}$$ $$\begin{split}
0=&\hal_0''+\frac{5 v^8+27}{v (v^8-9)} \ha_0'-\frac{32}{v^2} \ha_0+\frac{2332800 v^{14}}{(3+v^4)^8}\,,
\end{split}
\eqlabel{eom06}$$ $$\begin{split}
0=&\hp_0''+\frac{5 v^8+27}{v (v^8-9)}\hp_0'-\frac{5598720 v^{14}}{(3+v^4)^8}\,.
\end{split}
\eqlabel{eom07}$$ Although the system - is overdetermined (we have 7 ODE’s for the 5 functions), it is straightforward to verify that it is consistent.
Most general solution to -, subject to the boundary conditions , is parametrized by three arbitrary integration constants[^14] $\{\dd_1,\b_1,\b_2\}$: $$\begin{split}
\ha_0=&\frac{72576} {( 3+{v}^{4} ) ^{3}}-\frac{585144} {( 3+{v}^{4}
) ^{4}}-\frac{216} { 3+{v}^{4}}+\frac{1714608} {( 3
+{v}^{4} ) ^{5}}-\frac{864} {( 3+{v}^{4} ) ^{2}}-\frac{1714608}
{ ( 3+{v}^{4} ) ^{6}}\\
&+ \left( \frac{1}{12+4{v}^{4}
}+\frac{1}{ 2{v}^{4}-6} \right) ( 288+\dd_1 ) +24+\frac{1}{12}\dd_1\,,
\end{split}
\eqlabel{da0}$$ $$\begin{split}
\hb_0=\frac{223560} {( 3+{v}^{4} ) ^{4}}-\frac{25920} {( 3+{v}^{4}
) ^{3}}+\frac{664848} {( 3+{v}^{4} ) ^{6}}-\frac{664848}
{ ( 3+{v}^{4} ) ^{5}}-{\frac {{\dd_1}}{4(3+{v}^{4})}}
+24+\frac{1}{12}\dd_1\,,
\end{split}
\eqlabel{db0}$$ $$\hc_0=\hb_0\,,
\eqlabel{dc0}$$ $$\begin{split}
\hal_0=&\beta_1 \left(\left(\frac{v^4}{864}+\frac{1}{96 v^4}\right) \ln\frac{3-v^4}{3+v^4}+\frac{1}{144}\right)+\frac{25}{16}
\left(v^4+\frac{9}{v^4}\right) \ln\frac{3-v^4}{3+v^4}+\frac{75}{8}\\
&+\frac{225}{2(3+v^4)^2}+\frac{675}{(3+v^4)^3}-\frac{22275}{2(3+v^4)^4}+\frac{36450}{(3+v^4)^5}-\frac{36450}{(3+v^4)^6}\,,
\end{split}
\eqlabel{dal0}$$ $$\begin{split}
\hp_0=&\left(\frac{\beta_2}{24}-\frac{45}{4}\right) \ln\frac{3-v^4}{3+v^4}
-\frac{135}{2(3+v^4)}-\frac{405}{2(3+v^4)^2}-\frac{810}{(3+v^4)^3}+\frac{25515}{(3+v^4)^4}
\\
&-\frac{87480}{(3+v^4)^5}+\frac{87480}{(3+v^4)^6}\,.
\end{split}
\eqlabel{dph0}$$
For a generic choice of $\b_1$ the curvature invariants of the ten-dimensional geometry will be singular as $v\to 3^{1/4}_-$. For example, $$\calr_{\mu\nu\rho\l}\calr^{\mu\nu\r\l}=-\frac{14}{3}\ga\ (1350+\b_1)\ln(3-v^4)+{\rm finite}\,.
\eqlabel{riem20}$$ However, once we chose $$\b_1=-1350\,,
\eqlabel{b1c}$$ the curvature invariant is finite. We verified that for all other curvature invariants (including those discussed in [@bbhj]) are finite.
Notice that unlike studies of the string theory dual of the Bjorken flow in the supergravity approximation [@j1; @j2; @j3; @bbhj], here the background geometry is not completely fixed from the nonsingularity condition — two arbitrary integration constants $\{\dd_1,\b_2\}$ remain. Though $\b_2$ does not affect the holographic stress energy tensor of the background geometry, the latter does depend on $\dd_1$. Additional arbitrariness will appear at higher orders, however, the string theory computation when properly matched to the near-equilibrium SYM dynamics provides unambiguous predictions for plasma transport properties. We further comment on the physical origin of the arbitrariness in section 5.
Order-1
-------
Using results of the previous subsection, including , we find the following set of equations for the next-to-leading order in the late proper time expansion at order $\calo(\ga)$ $$\begin{split}
0=&\hc_1''+\frac 12 \hb_1''+\frac{5 v^4-9}{(3+v^4) v} \hc_1'+\frac{5 v^4-9}{2(3+v^4) v} \hb_1'+\cals_{(1,1)}\,,
\end{split}
\eqlabel{eom11}$$ $$\begin{split}
0=&\hc_1''+\frac 12 \ha_1''+ \frac{5 v^4+9}{2(v^4-3) v} \ha_1'+\frac{5 v^8+27}{v (v^8-9)} \hc_1'+\cals_{(1,2)}\,,
\end{split}
\eqlabel{eom12}$$ $$\begin{split}
0=&\hc_1''+\ha_1''+\hb_1''+\frac{5 v^4+9}{(v^4-3) v} \ha_1'+\frac{5 v^8+27}{v (v^8-9)} \hb_1'
+\frac{5 v^8+27}{v (v^8-9)} \hc_1'+\cals_{(1,3)}\,,
\end{split}
\eqlabel{eom13}$$ $$\begin{split}
0=&\hc_1''+\frac 12 \hb_1''+\frac{(v^4-15) v^3}{v^8-9}\hb_1'+\frac{5 v^8-30 v^4-27}{v (v^8-9)} \hc_1'
-\frac{ 3(v^4-3)}{2(3+v^4) v} \ha_1'-\frac{24 v^2}{v^8-9} \hb_1\\
&-\frac{48 v^2}{v^8-9} \hc_1+\cals_{(1,4)}\,,
\end{split}
\eqlabel{eom14}$$ $$\begin{split}
0=&\hc_1'+ \frac{(v^4-3)^2}{2(v^4-2 v^2+3) (v^4+2 v^2+3)} \ha_1'+\frac 12 \hb_1'+\cals_{(1,5)}\,,
\end{split}
\eqlabel{eom15}$$ $$\begin{split}
0=&\hal_1''+\frac{5 v^8+27}{v (v^8-9)} \hal_1'-\frac{32}{v^2} \hal_1+\cals_{(1,6)}\,,
\end{split}
\eqlabel{eom16}$$ $$\begin{split}
0=&\hp_1''+\frac{5 v^8+27}{v (v^8-9)} \hp_1'+\cals_{(1,7)}\,,
\end{split}
\eqlabel{eom17}$$ where the source terms $\{\cals_{(1,1)},\cdots,\cals_{(1,7)}\}$ are given in Appendix A. As before, while the system - is overdetermined, we explicitly verified that it is consistent.
Most general solution to -, subject to the boundary conditions , is parametrized by three new arbitrary constants $\{\dd_2,\b_3,\b_4\}$: $$\begin{split}
\ha_1=&-\frac{72013536 \he}{(3+v^4)^6}+\frac{61725888 \he}{(3+v^4)^7}+\frac{31189536 \he}{(3+v^4)^5}+\frac{3 \he (288+\dd_1)}{(v^4-3)^2}
-\frac{5987520 \he}{(3+v^4)^4}\\
&- \frac{3\he (1728+\dd_1)}{2(3+v^4)^2}+ \frac{576 \he+\frac 23 \dd_2}{2(v^4-3)}+ \frac{\frac 13 \dd_2-576 \he}{2(3+v^4)}
+\frac{445824 \he}{(3+v^4)^3}-\frac 16 \he \dd_1+\frac{\dd_2}{18} \,,
\end{split}
\eqlabel{da1}$$ $$\begin{split}
\hb_1=&-\left(120 \he-\frac 16 \he \dd_1+\frac{\dd_2}{18}\right) \ln\frac{3-v^4}{3+v^4}-\frac{864 \he-\frac 12 \he \dd_1+\frac{\dd_2}{6}}{3+v^4}
+\frac{144 \he+\frac 12 \he \dd_1}{v^4-3}-\frac{3024 \he}{(3+v^4)^2}\\
&+\frac{3 \he \dd_1}{2(3+v^4)^2}-\frac{11687328 \he}{(3+v^4)^5}-\frac{107136 \he}{(3+v^4)^3}-\frac{23934528 \he}{(3+v^4)^7}+\frac{2091744 \he}
{(3+v^4)^4}+\frac{27597024 \he}{(3+v^4)^6}\\
&-\frac 16 \he \dd_1+\frac{\dd_2}{18}\,,
\end{split}
\eqlabel{db1}$$ $$\begin{split}
\hc_1=&\left(60 \he+\frac{\dd_2}{36}-\frac{1}{12} \he \dd_1\right) \ln\frac{3-v^4}{3+v^4}-\frac{72 \he+\frac 14 \he \dd_1}{(v^4-3)}
+\frac{432 \he-\frac{\dd_2}{6}-\frac 14 \he \dd_1}{(v^4+3)}-\frac 16 \he \dd_1\\
&-\frac{179712 \he}{(3+v^4)^3}-\frac{23934528 \he}{(3+v^4)^7}
+\frac{2336688 \he}{(3+v^4)^4}+\frac{28086912 \he}{(3+v^4)^6}+\frac{\left(1512+\frac 32 \dd_1\right) \he}{(3+v^4)^2}\\
&-\frac{12177216 \he}{(3+v^4)^5}
+\frac{\dd_2}{18}\,,
\end{split}
\eqlabel{dc1}$$ $$\begin{split}
\hal_1=&-\b_3 \left(\left(\frac{v^4}{864}+\frac{1}{96 v^4}\right) \ln\frac{3-v^4}{3+v^4}+\frac{1}{144}\right)+
\frac{25\he}{4} \left(v^4+\frac{9}{v^4}\right) \ln\frac{3-v^4}{3+v^4}+\frac{75\he}{2}\\
&+\frac{450 \he v^8 (v^4-3) (v^8+24 v^4+9)}{(3+v^4)^7}\,,
\end{split}
\eqlabel{daalpha1}$$ $$\begin{split}
\hp_1=&\left(\frac{\b_4}{24}-\frac{\b_2\he}{12} \right) \ln\frac{3-v^4}{3+v^4}-\frac {\he \b_2}{4(3+v^4)}-\frac{ \he \b_2}{4(v^4-3)}
-\frac{1487160 \he}{(3+v^4)^5}-\frac{3149280 \he}{(3+v^4)^7}\\
&-\frac{405 \he}{(3+v^4)^2}-\frac{135 \he}{2(3+v^4)}+\frac{135 \he}{2(v^4-3)}
-\frac{2430 \he}{(3+v^4)^3}+\frac{218700 \he}{(3+v^4)^4}+\frac{3674160 \he}{(3+v^4)^6}\,.
\end{split}
\eqlabel{dph1}$$
For a generic choice of $\b_3$ the curvature invariants of the ten-dimensional geometry will be singular as $v\to 3^{1/4}_-$. For example, $$\calr_{\mu\nu\rho\l}\calr^{\mu\nu\r\l}=\frac{1}{\t^{2/3}}\ \frac{14}{3}\ga\left(\beta_3-5400\he\right)\ln(3-v^4)+{\rm finite}\,.
\eqlabel{riem21}$$ However, once we chose $$\b_3=5400\he\,.
\eqlabel{b3c}$$ the curvature invariant is finite. We verified that for all other curvature invariants (including those discussed in [@bbhj]) are finite.
At this stage we have four arbitrary integration constants: $\{\dd_1,\b_2,\dd_3,\b_4\}$.
Order-2
-------
Using results of the previous two subsections, including and , we find the following set of equations for the next-to-next-to-leading order in the late proper time expansion at order $\calo(\ga)$ $$\begin{split}
0=&\hc_2''+\frac 12 \hb_2''+\frac{5 v^4-9}{(3+v^4) v} \hc_2'+\frac {5 v^4-9}{2(3+v^4) v} \hb_2'+\cals_{(2,1)}\,,
\end{split}
\eqlabel{eom21}$$ $$\begin{split}
0=&\hc_2''+\frac 12 \ha_2''+\frac{5 v^8+27}{v (v^8-9)} \hc_2'+ \frac{9+5 v^4}{2v (v^4-3)} \ha_2'+\cals_{(2,2)}\,,
\end{split}
\eqlabel{eom22}$$ $$\begin{split}
0=&\hc_2''+\ha_2''+\hb_2''+\frac{9+5 v^4}{v (v^4-3)} \ha_2'+\frac{5 v^8+27}{v (v^8-9)} \hb_2'+\frac{5 v^8+27}{v (v^8-9)} \hc_2'+\cals_{(2,3)}\,,
\end{split}
\eqlabel{eom23}$$ $$\begin{split}
0=&\hc_2''+\frac 12 \hb_2''- \frac{3(v^4-3)}{2(3+v^4) v} \ha_2'+\frac{2 v^8-15 v^4-9}{v (v^8-9)} \hb_2'+\frac{7 v^8-30 v^4-45}{v (v^8-9)} \hc_2'
-\frac{48 v^2}{v^8-9} \hb_2\\
&-\frac{96 v^2}{v^8-9} \hc_2+\cals_{(2,4)}\,,
\end{split}
\eqlabel{eom24}$$ $$\begin{split}
0=&\hc_2'+\frac 12 \hb_2'+\frac{(v^4-3)^2}{2(v^4-2 v^2+3) (v^4+2 v^2+3)} \ha_2'+\cals_{(2,5)}\,,
\end{split}
\eqlabel{eom25}$$ $$\begin{split}
0=&\hal_2''+\frac{5 v^8+27}{v (v^8-9)} \hal_2'-\frac{32}{v^2} \hal_2+\cals_{(2,6)}\,,
\end{split}
\eqlabel{eom26}$$ $$\begin{split}
0=&\hp_2''+\frac{5 v^8+27}{v (v^8-9)} \hp_2'+\cals_{(2,7)}\,,
\end{split}
\eqlabel{eom27}$$ where the source terms $\{\cals_{(2,1)}\cdots,\cals_{(2,7)}\}$ are given in Appendix B. As in previous subsections, while the system - is overdetermined, we explicitly verified that it is consistent.
Solving - is quite complicated. Fortunately, we do not need a complete solution. Our ultimate goal is to determine $\he$ from the nonsingularity of the ten dimensional metric curvature invariants to order $\calo(\ga)$ and to order $\calo(\t^{-4/3})$ in the late proper time expansion. Thus we evaluate metric invariants first, find what field combinations affect the singularity as $v\to 3^{1/4}_-$, and then solve just for those combinations of field.
Up to now, all our equations and solutions are exact in $\he$. We assume now that $$\he=\he_0+\ga \he_1+\calo(\ga^2)\,,
\eqlabel{etaex}$$ and evaluate background curvature invariants to order $\calo(\ga)$ near $$x\equiv 3^{1/4}-v\,.
\eqlabel{ydef}$$ We use explicit solutions , - and - to evaluate curvature invariants. At this stage we use equations of motion - to eliminate the derivatives (if possible) of $\{\ha_2,\hb_2,\hc_2,\hal_2\}$ from the curvature invariants.
### $\calr$
For Ricci scalar we find (there is no dependence on order-2 fields here) $$\begin{split}
\calr=-\frac 32\ \ga\ \frac{18\he_0^2-\sqrt{3}}{\t^{4/3}}\ \biggl(\frac{1}{x^4}-\frac{2}{3^{1/4}}\ \frac{1}{x^3}-\frac{13\sqrt{3}}{6}\ \frac{1}{x^2}
+\frac{3^{1/4}\ 5 }{2}\ \frac 1x\biggr)+{\rm finite}\,,\qquad x\to 0_+\,.
\end{split}
\eqlabel{rsc2}$$ From we find that Ricci scalar of the string theory geometry is nonsingular as $x\to 0_+$ when $$\he_0=\frac{1}{2^{1/2}3^{3/4}}\,,
\eqlabel{eta0}$$ which is precisely the condition found from the nonsingularity of Riemann tensor squared [@j2], as well as higher curvature invariants [@bbhj], in the supergravity approximation to the string theory dual of the $\caln=4$ SYM Bjorken flow. The difference here (compare to [@j2; @bbhj]) is that $\he_0$ is already fixed by requiring the nonsingularity of the Ricci scalar[^15].
### $\calr_{\mu\nu\r\l}\calr^{\mu\nu\r\l}$
A bit more work is necessary to determine the nonsingularity condition of Riemann tensor squared at order $\calo(\ga)$. Generalizing the notation of [@bbhj] $$\begin{split}
\cali^{[2]}&\equiv \calr_{\mu\nu\r\l}\calr^{\mu\nu\r\l}\\
&=\biggl(\cali^{[2]SUGRA}_0(v)+\ga\ \cali^{[2]W}_0(v)\biggr)
+\frac{1}{\t^{2/3}} \biggl(\cali^{[2]SUGRA}_1(v)+\ga\ \cali^{[2]W}_1(v)\biggr)
\\
&+\frac{1}{\t^{4/3}} \biggl(\cali^{[2]SUGRA}_2(v)+\ga\ \cali^{[2]W}_2(v)\biggr)+\calo(\t^{-2})+\calo(\ga^2)\,.
\end{split}
\eqlabel{i2def}$$ With and the lower order solutions, all terms in the decomposition of $\cali^{[2]}$ in except for $\cali^{[2]W}_2(v)$ are finite as $v\to 3^{1/4}_-$. We find $$\begin{split}
\cali^{[2]W}_2=&-\frac{2304 v^5 (v^4-3)}{(3+v^4)^3} f_2'(v)-\frac{192 (5 v^{16}+60 v^{12}+54 v^8+540 v^4+405)}{(3+v^4)^4} \hal_2(v)\\
&+\dd\cali_2(v)\,,
\end{split}
\eqlabel{riemann22}$$ where $$f_2(v)=\hc_2(v)+\frac 12\ \hb_2(v)\,,
\eqlabel{deff2}$$ and $\dd\cali_2(v)$ does not depend on order-2 fields, and can be evaluated explicitly $$\begin{split}
\dd\cali_2=&\biggl(-399\sqrt {3}+\frac{5\sqrt {3}}{6}{\dd_1}-\frac{2^{3/2}}{3^{3/4}}{
\dd_2}+ {2^{5/2}}{3^{5/4}}{\he_1}\biggr)\times\biggl(\frac{1}{x^4}-\frac{2}{3^{1/4}}\ \frac{1}{{x}^{3}}-\frac{\sqrt{3}}{6}
\ \frac{1}{x^2}\\
&+\frac {3^{1/4}}{2}{\frac {\left( 72\sqrt {2}\ {3}^{3/4}\ {
\he_1}-4\sqrt {2}\ {3}^{3/4}\ {\dd_2}+39\ {\dd_1}-270 \right)
}{ \left( -7182+15\ {\dd_1}-4\sqrt {2}\ {3}^{3/4}\ {\dd_2}+72
\sqrt {2}\ {3}^{3/4}\ {\he_1} \right) }}\ \frac 1x
\biggr)+{\rm finite}\,,
\end{split}
\eqlabel{singddi2}$$ as $x\to 0_+$.
From one can obtain a decoupled equation for $f_2$ as defined in . The resulting equation is possible to explicitly solve for $f'_2$: $$\begin{split}
f_2'(v)=&-\frac{24126004224 \he^2 v^3}{(v^4+3)^9}+\frac{13961808 v^3}{(v^4+3)^8}(2 v^2+1932 \he^2-C)
-\frac{34992 v^3}{(v^4+3)^7}(665 v^2\\
&+320520 \he^2-399 C)
+\frac{243 v^3}{(v^4+3)^6}(28221 v^2+8578560 \he^2-20600 C)
\\
&-\frac{81 v^3}{2(v^4+3)^5}(20823 v^2+3918720 \he^2-18560 C)+\frac{27 v^3}{8(v^4+3)^4}(7561 v^2+48 \dd_1 \he^2\\
&+921600 \he^2-11520 C)
-\frac{ v^3}{16(v^4+3)^3} (-26307 v^2+8 v^2 \dd_1-4 \dd_1 C+407808 \he^2\\
&+192 \he \dd_2-48 \dd_1 \he^2))+\frac{v^3}{(v^4+3)^2} \biggl(
\frac{35831808 \he^2-1990656 v^2}{(v^4-3)^5}\\
&+\frac{-1327104 v^2+29859840 \he^2}{(v^4-3)^4}+\frac{(8709120 \he^2-290304 v^2)}{(v^4-3)^3}
\\
&+\frac{1}{(v^4-3)^2}\left(-23472 v^2+1029024 \he^2-\frac 32 v^2 \dd_1-27 \dd_1 \he^2\right)
\\
&+\frac{1}{v^4-3}\left(9 \dd_1 \he^2-\frac 12 v^2 \dd_1+25488 \he^2-6 \he \dd_2+\frac{333}{2} v^2\right)\\
&+\frac{10425\sqrt{3}}{16}\ \arctan\ \frac{v^2}{\sqrt{3}}
+\dd_3\biggr)\,,
\end{split}
\eqlabel{df2}$$ where $\dd_3$ is a new arbitrary integration constant. The solution is exact in $\he$.
Unfortunately, we can not present an explicit solution for $\hal_2(v)$. We can prove though that $\hal_2(v)$ can be chosen to be finite as $v\to 3^{1/4}$, while having a vanishing nonnormalizable mode as $v\to 0_+$. Indeed, the most general inhomogeneous solution of as $x\to 0_+$ takes form $$\ha_2(x)=\calc_0+\calc_1 \ln+x \left(\frac{3^{3/4}}{6} \calc_1+\frac{125}{1728}\ 3^{3/4}\ C+\frac{875}{864}\ 3^{1/4}\right)+\calo(x^2\ln x)\,,
\eqlabel{horha2}$$ where $\calc_0$ and $\calc_1$ are the two arbitrary integration constants. On the other hand, the homogeneous solution to is $$\ha_2^{hom}(v)=\calc_0^{hom}\ \frac{v^8+9}{v^4}\ +\calc_1^{hom}\left(\left(\frac{v^4}{864}+\frac{1}{96 v^4}\right) \ln\frac{3-v^4}{3+v^4}
+\frac{1}{144}\right)\,,
\eqlabel{a2h}$$ leading to asymptotic expansion as $v\to 0_+$ $$\ha_2^{hom}(v)={9\ \calc_0^{hom}}\ \frac{1}{v^4}+\calc_0^{hom}\ v^4-\frac{\calc_1^{hom}}{972}\ v^8+\calo(v^{16})\,,
\eqlabel{assa2}$$ and $$\ha_2^{hom}(x)=6 \calc_0^{hom}+\frac{1}{144} \calc_1^{hom}
\ln 2-\frac{1}{576} \calc_1^{hom} \ln 3+\frac{1}{144} \calc_1^{hom}+\frac{1}{144} \calc_1^{hom} \ln x
+\calo(x)\,,
\eqlabel{homa2hor}$$ as $x\to 0_+$. Thus, given , we can take $$\calc_1^{hom}=-144 \calc_1\,,
\eqlabel{homtune}$$ and tune[^16] $\calc_0^{hom}$ so that $$\ha_2^{v}+\ha_2^{hom}(v)$$ both have only a normalizable mode as $v\to 0_+$, and be finite (along with its derivatives) as $x\to 0_+$
We now have all the necessary ingredients to determine $\he_1$ from the nonsingularity of $\cali^{[2]W}_2(v)$. We find that $\cali^{[2]W}_2(v)$ is finite as $v\to 3^{1/4}_-$, provided $$\he_1=\frac{3^{1/4}\sqrt{2}}{432} \left(7182-15\ \delta_1+2^{5/2}\ 3^{3/4}\ \delta_2\right)\,.
\eqlabel{eta01}$$ Notice that while $\he_0$ is determined unambiguously from the nonsingularity condition of the background geometry, the absence of singularities is not a powerful enough constraint to fix $\he_1$. As we already mentioned, this fact will not preclude us from computing a definite ratio of shear viscosity to the entropy density.
### $\calr_{\mu\nu}\calr^{\mu\nu}$
Analysis of the square of the Ricci tensor can be performed in the same way as for the Riemann tensor square. We find $$\calr_{\mu\nu}\calr^{\mu\nu}={\rm finite}-\ga\ \frac{1920\ \hal_2(v)}{\t^{4/3}}\,,\qquad v\to 3^{1/4}_-\,,
\eqlabel{ricci}$$ were we explicitly indicated dependence on order-2 fields. We argued above that $\hal_2(v)$ can be chosen to be finite as $v\to 3^{1/4}_-$; this would guarantee the nonsingularity of $\calr_{\mu\nu}\calr^{\mu\nu}$ to orders $\calo(\t^{-4/3})$ and $\calo(\ga)$.
### Higher order curvature invariants
As in [@bbhj] we denote $$\calr^{[2^n]}\ _{\mu\nu\r\l}\equiv \calr^{[2^{n-1}]}\ _{\mu_1\nu_1\mu\nu}\cdot \calr^{[2^{n-1}]}\ ^{\mu_1\nu_1}\ _{\r\l}\,,
\eqlabel{riemann}$$ where $$\calr^{[0]}\ _{\mu\nu\r\l}\equiv \calr_{\mu\nu\r\l}\,.
\eqlabel{n0}$$ We further define higher curvature invariants $\cali^{[2^n]}$, generalizing : $$\begin{split}
\cali^{[2^n]}&\equiv \calr^{[2^{n-1}]}\ _{\mu\nu\r\l}\calr^{[2^{n-1}]}\ ^{\mu\nu\r\l}\\
&=\biggl(\cali^{[2^n]SUGRA}_0(v)+\ga\ \cali^{[2^n]W}_0(v)\biggr)+\frac{1}{\t^{2/3}} \biggl(\cali^{[2^n]SUGRA}_1(v)+
\ga\ \cali^{[2^n]W}_1(v)\biggr)\\
&+\frac{1}{\t^{4/3}} \biggl(\cali^{[2^n]SUGRA}_2(v)+\ga\ \cali^{[2^n]W}_2(v)\biggr)+\calo(\t^{-2})+\calo(\ga^2)\,.
\end{split}
\eqlabel{indef}$$
Given complexity of analysis, we checked at order $\calo(\t^{-4/3})$ only[^17] nonsingularity of $\cali^{[4]}$. Keeping explicit only fields at order-2, we find $$\begin{split}
\cali^{[4]W}_2(v)=&-\frac{55296 v^5 (v^4-3)}{(3+v^4)^7} \biggl(v^{16}-4 v^{12}+198 v^8-36 v^4+81\biggr)\ f_2'(v)\\
&+\frac{663552 v^9 (v^4-3)^3}{(3+v^4)^7}\ \hal_2'(v)
-\frac{1536}{(3+v^4)^8} \biggl(5 v^{32}+120 v^{28}+6876 v^{24}\\
&+33480 v^{20}-72738 v^{16}+301320 v^{12}+556956 v^8+87480 v^4\\
&+32805\biggr)\
\hal_2(v)+\dd\cali_4(v)\,,
\end{split}
\eqlabel{i4w}$$ No new analysis of order-2 fields are necessary here to verified that is nonsingular precisely for .
Shear viscosity for the Bjorken flow of $\caln=4$ SYM plasma
============================================================
In previous section we analytically evaluated $\a'$-corrected supergravity background dual to a Bjorken flow of $\caln=4$ SYM plasma at finite coupling to order $\calo(\t^{-2/3})$ in the late proper time expansion. We can now extract the boundary energy density $\e(\t)$ from the one-point correlation function of the boundary stress energy tensor using the $\a'$-corrected holographic renormalization developed in [@bal]. We confirmed that the final expression for the energy density can be evaluated as in the supergravity approximation [@j1; @j2; @bbhj]: $$\e(\t)=-\frac{N^2}{2\pi^2}\ \lim_{v\to 0}\frac{2 a(v,\t)}{v^4\t^{4/3}}\,.
\eqlabel{etau}$$ Using , , , , and we find $$\e(\t)=\frac{N^2(6+576\ \ga +\ga\ \dd_1)}{12\pi^2}\ \frac{1}{\t^{4/3}} -\frac{N^2\ 2^{1/2}\ 3^{1/4}\ (1566 \ga+8+\gamma \delta_1)}{48\pi^2}\
\frac{1}{\t^2}+\calo(\t^{-8/3})\,.
\eqlabel{etres}$$ Notice that even though $\eta_1$ depends on an arbitrary integration constant $\dd_2$, see , such a dependence disappears in .
The string theory result should now be interpreted within Muller-Israel-Stewart theory [@m; @is]. For the Bjorken flow of the $\caln=4$ SYM plasma we expect [@bbhj] $$\e^{gauge}(\t)=\frac 38\ \pi^2 N^2\Lambda^4\ (1+15\gamma)\ \frac{1}{\t^{4/3}}-\pi^2 N^2\Lambda^3 A\ (1+15\gamma)\ \frac{1}{\t^2}+\calo(\t^{-8/3})\,,
\eqlabel{egauge}$$ where $\Lambda$ is an arbitrary scale, related to the initial energy density of the expanding plasma, and $$A=\frac{\eta}{s}\,,
\eqlabel{defa}$$ is the ratio of shear viscosity to entropy density. Notice that in we have to use $\caln=4$ equation of state at finite ’t Hooft coupling[^18], see [@gkt]. Matching the leading terms in the late time expansion in and we find $$\Lambda^4=\frac{4}{3\pi^4}\biggl(1+81\ga+\frac 16\ \ga\ \dd_1\biggr)+\calo(\ga^2)\,,
\eqlabel{deflambda}$$ which implies that $$A=\frac{1}{4\pi}\biggl(1+120\ \ga\biggr)+\calo(\ga^2)\,,
\eqlabel{final}$$ leading to the result quoted in . Notice that the remaining arbitrary integration constant $\dd_1$ got “absorbed” into a definition of an arbitrary scale $\Lambda$. The physical observable, , the ratio of shear viscosity to entropy density is evaluated unambiguously.
Conclusion
==========
In this paper we evaluated finite ’t Hooft coupling correction to strongly coupled $\caln=4$ SYM plasma undergoing 1+1-dimensional Bjorken expansion. Such finite coupling correction corresponds to string theory $\a'$ corrections in the supergravity dual to the boost invariant plasma expansion proposed by Janik and collaborators [@j1; @j2; @j3]. We extracted the ratio of shear viscosity to entropy density at large, but finite, ’t Hooft coupling. Our result is in conflict with analysis of shear viscosity of strongly coupled SYM plasma extracted from the equilibrium two-point correlation functions of the boundary stress energy tensor [@sh1; @sh2].
Though we do not currently understand the source of the discrepancy, there are two potential outcomes. First, the nonsingularity approach of [@j1; @j2; @j3] is simply inconsistent — it was shown in [@bbhj] that it is definitely inconsistent within the supergravity approximation at high orders in the late proper time expansion ( though it appears to be well-defined in the first two orders necessary to compute shear viscosity of $\caln=4$ plasma in the supergravity approximation ). The discrepancy might be due to using incorrect effective string theory action , as a dual to $\caln=4$ dynamics at large, but finite, ’t Hooft coupling. Specifically, the full set of $\a'$ corrections to RR fluxes is unknown. It is conceivable that proper inclusion of $\a'$ corrections to the RR fluxes would reconcile two results (as it must be). A starting point for such analysis could be the $\a'$ effective action proposed in [@hss].
We believe resolution of the puzzle presented here deserves further study.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
My research at Perimeter Institute is supported in part by the Government of Canada through NSERC and by the Province of Ontario through MRI. I gratefully acknowledges further support by an NSERC Discovery grant and support through the Early Researcher Award program by the Province of Ontario.
Appendix: Source terms for eqs. -
=================================
$$\begin{split}
\cals_{(1,1)}=-\frac{72 \he v^6 \dd_1}{(3+v^4)^4}+\frac{1119744 (20 v^{16}-340 v^{12}+1010 v^8-555 v^4-9) \he v^6}{(3+v^4)^9}
\end{split}
\eqlabel{source11}$$
$$\begin{split}
\cals_{(1,2)}=&-\frac{72 (v^{16}+54 v^8+72 v^4+81) \he v^6 \dd_1}{(v^8-9)^4}-\frac{373248\he v^6}{(3+v^4)^9 (v^4-3)^4}\times
\biggl(
113319 v^{16}\\
&-55647 v^4+159732 v^8-180090 v^{12}-37251 v^{20}+2187-532 v^{28}+12 v^{32}\\
&+6750 v^{24}\biggr)
\end{split}
\eqlabel{source12}$$
$$\begin{split}
\cals_{(1,3)}=&-\frac{144 (v^{16}+6 v^{12}+54 v^8+18 v^4+81) \he v^6 \dd_1}{(v^8-9)^4}-\frac{746496\he v^6}{(3+v^4)^9 (v^4-3)^4}\times
\biggl(24 v^{32}\\
&-604 v^{28}+6840 v^{24}-37017 v^{20}+113751 v^{16}-179118 v^{12}+139806 v^8\\
&-30861 v^4+2187\biggr)
\end{split}
\eqlabel{source13}$$
$$\begin{split}
\cals_{(1,4)}=&-\frac{12 v^6 \he (v^4+15) (v^8+9) \dd_1}{(3+v^4)^4 (v^4-3)^2}+\frac{186624
\he v^6}{(v^4-3)^2 (3+v^4)^9}\times \biggl(84 v^{24}-2312 v^{20}\\
&+15663 v^{16}-50778 v^{12}+74304 v^8
-37098 v^4-1215\biggr)
\end{split}
\eqlabel{source14}$$
$$\begin{split}
\cals_{(1,5)}=&\frac{24 v^7 \he \dd_1}{(v^8-9) (v^4-2 v^2+3) (v^4+2 v^2+3)}
\\
&-\frac{373248 v^7 \he}{(v^4+2 v^2+3) (v^4-2 v^2+3) (v^4-3) (3+v^4)^8}\times \biggl(40 v^{20}-520 v^{16}\\
&+1455 v^{12}-1269 v^8-189 v^4-81\biggr)
\end{split}
\eqlabel{source15}$$
$$\begin{split}
\cals_{(1,6)}=&\frac{259200 (71 v^8+639-456 v^4) v^{14} \he}{(3+v^4)^9 (v^4-3)}
\end{split}
\eqlabel{source16}$$
$$\begin{split}
\cals_{(1,7)}=&\frac{288 \he v^{10} \b_2}{(v^8-9)^3}-\frac{44789760 v^{14} \he (v^8-9 v^4+27) (v^8-3 v^4+3)}{(v^4-3)^3 (3+v^4)^9}
\end{split}
\eqlabel{source17}$$
Appendix: Source terms for eqs. -
=================================
We find it convenient to express the source terms at this order implicitly in the background warp factors $\{a_2,b_2,c_2\}$, while using equations of motion for the supergravity background to eliminate higher than second derivatives[^19]. For convenience, we present these equations here [@j2; @bbhj] $$\begin{split}
a_2''=&-\frac{9+5 v^4}{v (v^4-3)} a_2'-\frac{16 v^3}{v^8-9} b_2'-\frac{32 v^3}{v^8-9} c_2'
+\frac{4(2 v^4+9) v^4}{3(v^4-3) (v^8-9)}\\
&-\frac{432 v^6 \he^2 (v^{16}+24 v^{12}+30 v^8+216 v^4+81)}
{(v^8-9)^4}\,,
\end{split}
\eqlabel{a2eq}$$ $$\begin{split}
b_2''=&-\frac{5 v^8-8 v^4+27}{v (v^8-9)} b_2'+\frac{16 v^3}{v^8-9} c_2'-\frac{432 v^6 \he^2 (v^{12}+11 v^8+63 v^4-27)}{(v^8-9)^3 (3+v^4)}\\
&- \frac{4(2 v^8-9 v^4-63) v^4}{3(v^4-3)^2 (v^8-9)}\,,
\end{split}
\eqlabel{b2eq}$$ $$\begin{split}
c_2''=&\frac{8 v^3}{v^8-9} b_2'-\frac{5 v^8-16 v^4+27}{v (v^8-9)} c_2'-\frac{432 v^6 \he^2(v^{12}-13 v^8-9 v^4-27)}{(3+v^4) (v^8-9)^3} \\
&+\frac{4(v^8-9 v^4-18) v^4}{3(v^4-3)^2 (v^8-9)}\,.
\end{split}
\eqlabel{c2eq}$$ Of course, solves -.
$$\begin{split}
\cals_{(2,1)}=&\frac{4320 v^7 (119 v^{16}-837 v^{12}+4776 v^8-7533 v^4+9639)}{(v^4-3) (3+v^4)^7} a_2'
+\biggl(\frac{2 v^3 \dd_1}{(3+v^4)^2}\\
&-\frac{864 v^3}{(3+v^4)^7 (v^4-3)^3}(125 v^{28}-15725 v^{24}+145095 v^{20}-669570 v^{16}\\
&+1303911 v^{12}-1275669 v^8+96957 v^4+8748)
\biggr) (b_2'+2 c_2')\\
&+\biggl(-\frac{(2 v^8+3 v^4+9) v^4}{(v^4-3)^3 (3+v^4)^2}+\frac{432 v^6 (2 v^{12}-21 v^8+36 v^4-81) \he^2}{(3+v^4)^5 (v^4-3)^3}\biggr) \dd_1
\\
&-\frac{72 (v^8-2 v^4+9) v^6 \he \dd_2}{(v^4-3)^2 (3+v^4)^4}
+\frac{373248 v^6\he^2}{(v^4-3)^6 (3+v^4)^{10}}\times \biggl(-87058152 v^{16}\\
&-22973922 v^{24}+61231383 v^{20}-39438171 v^8+92195901 v^{12}+7794468 v^4\\
&+177147+6804783 v^{28}-1074783 v^{32}+126421 v^{36}+132 v^{44}-6007 v^{40}\biggr)\\
& -\frac{288 v^4}{(3+v^4)^7 (v^4-3)^6}\times \biggl(v^{40}+2386 v^{36}+5073 v^{32}+50304 v^{28}+2354787 v^{24}\\
&-3096360 v^{20}+26563545 v^{16}
-11763144 v^{12}+26305236 v^8-118098 v^4\\
&-118098\biggr)
\end{split}
\eqlabel{source21}$$
$$\begin{split}
\cals_{(2,2)}=&-\biggl(\frac{2 v^3 \dd_1}{(v^4-3)^2}+\frac{288 v^3 }
{(3+v^4)^7 (v^4-3)^2}(535 v^{24}-5190 v^{20}+34755 v^{16}-92925 v^{12}\\
&+160542 v^8-109593 v^4+8748)
\biggr) a_2'
+\frac{288 v^7}{(3+v^4)^7 (v^4-3)^3} \biggl(473 v^{24}-18797 v^{20}\\
&+177291 v^{16}-787422 v^{12}+1595619 v^8-1522557 v^4+344817\biggr) b_2'\\
&+\biggl(-\frac{24 v^7 \dd_1}{(v^8-9)^2}+\frac{576 v^7}{(3+v^4)^7 (v^4-3)^3} (41 v^{24}-14909 v^{20}+162387 v^{16}\\
&-751134 v^{12}
+1471203 v^8-1184301 v^4+47385)
\biggr) c_2'\\
&+\biggl(\frac{v^4 (4 v^{16}-6 v^{12}-171 v^8-648 v^4-567)}{9(v^4-3)^4 (3+v^4)^2}
+\frac{144 v^6 \he^2}{(v^8-9)^5}(2 v^{20}-99 v^{16}-36 v^{12}\\
&-1458 v^8-2430 v^4-2187)\biggr) \dd_1
-\frac{24 \he v^6 (3 v^{16}-8 v^{12}+90 v^8+216 v^4+243) \dd_2}{(v^8-9)^4}\\
&-\frac{124416 v^6\he^2}{(v^4-3)^6 (3+v^4)^{10}}\times \biggl(-86541048 v^{16}-23414778 v^{24}+65133639 v^{20}\\
&-43348527 v^8+96948981 v^{12}+13463172 v^4
-531441+7098399 v^{28}\\
&-958419 v^{32}+104165 v^{36}+60 v^{44}-2587 v^{40}\biggr) +\frac{32v^4}{(3+v^4)^7 (v^4-3)^6}\times \biggl(4 v^{44}\\
&+21 v^{40}+11406 v^{36}-3843 v^{32}+51372 v^{28}
+14188743 v^{24}-27797580 v^{20}\\
&+159619653 v^{16}-94425912 v^{12}+135077868 v^8-5314410 v^4-2480058\biggr)
\end{split}
\eqlabel{source22}$$
$$\begin{split}
\cals_{(2,3)}=&-\biggl(\frac{4 v^3 \dd_1}{(v^4-3)^2}+\frac{576 v^3}{(3+v^4)^7 (v^4-3)^2} (535 v^{24}-5190 v^{20}+34755 v^{16}-92925 v^{12}\\
&+160542 v^8
-109593 v^4+8748)\biggr) a_2'
+\biggl(-\frac{24 v^7 \dd_1}{(v^8-9)^2}+\frac{576 v^7}{(3+v^4)^7 (v^4-3)^3}\\
&\times (41 v^{24}-14909 v^{20}+162387 v^{16}-751134 v^{12}+1471203 v^8
-1184301 v^4\\
&+47385)\biggr) b_2'+\biggl(-\frac{24 v^7 \dd_1}{(v^4-3)^2 (3+v^4)^2}+\frac{1152 v^7}{(3+v^4)^7 (v^4-3)^3}
(257 v^{24}-16853 v^{20}\\
&+169839 v^{16}-769278 v^{12}+1533411 v^8-1353429 v^4+196101)\biggr) c_2'
\\
&+\biggl(\frac{2v^4 (v^{16}+12 v^{12}+99 v^8+162 v^4+162)}{9(v^4-3)^4 (3+v^4)^2}
-\frac{288 v^6 \he^2}{(v^8-9)^5}(4 v^{20}+99 v^{16}+252 v^{12}\\
&+1458 v^8+2187)\biggr) \dd_1
-\frac{48 v^6 \he (3 v^{16}+16 v^{12}+90 v^8+243) \dd_2}{(v^8-9)^4}\\
&-\frac{248832 v^6\he^2}{(v^4-3)^6 (3+v^4)^{10}}\times \biggl(-87964056 v^{16}-24187842 v^{24}+60165747 v^{20}\\
&-30830139 v^8+80345277 v^{12}+3542940 v^4-531441+6773211 v^{28}\\
&-1132371 v^{32}+126641 v^{36}+168 v^{44}-6439 v^{40}\biggr)+\frac{64v^4}{ (3+v^4)^7 (v^4-3)^6} \times \biggl(v^{44}\\
&+12 v^{40}+3873 v^{36}
+57582 v^{32}-870975 v^{28}+10771434 v^{24}-39529377 v^{20}\\
&+117880758 v^{16}-124357194 v^{12}+97483338 v^8+1417176 v^4+708588\biggr)
\end{split}
\eqlabel{source23}$$
$$\begin{split}
\cals_{(2,4)}=&-\biggl(\frac{v^3 (v^4-3) \dd_1}{4(3+v^4)^2}
+ \frac{9v^3}{2(3+v^4)^7 (v^4-3)} (16 v^{28}+192 v^{24}-57909 v^{20}+492612 v^{16}\\
&-3870990 v^{12}+5165316 v^8-13920741 v^4+69984)\biggr) a_2'
\\
&+\biggl(-\frac{v^3 (v^{12}-33 v^8+27 v^4-675) \dd_1}{12(v^8-9)^2}
-\frac{3v^3}{2 (3+v^4)^7 (v^4-3)^3}(16 v^{36}+288 v^{32}\\
&+54939 v^{28}-6400314 v^{24}+62833977 v^{20}-333665244 v^{16}+710087229 v^{12}\\
&-937477962 v^8
+81104895 v^4+15746400)
\biggr) b_2'
\\
&+\biggl(\frac{v^3 (v^{12}+3 v^8-27 v^4+459) \dd_1}{3(v^8-9)^2}
+\frac{6 v^3}{(3+v^4)^7 (v^4-3)^3} (16 v^{36}+144 v^{32}\\
&-11157 v^{28}+3087459 v^{24}-31309542 v^{20}+166984254 v^{16}-355695705 v^{12}\\
&+476607807 v^8
-55436076 v^4-10707552)
\biggr) c_2'
+\biggl(\frac{72 (v^4+1) v^2 \dd_1}{(v^8-9)^2}
\\
&-\frac{144 v^2}{(3+v^4)^7 (v^4-3)^2} (16 v^{28}+240 v^{24}+1371 v^{20}-48555 v^{16}+48465 v^{12}\\
&-196425 v^8-186624 v^4-69984)\biggr) (b_2+2 c_2)
+\biggl(\frac{6 \he^2 v^2 (2 v^8-9 v^4-27) \dd_1}{ (v^8-9)^2}
\\
&-\frac{324 \he^2 v^2}{(3+v^4)^7 (v^4-3)^2} (8 v^{28}+120 v^{24}+623 v^{20}+17985 v^{16}-21555 v^{12}+36315 v^8\\
&+13608 v^4-5832)
-\frac{4 \he v^2 \dd_2}{v^8-9}\biggr)
\ln\frac{3-v^4}{3+v^4}
+\biggl(-\frac{(v^4-9) v^8}{(v^4-3)^3 (3+v^4)^2}\\
&+\frac{12 v^6\he^2}{(3+v^4)^5 (v^4-3)^3} (-1917 v^8+12 v^{16}-81 v^{12}-2511 v^4-8019+4 v^{20})\biggr) \dd_1\\
&-\frac{16 v^6 \he (v^{12}+12 v^8+27 v^4+108) \dd_2}{(v^4-3)^2 (3+v^4)^4}
+\frac{216 v^6\he^2}{(v^4-3)^6 (3+v^4)^{10}}\\
&\times \biggl(100639406448 v^{20}+177616911942 v^{12}+19659065472 v^4+931084632\\
&-84883350843 v^8
-148217241528 v^{16}+165520368 v^{36}-1463056992 v^{32}\\
&+10018391364 v^{28}-34345317222 v^{24}+98934 v^{44}-6831063 v^{40}+312 v^48\\
&+32 v^{52}\biggr)
+\frac{2 v^2}{(v^4-3)^6 (3+v^4)^7}\times
\biggl(-17006112 v^6-289315557 v^{26}\\
&-3796250733 v^{18}+74994660 v^{22}-4935413835 v^{10}+931858830 v^{14}\\
&-13966290 v^{30}-476019 v^{34}-207648 v^{38}
-144 v^{42}\biggr)
\end{split}
\eqlabel{source24}$$
$$\begin{split}
\cals_{(2,5)}=&\biggl(\frac{(v^4-3) v^4 \dd_1}{6(v^4+2 v^2+3) (v^4-2 v^2+3)}
+\frac{48 v^4}{(v^4-2 v^2+3) (v^4+2 v^2+3) (3+v^4)^6} (v^{28}\\
&+12 v^{24}-9 v^{20}-6948 v^{16}+15435 v^{12}-65934 v^8-10935 v^4-4374)\biggr) a_2'
\\
&+\biggl( \frac{v^4 (v^4+1) \dd_1}{6(v^4-2 v^2+3) (v^4+2 v^2+3)}
\\
&+\frac{48 v^4}{(v^4-2 v^2+3) (v^4+2 v^2+3) (3+v^4)^6 (v^4-3)^2} (v^{36}+14 v^{32}+24 v^{28}\\
&+1782 v^{24}-136782 v^{20}+553644 v^{16}
-1220832 v^{12}+161838 v^8-2187 v^4\\
&+13122)
\biggr) (b_2'+2 c_2')
-\biggl( \frac{(v^4-6) v^9}{9(v^4-3)^2 (v^4+2 v^2+3) (v^4-2 v^2+3)}\\
&+\frac{72 v^7 (v^8-18) \he^2}{(v^4-2 v^2+3) (v^4+2 v^2+3) (v^8-9)^2}\biggr) \dd_1
\\
&+\frac{24 \he v^7 \dd_2}{(v^4-2 v^2+3) (v^4+2 v^2+3) (v^8-9)}\\
&-\frac{20736 v^7\he^2}{(v^4-3)^5 (3+v^4)^9 (v^4+2 v^2+3) (v^4-2 v^2+3)}\times
\biggl(1062882+18680058 v^{24}\\
&+59248017 v^{16}+7853517 v^8+1417176 v^4-33907248 v^{12}-36367380 v^{20}\\
&+1161 v^{40}-46404 v^{36}+732348 v^{32}-4038876 v^{28}
+v^{48}
+12 v^{44}\biggr)\\
&-\frac{32v^9}{(v^4-2 v^2+3) (v^4+2 v^2+3) (3+v^4)^6 (v^4-3)^5}\times \biggl(
v^{40}+6 v^{36}-117 v^{32}\\
&-12276 v^{28}-112041 v^{24}+345492 v^{20}-7735095 v^{16}+6890508 v^{12}-21065184 v^8\\
&+3346110 v^4+236196\biggr)
\end{split}
\eqlabel{source25}$$
$$\begin{split}
\cals_{(2,6)}=&\frac{180 v^7 (163 v^{16}-42 v^{12}-2106 v^8-378 v^4+13203)}{(3+v^4)^7 (v^4-3)} a_2'
\\
&+\frac{180 v^7}{(3+v^4)^7 (v^4-3)^3} (163 v^{24}-2556 v^{20}+34557 v^{16}-165528 v^{12}+311013 v^8\\
&-207036 v^4+118827) (b_2'+2 c_2')+\frac{207360 v^{14}\he^2}{(v^4-3)^4 (3+v^4)^{10}} \times\biggl(-166212 v^{12}\\
&-393660 v^4+166941+451413 v^8+229 v^{24}
-4860 v^20+50157 v^{16}\biggr)\\
&-\frac{240v^8}{(3+v^4)^7 (v^4-3)^4}\times \biggl(173 v^{24}+183 v^{20}\\
&+18162 v^{16}-2160 v^{12}+195615 v^8+18225 v^4+7290\biggr)
\end{split}
\eqlabel{source26}$$
$$\begin{split}
\cals_{(2,7)}=&\biggl(\frac{v^3 \b_2}{v^8-9}-\frac{466560 v^{11} (2 v^8-11 v^4+18)}{(3+v^4)^7 (v^4-3)}\biggr) a_2'
+\biggl(\frac{v^3 \b_2}{v^8-9}\\
&+\frac{155520 v^{11} (2 v^8-63 v^4+18)}{(3+v^4)^7 (v^4-3)}\biggr) (b_2'+2 c_2')+\biggl(\frac{12 v^4 (v^4+1)}{(v^4-3)^4 (3+v^4)}
\\
&+\frac{10368 v^{10} \he^2}{ (v^8-9)^4}\biggr) \b_2+\frac{288 \he v^{10} \b_4}{ (v^8-9)^3}-\frac{13436928v^{14}\he^2}{(v^4-3)^4 (3+v^4)^{10}} \times
\biggl(11 v^{24}-192 v^{20}\\
&+1853 v^{16}-5832 v^{12}+16677 v^8-15552 v^4+8019\biggr)+\frac{124416v^{16}}{(3+v^4)^7 (v^4-3)^4}\\
&\times \biggl(10 v^{12}+33 v^8+63 v^4+79\biggr)
\end{split}
\eqlabel{source27}$$
[99]{}
R. A. Janik and R. Peschanski, “Asymptotic perfect fluid dynamics as a consequence of AdS/CFT,” Phys. Rev. D [**73**]{}, 045013 (2006) \[arXiv:hep-th/0512162\].
R. A. Janik, “Viscous plasma evolution from gravity using AdS/CFT,” Phys. Rev. Lett. [**98**]{}, 022302 (2007) \[arXiv:hep-th/0610144\].
M. P. Heller and R. A. Janik, “Viscous hydrodynamics relaxation time from AdS/CFT,” Phys. Rev. D [**76**]{} (2007) 025027 \[arXiv:hep-th/0703243\].
S. Nakamura and S. J. Sin, “A holographic dual of hydrodynamics,” JHEP [**0609**]{}, 020 (2006) \[arXiv:hep-th/0607123\].
J. M. Maldacena, “The large N limit of superconformal field theories and supergravity,” Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. [**2**]{}, 231 (1998) \[Int. J. Theor. Phys. [**38**]{}, 1113 (1999)\] \[arXiv:hep-th/9711200\]. O. Aharony, S. S. Gubser, J. M. Maldacena, H. Ooguri and Y. Oz, “Large N field theories, string theory and gravity,” Phys. Rept. [**323**]{}, 183 (2000) \[arXiv:hep-th/9905111\].
S. Bhattacharyya, V. E. Hubeny, S. Minwalla and M. Rangamani, “Nonlinear Fluid Dynamics from Gravity,” arXiv:0712.2456 \[hep-th\].
I. Muller, Z. Phys. [**198**]{} (1967) 329.
W. Israel and J. M. Stewart, “Transient relativistic thermodynamics and kinetic theory,” Annals Phys. [**118**]{} (1979) 341. J. D. Bjorken, “Highly Relativistic Nucleus-Nucleus Collisions: The Central Rapidity Region,” Phys. Rev. D [**27**]{}, 140 (1983). P. Benincasa, A. Buchel, M. P. Heller and R. A. Janik, “On the supergravity description of boost invariant conformal plasma at strong coupling,” arXiv:0712.2025 \[hep-th\]. S. S. Gubser, I. R. Klebanov and A. W. Peet, “Entropy and Temperature of Black 3-Branes,” Phys. Rev. D [**54**]{}, 3915 (1996) \[arXiv:hep-th/9602135\].
G. Policastro, D. T. Son and A. O. Starinets, “The shear viscosity of strongly coupled N = 4 supersymmetric Yang-Mills plasma,” Phys. Rev. Lett. [**87**]{}, 081601 (2001) \[arXiv:hep-th/0104066\]. M. Natsuume and T. Okamura, “Causal hydrodynamics of gauge theory plasmas from AdS/CFT duality,” arXiv:0712.2916 \[hep-th\]. M. Natsuume and T. Okamura, “Comment on “Viscous hydrodynamics relaxation time from AdS/CFT correspondence’,” arXiv:0712.2917 \[hep-th\]. M. Natsuume and T. Okamura, “A note on causal hydrodynamics for M-theory branes,” arXiv:0801.1797 \[hep-th\].
R. Baier, P. Romatschke, D. T. Son, A. O. Starinets and M. A. Stephanov, “Relativistic viscous hydrodynamics, conformal invariance, and holography,” arXiv:0712.2451 \[hep-th\].
A. Buchel, J. T. Liu and A. O. Starinets, “Coupling constant dependence of the shear viscosity in N=4 supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory,” Nucl. Phys. B [**707**]{}, 56 (2005) \[arXiv:hep-th/0406264\].
P. Benincasa and A. Buchel, “Transport properties of N = 4 supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory at finite coupling,” JHEP [**0601**]{}, 103 (2006) \[arXiv:hep-th/0510041\]. A. Buchel, “Higher derivative corrections to near-extremal black holes in type IIB supergravity,” Nucl. Phys. B [**750**]{}, 45 (2006) \[arXiv:hep-th/0604167\].
G. Policastro, D. T. Son and A. O. Starinets, “From AdS/CFT correspondence to hydrodynamics,” JHEP [**0209**]{}, 043 (2002) \[arXiv:hep-th/0205052\].
G. Policastro, D. T. Son and A. O. Starinets, “From AdS/CFT correspondence to hydrodynamics. II: Sound waves,” JHEP [**0212**]{}, 054 (2002) \[arXiv:hep-th/0210220\]. S. S. Gubser, I. R. Klebanov and A. A. Tseytlin, “Coupling constant dependence in the thermodynamics of N = 4 supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory,” Nucl. Phys. B [**534**]{}, 202 (1998) \[arXiv:hep-th/9805156\]. M. Brigante, H. Liu, R. C. Myers, S. Shenker and S. Yaida, “Viscosity Bound Violation in Higher Derivative Gravity,” arXiv:0712.0805 \[hep-th\]. O. Aharony, A. Buchel and P. Kerner, “The black hole in the throat - thermodynamics of strongly coupled cascading gauge theories,” Phys. Rev. D [**76**]{}, 086005 (2007) \[arXiv:0706.1768 \[hep-th\]\]. S. de Haro, A. Sinkovics and K. Skenderis, “On alpha’ corrections to D-brane solutions,” Phys. Rev. D [**68**]{}, 066001 (2003) \[arXiv:hep-th/0302136\].
[^1]: For an approach alternative to [@j1] see [@muk].
[^2]: Related work appeared in [@sol1; @sol2; @sol3].
[^3]: One can formulate and study questions such as dynamical hadronization in this approach.
[^4]: For a recent review of the Janik’s framework and its clarification see [@bbhj].
[^5]: This is related with difficulties of deriving $\a'$ corrected string theory effective action in the presence of nontrivial RR fluxes.
[^6]: For example, using , one has to take into account $\a'$ corrections to the black three brane temperature [@gkt].
[^7]: Amusingly, not all parameters can be fixed from the nonsingularity condition [@j1]. Despite this, our answer for the viscosity ratio is unambiguous.
[^8]: In [@sl] a correction to Bjorken expansion within MIS theory was pointed out. Such a correction, while modify the interpretation of the plasma relaxation time, does not affect the determination of its shear viscosity compare to the analysis of [@bbhj].
[^9]: These constraints fix some of the integration constants.
[^10]: We normalize the five-form flux so that the asymptotic AdS radius is one.
[^11]: As usual, care should be taken with the self-dual five-form. The correct contribution to the effective action from the five-form is $-\frac{1}{4\cdot 5!}F_5^2=-8 e^{-6\a(\t,z)}$, see [@bbhj].
[^12]: This is simply a check (which we verified to be true) that the supergravity background - solves supergravity equations of motion.
[^13]: The term $\ ^{[-5/3]}\call_{(2)}^{SUGRA}$ does not contribute as it can only be bilinear in both $\ha_2$ and either $h$ or $g$.
[^14]: Altogether we expect 10 integration constants; setting nonnormalizable components of the fields to zero fixes 5 integration constants; the two constraints fix another 2 integration constants.
[^15]: Notice that Ricci scalar vanishes in the supergravity approximation [@bbhj].
[^16]: This is always possible since $\cals_{(2,6)}=\calo(v^8)$, see .
[^17]: We studied more general higher curvature invariants at lower orders in the late proper time expansion.
[^18]: We would like to thank Romuald Janik for pointing this out.
[^19]: The highest derivative is the fourth.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: '[We have accumulated multiwavelength lightcurves for eight black hole X-ray binaries which have been observed to enter a supposed “soft X-ray transient” outburst, but which in fact remained in the low/hard state throughout the outburst. Comparison of the lightcurve morphologies, spectral behaviour, properties of the QPOs and the radio jet provides the first study of such objects as a subclass of X-ray transients (XRTs). However, rather than assuming that these hard state XRTs are different from “canonical” soft XRTs, we prefer to consider the possibility that a new analysis of both soft and hard state XRTs in a spectral context will provide a model capable of explaining the outburst mechanisms for the majority of black hole X-ray binaries.]{}'
author:
- 'R. M. Bandyopadhyay$^1$, C. Brocksopp$^{2}$, & R. P. Fender$^3$'
title: 'The Hard Truth about Some “Soft” X-ray Transients'
---
2[cm$^2$ ]{} 1[s$^{-1}$ ]{}
Lightcurves
===========
In the low/hard state (LHS) the X-ray spectrum is dominated by a power law component; this hard X-ray emission is thought to be produced in a Comptonizing corona. Corresponding X-ray power spectra for sources in the LHS show a high level of low frequency noise, a broken power law, and at least one quasi-periodic oscillation (QPO). The LHS is also characterized by a powerful, low intensity jet emitting synchrotron radiation in radio (and often higher) frequencies [@Fen01].
The X-ray lightcurves of the eight LHS XRTs we consider – V404 Cyg, A 1524-62, 4U 1543-475, GRO J0422+32, GRO J1719-24, GRS 1737-31, GS 1354-64, and XTE J1118+480 – exhibit very different morphologies, and the canonical “FRED”-type lightcurve is not predominant. The optical lightcurves appear generally, although not consistently, correlated with the X-rays. Where radio coverage is available it appears that both the main outburst and secondary maxima of the X-ray lightcurves tend to be associated with radio ejections [@Fen01]. Despite the similarities in X-ray and broad-band spectral behaviour of these sources, the most notable feature of these lightcurves is their inconsistency.
The Low-Frequency QPO
=====================
The presence of a QPO in the power spectrum of XRTs is a common feature of the LHS, as well as the intermediate and very high states (I/VHS; [@WvdK99]); however, the frequencies are lower in the LHS than in the I/VHS. In the four sources shown in Figure 1, the frequency of the LHS QPO is not constant but instead increases during the outburst. Formal cross-correlation of the QPOs with the X-ray flux does not produce a statistically significant correlation in any of these sources. In addition, we find that the duration of the QPO frequency increase is a factor of 1.5-2 times the duration of the X-ray flux rise.
The mHz QPO of XRTs may relate to the inner edge of the accretion disc [@Rev00]; if the softening during the outburst is due to the inner edge of the disc moving inwards we would expect the QPO frequency to increase, as observed. Alternatively, the QPO could be produced at a large radius within the disc, with its frequency inversely proportional to the disc mass [@Wood01]. In this model, the rising QPO frequency is a signature of the accretion disc mass decreasing as it disappears into the black hole.
Broad-band Spectra and Jets
===========================
Nearly all black hole transients in the LHS show evidence for some form of jet behaviour [@Fen01]. This jet is not purely a “radio jet”, as the synchrotron spectrum that is thought to be the jet signature is often seen up to IR and possibly optical frequencies. For XTE J1118+480, a synchrotron spectrum has been fit to the full range of frequencies up to the hard X-rays [@Sera01]. For these LHS XRTs, a flat or inverted spectrum has already been well established in the radio. We compiled spectra from radio to X-rays for four sources at three different epochs (where possible) per source (Figure 2). Inspection of the resultant broad-band spectra show that despite the morphological differences between the outburst lightcurves, their spectral properties are similar; also, the spectra do not vary significantly between the various epochs. The spectra of these four XRTs are similar to that of XTE J1118+480; formal fitting of these broad-band spectra with a synchrotron spectrum is in progress. Although it is unclear whether synchrotron emission from the jet can be the dominant contributor to the broad-band spectrum, as suggested in the case of XTE J1118+480, what is clear is that the jet contribution should not be ignored when modelling XRT outbursts, especially in the LHS.
Conclusions
===========
For these LHS transient outbursts, we find the following characteristics:
- [The X-ray and multi-wavelength lightcurves have very different morphologies. The relationships between the emission at various wavelengths likewise differs from source to source.]{}
- [A low frequency QPO is observed which increases in frequency during the outburst but is not directly correlated with the X-ray luminosity.]{}
- [The broad-band spectra of the LHS transients are very similar and do not vary substantially during different epochs.]{}
- [In addition to the radio signature of the jet, it may be possible to fit the broad-band spectra in the LHS with a synchrotron spectrum.]{}
To model LHS outbursts, the Disc Instability Model (DIM) should be able to reproduce non-FRED lightcurves and also must consider the production of the power law hard X-ray emission from the corona. Models of LHS outbursts should include the jet, which is likely to be a much more significant contributor to the X-ray luminosity and broad-band emission than has been previously assumed. Finally, in recent “canonical” soft XRT outbursts (XTE J1859+226, XTE J1550-564) the sources have been observed to pass through the LHS on the rise from quiescence to the (V)HS. It is important that the power requirements of the initial LHS and its associated jet are incorporated into future attempts to model transient outbursts with the DIM, which has not been done to date.
Fender R.P., 2001, MNRAS, [**322**]{}, 31. Wijnands R. & van der Klis M., 1999, ApJ, [**514**]{}, 939. Revinitsev M.G., , 2000, ApJ, [**530**]{}, 955. Wood K.S., , 2001, ApJ, [**563**]{}, 246. Markoff S., , 2001, A&A, [**368**]{}, 1021.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'MAGIC is currently the world’s largest single dish ground based imaging atmospheric Cherenkov telescope. During the first year of operation, more than 20 extragalactic sources have been observed and several of them detected. Here we present results of analyzed data, including discussion about spectral and temporal properties of the detected sources. In addition, we discuss implications of the measured energy spectra of distant sources for our knowledge of the extragalactic background light.'
author:
- Daniel Mazin for the MAGIC collaboration
date: 'Received: date / Accepted: date'
subtitle: TeV Blazars and Extragalactic Background Light
title: Observations of Extragalactic Sources with the MAGIC Telescope
---
Introduction {#intro}
============
The search for very high energy (VHE, defined as $E\geq 100$ GeV) $\gamma$-ray emission from Active Galactic Nuclei (AGNs) is one of the major goals for ground-based $\gamma$-ray astronomy. New detections open up a possibility of phenomenological studies of the physics inside the relativistic jets in AGNs, in particular of understanding both the origin of the VHE $\gamma$-rays as well as the relations between photons of different energy (from radio to VHE). The number of extragalactic $\gamma$-ray sources detected by EGRET on board the CGRO with high confidence amounts to 66 [@hartman]. However, the number of AGNs reported to be VHE $\gamma$-ray emitters (although slowly increasing) is currently just thirteen (July 2006).
Stecker et al. [@ste] pointed out that the attenuation of $\gamma$-rays due to photon-photon interactions with low energy photons from the extragalactic background light (EBL) was a likely explanation of this deficit. In fact, the redshifts of blazars detected so far above 100GeV have rather low values as expected from predictions of the correlation between the gamma-ray attenuation and the redshift of the source, known as Fazio-Stecker relation [@fazio; @kneiske].
All known VHE gamma-ray emitting blazars belong to the class of high-frequency-peaked BL Lacertae objects (HBLs, [@padovani]), a subclass of blazars characterized by a low luminosity when compared with quasars and a synchrotron peak in the X-ray band. Their Spectral Energy Distribution (SED) is characterized by a second peak at very high gamma-ray energies. In synchrotron-self-Compton (SSC) models it is assumed that the observed gamma-ray peak is due to the inverse-Compton (IC) emission from the accelerated electrons up-scattering previously produced synchrotron photons to high energies [@mar]. A compilation of blazars with known X-ray spectra allowing their classification as HBLs is given in [@don].
The Major Atmospheric Gamma-ray Imaging Cheren-kov (MAGIC) telescope observed a sample of X-ray bright ($F_{1\,\rm{keV}}$$>$$2\,\rm{\mu Jy}$) northern HBLs at moderate redshifts ($z$$<$$0.3$). The sample of candidates was chosen based on predictions from models involving an SSC [@CostGhis] and hadronic [@man2] origin of the $\gamma$-rays.
The known VHE $\gamma$-ray emitting AGNs are variable in flux in all wavebands. Correlations between X-ray and $\gamma$-ray emission have been found on time scales ranging from several 10 minutes to days (e.g. [@fossati04]) although the relationship has proven to be rather complicated. The optical-TeV correlation has yet to be studied, but the optical-GeV correlations seen in 3C 279 [@hartman01] suggest that at least in some sources such correlations do exist. Using this as a guideline, the MAGIC collaboration has performed Target of Opportunity observations whenever they were alerted about sources being in a high flux state in the optical and/or X-ray band.
Here we present results of the detected extragalactic sources ordered by increasing redshift values: Mkn 421 (z=0.030), Mkn 501 (z=0.034), 1ES2344+514 (z=0.044), Mkn 180 (z=0.045), 1ES1959+650 (z=0.047), 1ES1218+304 (z=0.182), PG 1553+113 (unknown redshift, z$>$0.09 [@z_new]). The results from galactic observations are presented elsewhere in these proceedings [@rico].
MAGIC {#sec:0}
=====
{width="90.00000%"}
The MAGIC telescope [@cortina] is located on the Canary Island La Palma (2200 m asl, 28$^\circ$45$'$N, 17$^\circ$54$'$W) and is currently the largest imaging atmospheric Cherenkov telescope worldwide. The accessible energy range spans from 50-60 GeV (trigger threshold at small zenith angles) up to tens of TeV. The sensitivity of MAGIC is $\sim$ 2.5% of the Crab Nebula flux in 50 hours of observations. The energy resolution is about 30% above 100 GeV and about 25% above 200 GeV. The $\gamma$ point spread function is about $0.1$ degrees.
The standard operation mode for MAGIC is the ON-observation, with the source position in the center of the camera. Usually, to get a robust estimate of the background, part of the data are taken in the OFF mode, where a sky region is tracked by the telescope which resembles the region around the source with respect to the level of the night sky background fluctuations. Part of the data were taken in the so-called WOBBLE mode [@daum]. In this mode, two sky directions, opposite and 0.4$^\circ$ off source respectively, were tracked alternately for 20 minutes each. The advantage of the WOBBLE tracking mode is a simultaneous measurement of the background, and thus [*a priori*]{} no need for additional OFF data.
For calibration, image cleaning, cut optimization, and energy reconstruction, the MAGIC standard analysis chain [@rwagner] was used. For $\gamma$/hadron separation as well as for energy determination a multidimensional classification technique based on the Random Forest method [@breiman; @rf] was used. The cuts were then chosen such that the overall cut efficiency for Monte-Carlo $\gamma$ events was about 50$\%$. The systematic errors were estimated to be around 50% for the absolute flux level and 0.2 for the spectral index.
In parallel with the observations of the AGNs with MAGIC, the sources were observed with the KVA 35 cm telescope (http://tur3.tur.iac.es/), also located on La Palma. In addition to these joint campaigns, several AGNs are regularly observed as part of the Tuorla Observatory Blazar monitoring program with the Tuorla 1 m and the KVA 35 cm telescopes.
In the following sections we present the highlights of the extragalactic observations by the MAGIC telescope. The observational details of the selected sources including an analysis energy threshold are summarized in Table \[tab:1\].
\[tab:1\]
[lllll]{} & [**Period**]{} & [**ZA**]{} & $\mbox{\bf E}_{\tiny \mbox{\bf Thr}}$ & [**T(hr)/Mode** ]{}\
& Nov04–Apr05 & 9–55 & & 15.5/ON\
[\[-1.5ex\][Mkn 421]{}]{} & Apr05 & 9–32 & [\[-1.5ex\][150]{}]{} & 10.1/WOBBLE\
& [Jun–Jul05]{} & 10–31 & [150]{} & 29.7/ON\
1ES 2344 & Sep–Dec05 & 23–34 & 160 & 27.6/WOBBLE\
Mkn 180 & Mar06 & 39–44 & 200 & 11.1/WOBBLE\
1ES 1959 & Sep–Oct04 & 36–46& 180 & 6.0/ON\
1ES 1218 & Jan05 & 2–13& 140 & 8.2/ON\
& Apr–May05 & 12-30 & & 7.0/ON\
[\[-1.5ex\][PG 1553]{}]{} & Jan–Apr06 & 20-30 & [\[-1.5ex\][140]{}]{} & 11.8/ON\
Markarian 421 {#sec:1}
=============
Mkn 421 (redshift $z$ = 0.030) is the closest known TeV blazar and, along with Mkn 501, also the best studied one. It was the first extragalactic $\gamma$-ray source detected in the TeV energy range using IACTs [@punch]. So far, Mkn 421 has shown variations larger than one order of magnitude and occasional flux doubling times as short as 15 min [@gaidos]. Variations in the hardness of the TeV $\gamma$-ray spectrum during flares were reported by several groups (e.g. [@krenn; @hess421]). Simultaneous observations in the X-ray and GeV-TeV bands showed a significant flux correlation [@krawczynski421].
Mkn 421 was observed with the MAGIC for a total of 19 nights, the observation times per night ranging from 30 minutes up to 4 hours (Table \[tab:1\]). Most of the data were taken at small zenith angles ($ZA < 30^\circ$). Only 1.5 hours in December 2005 were taken at $42^\circ < ZA < 55^\circ$ during simultaneous observations with [@hessmagic].
![ Correlation plot between VHE $\gamma$-ray flux above 200 GeV and X-ray counts for 11 nights of Mkn 421 data.[]{data-label="fig:421Xray"}](mazin_fig2.eps){width="31.00000%"}
During the entire observation period Mkn 421 was found to be in a medium flux state ranging from 0.5 to 2 Crab units above 200 GeV (see Fig. \[fig:421lc\]). Significant variations of up to a factor of four overall and up to a factor two in between successive nights can be seen. Fig. \[fig:421Xray\] shows a clear correlation between X-ray (taken from the All-Sky-Monitor on-board the RXTE satellite) and VHE $\gamma$-ray data. The points are the nightly average of the MAGIC data and the simultaneous ASM count rate. A linear fit as well as a parabolic fit are forced to go through (0,0) and describe the correlation well. The linear correlation coefficient is $ r = 0.64^{+0.15}_{-0.22}$.
![ The measured (grey points) and de-absorbed (black points) spectrum of Mkn 421, multiplied by $E^2$. Solid line: fit (1) to the intrinsic spectrum using a power law with a cut-off. Dashed-dotted line: fit (2) to the intrinsic spectrum using a curved power law. A dashed line indicates the expected absorbed spectrum using the result of fit (1). Fit parameters of the intrinsic spectrum are shown in the inlays.[]{data-label="fig:421spec"}](mazin_fig3.eps){width="42.00000%"}
The measured spectrum and the reconstructed de- absorbed (i.e. corrected for the effect of extragalactic absorption) spectrum are shown in Fig. \[fig:421spec\]. Here we used the recent model of Primack et al.[@primack], which is in agreement with the upper limits set by H.E.S.S.[@hessebl] and low limits from the galaxy counts [@spitzer; @elbaz]. The de-absorbed spectrum is clearly curved. Therefore, it is obvious that the curvature in the measured spectrum has an intrinsic origin rather than being caused by the absorption of the VHE $\gamma$-rays by the EBL photons. A fit with a pure power law with a exponential cut-off as well as a fit with a curved power law indicate a flattening of the spectrum towards 100 GeV. For details of the analysis and results see [@magic421].
Markarian 501 {#sec:2}
=============
{width="80.00000%"}
The AGN Mkn 501 [@Quinn1996] is one of the best–studied objects in VHE $\gamma$-rays. The source is known to be a strong and variable VHE $\gamma$-ray emitter. During a flare in 1997, Mkn 501 showed strong variability on timescales of 0.5 days. The integral flux reached 10 times the flux of the Crab nebula above $1$ TeV [@hegra501]. The position of the IC peak was not detected yet while it was observed that the spectrum gets harder with an increasing flux level.
![Spectral differential energy distribution of Mkn 501 on 10 July 2005. The rapid variation of the flux level and corresponding change in the shape of the energy spectrum on a time scale of some 10 minutes is clearly visible.[]{data-label="fig:501spe"}](mazin_fig5.eps){width="40.00000%"}
Mkn 501 was observed for 24 nights (Table \[tab:1\]) by the MAGIC telescope. It is worth noticing that $\sim$18 out of 30 hrs of the observation time were performed in the presence of (moderate) moonshine. The source was found to be in a rather low flux state during most of the observations. The flux level above 200 GeV was 30%-50% of the Crab Nebula flux with a strong indication of an IC peak. On five nights, the source was found in a flaring state with the flux reaching up to 4 Crab units (Fig \[fig:501lc\]). Moreover, a rapid flare with a doubling time as short as 5 minutes or less was detected on the night of 10 July 2005 (inlay in Fig. \[fig:501spe\]). No change in background rates was seen during the observed flare. The rapid increase in the flux level was accompanied by a hardening of the differential spectrum (Fig. \[fig:501spe\]). This is the first time that spectral hardening was detected on time scales of some 10 minutes. A detailed publication on the analysis and results on the observation of Mkn 501 is in preparation.
1ES2344+514 {#sec:3}
===========
1ES2344+514 was identified as a BL Lac object by [@Perlman], who also determined a redshift of $z=0.044$ from absorption line measurements, while no evident emission lines were found. In VHE $\gamma$-rays, the source was observed by the Whipple collaboration during the 1995/96 observing season, yielding a signal on the $5.8\,\sigma$ level [@Catanese1998]. Over 1/3 of the measured excess was recorded during the night of December 20, 1995, with corresponding photon flux above 350 GeV of 64% of the Crab nebula flux. The VHE $\gamma$-ray emission of 1ES2344+514 was confirmed on a significance level of $4.4\,\sigma$ by the HEGRA collaboration [@54AGN], who found a quiescent flux level approximately 50 times lower than during the 1995 flare.
The MAGIC observation of 1ES2344+514 (Table \[tab:1\]) yielded a clear excess with the significance of 11.5$\sigma$. The measured flux corresponds to 6% of the Crab Nebula flux. No strong evidence for flux variability on times scales of days or weeks was found. The differential energy spectrum can be fitted by a simple power law with a photon index of $2.96 \pm 0.12$.
This was the first time that VHE $\gamma$-rays from 1ES 2344+ 514 were detected with high significance in a quiescent flux state. The derived spectrum is softer than the one reported by the Whipple collaboration during the flare in 1995 [@schroedter]. A detailed publication on the analysis and results of MAGIC observations of 1ES2344+514 is in preparation.
Markarian 180 {#sec:4}
=============
The AGN Mkn 180 (1ES 1133+704) is a well-known HBL at a redshift of $z=0.045$ [@falco]. Previous attempts to detect VHE $\gamma$-rays only resulted in upper limits [@54AGN; @horan].
![\[fig\_spectrum\] The differential energy spectrum of Mkn 180. Full circles: the spectrum measured by MAGIC. Open circles: the de-absorbed energy spectrum (see text). The horizontal bars indicate the size of each energy bin. The black line represents a power law fit to the measured spectrum. The fit parameters are listed in the figure. For comparison, the Crab Nebula energy spectrum as derived from MAGIC data [@rwagner] is shown (dashed line).](mazin_fig6.eps){width="40.00000%"}
The observation of Mkn 180 was triggered by a brightening of the source in the optical on March 23, 2006, detected by the KVA telescope. The alert was given as the core flux increased by 50% from its quiescent level value. Mkn 180 was observed by the MAGIC telescope in 2006 during 8 nights (Table \[tab:1\]). The signal of 165 excess events was found with a significance of 5.5$\sigma$. No evidence for flux variability between nights was found. The measured energy spectrum of Mkn 180 is shown in Fig. \[fig\_spectrum\]. A fit by a power law gives a photon index $\alpha=3.3\pm0.7$. The observed integral flux above 200 GeV is 11% of the Crab Nebula flux. The attenuation of the spectrum caused by the EBL was determined by numerical integration of Eq. 2 in [@dwek]. The de-absorbed energy spectrum of Mkn 180 is also shown in Fig. \[fig\_spectrum\] (open circles). A fit with a simple power law to the de-absorbed spectrum gives a slope with $\alpha^{\prime}=2.8\pm0.7$.
The discovery of VHE emission from Mkn 180 during an optical outburst makes it very tempting to speculate about the connection between optical activity and increased VHE emission. Since Mkn 180 has not been observed with MAGIC prior to the outburst and the upper limits from other experiments are above the observed flux level, further observations are needed. For details of this analysis and results see [@magic180].
1ES1959+650 {#sec:5}
===========
The Seven Telescope Array in Utah reported for the first time a VHE $\gamma$-ray signal from 1ES 1959+650 in 1998 with the significance of 3.9$\sigma$ [@seven]. In May 2002, when the X-ray flux of the source had significantly increased, both the Whipple [@holder] and HEGRA [@hegra1] collaborations subsequently confirmed 1ES 1959+650 as a VHE $\gamma$-ray source. An interesting aspect of the source activity in 2002 was the observation of a so-called [*orphan flare*]{}, i.e. a VHE $\gamma$-ray activity is observed in the absence of high activity in X-rays. Orphan flare in VHE $\gamma$-rays are not expected within the SSC mechanism in relativistic jets.
1ES 1959+650 was observed by MAGIC during the co-missioning phase in 2004 (Table \[tab:1\]). The analysis of the data gave a detection of VHE $\gamma$-rays on a significance of 8.2$\sigma$. We obtained an integral VHE $\gamma$ flux above 180 GeV of (3.73 $\pm$0.41) $\cdot$10$^{-11}$ ph cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$. The energy spectrum between 180 GeV and 2 TeV is compatible with a power law with a photon index $\alpha=\mbox{2.72}\pm\mbox{0.14}$ and is consistent with the quiescent state measured by HEGRA [@hegra1]. This is the first time 1ES 1959+650 has been observed down to 180 GeV. For the details of the analysis and results see [@magic1959].
1ES1218+304 {#sec:6}
===========
The AGN 1ES1218+304 was observed several times with the Whipple telescope between 1995 and 2000. The observations resulted in an upper flux limit above 350GeV of $8.3 \cdot 10^{-12}$ph cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ corresponding to $\sim$8% of the Crab Nebula flux [@horan]. The source was also observed by HEGRA between 1996 and 2002 and an upper flux limit above 840 GeV of $2.67
\cdot 10^{-12}$ph cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ (or 12% of the Crab Nebula flux) was reported [@54AGN].
![Impact of the EBL on the differential energy spectrum of 1ES1218+304. [*Black points*]{}: measured spectrum. [*Red points*]{}: reconstructed intrinsic spectrum of 1ES1218+304 using the EBL density “model of choice” from [@aha01], which is clearly excluded in [@hessebl]. [*Black line*]{}: pure power law fit to the intrinsic spectrum, the fit parameters are listed in the inlay.[]{data-label="fig:1218spec"}](mazin_fig7.eps){width="40.00000%"}
MAGIC observed 1ES1218+304 in seven nights in January 2005 (Table \[tab:1\]). The observed excess of 560 events has a statistical significance of 6.4 standard deviations above 140 GeV. 1ES1218+304 is the first source discovered by MAGIC. The nightly averaged $\gamma$-ray lightcurve did not show signs of significant variability. The energy spectrum was fitted with a pure power law with a photon index $\alpha=3.0\pm0.4$, and the determined flux level is below the upper limits at higher energies determined in the past. For details of the analysis and results see [@magic1218].
Measured VHE $\gamma$-ray spectra of distant sources can be used to derive constraints on the EBL density. Recently, using the VHE $\gamma$-ray spectra of two new detected HBL’s at a similar redshift as 1ES 1218+304, H.E.S.S. derived an upper limit on the EBL density between 1 and 4 $\mu$m [@hessebl]. The main assumption needed to derive the limit is that the photon index of the intrinsic (de-absorbed) spectrum of an AGN can not be harder than 1.5. Though under debate [@katar], this assumption remains conservative if the VHE $\gamma$-rays are produced in shock regions. We did the same exercise using the 1ES 1218+304 spectrum. However, our result does not constrain the EBL density that strong compared to the upper limit that has been recently derived by H.E.S.S. due to large statistical errors of the measured spectral points and the fact that MAGIC did not measure flux points above 700 GeV where the effect of the EBL becomes very significant. Fig. \[fig:1218spec\] illustrates the effect assumimg a relative high EBL density on the 1ES 1218+304 spectrum. Though the de-absorbed spectrum is very hard, the fitted photon index $\alpha = 1.6 \pm 0.8$ is within the allowed range ($>$1.5).
PG1553+113 {#sec:7}
==========
![Constraint on the redshift of PG 1553+113. [*Black points*]{}: measured combined differential energy spectrum of PG 1553+113 using MAGIC and H.E.S.S. data from 2005 and 2006. [*Red points*]{}: reconstructed intrinsic spectrum of PG 1553+113, using minimum possible density of the evolving EBL and the redshift of z=0.42. [*Black line*]{}: power law fit to the intrinsic spectrum; the fit parameters are listed in the inlay. [*Blue line*]{}: broken power law fit.[]{data-label="fig:1553spec"}](mazin_fig8.eps){width="40.00000%"}
PG 1553+113 belongs to a catalog of X-ray bright objects [@don] and, based on its SED properties, was one of the most promising candidates from a list of VHE $\gamma$-ray emitting AGNs proposed by [@CostGhis]. So far, upper limits on the $\gamma$-ray emission have been reported by the Whipple collaboration (19% Crab flux above 390 GeV) [@deperez03] and Milagro [@williams04]. Recently the H.E.S.S. collaboration has presented evidence for a $\gamma$-ray signal at the $4\,\sigma$ level (up to $5.3\,\sigma$ using a low energy threshold analysis) above 200 GeV corresponding to about 2% of the Crab flux [@hess1553].
PG 1553+113 was observed with the MAGIC telescope in 2005 at about the same time as the H.E.S.S. observations took place. Motivated by a hint of a signal in the preliminary analysis of the MAGIC data, additional observations were performed in 2006 (Table \[tab:1\]). Combining the data from 2005 and 2006, a very clear signal was detected with a total significance of $8.8\,\sigma$. In $\gamma$-rays there was no evidence for short term variability on a time scale of days, but a significant change by a factor of three in the flux level from 2005 to 2006 was found. The combined 2005 and 2006 differential energy spectrum for PG 1553+113 is well described by a pure power law with a photon index $\alpha=4.2\pm0.4$.
The signal detected by MAGIC confirms the tentative signal seen by H.E.S.S. at a higher energy threshold with data taken at about the same time as MAGIC in the 2005 period [@hess1553]. The source, therefore, can now be considered as a firmly established VHE $\gamma$-ray emitter.
An interesting aspect of the source is that attempts to determine its redshift from the optical observations failed so far. However, the VHE $\gamma$-ray spectrum of PG 1553+113 can be used to derive an upper limit on the redshift of the source. Given the observed spectrum of PG 1553+113 and the minimum possible density of the evolving EBL (lower limit in [@kneiske]) we vary the distance of the source ($z$) until the fit on the reconstructed intrinsic spectrum yields a photon index, which is beyond the allowed limit ($\alpha <
1.5$, see also Section \[sec:6\]). Taking into account the statistical error on the fit and the systematic error on the slope (0.2) we derived an upper limit on the redshift of $z < 0.78$. This value is compatible to the one reported in [@hess1553] ($z < 0.74$). For details of the analysis and results see [@magic1553].
An alternative method can be used to derive an upper limit on the redshift of PG 1553+113. The method is based on the indication that assuming rather large redshifts ($z > 0.3$) the intrinsic spectrum of PG 1553+113 seems to have a second component above 200 GeV. To prove this hypothesis (presence of a second component in the PG 1553+113 spectrum) we performed two different statistical tests on the reconstructed intrinsic spectrum. In the first test, we fitted the intrinsic spectrum with a pure power law (fit1) and with a broken power law (fit2). Then we used a [*likelihood ratio test*]{} [@stat1] to determine the significance that fit2 was a better hypothesis than fit1 and not just by a coincidence. As the second test, a [*run test*]{} [@stat1] was performed on the fit by a pure power law to the intrinsic spectrum. The [*run test*]{} was modified with the assumption of an equal number of data points below and above the fit. In order to increase the statistical power, we used the combined spectrum of MAGIC and H.E.S.S. data on PG 1553+113 since the two spectra are in good agreement in the overlapping energy range. The reconstructed intrinsic spectrum was considered to have a significant second component at high energies in case both tests gave more than 2$\sigma$ confidence. An example is shown in Fig. \[fig:1553spec\], assuming a redshift of $z=0.42$. This is the smallest redshift where both tests gave more than 2$\sigma$ confidence for the presence of the second component. A detailed publication of this analysis is in preparation.
It cannot be excluded [*[a priori]{}*]{} that there is no second component in the spectrum of PG 1553+113 above 200 GeV. However, in none of the measured VHE $\gamma$-ray spectra of extragalactic sources such component was found. Thus, we conclude that either this is the first time that an evidence of a second component in a VHE $\gamma$-ray spectrum was found or that the redshift of PG 1553+113 is smaller than 0.42.
Conclusion and Outlook {#sec:8}
======================
We gave an overview about outstanding findings based on MAGIC observations of extragalactic objects. The number of extragalactic VHE $\gamma$-ray sources detected by MAGIC is currently seven. Two of them, 1ES 1218+304 and Mkn 180 have been discovered by MAGIC. PG 1553+113 has been co-discovered with H.E.S.S. In general, the reconstructed de-absorbed spectra seem to be the harder the further away the sources are, which might be related to an observational bias. Leptonic models (e.g. [@mar]) can describe the data, but there are exceptions like in case of 1ES1959+650. For detailed modeling of the sources, extensive multiwavelength campaigns including radio through optical telescopes and X-ray satellites are inevitable. In case of PG 1553+113, we conclude that either the redshift of the source is z$<$0.42 or for the first time a source with a clear evidence of a second emission component in the VHE $\gamma$-ray energy range has been observed. Re-observation of the presented sources as well as the analysis of further extragalactic objects is ongoing.
We would like to thank the IAC for the excellent working conditions at the ORM in La Palma. The support of the German BMBF and MPG, the Italian INFN, the Spanish CICYT, ETH research grant TH 34/04 3, and the Polish MNiI grant 1P03D01028 is gratefully acknowledged.
[3]{}
Hartman, R. C. et al., ApJ Suppl. [**123**]{}, 79-202 (1999)
Stecker, F. W. et al., ApJ [**390**]{}, L49-L52 (1992) Fazio, G.G. & Stecker, F.W., Nature [**226**]{}, 135 (1970)
Kneiske, T. M. et al., A&A [**413**]{}, 807-815 (2004)
Padovani, P. & Giommi, P., ApJ [**444**]{}, 567-581 (1995) Maraschi, L., Ghisellini, G., & Celotti, A., ApJ [**397**]{}, L5-L9 (1992) Donato, D. et al., A&A [**375**]{}, 739-751 (2001)
Costamante, L. & Ghisellini, G., A&A [**384**]{}, 56-71 (2002) Mannheim, K. et al., A&A [**315**]{}, 77-85 (1996) Fossati, G. et al., NewAR [**48**]{}, 419-422 (2004)
Holder, J. et al. ApJ [**583**]{}, L9-L12 (2003)
Hartman, R. C. et al., ApJ [**558**]{}, 583-589 (2001)
Sbarufatti, B., Treves, A., & Falomo, R., et al., AJ [**132**]{}, 1 (2006)
Rico, J., These Proceedings
Cortina, J. et al., In Proc. 29th Int. Cosmic Ray Conf. (Pune), [**5**]{}, 359 (2005)
Daum, A. et al., APh [**8**]{}, 1-11, (1997)
Wagner, R.M. et al., In Proc. 29th Int. Cosmic Ray Conf. (Pune), [**4**]{}, 163 (2005)
Breiman, L., Machine Learning [**45**]{}, 5-32 (2001)
Bock, R.K. et al., Nucl. Instr. Meth. A [**516**]{}, 511-528 (2004) Punch, M. et al., Nature [**358**]{}, 477-478 (1992)
Gaidos, J. A. et al., Nature [**383**]{}, 319-320 (1996)
Krennrich, F. et al., ApJ [**575**]{}, L9-L13 (2002)
Aharonian, F. et al., A&A [**437**]{}, 95-99 (2005)
Krawczynski, H. et al., ApJ [**559**]{}, 187-195 (2001)
Mazin, D. et al., In Proc. 29th Int. Cosmic Ray Conf. (Pune), [**4**]{}, 331 (2005)
Primack, J. et al., AIP Conf. Proc. [**745**]{}, 23 (2005)
Fazio, G.G. et al., ApJS [**154**]{}, 39 (2004)
Elbaz, D. et al., A&A [**384**]{}, 848 (2002)
Albert, J. et al., Subm. to ApJ, astro-ph/0603478 (2006)
Quinn, J. et al., ApJ [**456**]{}, L83 (1996)
Aharonian, F. et al., A&A, 342, 69-86 (1999)
Perlman, E. S. et al., ApJ Suppl. [**104**]{}, 251 (1996)
Catanese, M. et al., ApJ [**501**]{}, 616 (1998)
Aharonian, F. et al., A&A [**421**]{}, 529-537 (2004)
Schroedter, M. et al., ApJ [**634**]{}, 947-954 (2005)
Falco, E.F. et al., PASP [**111**]{}, 438-452 (1998)
Horan, D. et al., ApJ [**603**]{}, 51-61 (2004)
Dwek, E. $\&$ Krennrich, F., ApJ [**618**]{}, 657-674 (2005)
Albert, J. et al., ApJ in press, astro-ph/0606630 (2006).
Nishiyama, T. et al., In Proc. 26th Int. Cosmic Ray Conf. (Salt Lake City) [**3**]{}, 370 (1999) Aharonian, F. et al., A&A [**406**]{}, L9 (2003)
Albert, J. et al., ApJ [**639**]{}, 761-765 (2006)
Aharonian, F. , In Proc. 27th Int. Cosmic Ray Conf. (Hamburg), astro-ph/0112314 (2001) Albert, J. et al., ApJ [**642**]{}, L119-L122 (2006) Aharonian, F. et al., Nature [**440**]{},1018 (2006) , K. et al., A&A [**453**]{}, 47-56 (2006) de la Calle Perez, I. et al., ApJ [**599**]{}, 909 (2003)
Williams, D. In AIP Conf. Proc. [**745**]{}, 499-504 (2005)
Aharonian, F. et al., A&A [**448**]{}, L19-L23 (2006)
Albert, J. et al., Subm. to ApJ, astro-ph/0606161 (2006)
Barlow, R. J.: Statistics. John Wiley & Sons (1994)
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
author:
- |
Dominic Jones, Henrik Jeldtoft Jensen\
[Institute of Mathematical Sciences, Imperial College London]{}\
[London SW7 2PG, UK]{}\
[and]{}\
[Department of Mathematics, Imperial College London]{}\
[London SW7 2AZ, UK]{}\
Paolo Sibani\
title: Mutual information in the Tangled Nature Model
---
Motivation
==========
Identifying universal features of ecosystem dynamics has been a long-standing goal in ecology. These attempts have usually involved identifiying system variables that are potentiallly optimised during the evolution of an ecosystem. Many such candidate variables have been identified. Increasingly the focus has been on the network properties of the ecosystem, or more precisely the trophic net defined by the mass flows between the species constituting the ecosystem. However empirical evidence at the resolution needed to verify any particular claim remains out of reach for most studies. For ecologists these quantities are both of theoretical and practical interest. From a theoretical point of view it would be nice,as already noted, to find some governing principle of ecological dynamics, while practically speaking there is a need to establish a good measure of ecosystem health and maturity [@Ulanowicz2002; @Christensen1995].
In this paper we propose to study this issue in the context of a well established evolutionary model. The Tangled Nature model of co-evolution[@Christ2002] has already been studied in several contexts [@Hall2002; @Jensen2005; @Jensen2006] and is ideal for this work as it is designed specifically to study long time behaviour in ecological networks. Its simplicity along with the rich complexity of its resulting behaviour makes it a paradigmatic model for testing co-evolutionary ideas. The model retains the binary string genotype geometry found in previous approaches (for example the quasispecies model [@Eigen1977]or the NK model [@Kauffman1990], but replaces their ‘ad hoc’ static fitness landscapes with a set of population dependent interactions between extant species, similar to the ‘tangled’ interactions of an eco-system. From a ‘random’ initial state, the network of extant and interacting population changes over time, slowly, but radically, enabling the system to support an ever growing number of individuals.
Despite its simplicity, the model is able to reproduce the long time decrease reported in the overall macroscopic extinction rate, the observed intermittent nature of macro-evolution, denoted punctuated equilibrium by Gould and Eldredge, the log-normal shape often observed for the Species Abundance Distributions, the power law relation often seen between area and the number of different species number, the framework of the model is also able to reproduce often reported exponential degree distributions of the network of species as well as the decreasing connectance with increasing species diversity that has attracted much observational and theoretical interest.
The details of the model are described in greater detail below, but the key aspect of its behaviour is that it moves through a series of different network configurations. In this paper we analyse these dynamic networks using tools developed in ecology. In particular, we are able to shed light on the tension between robustness and efficiency in ecological networks highlighted by Jorgensen et al [@Jorgensen2007]. Increased correlation lead to greater brittleness in the case of perturbations, but greater robustness leads to an apparent squandering of resources. We suggest how this conflict can be resolved using evidence from Tangled Nature, where it is possible to divide the system into two interacting parts - a viable network of keystone species, and a periphery of unviable mutants. Seen from this perspective the apparent paradox is resolved, as the viable network becomes increasingly correlated, while the total network (including many species *in potentia*) develops greater redundancy.
Review of the basic behaviour of the model
==========================================
Type space and the interaction matrix
-------------------------------------
A type is represented by a vector $S$ of $L$ elements belonging to the set $[0,1]$. Thus there are $2^L$ possible types, corresponding to the vertices of a unit hypercube in L-dimensions. $S$ may be interpreted as a genome, or a set of characteristics - either way it is directly susceptible to mutations and defines the type completely (that is there is no phenotype level in this model). Each type, which we can index by a number $i$ in the range $1 - 2^L$ to simplify notation, has a population of $n_i(t)$ identical individuals, so the total population is the sum over all the $2^L$ possible types
$${
N(t)=\sum_{i=1}^{2^L}n_i(t)
}$$
The ability of an individual to reproduce is determined by how it interacts with the other types present at a given time. This is formalised in the reproduction weight function (which is then turned into a probability of reproducing - see below) $$H_i(t) = \frac{c}{N(t)}\sum_{i=1}^{2^L} J(S_i, S)n(S_i,t) - \mu N$$ where the sum is over all other types, $C$ is a control parameter that determines the level of inhomogeneity in the population, $N(t)$ is the total population at time $t$, and $n(S,t)$ is the population of type $S$.
Two types $S_i$ and $S_j$ are coupled via the interaction matrix $J(S_i, S_j)$ that can be either positive negative or zero. This number is intended to be the sum of all the influences of $i$ upon $j$. This interaction matrix is unrelated to the type space outlined above so there are no correlations in the interactions between different types - that is $<J_(S_i, S_j)J(S_k,S_j)> = 0$ even if the average is restricted to neighbours in type space. This interaction is not necessarily material in nature but may represent any influence that one type has on another. The overall connectivity of the interaction matrix is set by a parameter $\Theta$ which for this paper has a value of 0.2 (that is 0.2 of all possible connections between types actually exist). The distribution of the nonzero values of the function $J(S_i,S_j)$ are irrelevant as long as they are distributed in some reasonable, continuous way. The interaction matrix is constructed such that if $J(S_i, S_j)$ is nonzero then $J(S_j,S_i)$ is also nonzero. This means there are three types of interaction - mutualistic, antagonistic and predator-prey. Figure \[fig:egintmat\] illustrates the key components of the tangled nature model - the hypercubic type space, varying type occupancies, and the different types of possible interaction between types.
![An example of the configuration of the Tangled Nature system in a meta-stable state. This is a 4 dimensional model for expository purposes only, the model in this paper has 20 dimensions. The vertices of the hypercube represent the 16 possible types in the model. The dotted lines represent nearest neighbour links in type space, and the solid lines represent non-zero interaction terms with blue = +-, red = –, green = ++[]{data-label="fig:egintmat"}](eg_int_mat){width="8cm"}
Reproduction, mutations and death
---------------------------------
The model is simulated stochastically, with a time-step consisting of the following: one individual is selected at random, and reproduces asexually acccording to the probability
$$P_r(S_i,t)=\frac{1}{1+exp[H(S_i,t)]} \in [0,1]$$
If successful the individual is replaced with two copies. In each of these copies there is a probability of mutation per ‘gene’, $p_m$. Another individual is picked at random and is killed with probability $p_k$.
General behaviour of the model
------------------------------
We start a run with $N(0)=1000$ individuals on one randomly chosen site. Initially there is no reproduction, since there can be no interactions between species, so $H$ is very negative and the probability of reproduction is zero. Then as the resource limitation term diminishes, reproduction becomes possible, and consequently some new types are generated by mutations. Once interactions between these new types begins, the interaction term in the reproduction probability becomes significant. After some re-organisation, a set of species that interact in a stable way emerges, and persists for some time (see figure \[fig:specdist\]). This period of stability is ended by another chaotic reorganisation, from which another meta-stable state emerges.
The bulk properties of these meta-stable states turn out to depend on the age of the system - the system slowly optimises the interactions between species, as evidenced for example by the logarithmically increasing population (figure \[fig:avepop\]). It is this non-stationary aspect of the model that this paper tries to explain, albeit only partially.
![Overview of a typical run of TaNa. The y-axis is simply a species label, ranging from 1 - $2^L$, and the $x$-axis is time in generations. If a position is occupied at a given time, a dot is placed at the corresponding number for that time step. The plot clearly shows the alternating stable and unstable periods. The stable periods are characteristised by a steady population and constant set of species, whereas the transitions have a constantly changing set of species (eg between 100 000 and 150 000 generations) Figure from [@Christ2002]. []{data-label="fig:specdist"}](species_dist){width="8cm"}
![The mean population (averaged over an ensemble of 1000 runs) increases logarithmically in time[]{data-label="fig:avepop"}](avepop2){width="8cm"}
Results
=======
We ran 1500 simulations of the model with an initial population confined to one randomly chosen site. The random interaction matrix was regenerated each time. The parameters used for all the runs were the same, and were chosen to robustly generate the intermittent regime for a population of a manageable size.
We use the following parameter values: $ \mu = 0.14,~p_{mut}=0.03,~p_{kill}=0.2,~c=10$. Detailed discussion of the various regimes defined by these parameters can be found elsewhere; for now we simply note that the behaviour generated by this set is characteristic of a significant area of parameter space. The one major change is seen when $p_{mut}$ goes above the error threshold, which results in diffusion dominated behaviour.
The Core and the Periphery
--------------------------
The network realised at any given time can be divided into two classes - those nodes that are viable (loosely, those that have a birthrate approximately equal to the death rate) and those that aren’t. This second group are the mutants from the viable core, who in the current configuration are not able to reproduce. Figure \[percore\] schematically depicts this arrangement, with each viable species having a flower of unviable mutants surrounding it. These mutants do not, in general play an active role (even as a stabilising factor) during a stable period, but they are in the end responsible for the eventual collapse of one metastable state and creation of another. The following results are obtained for both the whole system, and the viable core.
![A typical stable ecological network seen in the Tangled Nature model. Each circle represents a species with the size proportional to the current population. Lines represent interaction links ($|J|>0$) between species. The mutation network has been suppressed to clarify the figure but the line indices give the hamming distance (a measure of evolutionary separation) between each species. The core is the network of large nodes, and the whole system includes the smaller unlabelled nodes. Figure from [@Christ2002].[]{data-label="percore"}](typical_net_config){width="8cm"}
Mutual Information
------------------
Ideas from information theory have been used in ecology for over 50 years [@Macarthur1955] [@Wilhelm2007], and Rutledge et al introduced the idea of using the mutual information of networks as a measure of their stability [@Rutledge1976]. This was all somewhat unnoticed by those working more recently on networks in graph theory and complexity. This is principally due to the fact that ecologists must work with weighted networks, whereas most recent work on network characterisation has focussed on unweighted networks, for which there exist a large arsenal of analytical tools.
First we define what the mutual information is for a general random process, then we will define how we use this measure in this paper. The information of a realisation $x$ of a random variable $X$ is defined via its probability distribution $P(x)$, as $$I(x)=P(x)\text{log}P(x)$$ For two random variables, we can define the mutual information, which is defined as the reduction in the uncertainty of $X$ given knowledge of $Y$. The mutual information is defined on two random variables $X$ and $Y$ as $$I(X,Y)=\displaystyle \sum_{x,y}P(x,y)\log \left(\frac{P(x,y)}{P_1(x)P_2(y)}\right)$$ where $P_1$ and $P_2$ are the marginal distributions of $X$ and $Y$ respectively, and $P$ the joint probability distribution. Equally we can think of the mutual information as the constraint imposed on $X$ by $Y$.
The Tangled Nature model is a model of network evolution. As the structure of the network changes, we ask the question: how does the current network structure constrain its evolution? The network we consider is the interaction network J weighted by the occupancy of the species, so that we only consider connections between extant species. When this condition is met, we consider there to be $n_in_j$ copies of link $J_{ij}$. Consider the ensemble link value distribution at time $t$, $P(J,t)$. This gives the probability of a link value $J$ for an ensemble of realisations. However if we consider a particular realisation, we can expect that this distribution, $P(J,t,r)$ (where r indexes specific realisations) will in general differ from the ensemble average. We can measure this difference by looking at the joint probability distribution $P(J_1,J_2,t,r)$. The degree to which this quantity differs from the product of the marginal distributions for $J_1$ and $J_2$ (which in our case are identical, equal to the distribution over the ensemble $P(J,t)$) measures the degree to which the presence of some link value $J_1$ influences the presence of some other value $J_2$.
To consider the probability of a link value appearing at time $t$, we first introduce a new variable which will simplify the following. We will consider a single index $k$ that runs over all links in a realisation, and each link is waited by $d_k$, the product of the occupancy of the two nodes at either end: $d_k = d(J_{ij})=n_in_j$. Explicitly we define the relevant quantities as follows: the probability that the link value $J$ appears at time $t$ is
$$P(J,t) = \frac{1}{DR}\sum_{k,r} d_k\delta(J-J_k)$$
where $D$ is the number of links counted between all extant species, $D=\sum_{i,j} n_in_j$ and $R$ is the number of realisations. whereas the joint probability distribution for two link values to appear in one realisation is
$$P(J_1,J_2,t,r)=\frac{1}{D}\sum_{k,l} (d_k + d_l) \delta(J_1-J_k) \delta(J_2-J_l)$$
With these quantities defined, we may define the mutual information on these distributions as $$I(J,J',t)=\displaystyle \sum_{r,i,j} P(J_i,J_j,t)\log \left(\frac{P(J_i,J_j,t,r)}{P(J_i,t)P(J_j,t)} \right)$$ Since the link distribution fluctuates due to the stochastic nature of the system, this distribution is calculated over a small time window $\delta t $ where $\frac{\delta t}{t_{\text{max}}}<<1 $.
Figures \[fig:MI1\] and \[fig:MI2\] show the evolution of the mutual information over time for two different subsets of the system. Figure \[fig:MI1\] is the MI for the whole system, where we see a declining trend. The subset of vertices linking nodes with more than 5 individuals by contrast displays an increase in the MI over time (figure \[fig:MI2\]).
We note that in general the mutual information is quite low, which is expected. We are measuring the influence of the presence of link values on the presence of other link values; this influence is highly constrained by the quenched randomness of the network and the stochastic dynamics, so in general we do not expect the mutual information to be high. Nevertheless we have compared the values obtained to simulated random networks of equivalent size and connectance, and found the mutual information to be approximately three orders of magnitude smaller.
The data is significantly noisy despite being the result of a large ensemble average. Nevertheless it is clear, especially for the whole system, that the curves are approximately linear in logarithmic time. This corresponds to the behaviour of other measures of the system, and can possibly ultimately be related back to some record process.
Averaging over more realisations increased the clarity of the results, but at the cost of computing time. To decrease the fluctuations by an order of magnitude would have required approximately 400 weeks more computing time.
Discussion
==========
The question of how the structure of an ecosystem, or any system of interacting, evolving agents, changes over time is a controversial one, and to some extent depends on the details of the system under consideration. In this paper we have considered a generic evolutionary model with the aim of elucidating ecological dynamics in the general case. The apparent competition between two requirements of a viable ecosystem - that they maximise resource us on the one hand, and remain robust to perturbations on the other - poses the question: what in fact happens?
The obvious way to answer this question would be to do an experiment. However, ecological experiments of the type required (both in terms of detail and time resolution) are not currently possible. Indeed, ecological data recorded over evolutionarily significant timescales is practically unattainable for any but the fastest evolving systems, such as microbial populations (see for example [@Lenski2008]). However, even for such experimentally manipulable systems it may be hard to infer interaction networks accurately. The practical difficulties of experiments in evolutionary ecology is one of the key reasons why we believe theoretical work such is that presented is important, since it can act both as spur and guide for future experimental work.
We have found that while the ecosystem as a whole becomes less correlated over time, the correlation of the network of its core species increases. While we have not shown it here, it seem plausible that this is two sides of the same coin - decorrelation of the whole system implies that the system explores a greater range of possible networks, from which it chooses more and more well correlated subsets. This fits with other results we have obtained that show the model increases its population over time.
When considering ecological networks, most work has naturally focussed on trophic networks, that is networks of material flow through an ecosystem. This has yielded a natural way to analyse these networks, since the dynamics is conservative, one can consider the probability of any two species being involved in material exchange. The Tangled Nature model explicitly models more than simply mass flow in ecosystems: it attempts to quantify the *influence* that one species has on another. While this has the advantage of allowing one to consider more than simply predator-prey relationships (for example mutualistic behaviour arises very naturally in the model), it means that one cannot simply take over tools used on trophic nets wholesale. In this paper we have adapted the approach used in ecology and elsewhere to this interaction view with the caveat that our results are not directly comparable to those gleaned from analysis of food webs; we did also attempt to interpret the model as a flow model but found that this approach yielded no clear information about the network structure. One possibility in this direction is to adopt the approach in [@Demetrius2007] where once a network has evolved one imagines some simple Markovian dynamics entirely independent of the actual model dynamics in order to determine the relevant network measures.
We have not used any of the more simple information theoretic measures available ( for example the entropy). This is because we found it necessary to consider a quantity that characterised the difference of a specific realisation from an ensemble of realisations. The entropy of the system as a whole increases over time, but there is no corresponding decrease in the core population. It is easy to see why: the entropy over an ensemble of realisations is simply the sum of individual realisations and so one would only expect to see a decrease in entropy if *every* realisation converged on a small set of link values. This by no means has to be the case, since the system can adjust species populations to a wide range of networks. The mutual information, on the other hand, measures how the existence of certain links within one realisation determines the presence of other links *within that same realisation* and so does increase over time. It remains to be seen whether there is some entropic measure in Tangled Nature (or indeed in reality) which is maximised through evolution.
One might naively think that the result for the core is simply due to the increasing stability of the system observed in other contexts. Taken by itself this is reasonable, since it is possible that the system stabilises over time, and that this stabilisation would positively contribute to mutual information of the core. However, if it was purely an artefact of the system spending more time in a stable configuration then we would expect the whole system (that is both the viable core *and* the surrounding mutants in figure \[percore\]) to display a similar positive trend, which is clearly not the case. Therefore we conclude that the increasing correlation of the core, along with the increasing decorrelation of the periphery of the system, plays a causal role in the stabilisation of the system as a whole. We postulate that these two phenomena are linked - the system explores a greater number of possible links which allows it to find better adapted sets of links for the core, which in turn leads to a bigger population and an even larger set of links to select from. While we do not claim to have proved that this is the case, the data is strong evidence that some adaptive behaviour of this type is occurring. In future papers we hope to probe the nature of this adaptive dynamics further.
[10]{}
Robert E. Ulanowicz. The balance between adaptability and adaptation. , 64(1-3):13 – 22, 2002.
Villy Christensen. Ecosystem maturity - towards quantification. , 77(1):3 – 32, 1995.
Kim Christensen, Simone A. Di Collobiano, Matt Hall, and Henrik J. Jensen. Tangled nature: A model of evolutionary ecology. , 216(1):73 – 84, 2002.
Matt Hall, Kim Christensen, Simone A. di Collobiano, and Henrik J. Jensen. Time-dependent extinction rate and species abundance in a tangled-nature model of biological evolution. , 66(1):011904, Jul 2002.
Paolo Sibani and Henrik J. Jensen. Intermittency, aging and extremal fluctuations. , 69(4):563–569, 2005.
Daniel Lawson and Henrik J. Jensen. The species-area relationship and evolution. , 241(3):590 – 600, 2006.
Manfred Eigen and Peter K. Schuster. A principle of natural self-organisation. , 64:541–565, 1977.
Stuart A. Kauffman. . Oxford University Press, 1990.
Sven E. J¿rgensen, Simone Bastianoni, Brian D. Fath, Felix Muller, Joao C. Marcques, Soren N. Nielsen, Bernard C. Patten, Enzo Tiezzi, and Robert E. Ulanowicz. . Elsevier, 2007.
Robert MacArthur. Fluctuations of animal populations and a measure of community stability. , 36(3):533–536, 1955.
Thomas Wilhelm and Jens Hollunder. Information theoretic description of networks. , 385(1):385 – 396, 2007.
Robert W. Routledge, Bennett L. Basore, and Robert J. Mulholland. Ecological stability: An information theory viewpoint. , 57:355–371, 1976.
Zachary D. Blount, Christina Z. Borland, and Richard E. Lenski. Historical contingency and the evolution of a key innovation in an experimental population of escherichia coli. , 105(23):7899–7906, 2008.
Lloyd Demetrius and Martin Ziehe. Darwinian fitness. , 72(3):323 – 345, 2007.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
We present a conjecture (and a proof for $G=SL(2)$) generalizing a result of J. Arthur which expresses a character value of a cuspidal representation of a $p$-adic group as a weighted orbital integral of its matrix coefficient. It also generalizes a conjecture by the second author proved by Schneider-Stuhler and (independently) the first author. The latter statement expresses an elliptic character value as an orbital integral of a pseudo-matrix coefficient defined via the Chern character map taking value in zeroth Hochschild homology of the Hecke algebra. The present conjecture generalizes the construction of pseudo-matrix coefficient using compactly supported Hochschild homology, as well as a modification of the category of smooth representations, the so called compactified category of smooth $G$-modules. This newly defined “compactified pseudo-matrix coefficient” lies in a certain space ${{\mathcal K}}$ on which the weighted orbital integral is a conjugation invariant linear functional, our conjecture states that evaluating a weighted orbital integral on the compactified pseudo-matrix coefficient one recovers the corresponding character value of the representation.
We also discuss the properties of the averaging map from ${{\mathcal K}}$ to the space of invariant distributions, partly building on works of Waldspurger and Beuzart-Plessis.
author:
- 'Roman Bezrukavnikov, David Kazhdan'
title: Character values and Hochschild homology
---
Introduction
============
Let $G$ be a reductive group over a local nonArchimedean field $F$.
The goal of the article is to present an algebraic expression for a character of an admissible representation of $G$ on a compact element.
The statement is presented as a conjecture (see Conjecture \[char\_form\_conj\]) for a general reductive group, it is proved in the paper for $G=SL(2)$. We also describe a modification of the category $Sm=Sm(G)$ of finitely generated smooth representations, the so called [*compactified category*]{} of smooth $G$-modules, which plays a key role in our algebraic description of character values and may have an independent interest.
To describe the context for these constructions recall a conjecture of [@cusp] proved in [@SS] and [@thes].
Let ${{\mathcal H}}=\cup_K {{\mathcal H}}_K$ be the Hecke algebra of locally constant compactly supported ${{\mathbb C}}$-valued measures. Thus $Sm(G)$ is identified with the category of finitely generated nondegenerate ${{\mathcal H}}$ modules [@BZ].
Let $C({{\mathcal H}})={{\mathcal H}}/[{{\mathcal H}},{{\mathcal H}}]={{\mathcal H}}_G=HH_0({{\mathcal H}})=HH_0(Sm)$ be the cocenter of ${{\mathcal H}}$. Here ${{\mathcal H}}_G$ denotes coinvariants with respect to the conjugation action, while $HH_*$ stands for Hochschild homology, and its second appearance refers to the notion of Hochschild homology of an abelian category. Since ${{\mathcal H}}$ is Noetherian and has finite homological dimension, there is a well defined Chern character (also called the Hattori-Stallings or Dennis trace) map $ch: K^0(Sm)\to C({{\mathcal H}})$ (we will abbreviate $ch([M])$ to $ch(M)$). It has been conjectured in [@cusp] and proven in [@SS], [@thes] that for an [*elliptic*]{} regular semisimple element $g\in G$ and an admissible representation $\rho$ we have $$\label{ell}
\chi_\rho(g)=O_g(ch(\rho)),$$ where $O_g$ denotes the orbital integral. Here we use that $O_g:{{\mathcal H}}\to {{\mathbb C}}$ being conjugation invariant factors through $C({{\mathcal H}})$.
If $\rho$ is a cuspidal irreducible representation then (assuming that $G$ has a compact center) a matrix coefficient $m_\rho\in {{\mathcal H}}$ is a representative of the class $ch(\rho)\in C({{\mathcal H}})$. Thus in this case reduces to an earlier result of Arthur [@Ar1]. However, the latter applies also to nonelliptic regular semisimple elements: for such an element $g$ and a cuspidal irreducible representation $\rho$ Arthur has proved that $$\label{Ar_f}
\chi_\rho(g)=WO_g(m_\rho),$$ where $WO_g$ denotes the [*weighted orbital integral*]{}. Our Conjecture \[char\_form\_conj\] provides a generalization of to all regular semisimple compact elements $g$, which for a cuspidal representation $\rho$ reduces to .
The first step in this direction is a generalization of the map $ch:K^0(Sm)\to C({{\mathcal H}})$. For our present purposes we need to modify both the source and the target of this map. We replace the target $C({{\mathcal H}})={{\mathcal H}}_G$ by ${{\mathcal K}}_G$ where ${{\mathcal K}}\subset {{\mathcal H}}$ is a subspace invariant under the conjugation action of $G$, the so called space of “weightless” functions.[^1] Definition and some properties of ${{\mathcal K}}$ are discussed in section \[sec\_K\]. The key property is that $WO_g|_{{\mathcal K}}$ is a $G$-invariant functional for any regular semisimple element $g\in G$; furthermore, there is a well defined averaging map $Av$ from ${{\mathcal K}}$ to the space of invariant generalized functions on $G$ and for $\phi\in {{\mathcal K}}$ the value of $WO_g(\phi)$ coincides with $Av(\phi)(g)$ (the latter is well defined since $Av(\phi)$ is in fact a locally constant function on the set of regular elements in $G$). We also provide a conjecture with a proof for $PGL(2,F)$, $char(F)=0$ describing the image of the averaging map from ${{\mathcal K}}$ to the space of invariant distributions.
To describe the source of the map generalizing $ch$ we need some new ingredients. One of them is the so called [*compactified category*]{} of smooth (finitely generated) representations ${{\overline{Sm}}}$.
The abelian category ${{\overline{Sm}}}$ is defined in section \[compcat\]. Recall that according to Bernstein [@centre], $Sm$ can be identified with the category of coherent sheaves of modules over a certain sheaf of algebras over a scheme which is an infinite union of affine algebraic varieties, the spectrum ${{\mathfrak Z}}$ of the Bernstein center of $G$. The category ${{\overline{Sm}}}$ can be described as the category of coherent sheaves of modules over a certain coherent sheaf of algebras over a (componentwise) compactification of ${{\mathfrak Z}}$. An admissible module $\rho$ can also be viewed as an object in ${{\overline{Sm}}}$, so we can apply the Chern character to the class of $\rho$ obtaining $\bar{ch}(\rho)\in HH_0({{\overline{Sm}}})$.
We also need another invariant of the category $Sm$, namely the [*compactly supported*]{} Hochschild homology $HH_*^c(Sm)$ which is the derived global sections with compact support in the sense of [@D] of localized Hochschild homology $R\underline{Hom}_{{{\mathcal H}}\otimes {{\mathcal H}}^{op}}({{\mathcal H}},{{\mathcal H}})$.
We have natural maps $HH_*^c(Sm)\to HH_*({{\overline{Sm}}})\to HH_*(Sm)$; for an admissible module $\rho$ we have its compactly supported Chern character $ch^c(\rho)\in HH_0^c(Sm)$, so that $\bar{ch}(\rho)$ and $ch(\rho)$ equal the images of $ch^c(\rho)$ under the corresponding maps.
The first statement in the main conjecture (a theorem for $SL(2)$) provides a natural isomorphism $${{\mathcal K}}^c_G \cong Im(HH_0^c(Sm)\to HH_0({{\overline{Sm}}})),$$ where ${{\mathcal K}}^c\subset {{\mathcal K}}$ is the subspace of measures supported on compact elements. By the previous paragraph, $\bar{ch}(\rho)$ belongs to that image, thus we obtain a homological construction of an element in ${{\mathcal K}}^c_G$ from an admissible representation, the so called “compactified pseudo-matrix coefficient” of the representation.
The second main statement (proved for $SL(2)$) asserts that for a compact regular element $g$ and an admissible representation $\rho$ we have $WO_g(\bar{ch}(\rho))=\chi_\rho(g)$. Notice that for a noncompact regular element $g$ the value of $\chi_\rho(g)$ coincides with a character value of the Jacquet functor applied to $\rho$ [@DCas], in particular it vanishes for a cuspidal module.
We view Conjecture \[char\_form\_conj\] as an algebraic statement underlying some aspects of Arthur’s local trace formula [@Ar], while equality underlies the elliptic part of the local trace formula (see also Remark \[int\_rem\] below). We plan to develop this theme in a future publication.
[**[Acknowledgements.]{}** ]{} We thank Joseph Bernstein, Vladimir Drinfeld, Dmitry Kaledin and Dmitry Vaintrob for many useful discussions over the years. In particular, the definition of the compactified category was conceived as a result of discussions with Kaledin and it took its present form partly due to discussions with Drinfeld.
We also thank Rapha" el Beuzart-Plessis, Dan Ciubotaru, Eric Opdam and Jean-Loup Waldspurger for helpful correspondence. The project received funding from ERC under grant agreement No 669655; R.B. was partly supported by NSF grant DMS-1601953, the collaboration was partly supported by the US-Israel Binational Science Foundation.
Weightless functions and invariant distributions {#sec_K}
================================================
Let ${{\mathcal H}}={{\mathcal H}}(G)$ be the Hecke algebra of compactly supported locally constant measures on $G$, the convolution product on ${{\mathcal H}}(G)$ will be denoted by $*$. For an open subsemigroup $S\subset G$ we let ${{\mathcal H}}(S)\subset {{\mathcal H}}(G)$ denote the subalgebra of measures supported on $S$. We denote by ${\mathcal D}$ the space of generalized functions on $G$ (that is the space of linear functionals on ${{\mathcal H}}(G)$) and by ${\mathcal D}^G\subset {\mathcal D}$ the subspace of invariant generalized functions. Let ${{\mathcal H}}_{cusp}$, ${\mathcal D}^G_{cusp}$ be the cuspidal part of ${{\mathcal H}}$, ${\mathcal D}^G$, i.e. ${{\mathcal H}}_{cusp}$ consists of functions acting by zero in any parabolically induced representation and ${\mathcal D}^G_{cusp}$ consists of distributions vanishing on the orthogonal complement of ${{\mathcal H}}_{cusp}$ (cf. footnote \[ftnt\] above). Until the end of the section we assume for simplicity of notation that $G$ has compact center. Then [*averaging*]{} with respect to conjugations yields a well defined map $H_0(G,{{\mathcal H}}_{cusp})\to {\mathcal D}^G_{cusp} $ given by $f\mapsto \int\limits_{G} \ \frac{{^gf}}{dg} dg$ for a Haar measure $dg$ on $G$. In this section we define a larger subspace ${\mathcal K}$ in ${{\mathcal H}}$ on which the averaging map is still well defined and conjecture that the map $\tau$ defines an embedding $H_0(G,{\mathcal K}){\hookrightarrow}{\mathcal D}^G$. Moreover, we propose a conjectural description of the image of $\tau$. We prove this conjecture in the case when $G=PGL(2)$.
The conjecture
--------------
We start with some notation. Let $ {\mathcal O}\subset F$ be the ring of integers and $\pi $ be a generator of the maximal ideal ${\mathfrak m}$ of ${\mathcal O}$. Let $val :F^\star \to {{\mathbb Z}}$ be the valuation such that $val(\pi)=1$. We define $\| x\| =q^{-val (x)}, x\in F^\star$ where $q=|{\mathcal O}/ {\mathfrak m}|$.
For any smooth $F$-variety $X$ we denote by ${\mathcal S}(X)$ the space of locally constant measures on $X$ with compact support. In the case when $X$ is a homogeneous $G$-variety with a $G$-invariant measure $dx$ the map $f \to f /dx$ identifies ${\mathcal S}(X)$ with the space of compactly supported locally constant functions on $X$. In this case we will not distinguish between functions and measures on $X$. Also, we will work with spaces $Y_P=(G/U_P\times G/U_P)/L$ for a parabolic subgroup $P=LU_P\subset G$. In this case ${\mathcal S}(Y_P)$ will denote the space of integral kernels of operators ${\mathcal S}(G/U_P)\to {\mathcal S}(G/U_P)$, i.e. locally constant compactly supported sections of the $G$-equivariant locally constant sheaf $pr_1^*(\mu)$, where $pr_1:Y_P\to G/P$ is the first projection.
In particular, we fix a Haar measure $dg$ on $G$ and identify the space ${\mathcal S}(G)={{\mathcal H}}(G)$ with the space of compactly supported locally constant functions on $G$. Then ${\Delta}$ is identified with the space of distributions, we also get the $L^2$ pairing $\langle\ ,\ \rangle$ on ${{\mathcal H}}(G)$.
Let ${\mathfrak g}$ be the Lie algebra of $G$. We will assume that ${\mathfrak g}$ has a finite number of nilpotent conjugacy classes and that there exists a $G$-equivariant $F$-analytic bijection $\phi$ between a neighbourhood of $0$ in ${\mathfrak g}$ and a neighbourhood of $e$ in $G$. We also assume that for a semisimple element $s\in G$ the Lie algebra ${\mathfrak z}$ of its centralizer $Z_G(s)$ admits a $Z_G(s)$-invariant complement. These assumptions are well known to hold if $char(F)=0$ or if $char(F)> N$ for some $N$ depending on the rank of $G$, see [@KV §1.8] for more precise information.
\[distributions\]
- We denote by ${\mathcal G}_{G ,e}$ the space of germs of $Ad$-invariant distributions near $0$ on ${\mathfrak g}$ which are restrictions of linear combinations of the Fourier transforms of invariant measures on a nilpotent orbits. Using the bijection $\phi$ we consider ${\mathcal G}_{G,e}$ as a space of germs of $Ad$-invariant distributions on $G$ near the identity.
- For a semisimple element $s\in G$ we denote by $ {\mathcal G}_{Z_G(s),s}$ the space of germs of distributions on $Z_G(s)$ at $s$ obtained from the space ${\mathcal G}_{Z_G(s),e}$ by the shift by $s$.
- Let $s\in G$ be a semisimple element, $ X_s=G/Z_G(s), r:G\to X_s$ be the natural projection and ${\gamma}:X_s\to G$ be a continuous section. We denote by $dz$ a $G$-invariant measure on $X_s$.
- We denote by ${\tilde}{\kappa}:Z_G(s)\times X_s \to G$ the map given by $(z,x)\to {\gamma}(x)sz({\gamma}(x))^{-1}$.
Let ${\mathfrak z}\subset {\mathfrak g}$ be the Lie algebra of $Z_G(s)$. By assumption there exists a complementary ${\mathfrak z}$-invariant subspace $W\subset {\mathfrak g}$ and the map ${\kappa}_0:{\mathfrak z}\oplus W\to {\mathfrak g},(z,w)\to z+Ad(s)w$ is a bijection. Therefore there exists an open neighborhood $R\subset Z_G(s)$ of $e$ such that the restriction ${\kappa}$ of ${\tilde}{\kappa}$ on $R\times X_s$ is an open embedding.
\[distribution0\]
For any $ \bar \psi \in {\mathcal G}_{Z_G(s),s}$ we choose a representative ${\tilde}\psi \in {\mathcal D}^{Z_G(s)}(Z_G(s))$ of $\bar \psi$.
- For a function $f\in {\mathcal S}(G)$ and $z\in R\subset X_s$ we define $f_z \in {\mathcal S}(Z_G(s))$ by $f_ z:=f({\kappa}(z,x))$.
- We define a function $\bar f$ on $R$ by $\bar f(z):={\tilde}\psi (f_z)$.
- We define a distribution $\psi ({\tilde}\psi) $ on $G$ by $\psi (f):=\int _{X_s}\bar f(z)$.
- We denote by $[\psi ({\tilde}\psi)]$ the germ of the distribution $\psi$ at $s$.
It is clear that for any two choices ${\tilde}\psi , {\tilde}\psi '$ of representatives of $\bar \psi$ the difference $\psi ({\tilde}\psi) -\psi ({\tilde}\psi ')$ vanishes on a $G$-invariant open neighborhood of $s.$ Therefore the germ $[\bar \psi]$ does not depend on a choice of a representative of $\bar \psi$.
\[distributions’\]
- We denote by ${\mathcal G}_s$ the space of germs at $s$ of $Ad$-invariant distributions of the form $[\psi ], \psi \in {\mathcal G}_{Z_G(s),s}$.
- We denote by ${\mathcal E}\subset {\mathcal D}^G$ the subspace of distributions $\alpha$ such that
a\) there exists a compact subset $C$ in $G$ such that $supp
(\alpha)\subset G(C)$ and
b\) for any semisimple $s\in G $ the germ of $\alpha$ at $s$ belongs to ${\mathcal G}_s$.
\[Ealt\] If $char(F)=0$ then ${\mathcal E}$ admits an equivalent description as the space of invariant distributions $\alpha$ satisfying the following requirements:
a\) there exists a compact subset $C$ in $G$ such that $supp
(\alpha)\subset G(C)$;
b\) there exists a compact open subgroup $K\subset G$ such that for every element $z$ in the Bernstein center satisfying $\delta_{K}*z=0$ we have $\alpha*z=0$.
Equivalence of the two definitions of ${\mathcal E}$ follows from[^2] [@HC Theorem 16.2].
- We define the space $ {\mathcal K}(G)$ of [*weightless*]{} functions as the subspace in ${\mathcal S}(G)$ of functions $f$ such that $\int _{u\in U_Q} f(lu)du=0, l\in L$ for all proper parabolic subgoups $Q=LU_Q\subset G$.
- For a closed conjugation invariant subset $X$ of $G$ we define the space $ {\mathcal K}(X)={\mathcal K}_X\subset {\mathcal S}(X)$ as the subspace of functions $f$ such that $$\int _{u\in U_Q} f(lu)du=0,$$ for all proper parabolic subgroups $Q=LU_Q\subset G$ and $l\in L$ such that $lU_Q\subset X$.
\[diag\_rem\] For $f\in {{\mathcal H}}$ and a parabolic $P=LU_P\subset G$ let $A_P(f)\in {\mathcal S}(Y_P)$ denote its orishperic transform, i.e. the integral kernel of the action of $f$ on ${\mathcal S}(G/U_P)$. Let $\Delta_{Y_P}\subset Y_P$ be the preimage of diagonal under the projection $Y_P\to (G/P)^2$. Then $\Delta_{Y_P}\cong (G/U_P\times L)/L$, where $L$ acts on the first factor by right translations and on the second one by conjugation. It is easy to see that for $f\in {{\mathcal H}}$ we have $f\in {{\mathcal K}}$ iff for any parabolic subgroup $P\subsetneq G$ we have $A_P(f)|_{\Delta_{Y_P}}=0$.
The following result is due to J.-L. Waldspurger (see [@W Lemma 9]).
\[Waldspurger\] For $f\in {{\mathcal H}}(G)$ the following are equivalent:
a\) $f\in {{\mathcal K}}$.
b\) For any $h\in {{\mathcal H}}(G)$ the function $g\mapsto \langle ^gf, h\rangle$ has compact support.
For any $f\in {\mathcal S}(G)$ we define distribution $\hat f $ by: $$\langle \hat f ,h\rangle :=\int _{g\in G}\langle ^gf, h \rangle dg.$$
For future reference we mention the following.
For $f\in {{\mathcal K}}$ the distribution $\hat{f}|_{G^{rs}}$ (where $G^{rs}$ is the open set of regular semisimple elements) is a locally constant function. For $g\in G^{rs}$ we have $$\hat f (g) =WO_g(f),$$ where $WO_g$ denotes the [*weighted orbital integral*]{}.
[*Proof *]{} follows from the definition and basic properties of the weighted orbital integral, see e.g. [@ArIn §I.11].
The group $G$ acts on ${\mathcal K}$ by conjugation. It is clear that the map $f\to \hat f$ factors through a map $\tau : H_0(G,{\mathcal K})\to {\mathcal D}^G$. For any $f\in {\mathcal K}$ we denote by $[f]$ it image in $H_0(G,{\mathcal K})$.
\[imb\] a) $\hat{f}\in {\mathcal E}$ for $f\in {\mathcal K}$.
b\) The map $\tau$ defines an isomorphism between $H_0(G,{\mathcal K})$ and ${\mathcal E}$.
c\) $\dim (H_0(G,{\mathcal K}({\Omega}) ))=1$ for any regular semisimple conjugacy class ${\Omega}\subset G$.
One can check that $\hat{f}$ satisfies the conditions of Remark \[Ealt\], thus if $char(F)=0$ then part (a) of the conjecture follows from Harish-Chandra’s Theorem [@HC Theorem 16.2]; see [@W0 Corollary 5.9], [@BP Proposition 5.6.1] for details.
It is clear that part $c)$ follows from $a)$ and $b)$.
\[c\_ell\] If the centralizer of an element $g\in {\Omega}$ is an anisotropic (compact) torus then statement (c) clearly follows from uniqueness (up to scaling) of a Haar measure on $G$. In the case when that centralizer has split rank one the statement is checked in the next subsection.
Almost elliptic orbits
----------------------
To simplify the wording we assume in this subsection that the center of $G$ is compact. A regular semisimple element $g\in G$ will be called almost elliptic if the split rank of its centralizer is at most one. We now prove Conjecture \[imb\](c) in the case when ${\Omega}$ consists of almost elliptic elements.
Fix $g\in {\Omega}$ and let $T$ be the centralizer of $G$, thus ${\Omega}\cong G/T$. In view of Remark \[c\_ell\] it suffices to consider the case when the split rank of $T$ equals one; we also assume without loss of generality that $G$ is almost simple.
There are exactly two parabolic subgroups $P,\, P'\subsetneq G$ containing $T$. Let $U$, $U'$ be their unipotent radicals.
Consider the complex $$\label{compl_ae}
0\to {\mathcal K}_{\Omega}\to {\mathcal S}(G/T)\to {\mathcal S}(G/TU)\oplus {\mathcal S}(G/TU')\to {{\mathbb C}}\to 0;$$ here ${\mathcal S}$ stands for the space of locally constant compactly supported measures as before, the third arrow send $\phi$ to $(pr_*(\phi), pr'_*(\phi))$, where $pr:G/T\to G/TU$, $pr':G/T\to G/TU'$ are the projections and the fourth arrow sends $(\phi, \phi')$ to $\int \phi-\int \phi'$.
\[compl\_ae\_lem\] The complex is exact.
Exactness at all the terms except for ${\mathcal S}(G/TU)\oplus {\mathcal S}(G/TU')$ is clear. Suppose that $(\psi,\psi'):{\mathcal S}(G/TU)\oplus {\mathcal S}(G/TU')\to {{\mathbb C}}$ is a linear functional vanishing on the image of ${\mathcal S}(G/T)$. Let $\tilde\psi:{\mathcal S}(G)\to {{\mathbb C}}$ be the composition of the direct image map ${\mathcal S}(G)\to {\mathcal S}(G/TU)$ with $\psi$. Then $\psi$ is a right $TU$ invariant generalized function on $G$. On the other hand, $-\psi$ is equal to the composition of the direct image map ${\mathcal S}(G)\to {\mathcal S}(G/TU')$ with $\psi'$, which shows that $\tilde \psi$ is also right $TU'$ invariant. Since $G$ is assumed to be almost simple, $U$ and $U'$ together generate $G$, thus we see that $\tilde \psi$ is right $G$ invariant. It follows that $\tilde \psi$ is proportional to the functional $\phi\mapsto \int \phi$, hence the functional $(\psi,\psi')$ factors through the differential in , which yields exactness of .
We can now finish the proof of Conjecture \[imb\](c) in the present case. Breaking into short exact sequences we get $$0\to {\mathcal K}_{\Omega}\to {\mathcal S}(G/T)\to M\to 0,$$ $$0\to M\to {\mathcal S}(G/TU)\oplus {\mathcal S}(G/TU')\to {{\mathbb C}}\to 0.$$ Considering the corresponding long exact sequences on homology we see that it suffices to check that the map ${{\mathbb C}}=H_0(G, {\mathcal S}(G/T))\to H_0(G,M)$ is nonzero while the map $H_1(G, {\mathcal S}(G/T)) \to H_1(G,M)$ has one-dimensional cokernel. The former statement is clear since the composition $H_0(G, {\mathcal S}(G/T))\to H_0(G,M)\to
H_0(G,{\mathcal S}(G/TU))$ is nonzero. To check the latter recall that $H_i(G,{{\mathbb C}})=0$ for $i>0$ since the resolution of ${{\mathbb C}}$ provided by the simplicial complex for computation of homology of the Bruhat-Tits building ${{\mathfrak B}}$ shows that $H_i(G,{{\mathbb C}})\cong H_i({{\mathfrak B}}/G)$, while ${{\mathfrak B}}/G$ is a product of simplices. Thus $$H_1(G,M)\cong H_1(G, {\mathcal S}(G/TU)\oplus {\mathcal S}(G/TU'))\cong H_1(T,{{\mathbb C}})\oplus H_1(T,{{\mathbb C}}).$$ Since ${\mathcal S}(G/TU)\cong H_1(T,{{\mathbb C}})$ we see that $$CoKer\left( H_1(G, {\mathcal S}(G/T)) \to H_1(G,M) \right)\cong H_1(T,{{\mathbb C}}),$$ which is one-dimensional.
The case of $PGL(2)$
--------------------
To simplify the argument we assume in this subsection that $char(F)=0$.
\[imbedding\]Conjecture \[imb\] is true for $G=PGL(2)$.
The rest of the subsection is devoted to the proof of the Theorem.
We have ${\mathcal K}_{cusp}\subset {\mathcal K}$.
\[inj\]The map $\tau : H_0(G,{\mathcal K})\to {\mathcal D}^G$ is an embedding.
We need more notation.
- For ${\epsilon}\geq 0$ we define $G^ {\epsilon}=\{ g\in G| |p (g)| \leq {\epsilon}\}$, where $p(g)=\frac{tr^2({\tilde}g)}{det ({\tilde}g)}-4$; here ${\tilde}g\in GL(2,F)$ is a representative of $g$.
- We let $G_s$, $G_e$, $N$, $\bar N$ denote, respectively, the sets of regular semisimple split, regular semisimple elliptic, regular unipotent and all unipotent elements.
- We set $${\mathcal K}_u={\mathcal K}(\bar N):=\{ f\in {\mathcal S}(\bar N)\ | \int \limits_{u\in U}f
(u)du =0\ \forall B=TU\subset G\},$$ $${\mathcal K}_0:=\{ f\in {\mathcal K}_u| f(e)=0\},$$ where $B$ runs over the set of Borel subgroups in $G$.
- For $f\in {\mathcal K}$ we denote by ${\kappa}(f)\in {\mathcal K}_u$ the restriction of $f$ to $\bar N$ and by $[{\kappa}(f)]$ the image of ${\kappa}(f)$ in $H_0(G, {\mathcal K}_u)$.
We start with the following geometric statement.
\[extension\] Let $f\in {\mathcal S}(G)$ be such that $f|_{\bar N}\in {\mathcal K}_u$. Then there exists ${\epsilon}>0$ such that $f|_{G^{\epsilon}}\in {\mathcal K}$.
Recall notations of Remark \[diag\_rem\]. We have $\Delta_{Y_B}=G/B\times T$, where $T$ is the (abstract) Cartan subgroup of $G$. It is easy to see that condition $f|_{\bar N}\in {\mathcal K}_u$ is equivalent to vanishing of the restriction of $A_B(f)$ to $G/B\times \{1\}\subset \Delta_{Y_B}$. Also, condition $f|_{G^{\epsilon}}\in {\mathcal K}$ is equivalent to vanishing of $A_B(f)$ on $G/B\times T_{\epsilon}\subset \Delta_{Y_B}$, where $T_{\epsilon}=G_{\epsilon}\cap T$ (here we abuse notation by identifying the abstract Cartan subgroup $T$ with an arbitrarily chosen Cartan subgroup). Since $A_B(f)$ is locally constant for $f\in {{\mathcal H}}$, the statement follows from compactness of $G/B$.
\[extensions\] For any $f\in {\mathcal K}$ such that $[{\kappa}(f)]=0$ there exists $f'\in {\mathcal K}$ with the same image in $H_0(G,{\mathcal K})$ and such that $f'|_{\bar N}=0$.
Since $[f| _{\bar N}]=0$ we can write the restriction of $f$ to $\bar N$ as a finite sum $\sum _i ({\tilde}f_i^{g_i}-{\tilde}f_i), {\tilde}f_i \in {\mathcal K}_0', g_i\in G$. As follows from the Lemma \[extension\] we can choose $f_i\in {\mathcal K}$ such that ${\tilde}f_i={f_i}|_{\bar N}$. Then the function $f':=f-\sum _i ( f_i^{g_i}-f_i)$ satisfies the conditions of Corollary.
\[N’\] The space $H_0(G,{\mathcal K}_u)$ is two dimensional.
We first show that $\dim (H_0(G,{\mathcal K}_0))=1$.
Let ${\mathcal B}$ be the variety of Borel subgroups, $p:N\to {\mathcal B}$ the map which associates to $u\in N$ the Borel subgroup containing $u$. By definition we have an exact sequence $$0\to {\mathcal K}_0\to {\mathcal S}(N)\to {\mathcal S}({\mathcal B})\to 0$$ and therefore an exact sequence $$H_1(G, {\mathcal S}(N) )\to H_1(G, {\mathcal S}({\mathcal B}) )\to H_0 (G, {\mathcal K}_0)\to H_0(G ,{\mathcal S}(N))\to H_0 (G ,{\mathcal S}({\mathcal B})).$$
$H_1(G, {\mathcal S}(N) )=0 $.
Fix a Borel subgroup $B=TU$. We can write $U$ as a union of open compact subgroup $U_1\subset ...U_n\subset ...$. Therefore ${\mathcal S}(N)={\mathcal S}(G/U)$ is the direct limit of ${\mathcal S}(G/U_n)$. Since the functor $M\mapsto H_1(G,M)$ commutes with direct limits it is sufficient to show that $H_1(G, {\mathcal S}(G/U_n) )=\{ 0\}$. Since $U_n\subset G$ is a compact subgroup the space $H_1(G, {\mathcal S}(G/U_n) )$ is a direct summand of ${\mathcal S}(G)$. Since $H_1(G, {\mathcal S}(G) )=0$ the Lemma is proven.
Since $G$ acts transitively on $N$ and on ${\mathcal B}$ we have $H_0 (G ,{\mathcal S}(N)){{\widetilde \longrightarrow}}H_0 (G ,{\mathcal S}({\mathcal B}))={{\mathbb C}}.$ Since $H_1(G, {\mathcal S}(N) )=0 $ we see that the map $H_1(G, {\mathcal S}({\mathcal B}) )\to H_0 (G, {\mathcal K}_0)$ is an isomorphism. Since ${\mathcal B}=G/B$ we have: $$H_1(G, {\mathcal S}({\mathcal B}) )=H_1(B,{{\mathbb C}})=H_1(T,{{\mathbb C}})={{\mathbb C}}.$$
So $\dim( H_0 (G, {\mathcal K}_0))=1$.
To conclude the argument, recall the short exact sequence $0\to {\mathcal K}_0\to {\mathcal K}_u\to {{\mathbb C}}\to 0$.
Since $H_1(G,{{\mathbb C}})=0$ we have an exact sequence:
$$0\to H_0(G,{\mathcal K}_0) \to H_0(G,{\mathcal K}_u)\to {{\mathbb C}}\to 0$$ So $\dim(H_0(G,{\mathcal K}_u)=2$.
Let $r:{\mathcal K}_{cusp}\to {\mathcal K}_u$ be the restriction and $[r]:{\mathcal K}_{cusp}\to H_0(G,{\mathcal K}_u)$ be the composition of $r$ and projection ${\mathcal K}_u\to H_0(G,{\mathcal K}_u) $.
\[r\_onto\] The map $[r]$ is onto.
Recall the map $\tau: H_0(G,{\mathcal K}) \to {\mathcal D}^G$, $[f]\to \hat f$. Let $\bar {\mathcal D}^G$ be the space of germs of invariant distributions at $e$ and $\bar{\tau}: H_0(G,{\mathcal K}) \to \bar {\mathcal D}^G$ be the composition of $\tau$ with the restriction map.
Corollary \[extensions\] implies that the map $\bar{\tau}$ vanishes on the kernel of the map $H_0(G,{\mathcal K})\to
H_0(G,{\mathcal K}_u )$. Thus it suffices to show that $\bar{\tau}|_{{\mathcal K}_{cusp}}$ has rank at least two, i.e. that there exist irreducible cuspidal representations $\rho_1$, $\rho_2$, such that their characters restricted to any $G$-invariant open neighborhood of identity are not proportional. This is easily done by inspecting the character tables, see e.g. [@Sil §2.6].
\[cusp\]
a\) For any $f\in {\mathcal K}$ there exists $f_{cusp} \in {\mathcal K}_{cusp}$ such that $[{\kappa}(f)]=[{\kappa}(f_{cusp'})]$.
b\) For any $f_0\in {\mathcal K}_u$ there exists $f\in {\mathcal K}_{cusp}$ such that $[f_0]=[{\kappa}(f)]$.
Let $s\in G$ be a regular split semisimple element and ${\Omega}\subset G$ be the conjugacy class of $s$.
\[regular\] $\dim (H_0(G, {\mathcal K}_{\Omega}))=1$.
Let $T=Z_G(t)$ be the split torus and $B,B'\subset G$ be Borel subgroups containing $T$. Since ${\Omega}=G/T$ we have maps $r:{\Omega}\to G/B$ and $r':{\Omega}\to G/B'$ and therefore morphisms $r_\star :{\mathcal S}({\Omega})\to {\mathcal S}(G/B)$ and $r'_\star :{\mathcal S}({\Omega})\to {\mathcal S}(G/B')$.
As a special case of Lemma \[compl\_ae\_lem\] we get:
\[SL2ex\] The sequence $$\label{star}
0\to {\mathcal K}_{\Omega}\to {\mathcal S}({\Omega}) \to {\mathcal S}(G/B) \oplus {\mathcal S}(G/B') \to {{\mathbb C}}\to 0,$$ where the last map $l$ is given by $(\nu ,\nu ')\mapsto \int \nu -\int \nu '$, is exact.
Let $L:=ker (l)$. We have an exact sequence $$0 \to L \to {\mathcal S}(G/B) \oplus {\mathcal S}(G/B') \to {{\mathbb C}}\to 0.$$ Using that $G$ has homological dimension one, we get that the corresponding long exact sequence of homology contains the following fragment: $$0 \to H_1(G,L)\to H_1(B, {{\mathbb C}})\oplus H_1(B', {{\mathbb C}})\to H_1(G, {{\mathbb C}}).$$ It is easy to see that $$\dim(H_1(B, {{\mathbb C}}) )=\dim (H_1(B',{{\mathbb C}}))=\dim (H_1(T,{{\mathbb C}}))=1$$ Since the quotient $G/[G,G]$ is finite we see that $H_1(G, {{\mathbb C}})=0$. Therefore $\dim(H_1(G,L))=2$.
On the other hand we have an exact sequence $$0 \to {\mathcal K}_{\Omega}\to {\mathcal S}({\Omega}) \to L \to 0$$ and therefore an exact sequence $$H_1(G, {\mathcal S}({\Omega}))\to H_1(G, L )\to
H_0 (G, {\mathcal K}_{\Omega})\to H_0(G ,{\mathcal S}({\Omega})).$$ Since $H_1(G, {\mathcal S}({\Omega}))=H_1(T, {{\mathbb C}})$ we see $\dim(H_1(G, {\mathcal S}({\Omega}))=1$.
The map $a:H_1(G, {\mathcal S}({\Omega}))\to H_1(G, L )$ is an embedding.
It is sufficient to show that the map $H_1(G, {\mathcal S}({\Omega}))\to H_1(G, {\mathcal S}(G/B))$ induced by the composition $p_\star\circ a:L\to {\mathcal S}(G/B)$ is an embedding.
Since $H_1(G, {\mathcal S}({\Omega}))=H_1(T, {{\mathbb C}})$, $H_1(G, {\mathcal S}(G/B ))=H_1(B, {{\mathbb C}})$ and $H_{>0}(U,{{\mathbb C}})=0$, we see that this map is an isomorphism.
We can now finish the proof of Proposition \[regular\]. Since $G$ acts transitively on $G/B$ the map $\mu \to \int\limits _{G/B}\mu$ defines an isomorphism $H_0(G,{\mathcal S}(G/B))\to {{\mathbb C}}$. On the other hand, since $\int \limits_{{\Omega}}\nu =0$ for any $\nu \in {\mathcal K}_{\Omega}$ the map $H_0 (G, {\mathcal K}_{\Omega})\to H_0(G ,{\mathcal S}({\Omega}))$ equals zero. So $\dim (H_0(G, {\mathcal K}_{\Omega}))=1$.
Recall that $G_s\subset G$ is the subset of regular split semisimple elements, let ${\mathcal K}_s\subset {\mathcal K}$ be the subspace of functions in ${\mathcal K}$ supported on $G_s$. We fix a Cartan subgroup $T$, the Weyl group $W= {{\mathbb Z}}/2{{\mathbb Z}}$ acts on $T$ and on $G/T$ in the usual way. Then the map $$(T-\{ e\}) \times G/T \to G_s,
(s, g)\to gsg^{-1}$$ induces an isomorphism $$\label{Phit}
{\mathcal S}(G_s)\to ({\mathcal S}(T-\{e\})\otimes {\mathcal S}(G/T))^W.$$
\[split\] a) For $f\in {\mathcal K}_s$ the distribution $\hat f$ is locally constant on $G_s$.
b\) The map $f\mapsto (t\mapsto \hat f(t))$ induces an isomorphism $$H_0(G,{\mathcal K}_s)\to {\mathcal S}(T-\{e\})^W.$$
The isomorphism is clearly compatible with the averaging map $f\mapsto \hat f$, which implies $a)$. Likewise, restriction to an orbit is compatible with averaging, thus in view of it suffices to show that for a fixed orbit ${\Omega}\subset G_s$ the map $f\mapsto \hat f (t)$, $t\in {\Omega}$ induces an isomorphism $H_0(G,{\mathcal K}({\Omega}))\to {{\mathbb C}}$. By Proposition \[regular\] it suffices to see that this map is nonzero. This follows, for example, from the fact that the character of a cuspidal representation does not necessarily vanish on $G_s$, while the character of an irreducible cuspidal representation is obtained by averaging from its matrix coefficient.
Now we can finish the proof of Proposition \[inj\]. Let $f\in {\mathcal K}$ be such that $\hat f=0$. It follows from Corollary \[extensions\] and Lemma \[extension\] that we can can find $f'$ with the same image in $H_0(G,{\mathcal K})$ such that $f'=f_s+f_e$ where $f_s$ is supported on regular split semisiple elements and $f_e$ on regular elliptic elements. The condition $\hat f=0$ implies that $\hat{f'}=0$, hence $\hat f_s=0$ and $\hat f_e=0$. It is easy to see that the condition $\hat f_e=0$ implies that $[f_e]=0$. So we may assume that the support of $f$ is contained in the subset $G_s\subset G$ of regular split semisimple elements. Now Proposition \[inj\] follows from Corollary \[split\].
Let ${\tilde}{\mathcal D}_e$ be the space of germs of distributions at $e$ and $ {\mathcal D}_e\subset {\tilde}{\mathcal D}_e$ be the subspaces spanned by germs of characters of irreducible representations.
\[germs\] The space ${\mathcal D}_e$ is $2$-dimensional. It is spanned by germs of characters of irreducible cuspidal representations.
The second statement is a special case of a theorem of Harish-Chandra [@HC]. The first one also follows from [*loc. cit.*]{}, as it shown there that more generally the space ${\mathcal D}_e$ has a basis indexed by unipotent orbits.
Recall that ${\mathcal E}\subset {\mathcal D}$ is the subspace of distributions $\alpha$ satisfying the following three conditions:
a\) There exists a compact subset $C$ in $G$ such that $supp (\alpha)\subset C^G$.
b\) The restriction of $\alpha$ on $G-\{ e\}$ is given by a locally constant function.
c\) The germ of $\alpha$ at $e$ belongs to ${\mathcal D}_e$.
$\tau ({\mathcal K})\subset {\mathcal E}$.
Fix $f\in {\mathcal K}$. It is clear that the distribution $\hat f$ satisfies condition $a)$.
To prove that $\hat f$ satisfies condition $b)$ we have to show that for any semisimple element $s\in G-\{ e\}$ there exists an open neighborhood $R\subset G$ of $s$ such that the restriction $\hat f|_{R}$ is a constant. If $s$ is split then this follows from Corollary \[split\](a), if $s$ is elliptic the proof is similar.
To prove that $\hat f$ satisfies condition $c)$ we observe that Corollary \[cusp\] implies existence of $f_{cusp}\in {\mathcal K}_{cusp}$ such that $[{\kappa}(f)]=[{\kappa}(f_{cusp})]$.
It is easy to see that when $f$ is a matrix coefficient of an irreducible cuspidal representation $\rho$ then $\hat f$ is proportional to the character of $\rho$. Thus condition $c)$ is satisfied by $\alpha_{cusp}=\hat{f_{cusp}}$. However, by Lemma \[extension\] and Corollary \[extensions\] the germs of $\alpha$ and $\alpha_{cusp}$ at $e$ coincide.
\[sur\] $\tau ({\mathcal K})= {\mathcal E}$.
It remains to show that every $\alpha \in {\mathcal E}$ is in the image of $\tau$. Lemma \[germs\] shows that there exists $\beta \in {\mathcal E}$ which is a linear combination of characters of cuspidal representations such $\alpha - \beta$ vanishes on an open neighborhood of $e$. Thus we have $\alpha-\beta=\alpha_s+\alpha_e$, where $\alpha_s$ is supported on $G_s$, while $\alpha_e$ is supported on $G_e$.
Now $\alpha_s$ is in the image of $\tau$ by Corollary \[split\], while $\alpha_e$ is in the image of $\tau$ by a similar argument. Also, $\beta$ is in the image of $\tau$ since the character of an irreducible cuspidal representation $\rho$ equals $\hat{f}$ where $f$ is a matrix coefficient of $\rho$.
Proposition \[sur\] and therefore Theorem \[imbedding\] are proven.
The compactified category of smooth modules {#compcat}
===========================================
Definition of the compactified category {#def_comp}
---------------------------------------
For a parabolic $P=LU$ let $L^0\subset L$ be the subgroup generated by compact subgroups; thus $L^0$ is the kernel of the unramified characters of $L$. Set $\check{\Lambda}_P=L/L^0$.
Let $\Lambda_P$ be the group of $F$-rational characters of $L$ and $\Lambda_P^+$ be the subset of $P$-dominant weights, i.e. weights which are (non-strictly) dominant with respect to any (not necessarily $F$-rational) Borel subgroup $B\subset P$. We have a nondegenerate pairing between the lattices $\check{\Lambda}_P$ and $\Lambda_P$ given by: $$\langle x L^0, {\lambda}\rangle = val_F ({\lambda}(x)).$$
Let $\check{\Lambda}_P^+$ be the subsemigroup defined by: $$\check{\Lambda}_P^+ =\{ x\in \check{\Lambda}_P \ |\ \langle x, {\lambda}\rangle \geq 0 \ \ \forall {\lambda}\in {\Lambda}_P^+\},$$ and let $L^+_P\subset L$ be the preimage of $\check{\Lambda}_P^+$ under the projection $L\to \check{\Lambda}_P$.
For a pair of parabolics $P\supset Q$ let $L_Q^{P+}
\subset L_Q$ denote the image of $L_P^+\cap Q$ in $L_Q=Q/U_Q$. It is easy to see that $L_Q^{P+}
\supset L_Q^+$. For an open submonoid $M\subset G$ we let $Sm(M)$ denote the category of nondegenerate finitely generated ${{\mathcal H}}(M)$-modules; this is easily seen to be equivalent to the category of finitely generated smooth $M$-modules.
For parabolic subgroups $P\supset Q$ we have the “Jacquet” functor $J^P_Q: Sm (L_P^+)\to
Sm(L_Q^{P+})$, $M\mapsto M_{\overline{U_Q}}$, where $\overline{U_Q}$ is image of $U_Q$ in $L_P=P/U_P$.
To simplify the wording in the following definition we fix a minimal parabolic $P_0$, then by a standard parabolic we mean a subgroup $P$ containing $P_0$.
\[sm\_def\] The [*compactified category*]{} of smooth $G$-modules ${{\overline{Sm}}}^{qc}={{\overline{Sm}}}^{qc}(G)$ is the category whose object is a collection $(M_P)$ indexed by standard parabolic subgroups $P=L_PU_P$, where $M_P$ is a smooth module over $L_P^+$, together with isomorphisms $$\label{isom_struk}
J^P_Q(M_P)\cong {{\mathcal H}}( L_Q^{P+})\otimes _{{{\mathcal H}}(L_Q^+)} M_Q$$ fixed for every pair of standard parabolic subgroups $P=L_PU_P\supset
Q=L_QU_Q$; here ${{\mathcal H}}$ denotes the algebra of locally constant compactly supported distributions. The isomorphisms are required to satisfy the associativity identity for each triple of parabolics $P_1\supset P_2\supset P_3$.
An object in the compactified category is called coherent if the module $M_P$ is finitely generated for all $P$.
We let ${{\overline{Sm}}}={{\overline{Sm}}}(G)\subset {{\overline{Sm}}}^{qc}$ denote the full subcategory of coherent objects.
It is easy to see that ${{\overline{Sm}}}(G)$ is an abelian category, the functor sending $(M_P)\in {{\overline{Sm}}}$ to $M_G$ identifies $Sm(G)$ with a Serre quotient of ${{\overline{Sm}}}$.
We also have an adjoint functor $Sm(G)\to {{\overline{Sm}}}^{qc}$. This functor sends admissible modules but not general finitely generated modules to ${{\overline{Sm}}}$.
\[sl2ex\] Let $G=SL(2)$. In this case the category ${{\overline{Sm}}}$ admits the following more direct description. A component of the spectrum ${{\mathfrak Z}}$ of Bernstein center is in this case either a point or an affine curve, thus ${{\mathfrak Z}}$ admits a canonical (componentwise) compactification ${{\overline {{\mathfrak Z}}}}$. Notice that $\partial {{\mathfrak Z}}={{\overline {{\mathfrak Z}}}}\setminus {{\mathfrak Z}}$ is identified with the set $(O^\times)^*$ of characters of $T_0=O^\times$. Let $T^+=O\setminus \{0\}\subset F^\times =T$, thus $T^+\cong O^\times\times {{\mathbb Z}}_{\geq 0}$. Set ${{\tilde {{\mathfrak Z}}}}^+=Spec({{\mathcal H}}(T^+))\cong (O^\times)^*\times {{\mathbb A}^1}$. Notice that we have a natural map $\pi:{{\tilde {{\mathfrak Z}}}}^+ \to
{{\overline {{\mathfrak Z}}}}$ inducing an isomorphism $(O^\times)^*\times \{0\}\to \partial {{\mathfrak Z}}$. Moreover, $\pi$ is etale at $(O^\times)^*\times \{0\}$.
The full Hecke algebra ${{\mathcal H}}$ defines a quasicoherent sheaf of algebras on ${{\mathfrak Z}}$, we now describe its extension to a quasicoherent sheaf of algebras ${{\overline{\mathcal H}}}$ on ${{\overline {{\mathfrak Z}}}}$. The latter depends on the choice of a maximal open compact subgroup $K_0=SL(2,O)$. Fixing this choice we set ${{\tilde {{\mathcal H}}}}^+=End_{T^+}({\mathcal S}(G/U^+))$, where $(G/U)^+=O^2\setminus \{0\}\subset F^2\setminus \{0\}=G/U$. We also let ${{\tilde {{\mathcal H}}}}=End_T({\mathcal S}(G/U))$. It is clear that ${{\tilde {{\mathcal H}}}}^+$ defines a quasicoherent sheaf on ${{\tilde {{\mathfrak Z}}}}^+$ whose restriction to the open subset ${{\tilde {{\mathfrak Z}}}}:={{\tilde {{\mathfrak Z}}}}^+\setminus (O^\times)^*\times \{0\}$ is the quasicoherent sheaf defined by ${{\tilde {{\mathcal H}}}}$.
The action of ${{\mathcal H}}$ on ${\mathcal S}(G/U)$ defines a homomorphism $\pi^*({{\mathcal H}})\to {{\tilde {{\mathcal H}}}}$ which is an isomorphism on a Zariski neighborhood of $\partial {{\tilde {{\mathfrak Z}}}}^+={{\tilde {{\mathfrak Z}}}}^+\setminus {{\tilde {{\mathfrak Z}}}}$. Thus we get a well defined quasicoherent sheaf of algebras ${{\overline{\mathcal H}}}$ on ${{\overline {{\mathfrak Z}}}}$ such that ${{\overline{\mathcal H}}}|_{{\mathfrak Z}}={{\mathcal H}}$ and the induced map $\pi^*({{\overline{\mathcal H}}})|_{{\tilde {{\mathfrak Z}}}}\to {{\tilde {{\mathcal H}}}}$ extends to a map $\pi^*({{\overline{\mathcal H}}})\to {{\tilde {{\mathcal H}}}}^+$ which is an isomorphism on a neighborhood of $\partial {{\tilde {{\mathfrak Z}}}}^+$.
It is clear that $K_0^2$ acts on ${{\overline{\mathcal H}}}$ and for an open subgroup $K\subset K_0$ the subsheaf ${{\overline{\mathcal H}}}_K$ of $K^2$ invariants is a coherent sheaf of algebras.
We leave it to the reader to show that although ${{\overline{\mathcal H}}}$ depends on an auxiliary choice, different choices lead to algebras which are canonically Morita equivalent. Thus we can consider the category of sheaves of nondegenerate ${{\overline{\mathcal H}}}$-modules which can be checked to be canonically equivalent to ${{\overline{Sm}}}$. If the subgroup $K\subset K_0$ is nice in the sense of [@centre] then for every component $X$ of ${{\overline {{\mathfrak Z}}}}$ either the coherent sheaf of algebras ${{\overline{\mathcal H}}}_K|_X$ is zero or the corresponding summand in ${{\overline{Sm}}}$ (respectively, ${{\overline{Sm}}}^{qc}$) is canonically equivalent to the category of coherent (respectively, quasicoherent) sheaves of ${{\overline{\mathcal H}}}_K|_X$-modules.
Compactified center and a spectral description of the compactifed category
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let $Z=Z(G)$ be the Bernstein center of $G$ and ${{\mathfrak Z}}=Spec(Z)$ be its spectrum. By the main result of [@centre] (the set of closed points of) ${{\mathfrak Z}}$ is in bijection with the set $Cusp(G)$ of [*cuspidal data*]{}, i.e. the set of $G$-conjugacy classes of pairs $(L,\rho)$, where $L\subset G$ is a Levi subgroup and $\rho$ is a cuspidal irreducible representation of $L$.
### Compactified center
Let ${{\overline {{\mathfrak Z}}}}$ denote its compactification described as follows. We have a canonical isomorphism ${{\mathfrak Z}}={{\tilde {{\mathfrak Z}}}}/W$ where $W$ is the Weyl group, and ${{\tilde {{\mathfrak Z}}}}$ parametrizes pairs $(L,\rho)$ where $L$ is a Levi subgroup containing a fixed maximally split Cartan $T$ and $\rho$ is a cuspidal representation of $L$. The complex torus ${{^LT}}={\mathcal X}(L)$ acts nn the union ${{\tilde {{\mathfrak Z}}}}_L$ of components corresponding to a given Levi subgroup $L\supset T$; here ${ \mathcal X}(L)$ stands for the group of unramified characters of $L$ acting on the set of representations by twisting. Notice that ${{^LT}}$ is a torus with $X^*({{^LT}})=L/L^0$. The action is transitive on each component and the stabilizer of each point is finite. The space $X^*({{^LT}})_{{\mathbb R}}=X_*(Z(L))_{{\mathbb R}}$ (where $X_*$ stands for the lattice of $F$-rational cocharacters) contains hyperplanes corresponding to the roots of $Z(L)$ in ${{\mathfrak g}}$; the fan formed by these hyperplanes defines an equivariant compactification $\overline{{{^LT}}}$ of ${{^LT}}$. We set $${{\overline {{\mathfrak Z}}}}={\widetilde}{{{\overline {{\mathfrak Z}}}}}/W,\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ {\widetilde}{{{\overline {{\mathfrak Z}}}}}={\bigcup\limits}_L \overline{{{^LT}}} \times
^{{{^LT}}} {{\tilde {{\mathfrak Z}}}}_L ,$$ where the right hand side makes sense because the action of $W$ on ${{\tilde {{\mathfrak Z}}}}$ extends to the compactification, here we use the notation $X\times^HY=(X\times Y)/H$. Notice that every component of ${{\tilde {{\mathfrak Z}}}}_L$ is of the form $^LT/A$ for a finite subgroup $A\subset ^LT$, thus the corresponding component of $\overline{{{^LT}}} \times
^{{{^LT}}} {{\tilde {{\mathfrak Z}}}}_L $ is identified with $\overline{{{^LT}}}/A$.
For a parabolic $P=LU$ let $Z^0(L)\subset Z(L)$, $Z^+(L)\subset Z(L)$ be the subalgebras consisting of distributions supported on $L^0$ and $L_P^+$ respectively, set also ${{\mathfrak Z}}^0(L)=Spec(Z^0(L))$, ${{\mathfrak Z}}^+(L)=Spec(Z^+(L))$.
It is clear that $$\label{Z0}
{{\mathfrak Z}}^0(L)= {{\mathfrak Z}}(L)/{\mathcal{X}}(L),$$ where ${\mathcal{X}}(L)$ is the group of unramified characters of $L$.
\[L1\] a) ${{\overline {{\mathfrak Z}}}}$ admits a canonical stratification indexed by conjugacy classes of parabolic subgroups, where the stratum ${{\overline {{\mathfrak Z}}}}_P$ corresponding to the class of a parabolic $P$ is identified with ${{\mathfrak Z}}^0(L)$.
b\) The embedding ${{\mathfrak Z}}^0(L)\to {{\overline {{\mathfrak Z}}}}$ canonically extends to a map ${{\mathfrak Z}}^+(L)\to {{\overline {{\mathfrak Z}}}}$ which is etale on a Zariski neighborhood of ${{\overline {{\mathfrak Z}}}}_P\cong {{\mathfrak Z}}^0(L)$.
Given two parabolics $P\subset Q$ we have a canonical map $c_P^Q:{{\mathfrak Z}}^+(L_P)\to {{\mathfrak Z}}^+(L_Q)$ which is compatible with maps to ${{\overline {{\mathfrak Z}}}}$.
Moreover, for three parabolics $P_1\subset P_2\subset P_3$ we have $$c_{P_1}^{P_3}=c_{P_2}^{P_3}c_{P_1}^{P_2}.$$
Let ${\widetilde}{{{\overline {{\mathfrak Z}}}}}_L = \overline{{{^LT}}} \times
^{{{^LT}}} {{\tilde {{\mathfrak Z}}}}_L $.
It is a standard fact that ${{^LT}}$-orbits in $ \overline{{{^LT}}}$ are in bijection with parabolic subgroups containing $L$, so that the orbit $\overline{^LT}_Q$ corresponding to a parabolic $Q=MU_Q$ is identified with ${\mathcal X}(L)/{\mathcal X}(M)$. The stratification of $\overline{{{^LT}}}$ by ${{^LT}}$-orbits induces a stratification on ${\widetilde}{{{\overline {{\mathfrak Z}}}}}_L$, the stratum corresponding to a parabolic $Q$ will be denoted by ${\widetilde}{{{\overline {{\mathfrak Z}}}}}_L\{Q\}$.
Fix a conjugacy class $\bf{P}$ of parabolic subgroups and set ${\widetilde}{{{\overline {{\mathfrak Z}}}}}_L({\bf{P}})=
{\bigcup\limits}_{Q\in {\bf{P}} }{\widetilde}{{{\overline {{\mathfrak Z}}}}}_L\{Q\}$. Let ${\widetilde}{{{\overline {{\mathfrak Z}}}}}_{\bf{P}}=
{\bigcup\limits}_L {\widetilde}{{{\overline {{\mathfrak Z}}}}}_L(\bf{P})$.
It is clear that $({\widetilde}{{{\overline {{\mathfrak Z}}}}}_{\bf{P}})$ is a stratification of ${\widetilde}{{{\overline {{\mathfrak Z}}}}}$ and each stratum is $W$-invariant. Thus ${{\overline {{\mathfrak Z}}}}_{\bf{P}}:= {\widetilde}{{{\overline {{\mathfrak Z}}}}}_{\bf{P}}/W$ are strata of a stratification of ${{\overline {{\mathfrak Z}}}}$.
The map $Q\mapsto {\widetilde}{{{\overline {{\mathfrak Z}}}}}_L\{Q\}$ is easily seen to be $W$-equivariant, it follows that for a parabolic $P=LU\in \bf{P}$ we have $${{\overline {{\mathfrak Z}}}}_{\bf{P}}\cong {\bigcup\limits}_{M, T\subset M \subset L} {\widetilde}{{{\overline {{\mathfrak Z}}}}}_M\{P\}/W_L.$$
The above isomorphism $\overline{^LT}_Q\cong {\mathcal X}(L)/{\mathcal X}(M)$ shows that $ {\widetilde}{{{\overline {{\mathfrak Z}}}}}_M\{P\}\cong {{\overline {{\mathfrak Z}}}}_M(L)/{\mathcal X}(L)$. Passing to the union over $M$ and taking quotient by the action of $W_L$ (which commutes with the action of ${\mathcal X}(L)$) we get ${{\overline {{\mathfrak Z}}}}_{\bf{P}}\cong {{\mathfrak Z}}(L)/{\mathcal X}(L)$ which yields (a) in view of .
To check (b) observe that for parabolic subgroups $Q=MU_Q\supset P=LU_P\supset T$ the cone ${{\mathbb R}}^{\geq 0} \Lambda_Q^+$ belongs to the fan defining the toric variety $\overline {{^LT}}$. Let $V_L\{Q\}$ be the corresponding affine open subset in $\overline {{^LT}}$ and ${\mathcal V}_L\{Q\}$ be the corresponding open affine in ${\widetilde}{{{\overline {{\mathfrak Z}}}}}_L$. Thus ${\mathcal V}_L\{Q\}$ is a Zariski open neighborhood of ${\widetilde}{{{\overline {{\mathfrak Z}}}}}_L\{Q\}$.
It is easy to see that ${\mathcal V}_L\{Q\}$ is $W_M$ invariant and ${\mathcal V}_L\{Q\}/W_M\cong {{\mathfrak Z}}^+(L)$. Since ${{\overline {{\mathfrak Z}}}}={\widetilde}{{{\overline {{\mathfrak Z}}}}}/W$, claim (b) follows from the fact that the stabilizer of any point $x\in {\widetilde}{{{\overline {{\mathfrak Z}}}}}\{Q\}$ is contained in $W_M$.
c\) follows by inspection.
In order to relate ${{\overline{Sm}}}$ to ${{\overline {{\mathfrak Z}}}}$ we will need the following general concept. Let $X$ be an algebraic variety. By a [*quasicoherent enrichment*]{} of a category ${{\mathcal C}}$ over $X$ we will mean assigning to objects $M$, $N\in {{\mathcal C}}$ an object ${\underline{\mathrm{Hom} }}(M,N)\in QCoh(X)$ together with an isomorphism $Hom(M,N)=\Gamma({\underline{\mathrm{Hom} }}(M,N))$ and maps ${\underline{\mathrm{Hom} }}(M_1,M_2)\otimes_
{{{\mathcal O}}_{X}} {\underline{\mathrm{Hom} }}(M_2,M_3)\to {\underline{\mathrm{Hom} }}(M_1,M_3)$ satisfying the associativity constraint and compatible with the composition of morphisms in ${{\mathcal C}}$. If the quasicoherent sheaf ${\underline{\mathrm{Hom} }}(M,N)$ is actually coherent for all $M,N\in {{\mathcal C}}$ we say that the enrichment is coherent.
\[prop1\] The category ${{\overline{Sm}}}$ (respectively, ${{\overline{Sm}}}^{qc}(G)$) admits a natural lifts to a category coherent (respectively, quasicoherent) enrichment over ${{\overline {{\mathfrak Z}}}}$.
The categories ${{\overline{Sm}}}$, ${{\overline{Sm}}}^{qc}$ split as a direct sum indexed by components of ${{\mathfrak Z}}$.
Before proceeding to prove the Proposition we state a general elementary Lemma.
\[L2\] Let $X=\coprod X_i$ be a scheme with a fixed stratification (i.e. the closure of $X_i$ coincides with $\coprod _{j\leq i} X_j$ for some partial order $\leq $ on the set $I$ of strata). Set $U_i=\coprod _{j\geq i} X_j$, this is an open subset of $X$. Suppose that for each $i$ we are given a map $u_i:Y_i\to U_i$, such that
i\) $X_i\times _X Y_i{{\widetilde \longrightarrow}}X_i$
ii\) $u_i$ is etale over a Zariski neighborhood of $X_i$.
iii\) For $j\leq i$ set $Y_{ji}=Y_j\times _X U_i$. Then the map $Y_{ji}\to U_i$ factors through a map $u_{ji}:Y_{ji}\to Y_i$. Moreover, for $k<j<i$ the map $Y_{ki}\to U_j\supset U_i$ factors through a map $u_{kji}: Y_{ki}\to Y_{ji}$.
Let $Y_d=\coprod_{i_1<\dots < i_d} Y_{i_1i_d}$. Then the diagram $Y_3 \mathrel{\substack{\textstyle\rightarrow\\[-0.6ex]
\textstyle\rightarrow \\[-0.6ex]
\textstyle\rightarrow}} Y_2
\rightrightarrows Y_1\to X$ satisfies descent for quasicoherent sheaves, i.e. $QCoh(X)$ is equivalent to the category of quasicoherent sheaves on $Y_1$ with isomorphisms of the two pull-backs to $Y_2$ whose pull-backs to $Y_3$ satisfy the natural compatibility.
To fix ideas let us first prove the Lemma for sheaves in the analytic topology assuming we work over the base field ${{\mathbb C}}$. Then it is easy to see that we can find an open subset $Y_i^o
\subset Y_i$ for each $i$ so that $Y_i^o$ maps isomorphically to a neighborhood of $X_i$ in $X$. Moreover, we can arrange it so that the images of $Y_i^o$ and $Y_j^o$ have a nonempty intersection only if $i\leq j$ or $j\leq i$. Replacing $Y_i$ by $Y_i^o$ does not affect the category of gluing data; however, $(Y_i^o)$ is just an open covering of $X$, so the claim is clear.
### Proof of Lemma \[L2\]
Let $X_0$ be a closed stratum. Running an inductive argument, we can assume the theorem is known for the stratified space $X\setminus X_0$. Then we are reduced to proving the claim in the situation when the stratification consists of two strata $X=X_0\coprod X_1$. Replacing $Y_0$ by its open subset containing $X_0$ clearly does not affect the category of descent data, so we can assume without loss of generality that $Y_1\to X$ is etale. By a standard argument the claim reduces to exactness of the complex of sheaves on $X$: $$0\to {{\mathcal O}}\to (Y_0\to X)_*({{\mathcal O}}) \oplus (Y_1\to X)_*({{\mathcal O}})\to (Y_{01}\to X)_*({{\mathcal O}})\to 0.$$ The complex is clearly exact over $X_1$, so it is enough to show that local cohomology of this complex with support on $X_1$ vanishes. This reduces to showing that $\alpha^!({{\mathcal O}}){{\widetilde \longrightarrow}}\beta^!({{\mathcal O}})$, where $\beta:X_0\to X$, $\alpha_1:X_0\to Y_0$. This follows from conditions (i), (ii).
### Proof of Proposition \[prop1\]
Proposition \[L1\] implies that $X={{\overline {{\mathfrak Z}}}}$ with the stratification of Proposition \[L1\](a), and $Y_i={{\mathfrak Z}}(L_i^+)$ satisfy the conditions of Lemma \[L2\]. It is easy to see from the definition of ${{\overline{Sm}}}^{qc}$ that the collection of quasi-coherent sheaves $Hom(M_P,N_P)$ provides gluing data described in Lemma \[L2\]. Also, for $M,\, N\in {{\overline{Sm}}}$ the module $Hom(M_P,N_P)$ is finitely generated, so the resulting quasicoherent sheaf is in fact coherent. $\qed$
The spectral description of ${{\overline{Sm}}}$ {#sp_des}
-----------------------------------------------
Recall that for every component $X\subset {{\mathfrak Z}}$ the choice of a sufficiently small nice (in the sense of [@centre]) open compact subgroup $K\subset G$ defines a coherent sheaf of algebras ${{\mathcal A}}={{\mathcal A}}_X(K)$ on $X$ with an equivalence between ${{\mathcal A}}_X(K)$ modules and the corresponding summand in smooth $G$-modules. Let ${{\mathfrak B}}$ be the (reductive) Bruhat-Tits building of $G$. We fix a special vertex $x\in {{\mathfrak B}}$ and let $K_x\subset G$ denote the corresponding maximal compact subgroup. We also fix a maximally split Cartan subgroup $T$, such that the corresponding apartment $A_T\subset {{\mathfrak B}}$ contains $x$. Thus $A_T$ is an affine space with underlying vector space $V=X_*(T)\otimes {{\mathbb R}}$. Let $V_+\subset A_T$ be a Weyl cone with vertex at $x$ and $B$ the corresponding minimal parabolic subgroup.
It follows from the Iwasawa decomposition (see e.g. [@Tits §3.3.2]) that we have a natural bijection $$\label{Iwa}
P'\backslash G/K_x \cong \check{\Lambda}_P,$$ where $P'$ denotes the commutator group. Let $G^+(x,P)$ be the union of cosets corresponding to elements in $\check{\Lambda}_P^+\subset \check{\Lambda}_P$.
Let $(U_P\backslash G)^+(x)$ be the image of $G^+(x,P)$ in $U_P\backslash G$ and ${\mathcal S}^+(U_P\backslash G)(x)\subset
{\mathcal S}(U_P\backslash G)$ be the subspace of functions whose support is contained in $(U_P\backslash G)^+(x)$.
a\) The left action of $L$ on ${\mathcal S}(U_P\backslash G)$ restrict to an $L^+_P$ action on ${\mathcal S}^+(U_P\backslash G)(x)$.
b\) Let $K\subset K_x$ be an open subgroup. The ${{\mathcal H}}(L_P^+)$-module ${\mathcal S}^+(U_P\backslash G)(x)^K$ is finitely generated and projective.
c\) There exists a unique object ${{\mathcal P}}(x)^K\in {{\overline{Sm}}}$ such that ${{\mathcal P}}(x)^K_P={\mathcal S}^+(U_P\backslash G)(x)^K$ while the isomorphism for $P=G$ comes from the natural arrow ${\mathcal S}^+(U_Q\backslash G)(x)^K \to {\mathcal S}(U_Q\backslash G)^K
=J^G_Q ({\mathcal S}(G)^K)$.
d\) For every open subgroup $K\subset K_x$ the object ${{\mathcal P}}(x)^K $ is locally projective, i.e. the functor ${\underline{\mathrm{Hom} }}({{\mathcal P}}(x)^K,\ \ )$ is exact.
e\) For every component $X$ there exists an open subgroup $S\subset K_x$ such that for any open subgroup $K\subset S$ the object ${{\mathcal P}}_x^K$ is local generator of the corresponding summand ${{\overline{Sm}}}_X\subset {{\overline{Sm}}}$. The latter property means that ${\underline{\mathrm{Hom} }}({{\mathcal P}}_\sigma(x)^K, \ \ )$ is conservative i.e. it ${\underline{\mathrm{Hom} }}({{\mathcal P}}_\sigma(x)^K, {{\mathcal M}})\ne 0$ for $0\ne{{\mathcal M}}\in {{\overline{Sm}}}_X$.
a\) Bijection intertwines the left action of $L$ on $P'\backslash G/K_x$ with the action of $\check{\Lambda}_P= L/L^0$ on itself by translations, this implies part a). The space ${\mathcal S}^+(U_P\backslash G)(x)^K$ splits as a direct sum indexed by $P\backslash G/K$, each summand is isomorphic to the space ${\mathcal S}(L_P^+)^{K_L}$ for some open compact subgroup $K_L\subset K$, this implies b).
Notice that given modules $M_P$ and isomorphisms for $P=G$ as in Definition \[sm\_def\], the rest of the isomorphisms satisfying the requirements of the Definition are defined uniquely (if they exist) provided that each module $M_P$ is torsion free as a module over $Z^+(L_P)$. This implies uniqueness in c). Existence follows from the fact that $G^+(x,P)\subset G^+(x,Q)$ for parabolic subgroups $P\subset Q$.
Statement d) follows from b).
Finally e) follows from the corresponding statement about ${{\mathcal H}}_K$ established in [@centre].
Set ${\overline{{{\mathcal A}}}}_X={\overline{{{\mathcal A}}}}_X(x,K):={\underline{\mathrm{Hom} }}({{\mathcal P}}(x)^K,{{\mathcal P}}(x)^K)|_X$, this is a sheaf of algebras on $X$.
\[algAx\] Given a component $X\subset {{\overline {{\mathfrak Z}}}}$ for any small enough open subgroup $K\subset K_x$ we have a canonical equivalence between the category of (quasi)coherent sheaves of ${\overline{{{\mathcal A}}}}_X(x,K)$-modules and the summand in ${{\overline{Sm}}}$ (respectively, ${{\overline{Sm}}}^{qc}$) corresponding to $X$.
Compactified category and filtered modules {#filmod}
------------------------------------------
For a simple root $\alpha$ let $P_\alpha$ be the corresponding maximal proper parabolic and ${{\overline {{\mathfrak Z}}}}_\alpha$ be the closure of the corresponding stratum in ${{\overline {{\mathfrak Z}}}}$. It is easy to see that ${{\overline {{\mathfrak Z}}}}_\alpha$ is a divisor. For a weight $\lambda$ set $D_{\lambda}=\sum_\alpha \langle \check{\alpha}
,{\lambda}\rangle [{{\overline {{\mathfrak Z}}}}_\alpha]$ where the sum runs over the set of simple roots, let also ${{\mathcal O}}({\lambda})={{\mathcal O}}_{{{\overline {{\mathfrak Z}}}}}(D_{\lambda})$ and ${{\mathcal F}}(\lambda)={{\mathcal F}}\otimes_{{{\mathcal O}}({{\overline {{\mathfrak Z}}}})}{{\mathcal O}}({\lambda})$.
A coherent sheaf ${{\mathcal F}}$ on ${{\overline {{\mathfrak Z}}}}$ is determined by the graded module $\oplus _{\lambda}\Gamma( {{\mathcal F}}({\lambda}))$, over the homogeneous coordinate ring $\oplus \Gamma({{\mathcal O}}({\lambda}))$.
If ${{\mathcal F}}$ is torsion free then the natural map ${{\mathcal F}}(\mu)\to {{\mathcal F}}({\lambda}+\mu)$, ${\lambda}\in \Lambda^+$ is injective and $\bigcup\limits_{\lambda}{{\mathcal F}}({\lambda})=j_*j^*({{\mathcal F}})$ where $j:{{\mathfrak Z}}\to {{\overline {{\mathfrak Z}}}}$ is the embedding. Thus the category of torsion free coherent sheaves $Coh_{tf}({{\overline {{\mathfrak Z}}}})$ admits a full embedding into the category of ${{\mathcal O}}({{\mathfrak Z}})$-modules equipped with a filtration indexed by $\Lambda^+$ compatible with the natural filtration on the ring ${{\mathcal O}}({{\mathfrak Z}})$: to a sheaf ${{\mathcal F}}$ it assigns the module $\Gamma(j^*(F))$ with the filtration by the subspaces $\Gamma({{\mathcal F}}({\lambda}))$.
Applying it to the sheaf of rings ${\overline{{{\mathcal A}}}}_X(x,K)$ we get a filtration on the Hecke algebra $F_{\leq \lambda}^{spec}({{\mathcal H}}_K)$.
Thus we obtain the following:
We have a full embedding from the category ${{\overline{Sm}}}^{tf}_K$ of torsion free objects in ${{\overline{Sm}}}_K$ to the category of modules over ${{\mathcal H}}_K$ equipped with a filtration compatible with the filtration $F^{spec}$ on ${{\mathcal H}}_K$.
It is clear that the associated graded of the filtered module in the image of such an embedding is finitely generated; recall that a filtration with this property is called a [*good filtration*]{}.
We also have the left adjoint functor $Loc$ from the category of ${{\mathcal H}}_K$ modules with a good filtration to ${{\overline{Sm}}}_K$.
### A geometric description of the filtration
We now provide a more explicit description of the filtration $F_{\leq \lambda}^{spec}({{\mathcal H}}_K)$.
Recall that the two sided cosets of $K_x$ in $G$ are indexed by $X_B^+$ (see e.g. [@Tits §3.3.3]), for ${\lambda}\in X_B^+$ let $G_{\lambda}$ denote the corresponding coset. Let $F^{geom}_{\leq {\lambda}}({{\mathcal H}}_K)$ be the space of functions whose support is contained in ${\bigcup\limits}_{\mu \leq {\lambda}}G_\mu$.
\[fifi\] For every open compact $K\subset K_x$ there exists ${\lambda}_0\in X_B^+$ such that: $$\label{Fspecgeom}
F_{\leq \lambda}^{spec}({{\mathcal H}}_K) =\{h\in {{\mathcal H}}_K\ |\ \forall \mu \in {\lambda}_0+X_B^+ :\ \ h*F^{geom}_{\leq
\mu}({{\mathcal H}}_K)\subset F^{geom}_{\leq \mu+{\lambda}}({{\mathcal H}}_K).\}$$
[*Proof *]{} It follows from the definition that
$$\label{Fspec}
h\in F_{\leq \lambda}^{spec}({{\mathcal H}}_K)\iff \forall P,\mu \ :\ {\mathcal S}((U_P\backslash G)_{\leq \mu})*h\subset {\mathcal S}((U_P\backslash G)_{\leq {\bar{{\lambda}}_P} +\mu}),$$
where ${\bar{{\lambda}}_P}$ is the image of $\lambda$ in $\check{\Lambda}_P$ and $(U_P\backslash G)_{\leq \mu}= {\bigcup\limits}_{\nu\leq \mu} (U_P\backslash G)_\nu$ for the standard partial order $\leq $ on $\check{\Lambda}_P$; here $(U_P\backslash G)_\nu$ is the image of the coset corresponding to $\nu$ under bijection . ) Let $X_P=(G/U_P\times G/U_{P^-})/L$. We have $K_x\backslash X_P/K_x
\cong \check{\Lambda}_P,$ let $(X_P)_\mu$ denote the two-sided coset corresponding to $\mu\in \check{\Lambda}_P$. Then the condition in the right hand side of is equivalent to: $$\label{allPmu}
\forall P,\mu \ :\ h*{\mathcal S}((X_P)_{\leq \mu})\subset {\mathcal S}((X_P)_{\leq {\lambda}+\mu}),$$ where $(X_P)_{\leq \mu}= {\bigcup\limits}_{\nu\leq \mu} (X_P)_\nu$. this is clear by considering the projection $X\to G/P^-$ with fiber $G/U_P$. Assume now that $h$ lies in the set in the right hand side of . Applying the map $B_I$ of [@BK Definition 5.3] and using [@BK Lemma 5.5], we see that $h$ also satisfies . This shows that the right hand side of is contained in the left hand side. We proceed to check the opposite inclusion. The Rees ring $\oplus_\lambda F_{\leq \lambda}^{spec}({{\mathcal H}}_K)$ is finite over its center which is a finitely generated commutative ring, hence the Rees ring is finitely generated. Thus it suffices to check that for a finite set of generators $h_i\in F_{\leq \lambda_i}^{spec}({{\mathcal H}}_K)$ we have: $$h_i *F^{geom}_{\leq
\mu}({{\mathcal H}}_K)\subset F^{geom}_{\leq \mu+{\lambda}_i}({{\mathcal H}}_K) \ \ \forall \mu\in {\lambda}_0+{\Lambda}^+$$ for some $\lambda_0\in \Lambda^+$. Existence of such a $\lambda_0$ for a given $h_i$ follows from [@BK Lemma 5.5]. Since we consider a finite set of $h_i$, there exists $\lambda_0$ which satisfies the requirement for all $h_i$. )
It easily follows from the construction that $gr(F^{spec})$ is a Noetherian ring.
Notice that the geometric filtration on ${{\mathcal H}}$ is also compatible with the algebra structure; however, its associated graded is neither Noetherian, nor finitely generated in general. This is closely related to the fact that the intertwining operator acting on the space of functions over $\underline{(G/U)} (O/\pi^nO)$ is not an isomorphism for $n>1$ (here $\underline{(G/U)}$ is a scheme over $O$ coming from the $O$-group scheme with generic fiber $G$ corresponding to $x\in {{\mathfrak B}}$).
\[int\_bim\] In view of Proposition \[fifi\] the geometric filtration $F^{geom}$ on ${{\mathcal H}}$ makes it into a filtered module over the filtered algebra $({{\mathcal H}},F^{spec})$. Applying the functor $Loc$ to that filtered module we get an object in ${{\overline{Sm}}}$. We denote it by ${{\overline{\mathcal H}}}'$ and call it the [*intertwining*]{} object in ${{\overline{Sm}}}$.
\[XYLem\] Assume that $G=SL(2)$.
The intertwining object ${{\overline{\mathcal H}}}'$ is equivalently described by ${{\overline{\mathcal H}}}'_G={{\mathcal H}}$, $${{\overline{\mathcal H}}}'_B=\{f\in {\mathcal S}( G/U)\ | \ supp(I^{-1}(f))\subset (G/U_-)^+\},$$ where $I^{-1}$ denotes the inverse [*intertwining operator*]{} taking values in functions of bounded support.[^3]
Without loss of generality we can assume that $x$ is the standard vertex, so that $K_x=SL(2,O)$, we will write $K_0$ instead of $K_x$.
We need to check that for $h\in {{\mathcal H}}_K$ and large $\lambda\in \Lambda$ we have: $$h\in F^{geom}_{\leq {\lambda}} \ \iff supp( I_P^{-1}A_P(h))\subset (X_P)_{\leq {\lambda}},$$ where $X_{\leq {\lambda}}$ is the union of two-sided $K_0$ cosets corresponding to weights $\mu\leq {\lambda}$ and $A:{{\mathcal H}}\to {\mathcal S}(Y_P)$. By [@BK Theorem 7.6] $I^{-1}A=B^\star$ (notations of [*loc. cit.*]{}). It follows from [@BK Lemma 5.5] that for large $\lambda$ we have $$supp(h)\subset G_{\leq {\lambda}} \iff supp (B^\star(f))\subset
X_{\leq {\lambda}}.$$ The claim follows.
A similar statement can also be checked for an arbitrary reductive group $G$ based on a generalization of [@BK Theorem 7.6] to an arbitrary parabolic subgroup.
\[int\_rem\] We expect the local trace formula [@Ar] to be closely related to the computation of Chern character of ${{\overline{\mathcal H}}}'$ taking values in the appropriate Hochschild homology group.
Hochschild homology and character values
========================================
Recall the notion of [*Hochschild homology*]{} of an abelian category [@Ma], [@Ke1]. For a coherent sheaf of algebras $A$ over a quasi-projective algebraic variety $X$ over a field we have $HH_*(X;A)\cong HH_*(A-mod),$ where $A-mod$ is the abelian category of coherent sheaves of $A$-modules and $HH_*(X;A)$ is defined as the derived global section of a naturally defined object $R\underline{Hom}_{A\otimes A^{op}}(A,A)$ in the derived category of sheaves on $X$, here the isomorphism is shown in [@Ke].
One can also define the [*compactly supported*]{} Hochschild homology $HH_*^c(X;A)$ as the derived global sections with compact support in the sense of [@D] of $R\underline{Hom}_{A\otimes A^{op}}(A,A)$. If $X$ is projective then we also have $$HH_*^c(X;A)\cong HH_*(X;A)\cong HH_*(A-mod),$$ where the first isomorphism is clear since $R\Gamma=R\Gamma_c$ for a projective scheme. Also, for an open subscheme $U\subset X$ we have a natural push forward map $HH_*^c(U;A|_X)\to HH_*^c(X,A)$.
Assume that the sheaf of algebras $A$ (locally) has finite homological dimension. Then we have the [*Chern character*]{} map $ch:K^0(A-mod)\to HH_0(A-mod)$, see e.g. [@Ke §4.2] for the definition (it is called the Euler class map in [*loc. cit.*]{}).
\[ExHoch\] For future reference we spell out this general construction in some simple special cases. We leave the proofs of these standard facts to the interested reader.
1. Assume $X$ is affine, so that $A-mod$ is the category of finitely generated modules over a Noetherian ring which we also denote by $A$. Then $HH_*(X;A)=HH_*(A)$ is computed by the bar complex of $A$, in particular $HH_0(X;A)=HH_0(A)=A/[A,A]$. A finitely generated projective module $M$ is isomorphic to $A^{\oplus n}e$ for an idempotent $e\in Mat_n(A)$ for some $n$. Then $ch(M)=\sum (e_{ii}) \mod [A,A]$.
2. Assume that $X=U_1\cup U_2$ for affine open subsets $U_1$, $U_2$. Let $A_i=\Gamma(U_i,A)$, $i=1,2$ and $A_{12}=\Gamma(U_1\cap U_2, A)$. Then $HH_*(X;A)$ is computed by the complex $$Cone\left( Bar(A_1)\oplus Bar(A_2)\to Bar(A_{12}) \right)[-1].$$ For a locally projective module coherent sheaf $M$ of $A$-modules we can find integers $n$, $m$ and idempotents $e^1\in Mat_n(A_1)$, $e^2\in Mat_m(A_2)$ together with isomorphisms $\Gamma(U_1,M)\cong A_1^{\oplus n}e^1$, $\Gamma(U_2,M)\cong A_2^{\oplus m}e^2$ and matrices $a\in Mat_{nm}(A_{12})$, $b\in Mat_{mn}(A_{21})$ which induce the inverse isomorphisms between $A_{12}^{\oplus n}e^1$ and $A_{12}^{\oplus m}e^2$ coming from the identification of both with $\Gamma(U_1\cap U_2,M)$. In this setting $ch(M)$ is represented by the cocycle $(\sum e^1_{ii}, \sum e^2_{jj},
\sum a_{ij}\otimes b_{ji})\in A_1\oplus A_2\oplus A_{12}^{\otimes 2}$.
3. Let $U\subset X$ be an affine open subset such that its complement $Z$ is also affine. Let $A_1=\Gamma(U,A)$, and let $A_1$, $A_{12}$ be the algebras of sections of $A$ on the formal neighborhood and the punctured formal neighborhood of $Z$ respectively. Then the statements of part (b) continue to hold [*mutatis mutandis*]{}.
In the above setting, for an object ${{\mathcal M}}\in A-mod$ with [*proper*]{} support we have the Chern character $ch^c({{\mathcal M}})\in HH_0^c(X;A)$ as follows. Fix a proper subscheme $Z\subset X$ containing support of cohomology of ${{\mathcal M}}$. Then [@Ke §5.7] yields $ch_Z({{\mathcal M}})\in R\Gamma_Z(X,R\underline{Hom}_{A\otimes A^{op}}(A,A))$. We define $ch^c({{\mathcal M}})$ to be the image of $ch_Z({{\mathcal M}})$ under the canonical map $R\Gamma_Z(X,F)\to R\Gamma_c(X,F)$, $F=R\underline{Hom}_{A\otimes A^{op}}(A,A)$.
It is immediate to check that $ch^c({{\mathcal M}})$ is independent of the auxiliary choice of $Z$.
In particular, we have Chern character map $\bar{ch}:K^0({{\overline{Sm}}})\to HH_0({{\overline{Sm}}})$ and $ch^c:K^0(Adm)\to HH_0^c(Sm)$, where $Adm\subset Sm$ is the subcategory of admissible modules.
Let ${{\mathcal K}}^c\subset {{\mathcal K}}$, ${{\mathcal K}}^{nc}\subset {{\mathcal K}}$ be the subspace of measures supported on compact (respectively, noncompact) elements.
\[char\_form\_conj\] a) We have a canonical isomorphism:
$ {{\mathcal K}}_G^c\cong Im(HH_0^c(Sm)\to HH_0({{\overline{Sm}}}))$.
b\) For $\rho\in Adm$ and $g\in G$ we have $WO_g(\bar{ch}(\rho))=\chi_\rho(g)$ if $g$ is compact regular semisimple. (Here we use that $\bar{ch(\rho)}$ is the image of $ch^c(\rho)$ thus it belongs to $Im(HH_0^c(Sm)\to HH_0({{\overline{Sm}}}))$ which we identify with $ {{\mathcal K}}_G^c$ by a).
The proof of Conjecture for $G=SL(2)$ is presented in the next section; we plan to present the proof in the general case in a later publication.
$SL(2)$ calculations
====================
\[char\_form\] Conjecture \[char\_form\_conj\] holds for $G=SL(2)$.
The rest of the section is devoted to the proof of the Theorem. From now on set $G=SL(2)$.
Explicit complexes for Hochschild homology {#EHo}
------------------------------------------
Applying the general construction of section \[sp\_des\] with $\sigma=\{x\}$ where $x$ is the vertex with stabilizer $G(O)$ we arrive at a sheaf of algebras ${{\mathcal A}}$ on ${{\overline {{\mathfrak Z}}}}$ such that a direct summand in ${{\overline{Sm}}}$ is canonically identified with the category of coherent sheaves of ${{\mathcal A}}$-modules. It is easily seen to coincide with the sheaf ${{\overline{\mathcal H}}}_K$ introduced in Example \[sl2ex\]. We keep notations of that Example.
We also let ${\hat{\mathcal H}}^+_K$ denote its sections on the formal neighborhood ${\widehat}{\partial {{\mathfrak Z}}}$ of $\partial {{\mathfrak Z}}={{\overline {{\mathfrak Z}}}}\setminus {{\mathfrak Z}}$ and ${\hat{\mathcal H}}_K$ the sections on the punctured formal neighborhood of $\partial {{\mathfrak Z}}$. We set ${\hat{\mathcal H}}^+= {\bigcup\limits}_K {\hat{\mathcal H}}^+_K$ and ${\hat{\mathcal H}}={\bigcup\limits}_K {\hat{\mathcal H}}_K$. We also let $X=(G/U\times G/U^-)/T$ be the set of rank one matrices in $Mat_2(F)$ and $X_+=X\cap Mat_2(O)$.
Then we have ${\hat{\mathcal H}}^+_K=End_{T^+}({\mathcal S}(G/U)_+^K)\otimes_{{{\mathbb C}}[t]}{{\mathbb C}}[[t]] $, ${\hat{\mathcal H}}_K={\hat{\mathcal H}}_+^K \otimes_{{{\mathbb C}}[[t]]} {{\mathbb C}}((t))$. We have ${\hat{\mathcal H}}_K=End_{{\hat{\mathcal H}}(T)}({\mathcal S}_b^K(G/U))$, where ${\mathcal S}_b(G/U)^K\cong {\mathcal S}(G/U)\otimes _{{{\mathbb C}}[t,t^{-1}]}{{\mathbb C}}((t))$ is the space of functions on $G/U$ with bounded support.
Also notice that ${\hat{\mathcal H}}$ (though not ${\hat{\mathcal H}}_+$) carries a $G\times G$ action.
\[complexes\] a) $HH_*({{\overline{Sm}}})$ is computed by the complex $$\label{BarSmb}
Bar({{\overline{Sm}}}):= cone[Bar({{\mathcal H}})\oplus Bar({\hat{\mathcal H}}^+)\to Bar({\hat{\mathcal H}})][-1].$$
b\) $HH_*^c(Sm)$ is computed by the complex $$\label{BarSmc}
Bar^c(Sm):=cone[Bar({{\mathcal H}})\to Bar({\hat{\mathcal H}})][-1].$$
c\) $HH_*^c(Sm)$ is canonically isomorphic to derived $G$ coinvariants in the two-term complex $$\label{HtoHhat}
{{\mathcal H}}\to {\hat{\mathcal H}}$$ (placed in degrees 0,1).
For a complex ${{\mathcal F}}$ of coherent sheaves on ${{\overline {{\mathfrak Z}}}}$ the complexes $$cone[\Gamma({{\mathfrak Z}},{{\mathcal F}})\oplus \hat{\Gamma}^+({{\mathcal F}}) \to \hat{\Gamma}({{\mathcal F}})][-1],$$ $$cone[\Gamma({{\mathfrak Z}},{{\mathcal F}})\to \hat{\Gamma}({{\mathcal F}})][-1]$$ compute, respectively, $R\Gamma({{\mathcal F}})$ and $R\Gamma_c({{\mathfrak Z}},{{\mathcal F}})$, where $\hat{\Gamma}^+({{\mathcal F}})$ and $ \hat{\Gamma}({{\mathcal F}})$ denote, respectively, sections of ${{\mathcal F}}$ on the formal neighborhood and on the punctured formal neighborhood of $\partial {{\mathfrak Z}}$. Applying this to a complex representing $R\underline{Hom}_{{{\overline{\mathcal H}}}_K\otimes {{\overline{\mathcal H}}}_K^{op}}({{\overline{\mathcal H}}}_K,{{\overline{\mathcal H}}}_K)$ and observing that we have canonical quasi-isomorphisms $\hat{\Gamma}^+({{\mathcal F}})\to Bar({\hat{\mathcal H}}^+)$, $\hat{\Gamma}({{\mathcal F}})\to Bar({\hat{\mathcal H}})$ we get statements (a,b).
Statement (c) follows from isomorphisms $HH_*(M)\cong H_*(G,M)$, $HH_*^{{\hat{\mathcal H}}}(N)\cong HH_*^{{\mathcal H}}(N)$ for an ${{\mathcal H}}$-bimodule $M$ and an ${\hat{\mathcal H}}$-bimodule $N$.
Calculation of $HH_0$
---------------------
In this subsection we prove part (a) of the Theorem.
\[SL2prop\] a) We have a short exact sequence:
$$\label{KKGses}
0\to {{\mathcal K}}_G\to HH_0^c(Sm)\to {\widehat}{{\mathcal S}(T)}/{\mathcal S}(T)\to 0.$$
b\) We have a natural isomorphism ${{\mathcal K}}^c_G\cong Im(HH_0^c(Sm)\to HH_0({{\overline{Sm}}}))$.
We start the proof with the following
$G$ acts trivially on the cokernel of the map $H\to {\mathcal S}(Y_\Delta)$.
[*Proof*]{} follows from Lemma \[SL2ex\].
\[corH1\] We have:
$H_1(G,CoKer(H\to {\mathcal S}(Y_\Delta)))=0$.
$H_1(G,CoKer(H\to {\widehat}{{\mathcal S}(Y_\Delta)}))= {\widehat}{{\mathcal S}(T)}/{\mathcal S}(T)$,
where ${\widehat}{{\mathcal S}(T)}$ is the Tate completion of ${\mathcal S}(T)$ (functions on the torus).
[*Proof*]{} of Proposition \[SL2prop\]. By Lemma \[complexes\] (c), $HH_*^c(Sm)$ is identified with the derived $G$-coinvariants in the complex ${{\mathcal H}}\to {\widehat}{{\mathcal S}(Y)}$ which is clearly isomorphic to . We have a short exact sequence $$0\to {\mathcal S}(Y_0)\to {\mathcal S}(Y)\to {\mathcal S}(Y_\Delta)\to 0,$$ where $Y_0=Y\setminus Y_\Delta$ is the open set of non-colinear pairs of vectors. Thus the action of $G$ on $Y_0$ is almost free, i.e. the stabilizer of every point in $\{\pm 1\}$, and the orbits of $G$ on $Y_0$ are indexed by the finite set $F^\times/(F^\times )^2$. This shows that $H_1(G,{\mathcal S}(Y_0))=0$ and $H_0(G,{\mathcal S}(Y_0))$ is finite dimensional. Denoting as above ${\widehat}{{\mathcal S}(Y)}={\mathcal S}(Y)\otimes
_{{{\mathbb C}}[\varpi,\varpi^{-1}] }{{\mathbb C}}((\varpi))$ and similarly for ${\widehat}{{\mathcal S}(Y_0))}$ we see $H_i(G,{\mathcal S}(Y_0))=0$ for all $i$. Thus derived $G$ coinvariants of the complex are canonically isomorphic to derived $G$-coinvariants of the quotient complex ${\mathfrak C}= {{\mathcal H}}\to {\widehat}{{\mathcal S}(Y_\Delta)}$. Notice that $H^0({\mathfrak C})={{\mathcal K}}$, $H^1({\mathfrak C})=CoKer({{\mathcal H}}\to {\widehat}{{\mathcal S}(Y_\Delta)}))$ and ${\mathfrak C}$ is quasi-isomorphic to the complex with zero differential since the category of $G$-modules has homological dimension one. Thus part(a) of the Proposition follows from Corollary \[corH1\].
Lemma \[complexes\] shows that $Bar^c(Sm)$ is canonically quasiisomorphic to ${{\mathbb C}}{\overset{\rm L}{\otimes}}_G {\mathfrak C}$. One the other hand, we have a short exact sequence of complexes $$0\to Bar^c(Sm)\to Bar({{\overline{Sm}}}) \to Bar({\widehat}{H(T^+)})\to 0,$$ which yields a long exact sequence on cohomology:
$$\cdots \to HH_{i+1}({\widehat}{H(T^+)})\to HH_{i}^c(Sm)\to HH_i ({{\overline{Sm}}}) \to \cdots$$
We are interested in $i=0$. We have $HH_1({\widehat}{H(T^+)})\cong {\widehat}{H(T^+)}$. To finish the proof we need another
a\) Let us identify
$$HH_1({\widehat}{H(T)})=H_1(G,{\widehat}{{\mathcal S}(Y_\Delta)})={\widehat}{{\mathcal S}(T)}.$$
Then the image of the natural map $HH_1({\widehat}{H(T^+)})\to
HH_1({\widehat}{H(T)})$ coincides with $\varpi {\widehat}{{\mathcal S}(T^+)}$, i.e. with the space of functions supported on $\varpi T^+$, where $\varpi\in F$ is a uniformizer.
b\) In view of , part (a) yields a map $\varpi {\widehat}{{\mathcal S}(T^+)}\cap {\mathcal S}(T)\to {{\mathcal K}}_G\subset HH_0^c(Sm)$. This map induces an isomorphism onto $({{\mathcal K}}_{nc})_G$ where ${{\mathcal K}}_{nc}\subset {{\mathcal K}}$ is the space of measures supported on noncompact elements.
[*Proof of the Lemma.*]{} By Hochschild-Kostant-Rosenberg, we can identify Hochschild homology with forms. It is easy to see that elements in ${\mathcal S}(T^0)\subset {\widehat}{{\mathcal S}(T)}$ (where $T^0$ is the maximal compact subgroup in the torus $T$) locally on each component of Bernstein center are proportional to $\frac{dz}{z}$ for a local coordinate coming from a global coordinate on ${{\mathbb C}}^\times$. On the other hand, the image of $HH_1({\widehat}{H(T^+)})$ equals ${{\mathbb C}}[[z]] dz$, this proves (a).
To prove (b) observe that the map in question can be described as follows.
We have a short exact sequence of $G$-modules $$0\to {{\mathcal K}}\to {{\mathcal H}}\to I\to 0,$$ where $I=Im ({{\mathcal H}}\to {\mathcal S}(Y_\Delta))$ which yields the Bockstein homomorphism $\phi: H_1(G,I)\to H_0(G,{{\mathcal K}})$. By Corollary \[corH1\] we have $H_1(G,I)\cong H_1(G,{\mathcal S}(Y_\Delta))=H_1(G,\mu_{{{\mathbb P}^1}})\otimes
{\mathcal S}(T)={\mathcal S}(T)$. In view of (a) it suffices to check that $\phi: {\mathcal S}(\varpi T^+) {{\widetilde \longrightarrow}}H_0(G,{{\mathcal K}}^{nc})$.
We have a direct sum decomposition ${{\mathcal H}}={{\mathcal H}}^c\oplus {{\mathcal H}}^{nc}$ compatible with the decomposition ${\mathcal S}(Y_\Delta)={\mathcal S}(Y_\Delta^c)\oplus {\mathcal S}(Y_\Delta^{nc})$, where $Y_\Delta^c = {{\mathbb P}^1}\times O^\times$ and $Y_\Delta^{nc}=Y_\Delta\setminus Y_\Delta^{nc}$. Let us further decompose $Y_\Delta^{nc}=Y_\Delta^+\cup Y_\Delta^-$, where $Y_\Delta^+={{\mathbb P}^1}\times (\varpi O\setminus \{0\})$, $Y_\Delta^-={{\mathbb P}^1}\times (F\setminus O)$.
The image of $\phi$ clearly coincides with the image of $H_1(G,{\mathcal S}(Y_\Delta^+))$ under the map coming from the class in $Ext^1 ({\mathcal S}(Y_\Delta^+), {{\mathcal K}})$ induced from the above short exact sequence. It is clear that it is contained in $H_0(G,{{\mathcal K}}^{nc})$. It coincides with $H_0(G,{{\mathcal K}}^{nc})$ for the following reason. Consider a regular orbit $O=G/T$, then the image ${{\mathcal K}}_O$ of ${{\mathcal K}}$ in ${\mathcal S}(O)$ is the kernel of the pushforward map ${\mathcal S}(G/T) \to \mu_{G/B}\oplus \mu_{G/B^-}$. Then $({{\mathcal K}}_O)_G$ is one dimensional and the Bockstein map $H_1(G,\mu_{G/B})\to H_0(G,{{\mathcal K}}_O)$ is nonzero.
The Lemma clearly implies statement (b) of Proposition.
Cocycles for Chern character and Euler characteristic
-----------------------------------------------------
Let now $M$ be a locally projective object of ${{\overline{Sm}}}$.
Thus there exist idempotents $e\in Mat_n({{\mathcal H}})$, $e_+\in Mat_m({\hat{\mathcal H}}_+)$ and $a,b\in Mat_{n,m}({\hat{\mathcal H}})$, such that $ab=e$, $ba=e_+$ with isomorphisms $M|_{{\mathfrak Z}}\cong {{\mathcal H}}^n e$, $M_{{\widehat}{\partial {{\mathfrak Z}}}}\cong {\hat{\mathcal H}}_+^m e_+$, so that $a$, $b$ induces the two inverse isomorphisms between the restrictions of ${{\mathcal H}}^n e$ and $ {\hat{\mathcal H}}_+e_+$ to the punctured formal neighborhood of $\partial {{\mathfrak Z}}$ coming from the identification with the restriction of $M$.
\[ch\_coc\] In the above notation, $\bar{ch}(M)$ is represented by the cocycle for $Bar({{\overline{Sm}}})$ $c=(c_{{\mathcal H}}, c_+, \hat{c})$, where
$c={\sum\limits}_i e_{ii}\in {{\mathcal H}}$, $c_+=\sum_j (e_+)_{jj}\in {\hat{\mathcal H}}_+$, $\hat{c}={\sum\limits}_{i,j} a_{ij}\otimes b_{ji}\in {\hat{\mathcal H}}\otimes {\hat{\mathcal H}}$.
This is a special case of Example \[ExHoch\](c).
To state the next result we need the following notation. Fix $g\in G(O)$ normalizing $K$ thus $g$ acts by conjugation on the sheaf of algebras ${{\mathcal A}}$ and on global sections of an object in ${{\mathcal A}}-mod$.
We introduce a zero-cochain $\tau_g$ for the dual complex $Bar({{\overline{Sm}}})^*$, $\tau_g=(\tau_{{\mathcal H}}(g), \tau_+(g),
\hat{\tau}(g))$, where $\tau_{{\mathcal H}}(g)=WO_g\in {{\mathcal H}}^*$ (the weighted orbital integral), $\tau_+(g)=0\in {\hat{\mathcal H}}_+^*$ and $\hat{\tau}(g):\alpha \otimes \beta \mapsto
Tr([\alpha,\Pi]\beta\circ g, {\widehat}{{\mathcal S}(X)})$, where $\alpha,\beta\in {\hat{\mathcal H}}$ act on ${\widehat}{{\mathcal S}(X)}$ by left multiplication, $\Pi$ is the operator of multiplication by the characteristic function of $X_+$ acting on ${\widehat}{{\mathcal S}(X)}$ and $g$ is acting on the right.
\[tau\_prop\] a) The cochain $\tau_g$ is a cocycle. It satisfies: $$Tr(g,RHom ({{\overline{\mathcal H}}}', {{\mathcal M}}))=\langle \tau_g, \bar{ch}(M)\rangle,$$ for $M\in {{\overline{Sm}}}$, where ${{\overline{\mathcal H}}}'$ is the intertwining bimodule introduced at the end of section \[compcat\].
b\) For $\phi\in {{\mathcal K}}_G^c = Im(HH_0^c(Sm)\to HH_0({{\overline{Sm}}}))$ we have: $$\langle \phi, \tau_g\rangle = WO_g(\phi).$$
c\) The image of $\tau_g$ in $ HH_0^c(Sm)$ is independent of the auxiliary choices in the definition of $\tau_g$.
Part (c) clearly follows from (b).
We deduce (b) from Lemma \[XYLem\]. Let us present the map ${{\mathcal K}}^c_G\to HH_0(Bar^c(Sm))$ by an explicit cocycle. Fix $f\in {{\mathcal K}}\cap {{\mathcal H}}_K$. Consider the decomposition of ${\mathcal S}(G/U)^K$ as a direct sum of spaces of functions on preimages of $K$ orbits in $G/B$. Then the action of $f$ on this space has zero block diagonal components with respect to this decomposition. Also, the image of $f$ in ${\hat{\mathcal H}}={\widehat}{{\mathcal S}(Y)}$ is contained in ${\mathcal S}(Y_0)$, while ${\widehat}{{\mathcal S}(Y_0)}_G=0$ by the proof of Proposition \[SL2prop\]. Thus $f=\sum h_i-^{g_i}h_i$, $g_i\in G$, $h_i\in {\widehat}{{\mathcal S}(Y_0)}$. It is easy to check that the image of $\bar{f}$ in $HH_0(Bar^c(Sm))$ is represented by $(f,\sum g_i\delta_K\otimes h_ig^{-1})\in {{\mathcal H}}\oplus {\hat{\mathcal H}}\otimes {\hat{\mathcal H}}$.
It remains to check that for $h_i$ as above we have $$\label{Tr0}
Tr([g_i,\Pi]h_ig_i^{-1}\circ g, {\widehat}{{\mathcal S}(X)})=0.$$
We claim that the following stronger statement holds: the operator $[g_i,\Pi]h_ig_i^{-1}$ acting on ${\mathcal S}(G/U)$ has zero diagonal blocks with respect to the above block decomposition. To see this pick an open compact subgroup $K'$ such that $h_i\in {{\mathcal H}}_{^{g_i^{-1}}K'}$ for all $i$. Then $g_i^{-1}$ sends a summand of the decomposition corresponding to a $K'$-orbit $U\subset G/B$ to a summand corresponding to the $^{g^{-1}_i}K'$ orbits $g_i^{-1}(U)$, the endomorphism $h_i$ acts by an operator with zero diagonal blocks with respect to the decomposition corresponding to $^{g^{-1}_i}K'$ orbits, while $[g_i,\Pi]$ sends the summand corresponding to an orbit $g_i^{-1}(U)$ to the summand corresponding to the orbit $U$ (this is clear since $\Pi$ preserves all the direct sum decompositions above). Equality and hence part (b) of the Proposition follows.
The proof of part (a) occupies the next subsection.
Tate cocyle and weighted orbital integral
-----------------------------------------
### The Tate cocycle
A general reference for the following material is [@BFM] or [@BD], especially [@BD], §4.2.13, p 142; §7.13.18, p 344, developing the theme started in [@Tate].
Let $V$ be a Tate vector space, then the Lie algebra $End(V)$ of continuous endomorphism of $V$ has a canonical central extension, which we will denote by ${{\widetilde {End}}}(V)$.
Let $End^b(V)\subset End(V)$ denote the subspace of endomorphisms with bounded image, and $End^d(V)\subset End(V)$ be the subspace of endomorphisms having open kernel (here b stands for bounded, and d for discrete). Then $End^b(V)$, $End^d(V)$ are two-sided ideals in the associative algebra $End(V)$, and hence ideals in the Lie algebra $End(V)$. Further, the trace functional is defined on the intersection $End^{bd}=
End^b(V) \cap End^d(V)$, $tr:End^{bd}\to k$; it satisfies $$\label{obnul}
\begin{array}{ll}
tr([E,E^{bd}])=0;\\
tr([E^b,E^d])=0
\end{array}$$ for $E^b\in End^b(V)$, $E^d\in End^d(V)$, $E^{bd}\in End^{bd}(V)$, $E\in End(V)$.
The central extension ${{\widetilde {End}}}(V)\to End(V)$ is specified by the requirement that it is trivialized on the ideals $End^b(V)$, $End^d(V)$, i.e. the embeddings $End^b(V){\hookrightarrow}End(V)$, $End^d(V){\hookrightarrow}End(V)$ are lifted to (fixed) homomorphisms $s_b:End^b(V){\hookrightarrow}{{\widetilde {End}}}(V)$, $s_d: End^d(V){\hookrightarrow}{{\widetilde {End}}}(V)$, where $s_b$, $s_d$ intertwine the adjoint action of $End(V)$; and for $E^{bd}\in End^{bd}(V)$ we have $$\label{Tate_can}
s_b(E^{bd})-s_d(E^{bd})=tr(E^{bd})\cdot c,$$ where $c\in {{\widetilde {End}}}(V)$ is the generator of the kernel of the projection ${{\widetilde {End}}}(V)\to End(V)$.
Suppose now that a decomposition of $V$ $$\label{deco}
V=V^+\oplus V^-$$ into a sum of a bounded open and a discrete subspaces is given, and let $\Pi$ denote the projection to the bounded open $V^+$ along the discrete $V^-$. Then for any $E\in End(V)$ in the right-hand side of $$E=E\cdot \Pi+E\cdot(Id-\Pi)$$ the first summand lies in $End^b(V)$, and the second one in $End^d(V)$. Thus we get a splitting $s=s_\Pi:End(V)\to {{\widetilde {End}}}(V)$, $$\label{split_idem}
s_\Pi(E)=s_b(E\cdot \Pi)+s_d(E\cdot(Id-\Pi)).$$
It is also easy to see that for $E$ preserving $V_-$ (respectively, $V_-$) the element $s_\Pi(E)$ is independent of the choice of the complement $V_-$ (respectively, $V_+$). Thus we get a canonical splitting $s_{V^+}$ (respectively, $s_{V^-}$) of the central extension on the subalgebras $End_{V_+}(V)$, $End_{V^-}(V)$ consisting of endomorphisms preserving $V_+$ (respectively, $V_-$).
Denote by $C(E_1,E_2)$ the corresponding 2-cocycle of $End(V)$, i.e. a bi-linear functional, such that $$[s(E_1),s(E_2)]=
s([E_1,E_2])+C(E_1,E_2)\cdot c.$$ Then we have $$\label{C}
C(E_1,E_2)=Tr(E_1\circ \Pi \circ E_2 \circ (Id-\Pi) -
E_2\circ \Pi \circ E_1 \circ (Id-\Pi)).$$
Finally, suppose that another discrete cobounded space $W\subset V$ is fixed. The splitting $s_W$ of the central extension on $End_W(V)$ yields a linear functional $\sigma_W=s_W-s_\Pi|_{End_W(V)}$ on $End_W(V)$.
We have $$\label{sigma_Id}
\sigma_W(Id)=\dim(V^+\cap W)-{\mathrm{co}}\dim_V(V^+ +W).$$ Also, suppose that $F$ is an automorphism of $V$ such that either $F(V^+)\subset V^+$, or $V^+\subset F(V^+)$; set $d_{V^+}(F)=-\dim (V^+/F(V^+))$ in the former and
$d_{V_+}(F)=\dim (F(V^+)/V^+)$ in the latter case. Then $$\label{C_F}
C(F,F^{-1})=d_{V^+}(F).$$ Both equalities follow directly from the definitions.
Consider now the complex $$\label{Bargen}
Cone\left( Bar(End_{V^+}(V))\oplus Bar(End_W(V)) \to Bar(End(V)) \right)[-1]$$ and define a zero-cochain for the dual complex $\epsilon = (0,\sigma_W, C)$.
It is easy to check that the zero-cochain $\epsilon$ is in fact a cocycle whose cohomology class does not depend on the choice of $V^-$ for a fixed $V^+$.
### Weighted orbital integral and Tate cocycle
We now apply this in the following example. Consider the Tate space $$\label{enterX}
V={\hat{\mathcal H}}\cong {\widehat}{{\mathcal S}(Y)}\cong {\widehat}{{\mathcal S}(X)}$$ where $X$ was defined in the second paragraph of §\[EHo\], the first isomorphism was discussed above and the second one is induced by the inverse intertwining operator. Let $W$ be the image of ${{\mathcal H}}$ in the space and $ {\widehat}{{\mathcal S}(X)^+}$ be the space of functions supported on $X_+$ while ${\widehat}{{\mathcal S}(X)^-}$ is the space of functions supported on the complement of $X_+$.
The group $K_0$ acts on all these spaces. Fix a representation $\rho$ of $K_0$ and set $V_\rho=Hom_{K_0}(\rho, V)$, $W_\rho=Hom_{K_0}(\rho, {{\mathcal H}})$ and $V_\rho^\pm=Hom_{K_0}(\rho, {\widehat}{{\mathcal S}(X)}^\pm)$.
The complex maps naturally to the complex constructed from $V=V_\rho$ $V^\pm=V_\rho^\pm$ and $W=W_\rho$, let $a_\rho$ denote that map.
\[WOeps\] We have $a_\rho^*(\epsilon)=\int_{K_0} \tau_g Tr(g,\rho) dg$.
Equality of components in $({\hat{\mathcal H}}^{\otimes 2})^*$ follows by inspection.
It remains to check equality of components in ${{\mathcal H}}^*$. Recall (see e.g. [@ArIn §I.11]) that $WO_g(f)=\phi(0)$, where $\phi$ is a linear function on dominant weights such that for large $\lambda$ we have $$\phi(\lambda)=Tr(f\circ \Pi_\lambda \circ g,{{\mathcal H}}).$$ Here $f$ acts on ${{\mathcal H}}$ by convolution on the left, $g$ acts by right translation and $\Pi_\lambda$ is the characteristic function of $G_{\leq \lambda}$ which is the union of two sided $K_0=G(O)$ cosets corresponding to $\mu\leq \lambda$.
It follows that for a locally constant function $\psi$ on $K_0$ supported on regular semisimple elements there exists an affine linear function $\phi_\psi(\lambda)$, such that $$\phi_\psi(\lambda)=Tr(f\circ \Pi_\lambda \circ \psi,{{\mathcal H}}) \ \ \ \ \ \ {\mathrm{for}} \ \ \lambda\gg 0,$$ $$\int_{K_0}WO_g(f)\psi(g)dg=\phi_\psi(0),$$ where $\psi$ acts by convolution on the right.
Comparing this with the definition of Tate cocycle $\epsilon$ and of the intertwining bimodule ${{\overline{\mathcal H}}}'$ (see Example \[int\_bim\]) and using Lemma \[XYLem\], we see that for $\psi$ as above: $$\int_{K_0}WO_g(f)\psi(g)dg = \sigma_{{{\mathcal H}}} (f\otimes \psi),$$ where $f\otimes \psi$ acts on the Tate space via its natural ${{\mathcal H}}$-bimodule structure. Both sides of the last equality are continuous in $\psi$ with respect to the $L^1$ norm: this is clear for the right hand side and it follows from Theorem \[imbedding\] for the left hand side. Thus validity of the equality for $\psi$ supported on regular semisimple elements implies its validity for all $\psi$.
### Sheaves of algebras on curves
We now apply the above construction in the following setting. Let $C$ be a smooth[^4] complete curve with a finite collection of points ${\bf{x}}=\{x_1,\dots,x_n\}$. Let $\hat{C}_{\bf{x}}$, $\hat{C}_{\bf{x}}^0$ be the formal neighborhood and the punctured formal neighborhood of $\bf{x}$ respectively. Let ${{\mathcal V}}$ be a torsion free coherent sheaf on $C$, and set $V=\Gamma(\hat{C}_{\bf{x}}^0, {{\mathcal V}})$, $W=\Gamma(C\setminus \bf{x},{{\mathcal V}})$, $V^+=\Gamma(\hat{C}_{\bf{x}}, {{\mathcal V}})$. Fixing formal coordinates $z_i$ at $x_i$ and trivializations of ${{\mathcal V}}$ on the formal neighborhood of $x_i$ we get an isomorphism $V\cong {{\mathbb C}}((z))^N$ sending $V_+$ to ${{\mathbb C}}[[z]]^N$, thus we get a splitting $V=V^+\oplus V^-$ where $V^-\cong z^{-1}{{\mathbb C}}[z^{-1}]^N$.
Let ${{\mathcal A}}$ be a torsion free coherent sheaf of algebras on $C$ with a right action on $V$; we assume also that ${{\mathcal A}}$ has finite homological dimension (i.e. that the algebra of sections of ${{\mathcal A}}$ on an affine open set has this property).
Let $A=\Gamma(C\setminus \bf{x},{{\mathcal A}})$, $\hat{A}^+=\Gamma(\hat{C}_{\bf{x}}, {{\mathcal A}})$ and $\hat{A}=\Gamma(\hat{C}_{\bf{x}}^0, {{\mathcal A}})$. Then the complex $$\label{BarA}
Cone\left( Bar(A)\oplus Bar(\hat{A}^+)\to Bar(\hat{A}) \right)[-1]$$ computes Hochschild homology of the category ${{\mathcal A}}-mod$. On the other hand, it maps naturally to the complex , let $\alpha$ denote this map.
Suppose that ${{\mathcal V}}$ is a locally projective sheaf of right ${{\mathcal A}}$-modules. Then for a coherent sheaf ${{\mathcal M}}$ of (left) ${{\mathcal A}}$-modules we have: $$\label{VeM}
\langle ch({{\mathcal M}}), \alpha^*(\epsilon)\rangle = \chi({{\mathcal V}}\otimes_{{{\mathcal A}}}{{\mathcal M}}),$$ where $\chi$ denotes Euler characteristic.
Both sides of do not change if we replace ${{\mathcal A}}$ by $\underline{End}_{{{\mathcal O}}_C}({{\mathcal V}})^{op}$ and ${{\mathcal M}}$ by $\underline{End}_{{{\mathcal O}}_C}({{\mathcal V}})^{op}\otimes_{{\mathcal A}}{{\mathcal M}}$. Thus we can assume without loss of generality that ${{\mathcal A}}=\underline{End}_{{{\mathcal O}}_C}({{\mathcal V}})^{op}$. In that case we have a canonical equivalence of categories $Coh(C)\cong {{\mathcal A}}-mod$, ${{\mathcal F}}\mapsto {{\mathcal F}}\otimes_{{{\mathcal O}}_C}{{\mathcal V}}^*$.
Furthermore, the operator $[{{\mathcal F}}]\mapsto [{{\mathcal F}}\otimes {{\mathcal V}}]$ induces an automorphism of the rational Grothendieck group $K^0(Coh(C))\otimes {{\mathbb Q}}$, thus it suffices to prove for ${{\mathcal A}}=\underline{End}_{{{\mathcal O}}_C}({{\mathcal V}})^{op}$, ${{\mathcal M}}={{\mathcal F}}\otimes {{\mathcal V}}^*$, where ${{\mathcal F}}={{\mathcal V}}\otimes {{\mathcal F}}'$, thus ${{\mathcal F}}={{\mathcal F}}'\otimes _{{{\mathcal O}}_C}{{\mathcal A}}$. Now, both sides of do not change if we replace ${{\mathcal A}}$ by ${{\mathcal O}}_C$ and ${{\mathcal M}}$ by ${{\mathcal F}}'$; the locally projective module ${{\mathcal V}}$ is replaced by the corresponding coherent sheaf ${{\mathcal V}}|_{{{\mathcal O}}_C}$. Thus we have reduced to the case ${{\mathcal A}}={{\mathcal O}}_C$.
It is easy to see that both sides of are additive on short exact sequences as a function of both ${{\mathcal V}}$ and ${{\mathcal F}}$. A locally free sheaf on a curve admits a filtration whose associated graded is a sum of line bundles; also, since $C$ is smooth the Grothendieck group $K^0(Coh(C))$ is generated by line bundles. Thus we can assume without loss of generality that both ${{\mathcal M}}$ and ${{\mathcal V}}$ are line bundles.
If ${{\mathcal M}}$ is a trivial line bundle then $ch({{\mathcal M}})$ is represented by the cocycle $(1,1,1\otimes 1)$, so follows from . Notice also that both sides of for a fixed ${{\mathcal V}}$ depend only on the degree of the line bundle ${{\mathcal M}}$ (here we assume without loss of generality that the curve $C$ is irreducible): this is clear for the right hand side, while for the left hand side it follows from the fact that a regular function on an abelian variety is constant. Thus it suffices to consider the case when ${{\mathcal M}}={{\mathcal O}}(nx)$, $x\in \bf{x}$. In this case $ch({{\mathcal M}})$ is represented by the cocycle $(1,1,f\otimes f^{-1})$ where $f$ is a function on the formal punctured neighborhood of $\bf{x}$ having order $n$ at $x$ and order $0$ at other points. In this case follows from and .
\[Eulerchar\] a) Suppose that ${{\mathcal V}}\cong {\bf e} {{\mathcal A}}$ is a direct summand in a free rank one module for an idempotent ${\bf e} \in \Gamma(C,{{\mathcal A}})$. Then for a coherent sheaf ${{\mathcal M}}$ of ${{\mathcal A}}$-modules we have: $$\langle ch({{\mathcal M}}), \alpha^*(\epsilon)\rangle = \chi({\bf e}{{\mathcal M}}),$$ where $\chi$ denotes the Euler characteristic.
b\) Suppose that ${{\mathcal M}}$ has finite support contained in $C\setminus \bf{x}$. Then the equality in (a) holds under a weaker assumption that ${{\mathcal V}}|_{C\setminus \bf{x}}\cong {{\mathcal A}}{\bf e} |_{C\setminus \bf{x}}$.
### Proof of Proposition \[tau\_prop\](a)
It suffices to check that we get an equality upon averaging against a character of any representation $\psi$ of $K_0=G(O)$.
In view of Corollary \[Eulerchar\](b) it suffices to check that the cochain $\int_{K_0} \tau_g Tr(g,\psi) dg$ is obtained as in Corollary \[Eulerchar\] for an appropriate choice of trivialization for ${{\mathcal V}}$ on the formal neighborhood of $\bf{x}$, where $C\subset {{\overline {{\mathfrak Z}}}}$ is the union of one dimensional components containing representations with nonzero $K$-invariant vectors, $\bf{x}=({{\overline {{\mathfrak Z}}}}\setminus {{\mathfrak Z}})\cap C$, ${{\mathcal A}}={{\overline{\mathcal H}}}$, $z_i$ are the natural local coordinates and ${{\mathcal V}}=Hom_{K_0}(\psi,{{\overline{\mathcal H}}}')$. Applying Lemma \[WOeps\] we reduce to showing that $a_\psi^*(\epsilon)$ has the required form.
It follows from Lemma \[XYLem\] that the space $V_+$ of sections of ${{\overline{\mathcal H}}}'$ on the formal neighborhood of ${{\overline {{\mathfrak Z}}}}\setminus {{\mathfrak Z}}$ is identified with ${\widehat}{{\mathcal S}(X_+)}^{K\times K}$ (notation introduced in the second paragraph of §); moreover, we can choose a trivialization of the sheaf ${{\overline{\mathcal H}}}$ on the formal neighborhood of ${{\overline {{\mathfrak Z}}}}\setminus {{\mathfrak Z}}$ so that constant sections correspond to functions supported on the set $X(O)=X_+ \setminus (tX_+)$. Then the space $V_-$ is identified with ${\mathcal S}(X\setminus X_+)^{K\times K}$. The desired equality now follows by inspecting the definitions.
Proof of part (b) of Theorem \[char\_form\]
-------------------------------------------
For $g\in K_0$ the formula follows from Proposition \[tau\_prop\]. The general case of a compact element follows by conjugating with an element of $GL(2,F)$.
[1]{}
J. Arthur, [*A local trace formula,*]{} Inst. Hautes ' Etudes Sci. Publ. Math. [**73**]{} (1991), 5–96.
J. Arthur, [*The characters of supercuspidal representations as weighted orbital integrals,*]{} Proc. Indian Acad. Sci. Math. Sci. 97 (1987), no. 1-3, 3–19 (1988).
J. Arthur, [*An introduction to the trace formula,*]{} Harmonic analysis, the trace formula, and Shimura varieties, 1–263, Clay Math. Proc., 4, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2005.
A. Beilinson, V. Drinfeld, [*Quantization of Hitchin’s Integrable System and Hecke Eigensheaves,*]{} unpublished manuscript available at:
http://www.math.uchicago.edu/$\sim$mitya/langlands/hitchin/BD-hitchin.pdf
A. Beilinson, B. Feigin, B. Mazur, [*Notes on Conformal Field Theory,*]{} unpublished manuscript available at:
http://www.math.stonybrook.edu/$\sim$kirillov/manuscripts.html
R. Beuzart-Plessis, [*A local trace formula for the Gan-Gross-Prasad conjecture for unitary groups: the archimedean case,*]{} preprint arXiv:1506.01452.
R. Bezrukavnikov, [*Homological properties of representations of p-adic groups related to geometry of the group at infinity,*]{} Ph.D. thesis, preprint arXiv:math/0406223.
R. Bezrukavnikov, D. Kazhdan, [*Geometry of second adjointness for $p$-adic groups,*]{} With an appendix by R. Bezrukavnikov, D. Kazhdan and Y. Varshavsky, Represent. Theory [**19**]{} (2015), 299–332.
J. Bernstein, [*Le "centre” de Bernstein,*]{} Edited by P. Deligne. Travaux en Cours, “Representations of reductive groups over a local field", 1–32, Hermann, Paris, 1984.
J. Bernstein, A. Zelevinsky, [ *Representations of the group $GL(n,F)$, where $F$ is a local non-Archimedean field,*]{} (Russian) Uspekhi Mat. Nauk [**31**]{} (1976), no. 3(189), 5–70.
W. Casselman, [*Characters and Jacquet modules,*]{} Math. Ann. [**230**]{} (1977), no. 2, 101–105.
P. Deligne, Appendix to: R. Hartshorne, [*Residues and duality,*]{} Lecture notes of a seminar on the work of A. Grothendieck, given at Harvard 1963/64. Lecture Notes in Mathematics, No. 20 Springer-Verlag, Berlin-New York 1966.
Harish-Chandra [*Admissible invariant distributions on reductive p-adic groups,*]{} with a preface and notes by Stephen DeBacker and Paul J. Sally, Jr., University Lecture Series, 16. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 1999.
D. Kazhdan [*Cuspidal geometry of p-adic groups,*]{} J. Analyse Math. [**47**]{} (1986), 1–36.
D. Kazhdan, Y. Varshavsky, [*Endoscopic decomposition of certain depth zero representations,*]{} Studies in Lie theory, 223–301, Progr. Math., 243, Birkh" auser Boston, Boston, MA, 2006.
B. Keller, [*On the cyclic homology of exact categories,*]{} J. Pure Appl. Algebra [**136**]{} (1999), no. 1, 1–56.
B. Keller, [*On the cyclic homology of ringed spaces and schemes,*]{} Doc. Math. [**3**]{} (1998), 231–259. R. McCarthy, [ *The cyclic homology of an exact category,*]{} J. Pure Appl. Algebra [**93**]{} (1994), no. 3, 251–296.
R. Schneider, U. Stuhler, [*Representation theory and sheaves on the Bruhat-Tits building,*]{} Inst. Hautes ' Etudes Sci. Publ. Math. [**85**]{} (1997), 97–191.
A. Silberger, [*$PGL_2$ over the p-adics: its representations, spherical functions, and Fourier analysis,*]{} Lecture Notes in Mathematics, Vol. 166 Springer-Verlag, Berlin-New York 1970, 204 pp.
J. Tate, [ Residues of differentials on curves,]{} Ann. Sci. ' Ecole Norm. Sup. (4) [**1**]{} (1968) 149–159.
J. Tits, [*Reductive groups over local fields,*]{} in: “Automorphic forms, representations and L-functions” (Proc. Sympos. Pure Math., Oregon State Univ., Corvallis, Ore., 1977), Part 1, pp. 29–69, Proc. Sympos. Pure Math., XXXIII, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, R.I., 1979.
J.-L. Waldspurger, [*Une formule int' egrale reli' ee \` a la conjecture locale de Gross-Prasad,*]{} Composition Math [**146**]{} (2010) no. 5, 1180–1290.
J.-L. Waldspurger, [*Caract\` eres de repr' esentations de niveau 0*]{}, arXiv 1602.01440.
[^1]: This \[ftnt\] adjective reflects the fact that weighted orbital integrals restricted to this space are independent of the choices involved in choosing the weight function on an orbit. This space has appeared in the literature (see [@BP], [@W] and references therein) where it was called the space of [*strongly*]{} cuspidal function. We refrain from using this terminology since we use the term “cuspidal function” in the sense of [@cusp] where it refers to a function acting by zero in any parabolically induced representation, thus in our terminology ${{\mathcal K}}$ contains the space of cuspidal functions. The term “cuspidal function” was used in a different sense in [@BP], [@W] etc., so that ${{\mathcal K}}$ is contained in the set of cuspidal functions in the sense of [*loc. cit.*]{}
[^2]: We thank Rapha" el Beuzart-Plessis for pointing this out to us.
[^3]: Here by a bounded set in $G/U_-=F^2\setminus \{0\}$ we mean a subset with compact closure in $F^2$.
[^4]: This assumption is likely unnecessary but it allows one to simplify the statements and the proofs.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
The *segment number* of a planar graph is the smallest number of line segments whose union represents a crossing-free straight-line drawing of the given graph in the plane. The segment number is a measure for the visual complexity of a drawing; it has been studied extensively.
In this paper, we study three variants of the segment number: for planar graphs, we consider crossing-free polyline drawings in 2D; for arbitrary graphs, we consider crossing-free straight-line drawings in 3D and straight-line drawings with crossings in 2D. We first construct an infinite family of planar graphs where the classical segment number is asymptotically twice as large as each of the new variants of the segment number. Then we establish the $\exists\mathbb{R}$-completeness (which implies the NP-hardness) of all variants. Finally, for cubic graphs, we prove lower and upper bounds on the new variants of the segment number, depending on the connectivity of the given graph.
author:
- Yoshio Okamoto
- Alexander Ravsky
- Alexander Wolff
bibliography:
- 'abbrv.bib'
- 'references.bib'
title: 'Variants of the Segment Number of a Graph[^1]'
---
Introduction
============
When drawing a graph, a way to keep the visual complexity low is to use few geometric objects for drawing the edges. This idea is captured by the *segment number* of a (planar) graph, that is, the smallest number of crossing-free line segments that together constitute a straight-line drawing of the given graph. The *arc number* of a graph is defined analogously with respect to circular-arc drawings. So far, both numbers have only been studied for planar graphs. Two obvious lower bounds for the segment number are known [@desw-dpgfs-CGTA07]: (i) $\eta(G)/2$, where $\eta(G)$ is the number of odd-degree vertices of $G$, and (ii) the planar slope number of $G$, that is, the smallest number $k$ such that $G$ admits a crossing-free straight-line drawing whose edges have $k$ different slopes.
Dujmović et al. [@desw-dpgfs-CGTA07], who introduced segment number and planar slope number, showed among others that trees can be drawn without crossings such that the optimum segment number and the optimum planar slope number are achieved simultaneously. In fact, any tree $T$ admits a drawing with $\eta(T)/2$ segments and $\Delta(T)/2$ slopes, where $\Delta(T)$ is the maximum degree of $T$. Unfortunately, these drawings need exponential area. Therefore, Schulz [@s-dgfa-JGAA15] suggested to study the arc number of planar graphs. Among other things, he showed that any $n$-vertex tree can be drawn on a polynomial-size grid ($O(n^{1.81}) \times n$) using at most $3n/4$ arcs.
Another measure for the visual complexity of a drawing of a graph is the minimum number of *lines* whose union contains a straight-line crossing-free drawing of the given graph. This parameter is called the *line cover number* of a graph $G$ and denoted by $\rho^1_2(G)$ for 2D (where $G$ must be planar) and $\rho^1_3(G)$ for 3D. Together with the plane cover number $\rho^2_3(G)$ and other variants, these parameters have been introduced by Chaplick et al. [@ChaplickFLRVW16]. They also showed that both line cover numbers are [$\exists\mathbb{R}$]{}-hard to compute [@ChaplickFLRVW16b]. (For background on [$\exists\mathbb{R}$]{}, see Schaefer’s work [@s-cgtp-GD09].)
Upper bounds for the segment number and the arc number (in terms of the number of vertices, $n$, ignoring constant additive terms) are known for series-parallel graphs ($3n/2$ vs. $n$), planar 3-trees ($2n$ vs. $11n/6$), and triconnected planar graphs ($5n/2$ vs. $2n$) [@desw-dpgfs-CGTA07; @s-dgfa-JGAA15]. The upper bound on the segment number for triconnected planar graphs has been improved for the special cases of triangulations and 4-connected triangulations (from $5n/2$ to $7n/3$ and $9n/4$, respectively) by Durocher and Mondal [@dm-dptfs-CCCG14]. For the special case of triconnected cubic graphs, Dujmović et al. [@desw-dpgfs-CGTA07] showed that the segment number is upperbounded by $n+2$. (A cubic graph with $n$ vertices has $3n/2$ edges.) The result of Dujmović et al. was improved by Mondal et al. [@mnbr-mscd3-JCO13] who gave two linear-time algorithms based on cannonical decompositions; one that uses at most $n/2+3$ segments for $n \ge 6$ and one that uses $n/2+4$ segments but places all vertices on a grid of size $n \times n$. Both algorithms use at most six different slopes. Note that $n/2+3$ segments are optimal for cubic planar graphs since in every vertex at least one segment must end and in the at least three vertices on the convext hull all three incident segments must end. Igamberdiev et al. [@ims-dpc3c-JGAA17] fixed a bug in the algorithm of Mondal et al., presented two conceptually different (but slower) algorithms that meet the lower bound and compared them experimentally in terms of common metrics such as angular resolution.
H[ü]{}ltenschmidt et al. [@hkms-dttfg-WG17] provided bounds for segment and arc number under the additional constraint that vertices must lie on a polynomial-size grid. They also showed that $n$-vertex triangulations can be drawn with at most $5n/3$ arcs, which is better than the lower bound of $2n$ for the segment number on this class of graphs. For 4-connected triangulations, they need at most $3n/2$ arcs. Kindermann et al. [@kmss-dpgfs-GD19] recently strengthened some of these results by showing that many classes of planar graphs admit nontrivial bounds on the segment number even when restricting vertices to a grid of size $O(n) \times O(n^2)$. For drawing $n$-vertex trees with at most $3n/4$ segments, they reduced the grid size to $n \times n$. Among other things, Durocher et al. [@dmnw-nmsdp-JGAA13] showed that the segment number is NP-hard to compute *with respect to a fixed embedding*, even in the special case of arrangement graphs. They also showed that the following partial representation extension problem is NP-hard: given an outerplanar graph $G$, an integer $k$, and a straight-line drawing $\delta$ of a subgraph of $G$, is there a $k$-segment drawing that contains $\delta$? It is still open, however, whether the segment number is fixed-parameter tractable.
In this paper, we consider several variants of the planar segment number [$\operatorname{seg}_2$]{}that has been studied extensively. In particular, we study the *3D segment number* [$\operatorname{seg}_3$]{}, which is the most obvious generalization of the planar segment number. It is the smallest number of straight-line segments needed for a crossing-free straight-line drawing of a given graph in 3D. We also study the *crossing segment number* [$\operatorname{seg}_{\hspace{-.1ex}\times\!}$]{}in 3D, where edges are allowed to cross, but they are not allowed to overlap or to contain vertices in their interiors. In this case, by Lemma \[lem:projection\], the minimum number of segments constituting a drawing of a given graph can be achieved by a plane drawing. Finally, for planar graphs, we study the *bend segment number* [$\operatorname{seg}_\angle$]{}in 2D, which is the smallest number of straight-line segments needed for a crossing-free polyline drawing of a given graph in 2D.
Durocher et al. [@dmnw-nmsdp-JGAA13] were also interested in the 3D segment number. They stated that their proof of the NP-hardness of the above-mentioned partial representation problem can be adjusted to 3D. They suspected that the 3D segment number remains NP-hard to compute even if the given graph is subcubic. Instead, they showed that a variant of the 3D segment number is NP-hard where one is given a 3D drawing and additional co-planarity constraints that must be fulfilled in the final drawing.
#### Our Contribution.
First, we establish some relationships between the variants of the segment number; see Section \[sec:relationships\]. Then we turn to the complexity of computing the new variants of the segment number; see Section \[sec:hardness\]. By re-using ideas from the [$\exists\mathbb{R}$]{}-completeness proof of Chaplick et al. [@ChaplickFLRVW16b] regarding the computation of the line cover numbers $\rho^1_2$ and $\rho^1_3$, we establish the [$\exists\mathbb{R}$]{}-completeness (and hence the NP-hardness) of all variants of the segment number – [$\operatorname{seg}_2$]{}, [$\operatorname{seg}_3$]{}, [$\operatorname{seg}_{\hspace{-.1ex}\times\!}$]{}, and [$\operatorname{seg}_\angle$]{} – even for graphs of maximum degree $4$. Thus, we nearly answer the open problem of Durocher et al. [@dmnw-nmsdp-JGAA13] concerning the computational complexity of the 3D segment number for subcubic graphs. Note that Hoffmann [@Hoffmann17] recently established the [$\exists\mathbb{R}$]{}-hardness of computing the slope number $\operatorname{slope}(G)$ of a planar graph $G$.
Our main contribution consists in algorithms and lower-bound constructions for connected ($\gamma=1$), biconnected ($\gamma=2$), and triconnected ($\gamma=3$) cubic graphs; see Table \[tab:results\]. To put these results into perspective, recall that any cubic graph with $n$ vertices needs at least $n/2+3$ and at most $3n/2$ segments to be drawn, regardless of the drawing style. (In contrast, four slopes slopes suffice for cubic graphs [@ms-grcg4-CGTA09]). We prove our bounds in Section \[sec:cubic\]. Note that for cubic graphs, vertex- and edge-connectivity are the same [@cz-cgt-08 Thm. 2.17].
$\gamma$
---------- ------------ ---------------------------------------- -------------------------------- ------------------------------------- ------------ -------------------------------------- ------------ -------------------------------------
1 $\ge 5n/6$ \[Prp. \[prop:5n-over-6-example\]\] $\ge 5n/6$ \[Prp. \[prop:5n-over-6-example\]\] $\ge 5n/6$ \[Prp. \[prop:5n-over-6-example\]\] $\ge 5n/6$ \[Prp. \[prop:5n-over-6-example\]\]
2 $\le n+2$ \[Th. \[thm:bi-cubic-3d\]\] $\le n+1$ \[Th. \[thm:planar-bi-cubic-bend\]\] $\le n+2$ \[Th. \[thm:bi-cubic-3d\]\]
$\ge 3n/4$ \[Prp. \[prop:claw-cycle\]\] $\ge 5n/6$ \[Prp. \[prop:K33-cycle\]\] $\ge 3n/4$ \[Prp. \[prop:claw-cycle\]\] $\ge 3n/4$ \[Prp. \[prop:claw-cycle\]\]
3 $= n/2+3$ [@ims-dpc3c-JGAA17; @mnbr-mscd3-JCO13] $\le n+2$ \[Th. \[thm:bi-cubic-3d\]\] $\le n+2$ \[Th. \[thm:bi-cubic-3d\]\]
$\ge 7n/10$ \[Prp. \[prop:tri-cubic-3d\]\]
: Overview over existing and new bounds on variants of the segment number of cubic graphs. The upper bounds hold for all $n$-vertex graphs of a certain vertex connectivity $\gamma$. The lower bounds are existential; there exist graphs for which they hold. Note that [$\operatorname{seg}_2$]{}and [$\operatorname{seg}_\angle$]{}are defined only for planar graphs. We skip more specialized known results (e.g., concerning grid size [@hkms-dttfg-WG17] or triangulations [@dm-dptfs-CCCG14]).[]{data-label="tab:results"}
Before we start, we introduce the following notation. For a given polyline drawing $\delta$ of a graph in 2D or 3D, we denote by $\operatorname{seg}(\delta)$ the number of (inclusionwise maximal) straight-line segments of which the drawing $\delta$ consists.
Relationships Between Segment Number Variants {#sec:relationships}
=============================================
\[lem:projection\] Given a graph $G$ and a straight-line drawing $\delta$ of $G$ in 3d with the property that no two edges overlap and no edge contains a vertex in its interior, then there exists a plane drawing $\delta'$ of $G$ with $\operatorname{seg}(\delta') \le \operatorname{seg}(\delta)$ and with the same property as $\delta$. (Note that both in $\delta$ and $\delta'$ edges may cross.)
For each triplet $u,v,w$ of points in $\delta$ that correspond to three distinct vertices of $G$, let $P(u,v,w)$ be the plane or line spanned by the vectors $\overrightarrow{uv}$ and $\overrightarrow{wv}$, and let $\mathcal P$ be the set of all such planes or lines. Choose a point $A$ in $\mathbb{R}^3 \setminus \bigcup \mathcal{P}$ that does not lie in the xy-plane. Let $\delta'$ be the drawing that results from projecting $\delta$ parallel to the vector $OA$ onto the xy-plane. Due to the choice of the projection, $\delta'$ may contain crossings, but no edge contains a vertex to which it is not incident, and no two edges overlap. By construction, $\operatorname{seg}(\delta') \le \operatorname{seg}(\delta)$.
\[cor:projection\] For any graph $G$ it holds that ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{seg}_{\hspace{-.1ex}\times\!}}\xspace}(G) \le {\ensuremath{\operatorname{seg}_3}\xspace}(G)$.
\[prop:T+fans\] There is an infinite family of planar graphs $({\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}}}_i)_{i\ge3}$ such that ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}}}_i$ has $n_i=i^3-i+6$ vertices and the ratios ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{seg}_2}\xspace}({\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}}}_i)/{\ensuremath{\operatorname{seg}_3}\xspace}({\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}}}_i)$, ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{seg}_2}\xspace}({\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}}}_i)/{\ensuremath{\operatorname{seg}_\angle}\xspace}({\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}}}_i)$, and ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{seg}_2}\xspace}({\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}}}_i)/{\ensuremath{\operatorname{seg}_{\hspace{-.1ex}\times\!}}\xspace}({\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}}}_i)$ all converge to 2 with increasing $i$.
We construct, for $i \ge 3$, a triangulation ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{T}}}_i$ with maximum degree 6 and $t_i=i^2-2i+3$ vertices (and, hence, $3t_i-6$ edges and $2t_i-4$ faces), as follows. Take two triangular grids of side length $i-1$ (a single triangle is a grid of side length 1) and glue their boundaries, identifying corresponding vertices and edges. Clearly, the result is a (planar) triangulation. Let $s_i = {\ensuremath{\operatorname{seg}_2}\xspace}({\ensuremath{\mathcal{T}}}_i)$. Then, by the result of Dujmović et al. [@desw-dpgfs-CGTA07], $s_i \le 5t_i/2$.
We assume that $i$ is even. To each vertex $v$ of the triangulation, we attach an $i$-*fan*, that is, a path of length $i$ each of whose vertices is connected to $v$. Let ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}}}_i$ be the resulting graph, which has $n_i=t_i(i+2)$ vertices.
[.32]{} ![Attaching a fan (thin edges) to a vertex of a triangulation (thick edges) of maximum degree 6[]{data-label="fig:triangulation"}](triangle+fan "fig:")
[.32]{} ![Attaching a fan (thin edges) to a vertex of a triangulation (thick edges) of maximum degree 6[]{data-label="fig:triangulation"}](triangle+fan "fig:")
[.32]{} ![Attaching a fan (thin edges) to a vertex of a triangulation (thick edges) of maximum degree 6[]{data-label="fig:triangulation"}](triangle+fan "fig:")
In 2D, no matter how the triangulation is drawn, only three vertices lie on the outer face. Consider an $i$-fan incident to one of the $t_i-3$ inner vertices; see Fig. \[fig:triangle+fan\]. Each such $i$-fan must be placed into a triangular face and needs at least $i-3$ segments that are disjoint from the drawing of the triangulation. (Here we use that every vertex has degree at most 6.) Hence, ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{seg}_2}\xspace}({\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}}}_i) \ge (t_i-3)\cdot(i-3)=i^3-O(i^2)$.
In 3D on the other hand, we can draw every fan in a plane different from the triangulation such that the fan’s path lies on three segments and the remaining edges are paired such that each pair shares a segment; see Fig. \[fig:crossing-fan\]. Hence, ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{seg}_3}\xspace}({\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}}}_i) \le t_i \cdot (i/2+3) + s_i = i^3/2 + O(i^2)$. Due to Corollary \[cor:projection\], ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{seg}_{\hspace{-.1ex}\times\!}}\xspace}({\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}}}_i) \le
{\ensuremath{\operatorname{seg}_3}\xspace}({\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}}}_i)$.
To bound ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{seg}_\angle}\xspace}({\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}}}_i)$, observe that we can modify the layout of the triangulation as in Fig. \[fig:bend-fan\] such that every vertex is incident to an angle greater than $\pi$ without any incoming edges. This can be achieved as follows. On each inner vertex $v$, place a disk $D_v$ whose radius is (slightly smaller than) the minimum over the lengths of the incident edges divided by 2 and over the distances to all non-incident edges. The resulting disks have positive radii and are pairwise disjoint. Now we go through all vertices. Let $v$ be the current vertex and let $\partial D_v$ be the boundary of $D_v$. We bend all edges incident to $v$ at $\partial D_v$ and place $v$ on some unused point on $\partial
D_v$. As a result, every vertex is incident to an angle greater than $\pi$ without any incoming edges. In this area (marked red in Fig. \[fig:bend-fan\]), we can place the corresponding fan. The modification introduces at most two bends in every edge of the triangulation. Hence, ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{seg}_\angle}\xspace}({\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}}}_i) \le t_i \cdot (i/2+3) + 3 \cdot (3t_i-6) =
i^3/2+O(i^2)$.
What are upper bounds for the ratios ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{seg}_2}\xspace}(G)/{\ensuremath{\operatorname{seg}_3}\xspace}(G)$, ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{seg}_2}\xspace}(G)/{\ensuremath{\operatorname{seg}_\angle}\xspace}(G)$, and ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{seg}_2}\xspace}(G)/{\ensuremath{\operatorname{seg}_{\hspace{-.1ex}\times\!}}\xspace}(G)$ with $G$ ranging over all planar graphs?
Computational Complexity {#sec:hardness}
========================
Chaplick et al. [@ChaplickFLRVW16b Theorem 1] showed that it is [$\exists\mathbb{R}$]{}-hard to decide for a planar graph $G$ and an integer $k$ whether $\rho^1_2(G) \le k$ and whether $\rho^1_3(G) \le k$. We follow their approach to show the hardness of all variants of the segment number that we study in this paper.
A *simple line arrangement* is a set $\mathcal{L}$ of $k$ lines in $\mathbb R^2$ such that each pair of lines has one intersection point and no three lines share a common point. We define the *arrangement graph* for a set of lines as follows [@BoseEW03]: The vertices correspond to the intersection points of lines and two vertices are adjacent in the graph if and only if they lie on the same line and no other vertex lies between them. The [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Arrangement Graph Recognition</span>]{}problem is to decide whether a given graph is the arrangement graph of some set of lines.
Bose et al. [@BoseEW03] showed that this problem is NP-hard by reduction from a version of [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Pseudoline Stretchability</span>]{}for the Euclidean plane, whose NP-hardness was proved by Shor [@Shor91]. It turns out that [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Arrangement Graph Recognition</span>]{}is actually an [$\exists\mathbb{R}$]{}-complete problem [@Eppstein14 page 212]. This stronger statement follows from the fact that the Euclidean [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Pseudoline Stretchability</span>]{}is [$\exists\mathbb{R}$]{}-hard as well as the original projective version [@Matousek14; @s-cgtp-GD09].
\[thm:hard\] Given a planar graph $G$ of maximum degree $4$ and an integer $k$, it is [$\exists\mathbb{R}$]{}-hard to decide whether ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{seg}_2}\xspace}(G) \le k$, whether ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{seg}_\angle}\xspace}(G) \le k$, and whether ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{seg}_{\hspace{-.1ex}\times\!}}\xspace}(G) \le k$.
Similarly to Chaplick et al. [@ChaplickFLRVW16b proof of Theorem 1], we first observe that if $G$ is an arrangement graph, there must be an integer $\ell$ such that $G$ has $\ell(\ell-1)/2$ vertices (of degree $d\in\{2,3,4\}$) and $\ell(\ell-2)$ edges. This uniquely determines $\ell$. We set the parameter $k$ from the statement of our theorem to this value of $\ell$. Again, as Chaplick et al., we construct a graph $G'$ from $G$ by appending a tail (i.e., a degree-1 vertex) to each degree-3 vertex of $G$ and two tails to each degree-2 vertex of $G$.
We claim that the following five conditions are equivalent: (i) $G$ is an arrangement graph on $k$ lines, (ii) $\rho^1_2(G')\le k$, (iii) ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{seg}_2}\xspace}(G')\le k$, (iv) ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{seg}_\angle}\xspace}(G')\le k$, and (v) ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{seg}_{\hspace{-.1ex}\times\!}}\xspace}(G')\le k$. Once the equivalence is established, the [$\exists\mathbb{R}$]{}-hardness of deciding (i) implies the [$\exists\mathbb{R}$]{}-hardness of deciding any of the other statements.
Indeed, according to Chaplick et al. [@ChaplickFLRVW16b proof of Theorem 1], $G$ is an arrangement graph if and only if $\rho^1_2(G')\leq k$, that is, (i) and (ii) are equivalent.
Assume (i). If $G$ corresponds to a line arrangement of $k$ lines, all edges of $G$ lie on these $k$ lines and the tails of $G'$ can be added without increasing the number of lines. This arrangement shows that ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{seg}_2}\xspace}(G')\le k$, that is, (i) implies (iii).
Assume (iii), i.e., ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{seg}_2}\xspace}(G')\le k$. Then ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{seg}_\angle}\xspace}(G')\le k$ (iv) and ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{seg}_{\hspace{-.1ex}\times\!}}\xspace}(G')\le k$ (v).
Assume (iv), i.e., ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{seg}_\angle}\xspace}(G')\le k$. Let $\Gamma'$ be a polyline drawing of $G'$ on ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{seg}_\angle}\xspace}(G')$ segments. The graph $G'$ contains $\binom{k}{2}$ degree-4 vertices. As each of these vertices lies on the intersection of two segments in $\Gamma'$, we need $k$ segments to get enough intersections, that is, ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{seg}_\angle}\xspace}(G')\ge k$. Thus ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{seg}_\angle}\xspace}(G')=k$ and each intersection of the segments of $\Gamma'$ (in particular, each bend) is a vertex of $G'$. Therefore edges in $\Gamma'$ do not bend in interior points and $\Gamma'$ witnesses that ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{seg}_2}\xspace}(G)\le k$. Thus (iv) implies (ii).
Finally, assume (v), i.e., ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{seg}_{\hspace{-.1ex}\times\!}}\xspace}(G')\le k$. Let $\Gamma$ be a straight-line drawing with possible crossings on ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{seg}_{\hspace{-.1ex}\times\!}}\xspace}(G')$ segments. Again, we need $k$ segments to get enough intersections, that is, ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{seg}_{\hspace{-.1ex}\times\!}}\xspace}(G')\ge k$. Thus ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{seg}_{\hspace{-.1ex}\times\!}}\xspace}(G')=k$ and each intersection of the segments of $\Gamma'$ is a vertex of $G'$. Therefore edges in $\Gamma'$ do not cross and $\Gamma'$ witnesses that ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{seg}_2}\xspace}(G)\le k$. Thus (v) implies (ii).
Summing up, (iii) implies (iv) and (v), which both imply (ii), which implies (i), which implies (iii). Hence, all statements are equivalent.
\[thm:three-hard\] Given a graph $G$ of maximum degree $4$ and an integer $k$, it is [$\exists\mathbb{R}$]{}-hard to decide whether ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{seg}_3}\xspace}(G) \le k$.
Chaplick et al. [@ChaplickFLRVW16b proof of Theorem 1] argued that for the graph $G'$ constructed in the proof of Theorem \[thm:hard\] above, it holds that $\rho^1_2(G')=\rho^1_3(G')$. Then, by the proof of Theorem \[thm:hard\], we have $\rho^1_3(G') = {\ensuremath{\operatorname{seg}_{\hspace{-.1ex}\times\!}}\xspace}(G')$.
By definition, we immediately obtain ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{seg}_3}\xspace}(G') \le \rho^1_3(G')$. By Corollary \[cor:projection\], we have that ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{seg}_{\hspace{-.1ex}\times\!}}\xspace}(G') \le {\ensuremath{\operatorname{seg}_3}\xspace}(G')$. Therefore, ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{seg}_{\hspace{-.1ex}\times\!}}\xspace}(G') = {\ensuremath{\operatorname{seg}_3}\xspace}(G')$. Together with the arguments in the proof of Theorem \[thm:hard\], this implies the theorem.
\[thm:complete\] Given a planar graph $G$ and an integer $k$, it is [$\exists\mathbb{R}$]{}-complete to decide whether ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{seg}_2}\xspace}(G) \le k$, whether ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{seg}_3}\xspace}(G) \le k$, whether ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{seg}_\angle}\xspace}(G) \le k$, and whether ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{seg}_{\hspace{-.1ex}\times\!}}\xspace}(G) \le k$.
Given the hardness results in Theorems \[thm:hard\] and \[thm:three-hard\], it remains to show that each of the four problems lies in [$\exists\mathbb{R}$]{}. Chaplick et al. [@ChaplickFLRVW16b ArXiv version, Section 2] have shown that deciding whether $\rho_1^2(G) \le k$ and $\rho_1^3(G) \le k$ both lie in [$\exists\mathbb{R}$]{}. To this end, they showed that these questions can be formulated as first-order existential expressions over the reals. We now show how to extend their expression for deciding whether $\rho_1^2(G) \le k$ to an expression for deciding whether ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{seg}_2}\xspace}(G) \le k$. The expressions for the other variants can be extended in a similar way.
Their existential statement over the reals starts with the quantifier prefix ${\ensuremath{\exists}}v_1\ldots{\ensuremath{\exists}}v_n{\ensuremath{\exists}}p_1{\ensuremath{\exists}}q_1\ldots {\ensuremath{\exists}}p_k{\ensuremath{\exists}}q_k$, where quantification ${\ensuremath{\exists}}a$ over a point $a=(x,y)$ means the quantifier block ${\ensuremath{\exists}}x{\ensuremath{\exists}}y$, the points $v_1,\dots,v_n$ are the points to which the vertices of $G$, $\{1,\dots,n\}$, are mapped, and the pairs $(p_1,q_1) \dots, (p_k,q_k)$ define the $k$ lines that cover the drawing of $G$. The expression $\Pi$ over which they quantify uses a subexpression that takes as input three points in $\mathbb{R}^2$; for $a$, $b$, and $c$, they define the expression $B(a,b,c)$ such that it is true if and only if $a$ lies on the line segment $\overline{bc}$.
To the expression $\Pi$ we simply add a term that ensures that, for each pair of consecutive points $v_i$ and $v_j$ on the same line, vertices $i$ and $j$ are adjacent in $G$: $$\bigwedge_{l \in \{1,\dots,k\}, i,j,k \in V} B(v_i,p_l,q_l)
\wedge B(v_j,p_l,q_l) \wedge \neg B(v_k,v_i,v_j) \Rightarrow \{i,j\}
\in E,$$ where $V$ is the vertex set and $E$ is the edge set of the graph $G$.
Algorithms and Lower Bounds for Cubic Graphs {#sec:cubic}
============================================
Consider a polyline drawing $\delta$ of a cubic graph (in 2D or 3D). Note that there are two types of vertices; those where exactly one segment ends and those where three segments end. We call these vertices *flat vertices* and *tripods*, respectively. Let $f(\delta)$ be the number of flat vertices, $t(\delta)$ the number of tripods, and $b(\delta)$ the number of bends in $\delta$.
\[lem:flat\] For any straight-line drawing $\delta$ of a cubic graph with $n$ vertices, $\operatorname{seg}(\delta)=3n/2-f(\delta)+b(\delta)=n/2+t(\delta)+b(\delta)$.
Clearly, $n=f(\delta)+t(\delta)$. The number of “segment ends” is $3t(\delta)+f(\delta)+2b(\delta)=3n-2f(\delta)+2b(\delta)=n+2t(\delta)+2b(\delta)$. The claim follows since every segment has two ends.
Singly-Connected Cubic Graphs
-----------------------------
\[prop:5n-over-6-example\] There is an infinite family $(G_k)_{k \ge 1}$ of connected cubic graphs such that $G_k$ has $n_k=6k-2$ vertices and ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{seg}_2}\xspace}(G_k) = {\ensuremath{\operatorname{seg}_3}\xspace}(G_k) = {\ensuremath{\operatorname{seg}_\angle}\xspace}(G_k) = {\ensuremath{\operatorname{seg}_{\hspace{-.1ex}\times\!}}\xspace}(G_k) = 5k-1 =
5n_k/6+2/3$.
Let $K_4'$ be the graph $K_4$ with a subdivided edge. Consider the graph $G_k$ depicted in Fig. \[fig:5n-over-6-example\] (for $k=4$). It consists of a caterpillar with $k-2$ inner vertices (of degree 3) where each of the $k$ leaf nodes is replaced by a copy of $K_4'$. The convex hull of every polyline drawing of $K_4'$ has at least three extreme points. One of these points may connect $K_4'$ to $G_k-K_4'$, but each of the remaining two must be a tripod or a bend. This holds for every copy of $K_4'$. Hence, for any drawing $\delta$ of $G$, $t(\delta)+b(\delta)\ge 2k$. Now Lemma \[lem:flat\] yields that $\operatorname{seg}(\delta) \ge 5k-1$. For the drawing in Fig. \[fig:5n-over-6-example\], the bound is tight.
![The graph $G_k$ (here $k=4$) is a caterpillar with $k-2$ inner vertices of degree 3 where each leaf has been replaced by a copy of the 5-vertex graph $K_4'$ (shaded gray).[]{data-label="fig:5n-over-6-example"}](5n-over-6-example)
Biconnected Cubic Graphs
------------------------
\[prop:K33-cycle\] There is an infinite family of Hamiltonian (and hence biconnected) cubic graphs $(H_k)_{k \ge 3}$ such that $H_k$ has $n_k=6k$ vertices, ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{seg}_3}\xspace}(H_k)=5k=5n_k/6$, and ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{seg}_{\hspace{-.1ex}\times\!}}\xspace}(H_k)=4k=2n_k/3$.
Consider the graph $H_k$ depicted in Fig. \[fig:K33-cycle\] (for $k=4$). It is a $k$-cycle where each vertex is replaced by a copy of a 6-vertex graph $K$ ($K_{3,3}$ minus an edge). The graph $H_k$ has $n_k=6k$ vertices and is not planar.
In any 2D drawing of the subgraph $K$, at least three vertices lie on the convex hull of the drawing of $K$. Two of these vertices may connect $K$ to $H_k-K$, but at least one of the convex-hull vertices is a tripod. This holds for every copy of $K$. Hence, for any (3D) drawing $\delta$ of $H_k$, $t(\delta) \ge k$. Now Lemma \[lem:flat\] yields that $\operatorname{seg}(\delta) \ge n_k/2+k=2n_k/3$. The same bound holds for ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{seg}_{\hspace{-.1ex}\times\!}}\xspace}(H_k)$.
In order to bound ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{seg}_3}\xspace}(H_k)$ we consider two possibilities for the drawing of the subgraph $K$; either it lies in a plane or it doesn’t. In the planar case, the two vertices that connect $K$ to $H_k-K$ cannot lie in the same face of the planar embedding of $K$ (otherwise we could connect these two vertices without crossings, contradicting the fact that $K_{3,3}$ is not planar). Hence, at least two vertices on the convex hull of $K$ must be tripods. In the non-planar case, the convex hull consists of four vertices. Two of these may connect $K$ to $H_k-K$, but again at least two must be tripods. In both cases we hence have $t(\delta) \ge 2k$ for any 3D drawing $\delta$ of $H_k$. Now Lemma \[lem:flat\] yields $\operatorname{seg}(\delta) \ge n_k/2+2k=5n_k/6$. The same bound holds for ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{seg}_3}\xspace}(H_k)$.
For the drawing in Fig. \[fig:K33-cycle\], the bound for [$\operatorname{seg}_{\hspace{-.1ex}\times\!}$]{}is tight. Lifting the $k$ white vertices that do not lie on the outer face from the xy-plane ($z=0$) to the plane $z=1$, yields a crossing-free 3D drawing where the bound for [$\operatorname{seg}_3$]{}is tight.
![The planar cubic graph $I_k$ (here $k=9$) is a $k$-cycle whose vertices are replaced by $K_4$ minus an edge (shaded). []{data-label="fig:claw-cycle"}](K33-cycle)
![The planar cubic graph $I_k$ (here $k=9$) is a $k$-cycle whose vertices are replaced by $K_4$ minus an edge (shaded). []{data-label="fig:claw-cycle"}](claw-cycle)
\[prop:claw-cycle\] There is an infinite family of planar cubic Hamiltonian (and hence biconnected) graphs $(I_k)_{k \ge 3}$ such that $I_k$ has $n_k=4k$ vertices and ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{seg}_2}\xspace}(I_k)={\ensuremath{\operatorname{seg}_3}\xspace}(I_k)={\ensuremath{\operatorname{seg}_\angle}\xspace}(I_k)={\ensuremath{\operatorname{seg}_{\hspace{-.1ex}\times\!}}\xspace}(I_k)=3k=3n_k/4$.
Consider the graph $I_k$ depicted in Fig. \[fig:claw-cycle\] (for $k=9$). It is a $k$-cycle where each vertex is replaced by a copy of the graph $K'$, which is $K_4$ minus an edge. Therefore, $I_k$ has $4k$ vertices. The depicted drawing consists of $3k$ segments. This yields the upper bounds.
Concerning the lower bounds, note that, in any drawing style, each subgraph $K'$ has an extreme point not connected to $I_k-V(K')$. This point must be a tripod or a bend. Hence, in any drawing $\delta$ of $I_k$, $t(\delta) + b(\delta) \ge k$ and, by Lemma \[lem:flat\], ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{seg}_2}\xspace}(I_k) = {\ensuremath{\operatorname{seg}_3}\xspace}(I_k) = {\ensuremath{\operatorname{seg}_\angle}\xspace}(I_k)
= {\ensuremath{\operatorname{seg}_{\hspace{-.1ex}\times\!}}\xspace}(I_k) \ge 2k+t(\delta)+b(\delta) \ge 3k$.
\[thm:planar-bi-cubic-bend\] For any biconnected planar cubic graph $G$ with $n$ vertices, it holds that ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{seg}_\angle}\xspace}(G) \le n+1$. A corresponding drawing can be found in linear time.
We draw $G$ using the algorithm of Liu et al. [@lmp-sbecr-AM94] that draws any planar biconnected cubic graph except the tetrahedron orthogonally with at most one bend per edge and at most $n/2+1$ bends in total. It remains to count the number of segments in this drawing. In any vertex exactly one segment ends; in any bend exactly two segments end. In total, this yields at most $n+2 \cdot
(n/2+1)=2n+2$ segment ends and at most $n+1$ segments.
Concerning the special case of the tetrahedron ($K_4$), note that it can be drawn with five segments when bending one of its six edges.
What about 4-regular graphs? They have $2n$ edges. If we bend every edge once, we already need $2n$ segments – and not all 4-regular graphs can be drawn with at most one bend per edge.
For our next construction, we need the *moment curve* $\mu \colon
\mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R}^3$, $t \mapsto (t,t^2,t^3)$. The following algebraic lemma (cf. the proof of the lemma in [@ptt-3dgdg-GD97]) assures that a straight-line drawing of a graph with vertices placed on the moment curve is crossing-free.
\[lem:intersect\] If $a$ and $b$ are line segments that connect pairwise different points on the moment curve, then $a$ and $b$ don’t intersect.
Denote the endpoints of $a$ by $\mu(t_1)$ and $\mu(t_2)$, and the endpoints of $b$ by $\mu(t_3)$ and $\mu(t_4)$. We prove that the points $\mu(t_1), \mu(t_2), \mu(t_3), \mu(t_4)$ are affinely independent, which implies that $a$ and $b$ do not intersect.
By definition, they are affinely independent if and only if the following determinant $$\det
\begin{pmatrix}
1 & 1 & 1 & 1 \\
\mu(t_1) & \mu(t_2) & \mu(t_3) & \mu(t_4) \\
\end{pmatrix}
=
\det
\begin{pmatrix}
1 & 1 & 1 & 1 \\
t_1 & t_2 & t_3 & t_4 \\
t_1^2 & t_2^2 & t_3^2 & t_4^2 \\
t_1^3 & t_2^3 & t_3^3 & t_4^3 \\
\end{pmatrix}$$ is non-zero. This is a Vandermonde determinant, and known to be non-zero when $t_1,t_2,t_3,t_4$ are distinct.
\[thm:tri-cubic-3d\] For any biconnected cubic graph $G$ with $n \ge 8$ vertices, ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{seg}_{\hspace{-.1ex}\times\!}}\xspace}(G) \le n$ and ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{seg}_3}\xspace}(G) \le n$. A corresponding drawing can be computed in $O(n \log^2 n)$ time.
We show that ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{seg}_3}\xspace}(G) \le n$ for any biconnected graph $G$ with $n \ge 8$ vertices. Then Corollary \[cor:projection\] yields ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{seg}_{\hspace{-.1ex}\times\!}}\xspace}(G) \le n$.
Since the given graph $G$ is biconnected, we can use Petersen’s theorem [@p-trg-AM1891] to partition the edge set of $G$ into a perfect matching $M$ and a collection $\mathcal{C}$ of pairwise disjoint cycles. Such a partition can be computed in $O(n \log^2
n)$ time [@ds-pmbcg-SOFSEM10]. We treat each cycle separately. Let $C=\langle v_1,\dots,v_k \rangle$ be the current cycle. We refer to the edges of the matching that connect vertices in $C$ as *chords*. We color the vertices of $C$ iteratively such that each color class will be a set of consecutive vertices along $C$ such that
1. no color class induces a chord, and
2. no two consecutive color classes $K=\langle v_i,\dots,v_j
\rangle$ and $K'=\langle v_{j+1},\dots,v_{j'} \rangle$ induce a pair of “intersecting” chords, that is, if there are edges $v_p
v_{p'}$ and $v_q v_{q'}$ in $M$ with $i \le p < q \le j < p' \le
j'$ and $j < q' \le j'$, then $p'>q'$.
The idea is that vertices of the same color class will be placed on the same line segment. We remove vertices without chords temporarily and connect their neighbors along the cycle. If a cycle gets empty in this process, we color it arbitrarily with three colors (so that the cycle will be drawn as a triangle). Otherwise, we color the cycle with the procedure detailed below, then reinsert the removed vertices, and color them as their predecessors on the cycle.
We compute the coloring by *piercing* cycle edges. All vertices between two pierced edges receive the same color. Our piercing algorithm is very simple. We pierce an arbitrary cycle edge and then follow the cycle in an arbitrary direction. Whenever we see a vertex incident to a new chord, we pierce right after that vertex. For instance, given the sequence $abacdebdce$ (where same letters correspond to endpoints of the same chord), we pierce: $|a|b|ac|d|e|bdce$. Clearly, we pierce at most $k/2+1$ times.
Next we improve this to $k/2$ for $k \ge 8$, we select the start of our procedure more carefully. Let $aa'$ be any chord. It splits $C$ into two parts. If the two parts are of equal length and all other chords cross $aa'$, then we need only pierce twice: right after $a$ and after $a'$. Since we need three colors to draw $C$ on a triangle, we pierce once more arbitrarily.
Otherwise one part is bigger, say the part from $a$ to $a'$ in clockwise direction. This part must contain both endpoints of some chord $bb'$, say in the order $a\dots b \dots b'
\dots a'$. Now we simply start the algorithm from $b$ in clockwise direction, piercing right after $b$—but not before $b$. Due to the existence of $a'$, $b'$ will be separated from $b$, and we pierce only $k$ times.
Now we draw the cycles in $\mathcal{C}=\{C_1,C_2,\dots\}$ as closed polygonal chains. To this end, we number the color classes of $C_1$ as $1,2,\dots,k_1$; those of $C_2$ as $k_1+1, k_1+2, \dots, k_2$; etc. Recall that $\mu$ is the moment curve. For every color class $c \ge 1$, we place the first vertex of $c$ at the point $\mu(c)$. The other vertices of $c$ are placed on the interior of the line segment ${\mu(c)\mu(c+1)}$, except if $c = k_i$ for some $i$, then they are placed on the interior of the segment ${\mu(k_i)\mu(k_{i-1}+1)}$.
Due to Lemma \[lem:intersect\], cycle segments and chords that connect points on the moment curve don’t intersect each other. Note that, for all the other chords, at least one endpoint can be moved freely along the segment of its color class. So we can place these endpoints iteratively, avoiding intersections with existing chords. After we have drawn all cycles in $\mathcal{C}$ (as $C$, but with increasing values of $c$), we can add the matching edges that connect vertices in different cycles in a similar manner.
In total, we use at most $n$ segments because we use one segment for each of the $n/2$ matching edges and one for each of the at most $n/2$ color classes.
In the remainder of this section, we give an algorithm that, in the worst case, needs one segment more than the algorithm behind Theorem \[thm:tri-cubic-3d\], but uses a completely different approach. We think these different approaches may be of interest when trying to bound the grid size of a drawing; see the corresponding open problem in Section \[sec:open\]. The impatient reader can directly jump to Section \[sub:triconnected\].
Every biconnected graph $G$ admits an *st-numbering*, that is, an ordering $\langle v_1,\dots,v_n \rangle$ of the vertex set $\{v_1,\dots,v_n\}$ of $G$ such that for every $j \in \{2,\dots,n-1\}$ vertex $v_j$ has at least one predecessor (that is, a neighbor $v_i$ with $i<j$) and at least one successor (that is, a neighbor $v_k$ with $k>j$). Such a numbering can be computed in linear time [@et-cstn-TCS76]. Given a cubic graph with an st-numbering $\langle v_1,\dots,v_n \rangle$, we call a vertex $v_j$ with $j \in \{1,\dots,n\}$ a *$p$-vertex* if it has $p$ predecessors; $p \in \{0,1,2,3\}$.
\[lem:12-vertices\] Given a biconnected cubic graph with an st-numbering $\langle
v_1,\dots,v_n \rangle$, there is one 0-vertex and one 3-vertex and there are $(n-2)/2$ 1-vertices and $(n-2)/2$ 2-vertices.
Direct every edge from the vertex with smaller index to the vertex with higher index. In the resulting directed graph, the sum of the indegrees equals the sum of the outdegrees. Hence, the number of 1-vertices (with indegree 1 and outdegree 2) and the number of 2-vertices (with indegree 2 and outdegree 1) must be equal. It is obvious that there is one 0- and 3-vertex each.
\[thm:bi-cubic-3d\] For any biconnected cubic graph $G$ with $n$ vertices, ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{seg}_3}\xspace}(G)
\le n+2$ and ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{seg}_{\hspace{-.1ex}\times\!}}\xspace}(G) \le n+2$.
We show that ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{seg}_3}\xspace}(G) \le n+2$. Then Corollary \[cor:projection\] yields ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{seg}_{\hspace{-.1ex}\times\!}}\xspace}(G) \le n+2$. For two different points $x$ and $y$ in $\mathbb{R}^3$, we denote the line that goes through $x$ and $y$ by $xy$.
Let $\langle v_1,\dots,v_n \rangle$ be an st-numbering of $G$. We construct a drawing $\delta$ of $G$, going through the vertices according to the st-numbering and using x-coordinate $j \pm
\varepsilon$ for vertex $v_j$, where $0<\varepsilon \ll 1$. We place $v_1$ at $(1,1,1)$. At every step $j=2,\dots,n$, we maintain a set $\mathcal{L}$ of lines that are directed to the right such that any two lines in $\mathcal{L}$ are either skew (that is, they don’t lie in the same plane) or they intersect and their unique intersection point is the location of a vertex $v_k$ with $k \le j$ (that is, the intersection point is $v_j$ or it lies to the left of $v_j$). Initially, $\mathcal{L}$ is empty.
If $v_j$ is a 1-vertex, we differentiate two cases depending on the unique predecessor $v_i$ of $v_j$.
**Case I:** If $v_i$ is the last vertex on a line $\ell$ in $\mathcal{L}$, we place $v_j$ on the intersection point of $\ell$ with the plane $x=j$. In this case, the set $\mathcal{L}$ doesn’t change.
**Case II:** Otherwise, we place $v_j$ in the plane $x=j$ such that the line $v_iv_j$ is skew with respect to all lines in $\mathcal{L}$ except for the line $\ell$ that contains $v_i$ and the unique predecessor of $v_i$. (Note that the predecessor of $v_i$ and the line $\ell$ don’t exist if $i=1$.) Clearly, $v_iv_j$ and $\ell$ intersect in $v_i$ and $i<j$. Hence, we can add the line $v_iv_j$ to the set $\mathcal{L}$.
If $v_j$ is a 2-vertex, let $v_i$ and $v_{i'}$ be the two predecessors of $v_j$. Again, we consider two cases.
**Case I’:** At least one of $v_i$ or $v_{i'}$ is flat (that is, it lies on an inner point of the segment created by its incident edges that have already been drawn) or one of them is the vertex $v_1$.
In this case, we treat $v_j$ similarly as in Case II above; we make sure that the lines $v_iv_j$ and $v_{i'}v_j$ are skew with respect to all lines in $\mathcal{L}$ except that $v_iv_j$ won’t be skew with respect to the at most two lines that connect $v_i$ to its predecessors and $v_{i'}v_j$ won’t be skew with respect to the at most two lines that connect $v_{i'}$ to its predecessors. Note that $v_iv_j$ intersects any line through $v_i$ and its neighbors in $v_i$, and it holds that $i<j$. Similarly, $v_{i'}v_j$ intersects any line through $v_{i'}$ and its neighbors in $v_{i'}$, and it holds that $i'<j$. The lines $v_iv_j$ and $v_{i'}v_j$ intersect in $v_j$. Hence, we can add the lines $v_iv_j$ and $v_{i'}v_j$ to the set $\mathcal{L}$.
**Case II’:** Both $v_i$ and $v_{i'}$ are the last vertices on their lines $\ell$ and $\ell'$, respectively.
If one of them, say $v_i$, has a successor $v_k$ with $k>j$, we extend the line $\ell$ of $v_i$ and put $v_j$ on the intersection of $\ell$ and the plane $x=j$.
Otherwise $v_i$ has a successor $v_k$ with $k<j$ and $v_{i'}$ has a successor $v_{k'}$ with $k'<j$, which both don’t lie on the lines $\ell$ and $\ell'$. In this case, we put $v_j$ on one of $\ell$ and $\ell'$, say $\ell$, and add the line $v_{i'}v_j$ to the set $\mathcal{L}$. Now we pick some $0<\varepsilon \ll 1$ such that we can place $v_j$ at the intersection of $\ell$ and $x=j+\varepsilon$. We must avoid to place $v_j$ on a plane spanned by any two non-skew lines in $\mathcal L$ (intersecting to the left of $x=j$). With this trick, the invariant for $\mathcal L$ still holds since the new line in $\mathcal L$, $v_{i'}v_j$, intersects only $\ell'$ (in $v_{i'}$, hence to the left).
Finally, we place $v_n$ (which is a 3-vertex) at a point in the plane $x=n$ that does not lie on any of the lines spanned by pairs and planes spanned by triples of previously placed vertices.
This finishes the description of the drawing $\delta$ of $G$. Due to our invariant regarding the set $\mathcal{L}$, no two edges of $G$ intersect in $\delta$.
To bound the number of segments in $\delta$, we use a simple charging argument. Each non-first and non-last vertex $v$ has a predecessor which is a flat vertex or $v_1$. To this predecessor $v$ pays a coin. On the other hand, $v_1$ receives at most three coins and every flat vertex receives at most two coins. Hence, $f(\delta) \ge (n-5)/2$. Since $n$ is even, $f(\delta) \ge n/2-2$. Now, Lemma \[lem:flat\] yields the claim.
Triconnected Cubic Graphs {#sub:triconnected}
-------------------------
\[prop:tri-cubic-3d\] There is an infinite family of triconnected cubic graphs $(F_k)_{k
\ge 4}$ such that $F_k$ has $n_k=5k$ vertices and ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{seg}_3}\xspace}(F_k)=3.5k=7n_k/10$.
*Proof.* Let $G_k$ be an arbitrary triconnected cubic graph with $k$ vertices ($k$ even). By Steinitz’s theorem, there exists a drawing of the graph $G_k$ as a 1-skeleton of a 3D convex polyhedron. Replace each vertex $v$ of $G_k$ by a copy of $K_{2,3}$ as shown in Fig. \[fig:triconnected\], where $v$ is the central (orange) vertex—a tripod—, all other vertices of the copy are flat, and the three arrows correspond to the three edges of $G_k$. The resulting geometric graph $F_k$ has $n_k=5k$ vertices and is not planar. Since $F_k$ has $k$ tripod vertices, by Lemma \[lem:flat\], ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{seg}_3}\xspace}(F_k)\le n_k/2+k=3.5k=7n_k/10$.
[r]{}[.26]{} 
In order to bound ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{seg}_3}\xspace}(F_k)$ from below, we consider two possibilities for the drawing of each subgraph $K_{2,3}$; either it lies in a plane or it doesn’t. In the planar case, the convex hull of the drawing has at least three extreme points. If none of them was a tripod then there would be exactly three extreme points, each a black vertex. Thus we could place an additional white vertex in the exterior of the convex hull and connect it to all black vertices, obtaining an impossible plane drawing of $K_{3,3}$. In the non-planar case, the convex hull consists of at least four vertices. Three of these may connect $K_{2,3}$ to $F_k-V(K_{2,3})$, but again at least one must be a tripod.
In both cases we hence have $t(\delta) \ge k$ for any 3D drawing $\delta$ of $F_k$. Now Lemma \[lem:flat\] yields $\operatorname{seg}(\delta) = n_k/2+t(\delta) \ge 3.5k$.
Open Problems {#sec:open}
=============
Apart from improving our bounds, we have the following open problem.
Can we produce drawings in 3D (or with bends or crossings in 2D) that fit on grids of small size?
#### Acknowledgments.
We thank the organizers and participants of the 2019 Dagstuhl seminar “Beyond-planar graphs: Combinatorics, Models and Algorithms”. In particular, we thank Günter Rote and Martin Gronemann for suggestions that led to some of this research. We also thank Carlos Alegría. We thank our reviewers for an idea that improved the bound in Proposition \[prop:tri-cubic-3d\], for suggesting the statement of Lemma \[lem:projection\], and for many other helpful comments.
[^1]: A.W. acknowledges support from DFG grant WO$\,$758/9-1.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
address:
- 'Instituto de Matemáticas (Unidad Cuernavaca), Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, A.P. 273-3 Admon. de correos no. 3, Cuernavaca, Morelos, MEXICO'
- 'Mathematics Department, United States Naval Academy, 572C Holloway Road, Annapolis MD 21402, USA'
author:
- Jacob Mostovoy
- Theodore Stanford
title: On a Map From Pure Braids To Knots
---
We study a certain type of braid closure which resembles the plat closure but has certain advantages; for example, it maps pure braids to knots. The main results of this note are a Markov-type theorem and a description of how Vassiliev invariants behave under this braid closure.
Definition and properties of the short-circuit map.
===================================================
We define the “short-circuit” map ${{\mathcal S}}_n$ from the pure braid group on $2n+1$ strands ${{\mathcal P}_{2n+1}}$ to the monoid of the isotopy classes of oriented knots ${{\mathcal K}}$ as pictured on Figure \[f:def\]. The strands of the braid are joined together in turn at the bottom and at the top.
$$\epsffile{braids1.eps}$$
We think of knots as of non-compact, or “long” knots here. These maps are compatible with the inclusions ${{\mathcal P}_{2n+1}}{\hookrightarrow}{{\mathcal P}_{2n+3}}$ so they extend to a map ${{\mathcal S}}:{{\mathcal P}_{\infty}}\to {{\mathcal K}}.$ Here by ${{\mathcal P}_{\infty}}$ we understand the inductive limit of the sequence of inclusions ${{\mathcal P}_{i}}{\hookrightarrow}{{\mathcal P}_{i+1}}$.
The construction and, as we will see later, some properties of the map ${{\mathcal S}}$ resemble those of the plat closure which sends braids with even number of strands to links. (For the definition and properties of the plat closure see [@Bi1; @Bi2].) Indeed, if $t_n$ denotes the $2n$-strand braid pictured on Figure \[f:plat\], then for any $x\in{{\mathcal P}_{2n+1}}$ the (unoriented) knot ${{\mathcal S}}(x)$ is equivalent to the knot, obtained by taking the image of $x$ in ${{\mathcal P}_{2n+2}}$ under the standard inclusion, multiplying by $t_{n+1}$ on the left (i.e. on the top) and taking the plat closure.
$$\epsffile{braids2.eps}$$
However, if we are interested in knots rather than links the map ${{\mathcal S}}$ is more convenient than the plat closure. The most obvious difference is the behaviour under stabilization maps and tensor products. Adding two unbraided strands to a braid changes its image under the plat closure by adding an unknotted and unlinked component, while the image of the short-circuit map does not change. As for tensor (external) products, the plat closure sends a product of braids to the distant union of their plat closures, while under short-circuiting the tensor product of braids is sent to the connected sum of the corresponding knots.
To make the last statement more precise, we may define the tensor product of two pure braids with odd numbers of strands as follows.
Let $i:{{\mathcal P}_{2n+1}}{\hookrightarrow}{{\mathcal P}_{2(n+m)+1}}$ be the standard inclusion onto the first $2n+1$ strands and $i':{{\mathcal P}_{2m+1}}{\hookrightarrow}{{\mathcal P}_{2(n+m)+1}}$ be the inclusion onto the last $2m+1$ strands. Then we can define a product $${{\mathcal P}_{2n+1}}\otimes{{\mathcal P}_{2m+1}}\to{{\mathcal P}_{2(n+m)+1}}$$ by sending a pair $(b_1,b_2)$, where $b_1\in{{\mathcal P}_{2n+1}}$ and $b_2\in{{\mathcal P}_{2m+1}}$ to $$i(b_1)i'(b_2)\in{{\mathcal P}_{2(n+m)+1}}.$$ With this definition it is clear that $${{\mathcal S}}_n(b_1)\#{{\mathcal S}}_m(b_2)={{\mathcal S}}_{n+m}(b_1\otimes b_2).$$
The restriction to an odd number of strands is by no means crucial. If $b\in{{\mathcal P}_{2n}}$ we can define an analogue of the short-circuit map as a suitably oriented plat closure of the braid $t_{n}b$. This definition is equally good for the purposes of our paper and has certain advantages. Namely, this version of the short-circuit closure respects the usual tensor product of braids; also, in this set-up Theorem \[thm:bridge\] below becomes tautological.
Nevertheless, we prefer to work with braids on odd number of strands. It follows from Theorem \[thm:bridge\] that any knot which can be realized as a plat closure of a $2n$-stranded braid can be obtained by short-circuiting some pure braid on $2n-1$ strands. This generalizes the well-known fact that a 2-bridge knot can be represented by a braid in ${{\mathcal P}_{3}}$. In this sense, the short-circuit map for ${{\mathcal P}_{\rm odd}}$ is more “economic”. We repeat, however, that in our context this is a matter of taste.
Filtration by the number of strands and the bridge number.
----------------------------------------------------------
Any filtration on the infinite pure braid group ${{\mathcal P}_{\infty}}$ is sent by ${{\mathcal S}}$ to a filtration on knots. The most obvious filtration on ${{\mathcal P}_{\infty}}$ to consider is the filtration “by the number of strands” $${{\mathcal P}_{1}}\subset{{\mathcal P}_{3}}\subset{{\mathcal P}_{5}}\subset\ldots\subset{{\mathcal P}_{\infty}}.$$
\[thm:bridge\] The filtration on knots by ${{\mathcal S}}({{\mathcal P}_{2n+1}})$ is the filtration by knots with bridge number less than or equal to $n+1$.
To prove Theorem \[thm:bridge\] it is enough to show that the minimal number of maxima of the height function in a realization of a knot in ${{\bf R}}^3$ as a long knot is the bridge number minus 1; this will be done in Section \[s:bridge\].
The bridge number minus 1 is an additive knot invariant (see [@Sch]) so, the filtration by ${{\mathcal S}}({{\mathcal P}_{2n+1}})$ gives rise to an additive grading on ${{\mathcal K}}$.
Structure of the short-circuit map.
-----------------------------------
First we introduce some notation. By $A_{i,j}$ where $i\neq
j$ are positive integers we denote the standard generators of ${{\mathcal P}_{\infty}}$. By $\phi_i^{n}$ we mean the homomorphism ${{\mathcal P}_{2n}}\to{{\mathcal P}_{2n+1}}$ which doubles the $i$th strand. Homomorphisms $\phi_i^{n}$ respect the standard inclusions of the pure braid groups so as $n$ tends to infinity the limit $\phi_i:{{\mathcal P}_{\infty}}\to{{\mathcal P}_{\infty}}$ is well-defined.
Let $H^T\in{{\mathcal P}_{\infty}}$ be the subgroup generated by $A_{i,i+1}$ and $\phi_i(A_{i,j})$ for all even $i$ and all $j\neq i$. Similarly we define the subgroup $H^B$ with the only difference that $i$ is required to be odd. The subgroup $H^T$ acts on ${{\mathcal P}_{\infty}}$ on the left and this action preserves the fibres of ${{\mathcal S}}$, see Figure \[f:act\].
$$\epsffile{braids3.eps}$$
Similarly, $H^B$ act on ${{\mathcal P}_{\infty}}$ on the right, also preserving the fibres.
\[thm:structure\] The short-circuit map identifies the monoid of knots ${{\mathcal K}}$ with the quotient set $H^T \backslash {{\mathcal P}_{\infty}} /H^B$.
This theorem is a version of the main theorem of [@Bi2] which describes the equivalence classes of plat closures. The proof we sketch in Section \[s:structure\] is simplified by the fact the we are only interested in knots. Note also that Birman’s theorem as stated in [@Bi2] concerns unoriented knot and link types, whereas our theorem concerns oriented knot types.
Lower central series and Vassiliev invariants.
----------------------------------------------
One can easily check that Vassiliev knot invariants pull back under the short-circuit map to Vassiliev invariants of braids. The action of $H^T$ and $H^B$ on ${{\mathcal P}_{\infty}}$ induces an action on Vassiliev braid invariants which, clearly, preserves the type. (Here we do not assume the invariants to be normalized, i.e. do not require them to take a prescribed value on the trivial braid.) Thus the finite type knot invariants can be identified with those finite type pure braid invariants which are fixed by the two-sided action of $H^T$ and $H^B$.
Sometimes it is more convenient, however, to think of Vassiliev invariants in the dual setting. Recall that a knot (pure braid) is called $n$-trivial if it cannot be distinguished from the the trivial knot (braid) by invariants of order less than $n$. For pure braids $n$-triviality is well-understood: $b\in{{\mathcal P}_{k}}$ is $n$-trivial if and only if $b\in\gamma_{n}{{\mathcal P}_{k}}$ - the $n$-th term of the lower central series of ${{\mathcal P}_{k}}$.
Let ${{\mathcal K}}_n\subset{{\mathcal K}}$ be the set of $n$-trivial knots.
\[thm:lcs\] Short-circuiting sends the filtration of ${{\mathcal P}_{\infty}}$ by the lower central series to the filtration by $n$-trivial knots: $${{\mathcal S}}(\gamma_{n}{{\mathcal P}_{\infty}})={{\mathcal K}}_n.$$
This allows to formulate problems from the theory of Vassiliev knot invariants in purely group-theoretic terms. For example, finite type knot invariants separate the unknot if and only if any orbit of the two-sided action of $H^T$ and $H^B$, apart from the orbit of the trivial braid, intersects only a finite number of terms of the lower central series. Another way to state this is to consider the nilpotent topology on ${{\mathcal P}_{\infty}}$ (with basis the cosets of $\gamma_{n}{{{\mathcal P}_{\infty}}}$ for all $n$). Then finite type invariants separate the unknot if and only if the set $H^T H^B = \{tb\ |\ t \in H^T, b \in H^B\}$ is closed in the nilpotent topology.
The proof of Theorem \[thm:lcs\] follows closely the same arguments as in [@St]. It is even simplified in some ways in our setting. For example, if $x$ and $y$ are two braids, then ${{\mathcal S}}{(x)} \# {{\mathcal S}}{(y)} = {{\mathcal S}}{(xtyb)} = {{\mathcal S}}{(xty)} = {{\mathcal S}}((t^{-1}xtx^{-1})xy)$, which is equivalent to ${{\mathcal S}}(xy)$ modulo a commutator. Inductively, braid product and connected sum are equivalent, modulo commutators of higher order, which is the main idea behind the results in [@St].
Bridge number for long knots. {#s:bridge}
=============================
Here we will see that the minimal number of maxima $b_L$ of the “height function” in the realization of a knot in ${{\bf R}}^3$ as a long knot is less by 1 than the minimal number of maxima of the height function in the compact realization $S^1{\hookrightarrow}{{\bf R}}^3$ of the same knot, i.e. than the bridge number $b$.
For a long knot with $b_L$ maxima of the height function it is obvious that there exist a compact embedding of the same knot with $b_L+1$ maxima, see Figure \[f:close\].
$$\epsffile{braids4.eps}$$
Conversely, let $k$ be a compact knot $S^1{\hookrightarrow}{{\bf R}}^3$ with $b$ maxima and $b$ minima which can be taken to be non-degenerate. We construct a long knot $k'$ with $b-1$ maxima which is equivalent to $k$ as follows.
Choose a point on $k$ which is not critical for the height function to be the origin in ${{\bf R}}^3$. Let $A$ be the maximum and $B$ the minimum between which the chosen point lies; by $AB$ we denote the closed segment of $k$ which lies between $A$ and $B$ and passes through the origin.
Let $F(t):{{\bf R}}\to{{\bf R}}^3$ be a curve which intersects each horizontal plane once and such that its intersection with the knot $k$ is exactly the segment $AB$. We can assume that the curve $F$ is parametrized by the $z$-coordinate in ${{\bf R}}^3$, i.e. $F(t)=(F_x(t),F_y(t),t)$, and that $F$ is a smooth function of $t$ everywhere apart from the points where $F(t)=A$ or $F(t)=B$.
Consider a map $\Phi: {{\bf R}}^3\to{{\bf R}}^3$ given by $$\Phi(x,y,z) = (x-F_x(z),y-F_y(z),z).$$ The transformation $\Phi$ preserves the horizontal planes, so it does not change the number of maxima and minima of the height function on the knot $k$. It is clear that there exist such $R>0$ that the intersection of the image of the embedding $\Phi(k)$ with the cylinder $x^2+y^2<R^2$ is an interval, which is embedded with exactly one minimum and one maximum of the height function. Strictly speaking, the embedding $\Phi(k)$ is only piecewise-smooth, however, we can smooth it out in such a way that its intersection with the cylindrical neighbourhood of the $z$-axis of radius $R$ is an interval, which intersects the $z$-axis in the origin only and which is embedded with exactly one minimum and one maximum of the height function, see Figure\[f:cylinder\](a).
Thus in what follows we can assume that $k$ has the above form.
$$\epsffile{braids5.eps}$$
Now we compactify ${{\bf R}}^3$ to $S^3$ by an interval adding a point at infinity to each horizontal plane and two points $z=\pm\infty$. Denote by $V\subset S^3$ a copy of ${{\bf R}}^3$ obtained by throwing out the closure of the $z$-axis. The intersection of the knot $k$ with $V$ is a long knot, which is equivalent to $k$ if we choose the orientation of $V$ to be compatible with that of ${{\bf R}}^3$. In the coordinates centred at the point at infinity whose $z$-coordinate is zero, this long knot looks as on Figure \[f:cylinder\](b). Obviously, it is equivalent to the knot $k'$ that differs from $k$ only inside the cylindrical neighbourhood of the $z$-axis (which is pictured as the outside part of the cylinder on Figure \[f:cylinder\](b)) and has exactly $b-1$ maxima and $b-1$ minima.
Short-circuit map as a two-sided quotient map. {#s:structure}
==============================================
We say that a smooth long knot $k(t):{{\bf R}}\to{{\bf R}}^3$ is a Morse knot if the height function on it: (a) has only a finite number of critical points, all of which are non-degenerate; (b) tends to $\pm\infty$ as $t\to\mp\infty$; in other words, we assume that all knots “point downwards”. Two Morse knots are Morse equivalent if one can be deformed into the other through Morse knots.
Let $k$ be a Morse knot and $x$ be a point on $k$ which is non-critical for the height function. We will say that a knot $k'$ is obtained from $k$ by insertion of a hump at $x$ if $k$ and $k'$ coincide outside some small neighbourhood of $x$ and inside this neighbourhood they differ as on Figure \[f:insert\].
$$\epsffile{braids6.eps}$$
\[lemma:insert\] Any two knots obtained from the same Morse knot by insertion of a hump are Morse equivalent.
The lemma is clearly true if there are no critical points of the height function between the points $x_1$ and $x_2$ where we insert humps. In case there is one critical point between $x_1$ and $x_2$ the lemma follows
$$\epsffile{braids7.eps}$$
from the argument on Figure \[f:movehump\]. This also proves the lemma in the general case.
Let $b_1\in{{\mathcal P}_{2n+1}}$ and $b_2\in{{\mathcal P}_{2m+1}}$ and, as before, denote by $i(b_k)$ the image of the standard inclusion of $b_k$ into ${{\mathcal P}_{2N+1}}$, $N\geqslant n,m$.
\[lemma:Me\] If ${{\mathcal S}}_{n}(b_1)$ and ${{\mathcal S}}_{m}(b_2)$ are in the same isotopy class in ${{\mathcal K}}$ there exists $N\geqslant n,m$ such that ${{\mathcal S}}_{N}(i(b_1))$ and ${{\mathcal S}}_{N}(i(b_2))$ are Morse equivalent.
Let $$f^T(t)=(f_x^T(t),f_y^T(t),f_z^T(t))$$ where $T\in [0,1]$ and $t\in{{\bf R}}$ be a homotopy between ${{\mathcal S}}_{n}(b_1)$ and ${{\mathcal S}}_{m}(b_2)$, that is, for each $T$ the map $f^T(t):{{\bf R}}\to{{\bf R}}^3$ defines a long knot and $f^0(t)={{\mathcal S}}_{n}(b_1)$ and $f^1(t)={{\mathcal S}}_{m}(b_2)$.
In $[0,1]\times{{\bf R}}$ consider the subset $W$ of pairs $(T,t)$ such that $\frac{\partial}{\partial{t}} f_z^T(t)=0.$ Without loss of generality we can assume that $W$ is a union of smooth compact non-singular curves whose boundary is either empty or belongs to $(\{0\}\cup\{1\})\times{{\bf R}}$ and that there are only a finite number of tangencies of $W$ with horizontal lines of the form $\{T\}\times{{\bf R}}$. In addition we require these tangencies to take place at different values of the parameter $T$; see Figure \[f:homotopy\]. These assumptions imply, in particular, that for all but a finite number of values of $T$ the knot $f^T(t)$ is Morse and that the perestroikas at the bifurcation values of $T$ are generic, i.e. are insertions (or removals) of humps.
If there are no points of tangency of $W$ with horizontal lines the knots ${{\mathcal S}}_{n}(b_1)$ and ${{\mathcal S}}_{m}(b_2)$ are Morse equivalent and $n=m=N$.
Otherwise, choose the point of tangency of $W$ with a horizontal line which corresponds to the insertion of a hump with the smallest value of $T$. It is clear that we can connect it with the lower boundary line $\{0\}\times{{\bf R}}$ by a segment $s$ of a curve which is disjoint from $W$ and whose tangent is nowhere horizontal, see Figure \[f:homotopy\](a).
$$\epsffile{braids8.eps}$$
In the neighbourhood of each point of $s$ we can modify the knots $f^T(t)$ by inserting humps, this changes $W$ as shown on Figure \[f:homotopy\](b). Notice that the number of points where $W$ has a horizontal tangent has decreased by one and the knot $f^0(t)={{\mathcal S}}_{n}(b_1)$ was changed by an insertion of a hump.
Thus, proceeding inductively, we eliminate all insertions of humps. In the same way we eliminate the removals of humps with the only difference that we connect them to the upper boundary line and proceed from the bifurcation with the largest value of $T$ downwards.
The result is that we construct a Morse equivalence between ${{\mathcal S}}_{n}(b_1)$, possibly with several humps inserted, and ${{\mathcal S}}_{m}(b_2)$, also with some extra humps. However, from Lemma \[lemma:insert\] we know that ${{\mathcal S}}_{n}(b_1)$ and ${{\mathcal S}}_{m}(b_2)$ with humps inserted are Morse equivalent to ${{\mathcal S}}_{N}(i(b_1))$ and ${{\mathcal S}}_{N}(i(b_2))$ respectively (here $N$ is the number of maxima of the modified knots) and this proves the lemma.
Let $b_1\in{{\mathcal P}_{2N+1}}$ and $b_2\in{{\mathcal P}_{2N+1}}$ represent the same knot. Lemma \[lemma:Me\] allows us to assume that the knots ${{\mathcal S}}_N(b_1)$ and ${{\mathcal S}}_N(b_1)$ are Morse equivalent.
Given a deformation of ${{\mathcal S}}_N(b_1)$ to ${{\mathcal S}}_N(b_1)$ through Morse knots we are going to construct a one-dimensional family of braids $f^T:[0,1]\to{{\mathcal P}_{2N+1}}$ such that $f^0=b_1$, $f^1=b_2$ and which is not continuous only at a finite number of values of the parameter, where the “jump” can be expressed as the multiplication by some element of $H^T$ or $H^B$.
The braid $f^0$ is obtained by “suspending” the knot ${{\mathcal S}}_N(b_1)$ by maxima and minima, see Figure \[f:susp\]. Here we choose the points $\alpha_i$ and $\beta_i$ in such a way that the deformation of ${{\mathcal S}}_n(b_1)$ into ${{\mathcal S}}_n(b_2)$ takes place entirely between the horizontal planes in which $\alpha_i$ and $\beta_i$ are situated. Of course, $f^0$ is the same braid as $b_1$. Think of the double lines which connect maxima and minima with the points $\alpha_i$ and $\beta_i$ respectively as of very narrow rubber strips. Then, if we deform the knot keeping the points $\alpha_i$ and $\beta_i$ fixed, the suspended knot also deforms and gives the braid $f^T$.
It may happen in the process of deformation that some rubber strips intersect the knot or intersect each other. Without loss of generality we can assume that these events take place near a finite number of distinct values of $T$.
Suppose that the rubber strip which connects a maximum with points $\alpha_i$ and $\alpha_{i+1}$ intersects the knot between $T=T_{0}$ and $T=T_{0}+\epsilon$. Then one can find $x,y\in{{\mathcal P}_{2N+1}}$ such that:\
(a) $f^{T_{0}}=xy$ and $f^{T_{0}+\epsilon}=
x\cdot\phi_{i}^{N}(A_{i,j}^{\pm 1})\cdot y$ for some $j$;\
(b) $x=\phi_{i}^{N}(x')$ for some $x'\in{{\mathcal P}_{2N}}$.\
Thus $$f^{T_{0}+\epsilon}=x\phi_{i}^{N}(A_{i,j}^{\pm 1})x^{-1}\cdot f^{T_{0}}=
\phi_{i}^{N}(x'A_{i,j}^{\pm 1}{x'}^{-1})\cdot f^{T_{0}}.$$ Notice that conjugation by $x'$ maps $A_{i,j}$ to a product of $A_{i,j_{m}}$ for some set of $j_{m}$, so $\phi_{i}^{N}(x'A_{i,j}^{\pm 1}{x'}^{-1})$ lies in $H^{T}$.
Similarly, if the rubber strip is attached to the minimum, $f^{T_{0}}$ is multiplied on the right by some braid from $H^B$. In case two rubber strips intersect each other we have to multiply by a product of two braids of such form; as above, the product will lie in $H^T$ or $H^B$. (If one rubber strip is attached to a minimum and the other one to a maximum this product will automatically lie in the intersection $H^T\cap H^B$.)
$$\epsffile{braids9.eps}$$
Finally, when the isotopy is finished and all minima and maxima have arrived back to their places what may happen is that some rubber strips may be twisted. This corresponds to multiplications by some $A_{i,i+1}$ on the left for $i$ even and on the right for $i$ odd.
[**Acknowledgments.**]{} We would like to thank Mario Eudave for finding an important reference, Sofia Lambropoulou and other organizers of the conference “Knots in Hellas ’98” who gave us a chance to meet, and Natig Atakishiev with whose pen a part of this paper was written. The second author was partially supported by the Naval Academy Research Council.
[99]{}
J. Birman, Braids, links, and mapping class groups, [*Annals of Mathematics Studies,*]{} No. 82. Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J.; University of Tokyo Press, Tokyo, 1974. J. Birman, [*On the stable equivalence of plat representations of knots and links*]{}, Canad. J. Math. [**28**]{} (1976), no. 2, 264–290. H. Schubert, [*Über eine numerische Knoteninvariante*]{}, Math. Z. [**61**]{} (1954), 245–288. T. Stanford, [*Vassiliev invariants and knots modulo pure braid subgroups*]{}, math.GT/9805092.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'The standard method of generating random weights and biases in feedforward neural networks with random hidden nodes, selects them both from the uniform distribution over the same fixed interval. In this work, we show the drawbacks of this approach and propose a new method of generating random parameters. This method ensures the most nonlinear fragments of sigmoids, which are most useful in modeling target function nonlinearity, are kept in the input hypercube. In addition, we show how to generate activation functions with uniformly distributed slope angles.'
address: 'Electrical Engineering Department, Czestochowa University of Technology, Czestochowa, Poland, [email protected]'
author:
- Grzegorz Dudek
bibliography:
- 'mybibfile.bib'
title: 'Generating Random Parameters in Feedforward Neural Networks with Random Hidden Nodes: Drawbacks of the Standard Method and How to Improve It '
---
Feedforward neural networks, Neural networks with random hidden nodes, Randomized learning algorithms
Introduction
============
Single-hidden-layer feedforward neural networks with random hidden nodes (FNNRHN) have become popular in recent years due to their fast learning speed, good generalization performance and ease of implementation. Additionally, these networks do not use a gradient descent method for learning, which is time consuming and sensitive to local minima of the error function (which is nonconvex in this case). In randomized learning, weights and biases of the hidden nodes are selected at random from any interval $[-u,u]$, and stay fixed. The optimization problem becomes convex and the output weights can be learned using a simple, scalable standard linear least-squares method [@Pri15]. The resulting FNN has a universal approximation capability when the random parameters are selected from a symmetric interval according to any continuous sampling distribution [@Hau99]. But how to select this interval and which distribution to use are open questions, and considered to be the most important research gaps in randomized learning [@Zha16s; @Cao18].
Typically, the hidden node weights and biases are both selected from a uniform distribution over the fixed interval, $[-1,1]$, without scientific justification, regardless of the data, problem to be solved, and activation function type [@Scar16]. Some authors optimize the interval looking for $u$ to ensure the best model performance [@wang17; @Li17; @Zha16; @Cao16]. Recently developed methods [@dud19; @dud19a] propose more sophisticated approaches for generating random parameters, where the distribution of the activation functions in space is analyzed and their parameters are adjusted randomly to the data.
In this work we show the drawbacks of a standard method of random parameters generation and propose its modification. We treat the weights and biases separately due to their different functions. The biases are generated on the basis of the weights and points selected randomly from the input space. The resulting sigmoids have their nonlinear fragments, which are most useful for modeling the target function (TF) fluctuations, inside the input hypercube. Moreover, we show how to generate the weights to produce sigmoids with the slope angles distributed uniformly.
Generating sigmoids inside the input hypercube
==============================================
Let us consider an approximation problem of a single-variable function of the form:
$$g(x) = \sin\left(20\cdot\exp x \right)\cdot x^2
\label{eqTF1}$$
To learn FNNRHN we create a training set $\Phi$ containing $N = 5000 $ points $ (x_l, y_l) $, where $ x_l \sim U(0,1) $ and $ y_l $ are calculated from and then distorted by adding noise $ \xi \sim U(-0.2, 0.2) $. A test set of the same size is created in the same manner but without noise. The output is normalized in the range $ [-1, 1] $.
Fig. \[fig0\] shows the results of fitting when using FNNRHN with $100$ sigmoid hidden nodes where the weights and biases are randomly selected from $U(-1,1)$ and $U(-10, 10)$. The bottom charts show the hidden node sigmoids whose linear combination forms the function fitting data. This fitted function is shown as a solid line in the upper charts. As you can see from the figure, for $a,b \in [-1,1]$ the sigmoids are flat and their distribution in the input interval $[0,1]$ (shown as a grey field) does not correspond to the TF fluctuations. This results in a very weak fit. When $a,b \in [-10,10]$ the sigmoids are steeper but many of them have their steepest fragments, which are around their inflection points, outside of the input interval. The saturated fragments of these sigmoids, which are in the input interval, are useless for modeling nonlinear TFs. So, many of the $100$ sigmoids are wasted. From this simple example it can be concluded that to get a parsimonious flexible FNNRHN model, the sigmoids should be steep enough and their steepest fragments, around the inflection points, should be inside the input interval.
![TF fitting: fitted curves and the sigmoids constructing them for $a,b \sim U(-1,1)$ (left panel) and for $a,b \sim U(-10,10)$ (right panel).[]{data-label="fig0"}](1D_1.eps "fig:"){width="49.00000%"} ![TF fitting: fitted curves and the sigmoids constructing them for $a,b \sim U(-1,1)$ (left panel) and for $a,b \sim U(-10,10)$ (right panel).[]{data-label="fig0"}](1D_2.eps "fig:"){width="49.00000%"}
Let us analyze how the inflection points are distributed in space when the weights and biases are selected from a uniform distribution over the interval $[-u, u]$. The sigmoid value at its inflection point $\chi$ is $0.5$, thus:
$$\frac{1}{1 + \exp(-(a\cdot \chi + b))} = 0.5
\label{eq2}$$
From this equation we obtain:
$$\chi = -\frac{b}{a}
\label{eq3}$$
The distribution of the inflection point is a distribution of the ratio of two independent random variables having both the uniform distribution, $a,b \sim U(-u, u)$. In such a case, the probability density function (PDF) of $\chi$ is of the form:
$$\begin{split}
f(\chi) & = \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} |a|f_A(a)f_B(a\chi)da\\
&=\left\lbrace
\begin{array}{lll}
\displaystyle\int_{-u}^{u} |a|f_A(a)f_B(a\chi)da & \mathrm{for} & |\chi|<1 \\
\displaystyle\int_{-\frac{u}{|\chi|}}^{\frac{u}{|\chi|}} |a|f_A(a)f_B(a\chi)da & \mathrm{for} & |\chi|\geq 1
\end{array}
\right.\\
&=\left\lbrace
\begin{array}{lll}
\displaystyle\frac{1}{4} & \mathrm{for} & |\chi|<1\\
\displaystyle\frac{1}{4|\chi|^2} & \mathrm{for} & |\chi|\geq 1
\end{array}
\right.
\end{split}
\label{eq4}$$
where $f_A$ and $f_B$ are the PDFs of weights and biases, respectively.
The left panel of Fig. \[fig1\] shows the PDF of $\chi$. The same PDF can be obtained when $a \sim U(-u, u)$ and $b \sim U(0, u)$ (case sometimes found in the literature). As you can see from Fig. \[fig1\], the probability that the inflection point is inside the input interval (shown as a grey field) is $0.25$. This means that most sigmoids have their steepest fragments, which are most useful for modeling TF fluctuations, outside of this interval. For the multivariable case, when we consider $n$-dimensional sigmoids, the situation improves – see the right panel of Fig. \[fig1\]. For $n=2$ almost $46\%$ of sigmoids have their inflection points in the input square. This percentage increases to more than $90\%$ for $n \geq 7$.
![PDF of $\chi$ when $a,b \sim U(-u,u)$ (left panel) and probability that $\chi$ belongs to $H=[0,1]^n$ depending on $n$ (right panel).[]{data-label="fig1"}](Rozklad.eps "fig:"){width="49.00000%"} ![PDF of $\chi$ when $a,b \sim U(-u,u)$ (left panel) and probability that $\chi$ belongs to $H=[0,1]^n$ depending on $n$ (right panel).[]{data-label="fig1"}](AinH.eps "fig:"){width="49.00000%"}
To obtain an $n$-dimensional sigmoid with one of its inflection points $\chi$ inside the input hypercube $ H = [x_{1,\min}, x_{1,\max}]\times ... \times[x_{n,\min}, x_{n,\max}] $, first, we generate weights $\mathbf{a}=[a_1, a_2,..., a_n]^T \subset \mathbb{R}^n$. Then we set the sigmoid in such a way that $\chi$ is at some point $\mathbf{x}^*$ from $H$. Thus:
$$h(\mathbf{x}^*) = \frac{1}{1 + \exp\left(-\left(\mathbf{a}^T\mathbf{x}^* + b\right)\right)}=0.5
\label{eqSigM}$$
From this equation we obtain:
$$b = -\mathbf{a}^T\mathbf{x}^*
\label{eqDer5a}$$
Point $\mathbf{x}^*=[x_1^*, ..., x_n^*]$ can be selected as follows:
- this can be some point randomly selected from $H$: $ x_j^* \sim U(x_{j,\min}, x_{j,\max})$, $j=1,2,...,n$. This method is suitable when the input points are evenly distributed in the hypercube $ H $.
- this can be some randomly selected training point: $\mathbf{x}^* = \mathbf{x}_\xi \in \Phi $, where $\xi \sim U\{1, ..., N\}$. This methods distributes the sigmoids according to the data density, avoiding empty regions.
- this can be a prototype of the training point cluster: $\mathbf{x}^* = \mathbf{p}_i $, where $ \mathbf{p}_i $ is a prototype of the $ i $-th cluster of $ \mathbf{x} \in \Phi $. This method groups the training points into $ m =$\#nodes clusters. For each sigmoid a different prototype is taken as $\mathbf{x}^*$.
Generating sigmoids with uniformly distributed slope angles
===========================================================
It should be noted that weight $a$ translates nonlinearly into the slope angle of a sigmoid. Let us analyze sigmoid $S$ which has its inflection point $\chi$ at $x=0$. In such a case $b=0$. A derivative of $S$ at $x=0$ is equal to the tangent of its slope angle $\alpha$ at $\chi$: $$\begin{split}
\tan\alpha & = ah(x)\left(1-h(x)\right) \\
& = a\frac{1}{1 + \exp(-(a\cdot 0 + 0))} \left(1-\frac{1}{1 + \exp(-(a\cdot 0 + 0))}\right)
\end{split}
\label{eq5}$$ From this equation we obtain the relationship between the weight and the slope angle: $$\alpha = \arctan \displaystyle\frac{a}{4}
\label{eq6}$$ This relationship is depicted in Fig. \[fig5\] as well as the PDF of $\alpha$ when weights $a$ are generated from different intervals. Note that the relationship between $a$ and $\alpha$ is highly nonlinear. Interval $[-1, 1]$ for $a$ corresponds to the interval $[-14^\circ, 14^\circ]$ for $\alpha$, so only flat sigmoids are obtainable in such a case. For $a \in [-10, 10]$ we obtain $\alpha \in [-68.2^\circ, 68.2^\circ]$, and for $a \in [-100, 100]$ we obtain $\alpha \in [-87.7^\circ, 87.7^\circ]$. For narrow intervals for $a$, such as $[-1, 1]$, the distribution of $\alpha$ is similar to a uniform one. When the interval for $a$ is extended, the shape of PDF of $\alpha$ changes – larger angles, near the bounds, are more probable than smaller ones. When $a \in [-100, 100]$ more than $77\%$ of sigmoids are inclined at an angle greater than $80^\circ$, so they are very steep. In such a case, there is a real threat of overfitting.
![Relationship between $a$ and $\alpha$ (left panel) and PDF of $\alpha$ for different intervals for $a$ (right panel).[]{data-label="fig5"}](atan.eps "fig:"){width="49.00000%"} ![Relationship between $a$ and $\alpha$ (left panel) and PDF of $\alpha$ for different intervals for $a$ (right panel).[]{data-label="fig5"}](f_alfa.eps "fig:"){width="49.00000%"}
To generate sigmoids with uniformly distributed slope angles, first we generate $|\alpha| \sim U(\alpha_{\min}, \alpha_{\max})$ individually for them, where $\alpha_{\min} \in (0^\circ, 90^\circ)$ and $\alpha_{\max} \in (\alpha_{\min}, 90^\circ)$. The border angles, $\alpha_{\min}$ and $\alpha_{\max}$, can both be adjusted to the problem being solved. For highly nonlinear TFs, with strong fluctuations, only $\alpha_{\min}$ can be adjusted, keeping $\alpha_{\max}=90^\circ$. Having the angles, we calculate the weights from :
$$a=4 \tan \alpha
\label{eq6a}$$
For the multivariable case, we generate all $n$ weights in this way, independently for each of $m$ sigmoids. This ensures random slopes (between $\alpha_{\min}$ and $\alpha_{\max}$) for the multidimensional sigmoids in each of $n$ directions.
The proposed method of generating random parameters of the hidden neurons is summarized in Algorithm 1. In this algorithm weights $a$ can be generated randomly from $U(-u, u)$ or optionally, to ensure uniform distribution of the sigmoid slope angles, they can be determined based on the slope angles generated randomly from $U(\alpha_{\min},\alpha_{\max})$. The bounds: $u, \alpha_{\min}$ and $\alpha_{\max}$ should be selected in cross-validation.
\
Number of hidden nodes $m$\
Number of inputs $n$\
Bounds for weights, $u \in \mathbb{R}$, or optionally bounds for slope angles,\
$\alpha_{\min} \in (0^\circ, 90^\circ)$ and $\alpha_{\max} \in (\alpha_{\min}, 90^\circ)$\
Set of $m$ points $\mathbf{x}^* \in H$: $\{\mathbf{x}^*_1, ..., \mathbf{x}^*_m\}$\
\
Weights $ \mathbf{A} = \left[
\begin{array}{ccc}
a_{1,1} & \ldots & a_{m,1} \\
\vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\
a_{1,n} & \ldots & a_{m,n}
\end{array}
\right] $\
Biases $ \mathbf{b} = [b_1, \ldots, b_m] $\
\
Choose randomly $a_{i,j} \sim U(-u,u)$\
or optionally choose randomly $\alpha_{i,j} \sim U(\alpha_{\min},\alpha_{\max}) $ and calculate $$\begin{split}
a_{i,j} = (-1)^q \cdot 4\tan \alpha_{i,j},\ \textrm{where}\ q \sim U\{0,1\}
\end{split}$$
Calculate $$b_i = -\mathbf{a}^T_i\mathbf{x}^*_i$$
Simulation study
================
The results of TF fitting when using the proposed method is shown in Fig. \[fig6\]. In this case the weights were selected from $U(-10,10)$ and biases were determined according to . As you can see from this figure, all sigmoids have their inflection points inside $H$. The number of hidden nodes to achieve $RMSE=0.0084$ is 35. To obtain a similar level of error we need over 60 nodes when using the standard method for generating the parameters.
![TF fitting: fitted curve and the sigmoids constructing it for the proposed method.[]{data-label="fig6"}](1D_3.eps){width="49.00000%"}
The following experiments concern multivariable function fitting. TF in this case is defined as:
$$g(\mathbf{x}) = \sum_{j=1}^{n}\sin\left(20\cdot\exp x_j\right)\cdot x_j^2
\label{eqTF2}$$
The training set contains $N$ points $ (\mathbf{x}_l, y_l) $, where $ x_{l,j} \sim U(0,1) $ and $ y_l $ are calculated from , then normalized in the range $ [-1, 1]$ and distorted by adding noise $ \xi \sim U(-0.2, 0.2) $. A test set of the same size is created in the same manner but without noise.
The experiments were carried out for $n=2$ ($N=5000$), $n=5$ ($N=20000$) and $n=10$ ($N=50000$), using:
- SM – the standard method of generating both weights and biases from $U(-u,u)$,
- PMu – the proposed method of generating weights from $U(-u,u)$ and biases according to ,
- PM$\alpha$ – the proposed method of generating slope angles from $U(\alpha_{\min}, 90^\circ)$, then calculating weights from , and biases from .
Fig. \[fig7\] shows the mean test errors over 100 trials for different node numbers. For each node number the optimal value of $u$ or $\alpha_{\min}$ was selected from $u \in \{1,2,...,10,20,50,100\}$ and $\alpha_{\min} \in \{0^\circ,10^\circ,...,80^\circ\}$, respectively. As you can see from Fig. \[fig7\], PM$\alpha$ in all cases leads to the best results. For $n=2$ it needs less nodes to get a lower error (0.0352) than PMu and SM. Interestingly, for higher dimensions, using too many nodes leads to an increase in the error for SM and PMu. This can be related to the overfitting caused by the steep nodes generated by the standard method. In the same time, for PM$\alpha$, where the node slope angles are distributed uniformly, an decrease in the error is observed. This issue needs to be explored in detail on a larger number of datasets.
![RMSE depending on the number of nodes.[]{data-label="fig7"}](n2_RMSE.eps "fig:"){width="32.00000%"} ![RMSE depending on the number of nodes.[]{data-label="fig7"}](n5_RMSE.eps "fig:"){width="32.00000%"} ![RMSE depending on the number of nodes.[]{data-label="fig7"}](n10_RMSE.eps "fig:"){width="32.00000%"}
Conclusion
==========
A drawback of the standard method of generating random hidden nodes in FNNs is that many sigmoids have their most nonlinear fragments outside of the input hypercube, especially for low-dimensional cases. So, they cannot be used for modeling the target function fluctuations. In this work, we propose a method of generating random parameters which ensures that all the sigmoids have their steepest fragments inside the input hypercube. In addition, we show how to determine the weights to ensure the sigmoids have uniformly distributed slope angles. This prevents overfitting which can happen when weights are generated in a standard way, especially for highly nonlinear target functions.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'The $dd\to ^3He n$ reaction is considered at the energies between 200 MeV and 520 MeV. The Alt-Grassberger-Sandhas equations are iterated up to the lowest order terms over the nucleon-nucleon t-matrix. The parameterized ${^3He}$ wave function including five components is used. The angular dependence of the differential cross section and energy dependence of tensor analyzing power $T_{20}$ at the zero scattering angle are presented in comparison with the experimental data.'
title: '$dd\to {^3}He n$ reaction at intermediate energies [^1] '
---
N. B. Ladygina
Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, LHEP, 141980, Dubna, Russia\
[*E-mail: [email protected]*]{}
Introduction {#intro}
============
During several decades hadronic reactions with helium and tritium were extensively investigated at the energies of a few hundred MeV. A number of experiments to study nucleon knockout from polarized ${^3He}$ were performed at TRIUMF. As a result, differential cross sections were measured at the energies between 220 and 590 MeV [@epst],[@brash],[@kit]. Moreover, the polarization observables, such as analyzing powers and spin correlation parameter, were obtained at 220 MeV [@brash] and 290 MeV [@rahav]. The analyzing powers and spin correlations were also studied at IUCF at the energy of 197 MeV [@miller].
The aim of these experiments was to study the helium internal structure. The simple relations between the helium wave function and differential cross section and polarization observables in the frame of the plane-wave-impulse-approximation (PWIA), give an opportunity to extract useful information about the ground state spin structure of helium. In order to study the high-momentum components of the ${^3He}$, the elastic backward scattering of $p~~{^3He}$ was investigated at RCNP(Osaka). Here the differential cross section and spin correlation parameter $C_{yy}$ were measured at proton energies of 200, 300, and 400 MeV [@hatanaka].
Several years ago an experiment to study $dd\to {^3He} n$, $dd\to {^3H} p$ reactions was carried out at RIKEN [@ourexp_T20], [@ourexp_ay270]. The vector and tensor analyzing powers were obtained in a wide angular range at three deuteron kinetic energies: 140, 200, and 270 MeV. Previously the differential cross sections of the reactions ${^2H}(d,n){^3He}$ and ${^2H}(d,p){^3H}$ were measured in a wide angular range for incident deuteron momenta between 1.1 GeV/c and 2.5 GeV/c [@bizard]. The $dd\to ^3He n$ reaction was considered in the one-nucleon-exchange (ONE) framework in ref. [@ourprop; @ouryf]. High sensitivity of some of the polarization observables was shown to the spin structure of the ${^3He}$. However, the data obtained at RIKEN are in disagreement with ONE predictions. Only a small angular range, around $0^0-15^0$ and $165^0-180^0$, is reasonably described by ONE mechanism. This result stimulated further theoretical investigations of this reaction.
The four-nucleon problem is topical up to now in spite of many efforts to solve it. Significant progress in the studies of the $dd\to {^3He} n (tp)$ reactions was achieved at low energies ($E_d < 5$ MeV)[@PRC77], [@PRC76], [@PRC81]. Here the reasonable description of the experimental data was obtained both for the differential cross sections and for the polarization observables.
Practical integral equations for the four-body scattering were developed by Grassberger and Sandhas [@ags4]. In this formulation the original operator relations were reduced to effective two-body equations in two steps by employing separable expansions both for the two-body and for the three-body subamplitudes. After the partial wave decomposition we deal with one-dimensional equations.
This approach was applied in ref.[@agsdd] to study $dd\to pt (n~{^3He})$ reactions and $p~{^3He}$ elastic scattering at the energies up to 51.5 MeV. Here the first-order $K$-matrix approximation was applied to solve effective two-body equations. The obtained results reasonably describe the shape of the differential cross sections but fail to reproduce the second maximum in the differential cross section of the $dd\to pt (n~{^3He})$. Inclusion of the principal value part of the propagators and use of different potentials did not result in significant improvement [@sofi]. Nevertheless, the carried out investigations have shown that the agreement between the theoretical predictions and data improves with increasing the energy when the second maximum is not so evident.
At higher energy the four-nucleon problem was considered in ref.[@dddd], where the deuteron-deuteron elastic scattering was studied at 231.8 MeV. The approximation based on the lowest order terms in the Neumann series expansion of the AGS- equations, was used to describe the differential cross section and vector and tensor analyzing powers. The obtained results have demonstrated the underestimation of the differential cross section while the curves for the deuteron analyzing powers reproduce the behaviour of the data at forward angles.
In the present paper the $dd\to {^3 He}n$ reaction is studied at the deuteron energies between 200 MeV and 520 MeV. We start our investigation from AGS equations for the four-body case [@ags4] and then iterate them up to the first order terms over the nucleon-nucleon t-matrix. In such a way we include not only ONE mechanism into consideration but also the next term. It corresponds to the case when nucleons from different deuterons interact with each other and then form a three-nucleon bounded state and a free nucleon. The parameterization based on the modern phase-shift analysis data is applied to describe NN interaction. The partial wave decomposition is not used in this approach. It allows us to avoid the problem related with convergence which is important at the considered energies.
The paper is organized as follows. Section 2 gives the general formalism. Here the expansion of the AGS equations is presented for the $dd\to {^3 He}n$ reaction. In this section the ${^3 He}$ wave function is discussed, and the description of the nucleon-nucleon interaction is presented. The details of calculations of the scattering amplitude terms are also given. The obtained results are discussed in Sect.3. The conclusions are contained in Sect.4.
General formalism {#sec:1}
=================
Here we consider the reaction where four initial nucleons are bounded in pairs forming two deuterons, and three final nucleons are bounded to the helium or tritium and one nucleon is free. In other words, we have the reaction of the $(2)+(2)\to (3)+(1)$ type.
We write the transition operator $U(z)$ for our reaction as it was offered by Grassberger and Sandhas [@ags4]: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{U}
U_{\beta\alpha}(z)=(1-\delta_{\beta\alpha})(z-H_\alpha)+\sum_{ik\nsubseteq\beta}
T_{ik}(z)G_0(z)U_{ik,\alpha}(z)+
\sum_{ik\nsubseteq\beta}V_\alpha\delta_{\alpha,ik}~,\end{aligned}$$ where $\alpha$ and $\beta$ denote two-cluster partitions of the four-particles. Here these labels are referred to the initial and final states, respectively: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{state}
&&1)\alpha =(ij)(kl);~~V_\alpha\equiv V_{(ij)(kl)}=V_{ij}+V_{kl};~~~\Phi_{(ij)(kl)}=|\vec k_{ij},\vec k_{kl}>
|\psi_{ij}>|\psi_{kl}>
\\
&&2)\beta=(ijk);~~~~~V_\beta\equiv V_{(ijk)}=V_{ij}+V_{jk}+V_{ik};~~~\Phi_{(ijk)}=|\vec k_{ijk},\vec k_l>|\psi_{ijk}>.
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ In accordance with the AGS-formalism the channel Hamiltonian is defined as a sum of the free particles Hamiltonian $H_0$ and the interaction potential: $$\begin{aligned}
H_{\alpha(\beta)}=H_0+V_{\alpha(\beta)}.\end{aligned}$$
The eigenfunctions of the channel Hamiltonian $|\Phi_\alpha>$ characterize possible initial and final configurations. These functions are products of plane waves and internal wave functions $|\psi_\alpha>$.
The operator $T_{ij}(z)$ in Eq.(\[U\]) is a two-body transition operator which satisfies the Lippmann- Schwinger equation: $$\begin{aligned}
&&T_{ij}(z)=V_{ij}+V_{ij}G_{0}(z)T_{ij}~,\end{aligned}$$ where $G_0$ is the resolvent of the four-nucleon kinetic energy operator $G_0(z)=(z-H_0)^{-1} $.
The operator $U_{ik,\alpha}$ in Eq.(\[U\]) corresponds to the case when the initial state $\alpha$ is determined as in Eq.(\[state\]) and the final state is a combination of two bounded nucleons $(ik)$ and two free nucleons. This transition operator can be also defined from Eq.(\[U\]) if we put the final state $\beta=(ik)$. The notation $ik\nsubseteq\beta$ means that pair $(ik)$ is not either equal to one cluster of $\beta$ or contained in it. We deal with four identical nucleons and two identical deuterons in the initial state. It means that symmetrized wave functions both for the initial and final states, should be built. Following ref.[@GW] we have constructed a wave function for the initial state where four nucleons form two bounded states: $$\begin{aligned}
|\psi(12)\psi(23)>_s=\frac{1}{4!}\sqrt{\frac{4!}{2!2!}}\sum_Q Q|\psi(12)>_s|\psi(23)>_s.\end{aligned}$$ By $Q$ we denote all possible permutations of two nucleons. For four particles we have $4!$ permutations of this kind that is reflected in the first factor. The second coefficient is from normalization of the symmetrized wave function. The wave functions of deuterons $\psi(ij)_s$ are also antisymmetrized: $$\begin{aligned}
|\psi(ij)>_s=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}[|\psi(ij)>-|\psi(ji)>].\end{aligned}$$ Three nucleons in the final state are bounded and one nucleon is free. The corresponding symmetrized wave function is as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
|\psi(123)4>_s=\frac{\sqrt{4}}{4!}\sum_Q Q|\psi(123)>_s|4>.\end{aligned}$$ Here three-nucleon state $(ijk)_s$ is also presented by the antisymmetrized wave function $$\begin{aligned}
|\psi(123)>_s=\frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}[|\psi(123)>-|\psi(213)>+|\psi(231)>-|\psi(321)>+|\psi(312)>-|\psi(132)>].\end{aligned}$$ After straightforward calculations the reaction amplitude can be written as: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ampl}
<n{^3He}|U|dd>=\frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}[<4,\psi(123)_s|U|\psi(12)_s\psi(34)_s>-
<1,\psi(234)_s|U|\psi(12)_s\psi(34)_s>].\end{aligned}$$ The same way it is necessary to find two matrix elements of the transition operator $U$. We start to consider the first of them. This term corresponds to the case of $\beta=(ijk)=(123)$, $\alpha=(12)(34)$. From Eq.(\[U\]) we get $$\begin{aligned}
U_{(123),(12)(34)}(z)&=&(z-H_0)-V_{12}-V_{34}+T_{14}(z)G_0(z)U_{(14),(12)(34)}(z)+
\nonumber\\
&&T_{24}(z)G_0(z)U_{(24),(12)(34)}(z)+T_{34}(z)G_0(z)U_{(34),(12)(34)}.\end{aligned}$$ This relation contains transition operators for another reaction type. In the final state two particles are bounded and the other two are free, while the initial state is the same as before. In order to derive expressions for these operators, it is convenient to rewrite Eq.(\[U\]) in the following form: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{U1}
U_{\beta\alpha}(z)=(1-\delta_{\beta\alpha})(z-H_\beta)+\sum_{mn\nsubseteq\alpha}
U_{\beta,mn}(z)G_0(z)T_{mn}(z)+
\sum_{mn\nsubseteq\alpha}V_\beta\delta_{\beta,mn}.\end{aligned}$$ Then by putting $\beta=(ij)$ we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
&&U_{(14),(12)(34)}(z)=(z-H_0)+U_{(14),(13)}(z)G_0(z)T_{13}(z)+U_{(14),(14)}(z)G_0(z)T_{14}(z)+
\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{3cm}
U_{(14),(23)}(z)G_0(z)T_{23}(z)+U_{(14),(24)}(z)G_0(z)T_{24}(z)
\nonumber\\
&&U_{(24),(12)(34)}(z)=(z-H_0)+U_{(24),(13)}(z)G_0(z)T_{13}(z)+U_{(24),(14)}(z)G_0(z)T_{14}(z)+
\\
&&\hspace{3cm}
U_{(24),(23)}(z)G_0(z)T_{23}(z)+U_{(24),(24)}(z)G_0(z)T_{24}(z)
\nonumber\\
&&U_{(34),(12)(34)}(z)=(z-H_0)-V_{34}+U_{(34),(13)}(z)G_0(z)T_{13}(z)+U_{(34),(14)}(z)G_0(z)T_{14}(z)+
\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{3cm}
U_{(34),(23)}(z)G_0(z)T_{23}(z)+U_{(34),(24)}(z)G_0(z)T_{24}(z).
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Iterating these equations only up to the first order term over T-matrix, we get the following sequence for the $U_{(123),(12)(34)}$-operator: $$\begin{aligned}
U_{(123),(12)(34)}\approx(z-H_{12})+T_{14}(z)+T_{24}(z).\end{aligned}$$ Likewise we derive the expression for the other transition operator in Eq.(\[ampl\]): $$\begin{aligned}
U_{(234),(12)(34)}\approx(z-H_{34})+T_{13}(z)+T_{14}(z).\end{aligned}$$
Since the initial and final states are antisymmetrized, the contributions of the $T_{24}$ and $T_{14}$ matrix elements are equal to each other. In order to show it, we use the properties of the permutation operator: $P_{12}P_{12}=1$, $P_{12}T_{24}P_{12}=T_{14}$. $$\begin{aligned}
&&<4,\psi(123)_s|T_{24}|\psi(12)_s\psi(34)_s>=<4,\psi(123)_s|P_{12}P_{12}T_{24}P_{12}P_{12}|\psi(12)_s\psi(34)_s>=
\nonumber\\
&=&<4,\psi(213)_s|T_{12}|\psi(21)_s\psi(34)_s> =<4,\psi(123)_s|T_{12}|\psi(12)_s\psi(34)_s>\end{aligned}$$ It also concerns $T_{13}$ and $T_{14}$ matrix elements in the exchange contribution: $$\begin{aligned}
<1,\psi(234)_s|T_{13}|\psi(12)_s\psi(34)_s>&=&<1,\psi(234)_s|T_{14}|\psi(12)_s\psi(34)_s>.\end{aligned}$$ On the other hand, using the permutation operator $P_{14}$ we can get the following useful relation: $$\begin{aligned}
<1,\psi(234)_s|T_{14}|\psi(12)_s\psi(34)_s>&=&- <4,\psi(123)_s|P_{14}T_{14}|\psi(12)_s\psi(34)_s>.\end{aligned}$$
It gives us an opportunity to join all terms with NN $T$-matrix into one. In such a way Eq.(\[ampl\]) can be reduced to the following: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{uampl}
&&<n{^3He}|U|dd>=\frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}[<4,\psi(123)_s|z-H_{12}|\psi(12)_s\psi(34)_s>-
\\
&&<1,\psi(234)_s|z-H_{34}|\psi(12)_s\psi(34)_s>+
2<4,\psi(123)_s|T_{14}^{sym}|\psi(12)_s\psi(34)_s>],
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where antisymmetrized NN T-matrix is defined as $T_{14}^{sym}=(1-P_{14})T_{14}$.
In order to simplify the statement below, we divide the latter expression via three terms corresponding to these contributions into the reaction amplitude: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ampl}
<n{^3He}|U|dd>&=&\frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}\delta (2E_d-E_h-E_n)\{{\cal J}^{ONE}_{dir}+
{\cal J}^{ONE}_{exch}+2{\cal J}^{SS}\}.\end{aligned}$$ All the calculations have been performed in the center-of-mass. The following definitions are introduced for the momenta and energies of the deuterons, helium, and neutron: $$\begin{aligned}
&&\vec P_1=-\vec P_2\equiv \vec P_d, ~~\vec P_h=-\vec p_n
\\
&&E_d=\sqrt{M_d^2+P_d^2},~~E_h=\sqrt{M_h^2+P_h^2},~~ E_n=\sqrt{m_N^2+p_n^2}.
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Two first terms in Eqs.(\[uampl\]),(\[ampl\]) correspond to the one-nucleon-exchange (ONE) mechanism of the reaction. We call the first of them as “direct” and the second one as “exchange”. Here one of the deuterons breaks in a neutron and proton. One of the nucleons becomes free, while the other interacts with the remained deuteron forming helium or tritium. Schematically it can be presented by diagrams in Figs.1a and 1b. The latter term corresponds to single scattering (SS) when two nucleons from different deuterons interact in the final state (Fig, 1c).
![The diagrams taken into consideration: one-nucleon-exchange (a),(b), and single scattering (c) graphs.[]{data-label="fig:1"}](diagrams_let.eps){height="10cm" width="14cm"}
One-nucleon-exchange {#sec:2}
---------------------
We start from consideration of ONE contributions. Taking the quantum numbers and momenta of all particles into account, we get the following expression for ONE terms:
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{one}
<n{^3He}|U|dd>&=&\frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}<\vec p_n m_n\tau_n|<\Psi^{123}(\vec P_h M_h\tau_h)|
(2E_d-\hat H_{12})|\Phi^{12}(\vec P_1,M_1)>|\Phi^{34}(\vec P_2,M_2)>-
\nonumber\\
&&<\vec p_n m_n\tau_n|<\Psi^{234}(\vec P_h M_h\tau_h)|
(2E_d-\hat H_{34})|\Phi^{12}(\vec P_1,M_1)>|\Phi^{34}(\vec P_2,M_2)>.\end{aligned}$$
Here we introduce notation $\Psi^{ijk}(\vec P_h, M_h,\tau_h)$ for the $^3He$ wave function, where $^3He$ is formed by $i,j,k$ nucleons and has momentum $\vec P_h$, spin projection $M_h$ and isospin projection $\tau_h$. Note in case $\tau=-1/2$ we deal with the reaction of $dd\to t p$. The $\Phi^{ij}(\vec P,M)$ denotes the wave function of the deuteron with momentum $\vec P$ and spin projection $M$.
Inserting the unit operator into Eq.(\[one\]): $$\begin{aligned}
1=\int d\vec p_1 d\vec p_2 d\vec p_3 |\vec p_1 m_1\tau_1, \vec p_2 m_2\tau_2,\vec p_3 m_3\tau_3>
<\vec p_1 m_1\tau_1, \vec p_2 m_2\tau_2,\vec p_3 m_3\tau_3|~,\end{aligned}$$ for ONE contribution we get $$\begin{aligned}
<n{^3He}|U|dd>&=&\frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}\int d\vec p_1 d\vec p_2 d\vec p_3
\nonumber\\
&&(E_d-E_n-E_3)
<\Psi^{123}(\vec P_h M_h\tau_h)|\vec p_1 m_1\tau_1;\vec p_2 m_2\tau_2;\vec p_3 m_3\tau_3>
\nonumber\\
&&<\vec p_1 m_1\tau_1;\vec p_2 m_2\tau_2|\Phi^{12}(\vec P_d,M_1)><\vec p_3 m_3\tau_3;\vec p_n m_n\tau_n|\Phi^{34}(-\vec P_d,M_2)>-
\nonumber\\
&-&\frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}\int d\vec p_2 d\vec p_3 d\vec p_4
\\
&&(E_d-E_n-E_2)
<\Psi^{234}(\vec P_h M_h\tau_h)|\vec p_2 m_2\tau_2;\vec p_3 m_3\tau_3;\vec p_4 m_4\tau_4>
\nonumber\\
&&<\vec p_n m_n\tau_n;\vec p_2 m_2\tau_2|\Phi^{12}(\vec P_d,M_1)><\vec p_3 m_3\tau_3;\vec p_4 m_4\tau_4|\Phi^{34}(-\vec P_d,M_2)>~.
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
\[tab:1\]
[llcllllll]{} $\nu$ & Label & Subsystem & ${\cal L}$ & S & $J^\pi$ & $T$ & K & l\
1 & $^1s_0S$ & $^1s_0$ & 0 & 0 & $0^+$ & 1 & 1/2 & 0\
2 & $^3s_1S$ & $^3s_1$ & 0 & 1 & $1^+$ & 0 & 1/2 & 0\
3 & $^3s_1D$ & $^3s_1$ & 0 & 1 & $1^+$ & 0 & 3/2 & 2\
4 & $^3d_1S$ & $^3d_1$ & 2 & 1 & $1^+$ & 0 & 1/2 & 0\
5 & $^3d_1D$ & $^3d_1$ & 2 & 1 & $1^+$ & 0 & 3/2 & 2\
Henceforth, we imply summations over all dummy discrete indices.
In our calculation we use the parameterized wave function of a three-nucleon system offered in ref.[@he3]. This wave function was derived by fitting the full Faddeev wave function obtained with the CD Bonn [@cd] and Paris [@paris] NN-potentials. The wave function is fully antisymmetrized and defined in terms of the nucleon pair and spectator momenta. If we choose particles (12) as a pair and particle 3 as a spectator, the three-nucleon wave function is presented in the following form: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{he3}
<\vec p_0 \vec q \nu|\Psi>&=&<\vec p_0 \vec q \nu|\psi[(12)3]>+
<\vec p_0 \vec q \nu|\vec p_{23}\vec q_1 \nu_{23}>
<\vec p_{23}\vec q_1 \nu_{23}|\psi[(23)1]>+
\\
&+&<\vec p_0 \vec q \nu|\vec p_{31}\vec q_2 \nu_{31}>
<\vec p_{31}\vec q_2 \nu_{31}|\psi[(31)2]>.
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
Here the following notations have been introduced for pair relative momentum $\vec p_0$ and spectator momentum $\vec q$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{jacobi}
\vec p_0&=&\frac{\vec p_1-\vec p_2}{2},~~~~~\vec q=\vec p_3-\frac{\vec P}{3},
~~~~\vec P=\vec p_1+\vec p_2+\vec p_3=\vec P_h
\nonumber\\
\vec p_{23}&=&\frac{\vec p_2-\vec p_3}{2},~~~~~\vec q_1=\vec p_1-\frac{\vec P}{3}
\\
\vec p_{31}&=&\frac{\vec p_3-\vec p_1}{2},~~~~~\vec q_2=\vec p_2-\frac{\vec P}{3}~.
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
The radial part of the three-nucleon wave function (\[he3\]) is presented as a sum of the two terms each of them has a separable form: $$\begin{aligned}
< p_0 q \nu|\Psi>=v^\nu_1 (p_0)w^\nu_1 (q)+v^\nu_2 (p_0)w^\nu_2 (q),\end{aligned}$$ where $v^\nu_\lambda (p_0)$, $w^\nu_\lambda$ are defined as: $$\begin{aligned}
v^\nu_\lambda (p_0)=\sum_{n=1}^{5}\frac{a^\nu_{n,\lambda}}{p_0^2+(m^\nu_{n,\lambda})^2}~,~~~~~
w^\nu_\lambda (q)=\sum_{n=1}^{5}\frac{b^\nu_{n,\lambda}}{q^2+(M^\nu_{n,\lambda})^2}~,~~~~~~~~~\lambda=1,2~.\end{aligned}$$ Index $\nu$ denotes number of one of the three-nucleon channels (Table 1). The five channels are included into the definition of the wave function: ${^1s}_0 S, {^3s}_1 S, {^3}s_1 D,{^3d}_1S, {^3d}_1 D$. Parameters $a^\nu_{n,\lambda}, b^\nu_{n,\lambda}, m^\nu_{n,\lambda}$ and $M^\nu_{n,\lambda}$ can be found in [@he3].
The wave function of the deuteron, which contains $(ij)$ nucleons, is denoted in Eq.(\[one\]) as $\Phi (\vec P_d, M_d)$. Here $\vec P_d$ and $M_d$ are momentum and spin projection of the deuteron, respectively. In the rest frame the non-relativistic wave function of the deuteron depends only on one variable $\vec p_0$ which is the relative momentum of the proton- neutron pair: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{dwf}
&&<\vec P_d/2+\vec p_0 ,
m_p;\vec P_d/2- \vec p_0 m_n|\Phi(\vec P_d M_d)>=
\\
&&\sum_{L=0,2} u_L(p_0)<\frac{1}{2} m_p \frac{1}{2} m_n|1 M_s>
<L M_L 1 M_s|1 M_d> Y_L^{M_L}(\hat p_0)~,
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $u_0(p_0)$ and $u_2(p_0)$ describe $S$ and $D$ components of the deuteron wave function [@cd], [@par], $\hat p_0$ is the unit vector in $\vec p_0$ direction, and $m_p,~m_n$ are the proton and neutron spin projections, respectively.
Using transformations of vectors $\vec p_1, ~\vec p_2,~ \vec p_3$ to Jacobi variables (\[jacobi\]) and taking into account momentum conservations in the deuterons and helium vertices, we get the following expression for the first term in Eq.(\[one\]): $$\begin{aligned}
\label{dir}
{\cal J}^{ONE}_{dir}&=&<\frac{1}{2}M_h \frac{1}{2} m_n|T^{ONE}_{dir}|1 M_1 1M_2>=
\nonumber\\
&&\frac{(-1)^{1/2-\tau_h}}{\sqrt{2}}{\cal K}\int d\hat p_0 dp_0 p_0^2 \psi^\nu (p_0,q){Y_l^\mu}^* (\hat q) {Y_{\cal L}^{\cal M}}^*(\hat p_0)
<{\cal L M} 1 M_S|J M_J>
\\
&&<J M_J\frac{1}{2} m_3|K M_K>
<l \mu K M_K|\frac{1}{2} M_h><\frac{1}{2} m_3\frac{1}{2} m_n|1 M^\prime_S>
<L M_L 1 M_S|1 M_1>
\nonumber\\
&&<L^\prime M^\prime_L 1 M^\prime_S|1 M_2> u_L(p_0) Y_L^{M_L}(\hat p_0)
u_{L^\prime} (|\vec P_h-\vec P_d/2|) Y_{L^\prime}^{M_L^\prime}(\widehat {\vec P_h-\vec P_d/2})
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ with kinematical factor ${\cal K}$ defined as $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal K}=E_d-E_n-\sqrt{m_N+(\vec P_h-\vec P_d)^2}.\end{aligned}$$ Definitions Eq.(\[he3\]) and (\[dwf\]) have been also used to obtain this equation. Superscribe index $\nu $ of the helium wave function marks one of the five channels considered in [@he3] and defined by quantum numbers of the nucleon pair $({\cal L}, J)$, the relative orbital momentum of the spectator $l$ and the channel spin $K$ [@chan] (Table 1). We also preserve here the dependence on isotopic number $\tau_h$ that allows us to consider both $dd\to {^3He} n$ and $dd\to t p$ reactions. As it follows from Eq.(\[jacobi\]), spectator momentum $\vec q$ is defined only by helium and deuteron momenta, $\vec q=\frac{2}{3}\vec P_h-\vec P_d$. Since only two spherical functions in Eq.(\[dir\]) are dependent of integration angles, we can simply integrate this expression over the angular dependence of $\vec p_0$: $$\begin{aligned}
&&{\cal J}^{ONE}_{dir}=
\frac{(-1)^{1/2-\tau_h}}{\sqrt{2} }{\cal K}\int d p_0 p_0^2 \psi^\nu (p_0,q) u_L(p_0) u_{L^\prime} (|\vec P_h-\vec P_d/2|)
< 1 M_1\frac{1}{2} m_3|K M_K>
\\
&&<l \mu K M_K|\frac{1}{2} M_h>
<L^\prime M^\prime_L 1 M^\prime_S|1 M_2>
<\frac{1}{2} m_3\frac{1}{2} m_n|1 M^\prime_S>
Y_{L^\prime} ^{M^\prime_L}(\widehat {\vec P_h-\vec P_d/2}){Y_l^\mu}^* (\hat q)~.
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
After substitution of the partial wave decomposition of the helium wave function [@he3], we get the final expression for the direct term of the ONE-contribution:
$$\begin{aligned}
&&{\cal J}^{ONE}_{dir}=\frac{(-1)^{1/2-\tau_h}}{\sqrt{2}}{\cal K}\int dp_0 p_0^2 \{\frac{u_0(|\vec P_h -\vec P_d/2|)}{\sqrt{4\pi}}
<\frac{1}{2} m_3\frac{1}{2} m_n|1 M_2>+
\\
&&u_2(|\vec P_h -\vec P_d/2|)Y_2^{M^\prime_L}(\widehat {\vec P_h-\vec P_d/2})
<2 M^\prime_L 1 M^\prime_S|1 M_2><\frac{1}{2} m_3\frac{1}{2} m_n|1 M^\prime_S>\}
\nonumber\\
&&\{\frac{1}{\sqrt{4\pi}}[u_0(p_0)\psi_2(p_0,q)+u_2(p_0)\psi_4(p_0,q)]<1 M_1 \frac{1}{2} m_3|\frac{1}{2} M_h>
+
\nonumber\\
&&[u_0(p_0)\psi_3(p_0,q)+u_2(p_0)\psi_5(p_0,q)]Y_2^{\mu ~*} (\hat q)<1 M_1 \frac{1}{2} m_3|\frac{3}{2} M_K>
< 2 \mu\frac{3}{2} M_K|\frac{1}{2} M_h>\}~.
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
This expression contains only four components of the helium wave function, since channel $\nu =1$ corresponds to the isotriplet state of the pair which is forbidden for the ONE-mechanism.
In order to get the exchange term of the ONE-amplitude ${\cal J}^{ONE}_{exch}$, it is necessary to replace $\vec P_d\to -\vec P_d$ and $M_1\longleftrightarrow M_2$ in the previous expression.
Single scattering {#sec:3}
-----------------
The single-scattering term in Eq.(\[uampl\]) can be rewritten in a more evident form: $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal J}^{SS}&=&\int d\vec p_1 d\vec p_2 d\vec p_3 d\vec p_4 d\vec p_1^\prime <\Psi^{123}(\vec P_h M_h\tau_h)|\vec p_1^\prime m_1^\prime\tau_1^\prime;\vec p_2 m_2\tau_2;\vec p_3 m_3\tau_3>
\nonumber\\
&&<\vec p_1^\prime m_1^\prime\tau_1^\prime;\vec p_n m_n\tau_n|T(2E_d-E_2-E_3)|
\vec p_1 m_1\tau_1;\vec p_4 m_4\tau_4>
\\
&&<\vec p_1 m_1\tau_1;\vec p_2 m_2\tau_2|\Phi^{12}(\vec P_d,M_1)><\vec p_3 m_3\tau_3;\vec p_4 m_4\tau_4|\Phi^{34}(-\vec P_d,M_2)>.
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ We have here five integration vectors but three of them can be removed due to the momentum conservation. We introduce vectors $\vec k_0$ and $\vec k_0^\prime$ which correspond to the neutron-proton relative momenta in the deuterons: $$\begin{aligned}
\vec k_0=\frac{1}{2}(\vec p_1-\vec p_2), ~~~~\vec k_0^\prime=\frac{1}{2}(\vec p_3-\vec p_4).\end{aligned}$$ As it is mentioned above, we have used the three-nucleon wave function in a separable form which depends on two variables: $\vec p_0$, a relative momentum of a pair, and spectator momentum $\vec q$. In our calculations it is convenient to choose the nucleon pair (23) as a cluster and nucleon 1 as a spectator. It is possible since our wave function is symmetrized:$\Psi^{123}=\Psi^{231}$. Then the arguments of the helium wave function are expressed via momenta $\vec k_0$ and $\vec k_0^\prime$: $$\begin{aligned}
\vec p_0=\frac{1}{2}(\vec P_d-\vec k_0-\vec k_0^\prime)~~~~
\vec q=\frac{2}{3}\vec P_h+\vec k_0-\vec k_0^\prime.\end{aligned}$$
Using the definitions of $^3He$ and deuteron wave functions, Eqs.(\[he3\] ),(\[dwf\]), we can write the following expression for the SS-term: $$\begin{aligned}
&&{\cal J}^{SS}=<\frac{1}{2}M_h \frac{1}{2} m_n|T^{SS}|1 M_1 1M_2>=
\nonumber\\
&&\frac{(-1)^{1-\tau_1-\tau_3}}{2}
\int d\vec k_0 d\vec k_0^\prime \psi^\nu (p_0,q)Y_l^\mu(\hat q)^* Y_{\cal L}^{\cal M_L}(\hat p_0)^*
<l \mu K M_K|\frac{1}{2} M_h>
\nonumber\\
&&<{\cal L M_L} S M_S|J M_J><J M_J \frac{1}{2} m_1^\prime|K M_K><\frac{1}{2} m_2\frac{1}{2} m_3|S M_S>
\nonumber\\
&& <T M_T\frac{1}{2} \tau_1^\prime|\frac{1}{2}\tau_h>
<\frac{1}{2} -\tau_1\frac{1}{2} \tau_3|T M_T>
%\nonumber\\
<\frac{1}{2} \tau_1^\prime \frac{1}{2} -\tau_h|T^\prime M^\prime_T> <\frac{1}{2} \tau_1 \frac{1}{2} -\tau_3|T^\prime M^\prime_T>
\nonumber\\
&&
<\vec P_h+\vec k_0-\vec k_0^\prime, m_1^\prime;-\vec P_h, m_n |T(2E_d-E_2-E_3)|\vec P_d/2+\vec k_0, m_1; -\vec P_d/2-\vec k_0^\prime, m_4>
\nonumber\\
&&<\frac{1}{2} m_1\frac{1}{2} m_2|1 {\cal M}><L M_L 1{\cal M}|1 M_1>u_L(k_0)Y_L^{M_L}(\hat k_0)
\\
&& <\frac{1}{2} m_3\frac{1}{2} m_4|1 {\cal M}^\prime>
<L^\prime M_L^\prime 1{\cal M}^\prime|1 M_2>
u_{L^\prime}(k_0^\prime)Y_{L^\prime}^{M_L^\prime}(\hat k_0^\prime)~.
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
The nucleon-nucleon scattering is described by the T-matrix element. We use the parameterization of this matrix offered by Love and Franey [@LF]. This is the on-shell NN T-matrix defined in the center-of-mass: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{tnn}
&&<\mbox{\boldmath$\kappa$}^{*\prime} \mu_1^\prime \mu_2^\prime |t_{c.m.}|
\mbox{\boldmath$\kappa$}^* \mu_1\mu_2>
=<\mbox{\boldmath$\kappa$}^{*\prime} \mu_1^\prime \mu_2^\prime |
A+B(\mbox{\boldmath$\sigma_1$} \hat N^*)(\mbox{\boldmath$\sigma_2$} \hat N^*)+
\\
&&
C(\mbox{\boldmath$\sigma_1$} +\mbox{\boldmath$\sigma_2$} )\cdot \hat N^* +
D(\mbox{\boldmath$\sigma_1$} \hat q^*)(\mbox{\boldmath$\sigma_2$} \hat q^*) +
F(\mbox{\boldmath$\sigma_1$} \hat Q^*)(\mbox{\boldmath$\sigma_2$} \hat Q^*)
|\mbox{\boldmath$\kappa$}^* \mu_1\mu_2>.
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ The orthonormal basis $\{\hat q^*,\hat Q^*,\hat N^*\}$ is a combination of the nucleon relative momenta in the initial $^*$ and final $^{\prime *}$ states: $$\hat q^*=\frac {\mbox{\boldmath $\kappa$}^* -\mbox{\boldmath$\kappa$}^{*\prime}}
{|\mbox{\boldmath$\kappa$}^* -\mbox{\boldmath$\kappa$}^{*\prime}|},~~
\hat Q^*=\frac {\mbox{\boldmath$\kappa$}^* +\mbox{\boldmath$\kappa$}^{*\prime} }
{|\mbox{\boldmath$\kappa$}^* +\mbox{\boldmath$\kappa$}^{*\prime}|},~~
\hat N^*=\frac {\mbox{\boldmath$\kappa$}^* \times
\mbox{\boldmath$\kappa$}^{*\prime} }{|\mbox{\boldmath$\kappa$}^*
\times\mbox{\boldmath$\kappa$}^{*\prime} |}.$$ The amplitudes $A,B,C,D,F$ are the functions of the center-of-mass energy and scattering angle. The radial parts of these amplitudes are taken as a sum of Yukawa terms. A new fit of the model parameters [@newlf] was done in accordance with the phase-shift-analysis data SP07 [@said].
Since the matrix elements are expressed via the effective $NN$-interaction operators sandwiched between the initial and final plane-wave states, this construction can be extended to the off-shell case allowing the initial and final states to get the current values of and . Obviously, this extrapolation does not change the general spin structure.
In order to relate c.m.s. and the frame of our calculations, first of all, we apply Lorentz transformations to kinematical variables. Let us consider momenta and energies of the colliding nucleons: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{lorentz}
\vec p_1&=&\mbox{\boldmath $\kappa$}^*+\vec u\left (\frac{(\vec u\mbox{\boldmath $\kappa$}^* )}{\gamma +1}+E^*\right ),
~~~~~E_1=\gamma E^*+(\vec u\mbox{\boldmath $\kappa$}^* )
\\
\vec p_4&=&-\mbox{\boldmath $\kappa$}^*+\vec u(\frac{-(\vec u\mbox{\boldmath $\kappa$}^* )}{\gamma +1}+E^*),
~~~E_4=\gamma E^*-(\vec u\mbox{\boldmath $\kappa$}^* ),
\nonumber
\end{aligned}$$ where $E^*$ is the energy of one of the nucleons in c.m.s. By $u=(\gamma,\vec u)$ we denote the 4-velocity of the reference frame relatively c.m.s: $$\begin{aligned}
\vec u=\frac{\vec p_1+\vec p_4}{\sqrt s},~~\gamma=\frac{E_1+E_4}{\sqrt s}.\end{aligned}$$ Mandelstam variable $s$ is defined as usual: $$\begin{aligned}
\sqrt s=2E^*=\sqrt{(E_1+E_4)^2-(\vec k_0-\vec k_0^\prime)^2}\end{aligned}$$ Then two-nucleon state in the reference frame can be related with that in the c.m.s. due to rotations in the spin space of these nucleons: $$\begin{aligned}
|\vec p_1 m_1>|\vec p_4 m_4>={\cal N}|\mbox{\boldmath$\kappa$}^* m_1^\prime> |-\mbox{\boldmath$\kappa$}^* m_4^\prime>
D_{m_1^\prime m_1 }(\vec u, \vec p_1) D_{m_4^\prime m_4}(\vec u, \vec p_4),\end{aligned}$$ where the Wigner rotation operator is $$\begin{aligned}
D(\vec u, \vec p)=exp\{-i\vec\sigma\vec\omega\}=cos\frac{\omega}{2}\left ( 1-i\frac{\sigma[\vec u\times \vec p]}{(1+\gamma) m +E+\sqrt s}\right ).\end{aligned}$$ The rotation is performed around the axis $[\vec u\times \vec p]$ on the angle $\omega$ determined by $$\begin{aligned}
tg\frac{\omega}{2}=\frac{|\vec u\times \vec p|}{(1+\gamma) m +E+\sqrt s}\end{aligned}$$ After transformations (\[lorentz\]) the two-nucleon relative momentum in c.m.s. $\mbox{\boldmath$\kappa$}^*$ is written as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
&&\mbox{\boldmath$\kappa$}^*=\frac{\vec P_d}{2}+\frac{\vec k_0(E_4+\sqrt s)+\vec k_0^\prime(E_1+\sqrt s/2 )}
{E_1+E_4+\sqrt s}~.\end{aligned}$$ Likewise we can obtain an expression for the relative momentum of the scattered nucleon pair: $$\begin{aligned}
&&\mbox{\boldmath$\kappa$}^{*\prime}=\vec P_h+\frac{(\vec k_0-\vec k_0^\prime)(E_n+\sqrt {s^\prime}/2)}
{E_1^\prime+E_n+\sqrt {s^\prime}}~.\end{aligned}$$ Here we use the following definitions: $$\begin{aligned}
&&E_1=\sqrt{m^2+(\vec k_0+\vec P_d/2)^2},~~~~~~~E_4=\sqrt{m^2+(\vec k_0^\prime+\vec P_d/2)^2},
\\
&&E_1^\prime=\sqrt{m^2+(\vec P_h^2+\vec k_0-\vec k_0^\prime)^2},~~~~
\sqrt {s^\prime}=2 E^{\prime *}=\sqrt{(E_1^\prime+E_n)^2-(\vec k_0-\vec k_0^\prime)^2}
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
It is also necessary to take into account normalization factor ${\cal N}$ and a kinematical coefficient due to the transformation of the off-energy-shell $T$-matrix [@garc]. The expressions for these factors were given in detail in ref.[@fb].
It should be noted, that the current parameterization describes the NN-interaction in the wide energy range between 50 MeV and 1100 MeV [@newlf]. However, at low energies ($<100$ MeV) the quality of the parameterization can not be assessed due to the lack of the experimental data. Therefore, we do not consider the single scattering contribution into $dd\to {^3}He n$ reaction amplitude at the deuteron energy below 200 MeV, where the Faddeev calculation technique is more preferable.
![ The differential cross section at the deuteron momentum of 1.109 GeV/c as a function of t. The data are taken from [@bizard].[]{data-label="fig:2"}](crsec109_t_pub_rev.eps){height="10cm" width="14cm"}
![ The differential cross section at the deuteron momentum of 1.387 GeV/c as a function of t. The data are taken from [@bizard].[]{data-label="fig:3"}](crsec387_t_pub_rev.eps){height="10cm" width="14cm"}
Results and discussions {#sec:5}
========================
The formalism presented above was applied to describe the experimental data obtained for $dd\to {^3 He n}$ and $dd\to t p$ reactions at the deuteron kinetic energies of a few hundred MeV. The calculations have been performed with CD-Bonn deuteron and helium wave functions. The differential cross section can be written as a function of Mandelstam variables $s$ and $t=(P_d-P_{He})^2$:
$$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d\sigma}{dt}=\frac{4\pi}{9 s}\frac{s^2-(M^2_{He}-m^2)^2}{s-4M_d^2}|{\cal J}(s,t)|^2~.\end{aligned}$$
We consider three energies, 300 MeV, 457 MeV and 520 MeV, which correspond to the laboratory momenta $P_{lab}= 1.109,~ 1.387$, and $1.493$ GeV/c, respectively. In this energy range the presented formalism is more successful. Moreover, we have a set of the experimental data on the differential cross sections in a wide angular range obtained at these energies in Saclay [@bizard].
In Figs.2-4 the results of the calculations of the differential cross sections are presented in comparison with the data. In order to demonstrate the contribution of the single scattering term, we have considered two cases. One of them corresponds to the calculations including only ONE terms. The results of these calculations are given with the dashed curves. The other case corresponds to the calculations taking into account both ONE and single scattering contributions. These results are presented with the solid curves.
As expected, the contribution of the rescattering term is not large at small scattering angles ($t\sim 0.7-0.8 (GeV/c)^2$). It is in agreement with the results obtained in ref.[@ourexp_ay270]. However, the difference between these two curves increases with the angle and reaches the maximal value at $90^0$. Taking the single scattering diagram into consideration significantly improves the agreement between the experimental data and theoretical predictions. We have a good description of the data for $P_{lab}=1.109 ~GeV/c$ (Fig.2). Nevertheless, the underestimation of the differential cross sections is observed at the deuteron energies above 300 MeV (Figs.3,4). Perhaps, this discrepancy can be reduced, if the $\Delta$-excitation in the intermediate state is taken into account. This possibility is discussed in ref.[@bizard], where the $\Delta$-isobar is taken into consideration in the simplest phenomenological model.
The formalism presented here gives us an opportunity to calculate not only the differential cross sections but also polarization observables. In this paper we have considered the energy dependence of tensor analyzing power $T_{20}$ at the scattering angle equal to zero (Fig.4). The experimental data were obtained at RIKEN [@ourexp_T20]. As it is mentioned above, the contribution of the single scattering term is not large at small angles. Nevertheless, one can observe some improvement of the agreement between the data and theory predictions. Unfortunately, we do not have enough experimental data to confirm this tendency.
![ The differential cross section at the deuteron momentum of 1.493 GeV/c as a function of t. The data are taken from [@bizard].[]{data-label="fig:4"}](crsec493_t_pub_rev.eps){height="10cm" width="14cm"}
![The energy dependence of tensor analyzing power $T_{20}$ at the zero scattering angle. The data are taken from [@ourexp_T20][]{data-label="fig:5"}](T20_pub.eps){height="10cm" width="14cm"}
Conclusions. {#sec:6}
============
The model to describe the $dd\to {^3He}~n(tp)$ reaction at the energies of a few hundred MeV has been presented in this paper. We start from the AGS-equations for N-body system. Iterating these equations over the NN $t$-matrix we obtain the expression for the reaction amplitude. In the presented calculations only two lowest terms of this expansion are included into this consideration. Here we do not solve any equations to define wave functions of the bounded states or to find the nucleon-nucleon $t$-matrix. Instead of that the parameterized wave functions for the deuteron and helium are used. These parameterizations take the spin structure of these nuclei into account. In order to describe interactions of the nucleons in the intermediate state, the parameterized $NN$ $t$-matrix is applied that allows us to avoid the problem of convergence which appears at the partial wave decomposition at these energies.
The presented model has been applied to describe differential cross sections at deuteron energies of 300 MeV, 493 MeV, and 520 MeV. A reasonable agreement between the data and theoretical results has been obtained for the energy equal to 300 MeV. It is shown that the contribution of the single scattering term is small at the forward scattering angles while inclusion of the rescattering diagram significantly improves the description of the experimental data at the scattering angles larger than $30^0$. The energy dependence of the $T_{20}$ has been also obtained at the energy range between 200 MeV and 520 MeV at the zero scattering angle. Some improvement of the data description has been received when the single scattering term is taken into account. All these results allow us to regard this approach as the next step in addition to the one-nucleon-exchange mechanism to solve the four-nucleon problem.
[**Acknowledgements**]{} The author is grateful to Dr. V.P. Ladygin for fruitful discussions. This work has been supported by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research under grant $N^{\underline 0}$ 10-02-00087a.
[99]{}
M.B.Epstein (1985) et al.,Phys.Rev.C [**32**]{}, 967
E.J.Brash et al. (1993),Phys.Rev.C [**47**]{}, 2064
P.Kitching et al. (1972), Phys.Rev.C [**6**]{}, 769
A.Rahav et al. (1992),Phys.Rev.C [**46**]{}, 1167
M.A. Miller et al. (1995),Phys.Rev.Lett. [**74**]{}, 502
Y.Shimizu et al. (2007), Phys.Rev.C [**76**]{}, 044003
V.P. Ladygin et al. (2004), Phys. Lett. B598 47; Phys.Atom.Nucl.[69]{} (2006) 1271.
M. Janek et al. (2007), [Eur.Phys.J. A]{} [**33**]{} 39.
G.Bizard et al. (1980),Phys.Rev.C [**22**]{}, 1632
V.P.Ladygin, N.B.Ladygina (2002), Phys.Atom.Nucl. [**65**]{}, 1609
V.P.Ladygin, N.B.Ladygina (1996), Phys.Atom.Nucl. [**59**]{}, 789
H.M.Hofman, G.M.Hale (2008), Phys.Rev.C [**77**]{}, 044002
A.Deltuva, A.C.Fonseca (2007),Phys.Rev.C [**76**]{},021001(R)
A.Deltuva, A.C.Fonseca (2010),Phys.Rev.C [**81**]{},054002
P.Grassberger, W.Sandhas (1967), Nucl.Phys.[**B2**]{}, 181
E.O.Alt, P.Grassberger, W.Sandhas (1970), Phys.Rev.C [**1**]{}, 85
S.A.Sofianos, H.Fiedeldey, W.Sandhas (1970), Phys.Rev.C [**32**]{}, 400, and refs. therein
A.M.Micherdzińska et al. (2007), Phys. Rev. C [**75**]{}, 054001
M.Goldberger, K.Watson (1964) Collision Theory. Wiley, New York
V.Baru et al. (2003),Eur.Phys.J.**A16**, 437
R.Machleidt (2001), Phys. Rev.C [**63**]{}, 024001
M. Lacombe et al. (1980), Phys.Rev.**C21**, 861
M. Lacombe et al. (1981), Phys.Lett.**B101**, 139
W.Scadow et al.(2000), Few-Body Syst. [**28**]{}, 241
W.G.Love, M.A.Franey (1981), Phys. Rev.C [**24**]{}, 1073
N.B.Ladygina (2008), e-preprint nucl-th/0805.3021
http://gwdac.phys.gwu.edu
H.Garcilazo (1976), Phys. Rev. [**C16**]{}, 1996
N.B.Ladygina, A.V.Shebeko (2003), Few-Body Syst. [**33**]{}, 49
[^1]: supported by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research under grant No. 10-02-00087a
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.